Comments on: Poetry in Notion: What Does That Word Mean Anyway?

By: thomas brady

thomas brady — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:32:24 +0000

Henry Gould,

You rock.

I cannot add to this discussion except to say poetry’s identity is best exemplified by this passage, in which all that matters is a certain combination of the dainty with the desire to mock, or have strong opinions. To wit:

What is Poetry? — Poetry! that Proteus-like idea, with as many appellations as the nine-titled Corcyra! “Give me,” I demanded of a scholar some time ago, “give me a definition of poetry?” “Très-volontiers;” and he proceeded to his library, brought me a Dr. Johnson, and overwhelmed me with a definition. Shade of the immortal Shakespeare! I imagined to myself the scowl of your spiritual eye upon the profanity of that scurrilous Ursa Major. Think of poetry, dear B——, think of poetry, and then think of Dr. Samuel Johnson! Think of all that is airy and fairy-like, and then of all that is hideous and unwieldy; think of his huge bulk, the Elephant! and then — and then think of the Tempest — the Midsummer Night’s Dream — Prospero — Oberon —and Titania! . . . .

–Edgar Allan Eyelash “Letter To B____”

By: Colin Ward

Colin Ward — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:59:05 +0000

Annie,
It sounds as if Lew’s definition of poetry is something that is written in lines.
Verse poetry is, prose poetry (i.e. what you and I would call prose poetry plus what you and I would call free verse) is written in…well..sentences.
Personally, I’d prefer the more accurate term “stichs” rather than “lines” but that’s another kettle of fish.
If that is in meter, it is verse poetry, and if it is not in meter, it is prose poetry, whether lined or in paragraph form.
Exactly.
So, the lyricism of the writing has nothing to do with its being poetry–it’s simply the lineation. Is that your understanding of it?
I’m not sure I understand this question, so if my answer seems like a non sequitur please feel free to rephrase. Lewis did mention what, in his mind, distinguished prose poetry from prose. As far as I could tell, this boiled down to language-independent repetitions (e.g. of words, phrases, referents, etc.) from sentence-to-sentence. Sonics and rhythms, so integral to my idea of lyricism, didn’t seem to play much of a role in his definition of prose poetry. I could be misreading or oversimplifying his stance in this regard, though.
It is unusual because I guess most people would think of verse as implying lines, as the etymology of the word would indicate, but he is using it to mean meter.
Well, as long as we’re talking about metrical poetry other than curginas (when the distinction between “stichs” and “lines” becomes crucial), the terms “verse” and “line” are virtually interchangeable. As you say, “verse” has other applications, as detailed here:
http://www.poeticbyway.com/gl-uv.html#verse
I don’t remember Lewis discussing the role of the line in what you and I call free verse.
-o-

By: Annie FInch

Annie FInch — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:37:35 +0000

Colin,
I was remembering a passage in the New Book of Forms. I imagine it is the same basic principle as what you’ve described, and I appreciate your clarifying, especially since my copy of New Book of Forms seems to be missing.
It sounds as if Lew’s definition of poetry is something that is written in lines. If that is in meter, it is verse poetry, and if it is not in meter, it is prose poetry, whether lined or in paragraph form.
So, the lyricism of the writing has nothing to do with its being poetry–it’s simply the lineation. Is that your understanding of it?
It is unusual because I guess most people would think of verse as implying lines, as the etymology of the word would indicate, but he is using it to mean meter.

By: Colin Ward

Colin Ward — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:01:34 +0000

Just to clarify, this entire passage was Lewis Turco speaking:
Any system that does not count SYLLABLES is PROSE, which is what “free verse” is.
So, you have two broad categories of poets, PROSE POETS, who insist they need a term like “free verse” that has the word “verse” in it in order to justify belonging to the tradition in English that poetry “must” be written in verse (which of course it does NOT– the oldest poetry in the world was written in prose: check out the Bible), and VERSE POETS (which is merely the longest tradition English, not the only one).
NOTE WELL: “Prose poetry” does not have to be written in paragraphs.
Sorry for any confusion my errant bolding might have caused.
-o-

By: Colin Ward

Colin Ward — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:45:25 +0000

Annie:
I wonder if this Eratosphere thread might be the conversation you’re referring to:
http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/showthread.php?t=3458
“The only critical precedent I know for this is Lewis Turco, who holds that only metered writing qualifies as poetry. He refers to free verse as “lined lyric prose.”
Actually, that isn’t Mr. Turco’s position as I understand it. In various posts within that thread he says:
Any system that does not count SYLLABLES is PROSE, which is what “free verse” is.
So, you have two broad categories of poets, PROSE POETS, who insist they need a term like “free verse” that has the word “verse” in it in order to justify belonging to the tradition in English that poetry “must” be written in verse (which of course it does NOT– the oldest poetry in the world was written in prose: check out the Bible), and VERSE POETS (which is merely the longest tradition English, not the only one).
NOTE WELL: “Prose poetry” does not have to be written in paragraphs.
Lewis isn’t saying that unmetered writing isn’t poetry, only that it is prose poetry as opposed to “verse”. In his nomenclature “free verse” is merely lineated prose poetry. To wit:
Of course, if we introduce the term “verse” to refer to metered writing, then we are left with verse and prose,
Verse and prose poetry in Mr. Turco’s idiolect. As you suggest, he isn’t using “prose poetry” in a pejorative sense. For what it’s worth, I find his lumping free verse in with prose poetry interesting, if peculiar.
This wasn’t the delineation I had in mind, though. The distinction I was making was between free verse and the dreaded “prose with linebreaks”, roughly defined as writing which exhibits too few of the properties that the reader/critic expects in a poem.
Speaking for myself, I tend to reserve the word “verse” for metered poetry, as my Collins dictionary does. Living as I have in Canada, where the Progressive Conservatives have held power for half its history, the fact that “free verse” is an oxymoron doesn’t bother me in the least.
-o-

By: Annie FInch

Annie FInch — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:08:32 +0000

I will look forward to your post, Jason! Maybe it will even inspire me to dig out that file.

By: Jason Guriel

Jason Guriel — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:44:32 +0000

Annie, I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve been thinking about a post on the notion of finding the poetry in something – like ballet or baseball, etc. Please stay tuned!

By: Annie Finch

Annie Finch — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:37:55 +0000

Colin, that seems a valid interpretation. I actually came across the use of “prose” to refer to poetry again in the last few days–I will try to remember where it was.
The only critical precedent I know for this is Lewis Turco, who holds that only metered writing qualifies as poetry. He refers to free verse as “lined lyric prose.”
Maybe Turco’s phrase would not now be felt to be the insult to free verse that it might have been considered to be in the 1960s. If, somewhere along the line, “poetry” became a term of praise and “prosaic” the opposite, so that it would have been considered a problem to refer to something written in free verse as prose, that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore; now, prose poems are the height of literary cool. If the term “prose” is indeed creeping in to describe particular kinds of beautifully-written poetry, that could be why.
Of course, if we introduce the term “verse” to refer to metered writing, then we are left with verse and prose, and either of them could then be lined or unlined, lyrical or discursive. This would make some nice clear distinctions that might be refreshing. Where would that leave the word “poetry”?

By: Colin Ward

Colin Ward — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:17:54 +0000

Liz,
Obviously, most poets, editors, critics, publishers and teachers care. In my experience, the poets who don’t are those who feel that their work wouldn’t appeal to a broader audience anyway. I do agree that “whinging on and on” about the problem may be a “waste of energy”. For those who do care, it would seem more productive to discuss how to enhance poetry’s profile and appeal to The American Reading Public (TARP), if not The American Public (TAP) in general.
Annie,
“Why wouldn’t this reviewer use the word “poetry” or “verse” to refer to this poetry?”
Perhaps the reviewer doesn’t accept the notion that everything with linebreaks is poetry. Maybe he or she felt that some “integral” aspect of the art form is missing. For example, unlike, say, “In a Station Of the Metro”, most contemporary free verse doesn’t “scan”, even as polyrhythmic, but some of it is unquestionably “beautiful and striking” [prose?] writing.
Whether we share the reviewer’s expectations/definition is another matter entirely.
-o-

By: Annie FInch

Annie FInch — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:23:45 +0000

Dear Liz,
Well, I care. I care a lot. Poetry is the most wonderful thing in my life, and it makes me sad when others who would love it and enjoy it don’t have a chance to get exposed to it, or are exposed only to kinds that they don’t resonate with. To me, the lack of common agreement about what the word poetry even means–the emptiness of it as a signifier, as someone said–indicates a lack of honor and appreciation of the art.
I wondered if I was being paranoid, so I posted here out of curiosity to see if others had a different interpretation. I haven’t really seen one. So I take this treatment of the word as part of the same trend that the Newsweek story documents (interestingly, the loss of readership that most affects poetry, according to Newsweek, is among women).
I know there are people out there—many of them—who love poetry that is memorable and musical, because I talk with them, teach them, meet them, read to them, and see their eyes light up and see them get excited about poetry. So I know how powerful it can be.
I am not only whining, if that is what this post was, but doing many other things, writing poems and books about poetry, to raise awareness of qualities I have seen potential readers seeking, and not finding often, in poetry–in particular the listening, musical aspect of it–aspects that in my opinion have been left on the side of the road over the last few generations.
Now that i’ve gotten this one off my chest, I can promise you I will be more upbeat in future posts. I don’t think I have another such longheld concern to air.
I like the idea of making poetry phone calls. I had a friend who used to call people and leave poems on their answering machines. Those people liked it. They cared..
Annie