(11-24-2012, 04:51 PM)cidermaid Wrote: I'm inclined to agree with Rose (and therefore Rowens) here, about the purpose or deliberate intent when the piece was originally penned /created.No kidding, on the buggered off without you thing--guys really!
That, to some extent the author has to have a greater say than the individual "critique" reguardless of whether the item is a good example or follows the rules. Having said that we then get back to the emperor's new clothes syndrome and at some point common consent and common sense should be allowed to weigh in and make the call over if it is a shovel or a spade.
sorry hit wrong button this comment is in reply to Rose on P3!
You guys carry, on I'll catch up in a mo...turn around for half a day to look at something else and everyone's buggered off without you.
A couple quick comments...Psalms, Ecclesiastics, Gospel of John, 1 John, and Revelation to some extent have some good poetic sequences, but I agree the Bible isn't poetry. What the Bible and the works of Shakespeare give you is the key to understanding most English language literary allusions. I guess that would specifically be the King James Bible of 1611.
To the author/reader thing: sometimes the reader is full of crap, true. Like if they read Leda and the Swan by Yeats and had no idea what story he was drawing from. The author in this case is more in step with the poem and what is poetry in this case. All that said, author intention on is it poetry means almost nothing to me. It belongs solely to the reader. It only belongs to the writer before the poem is read by others. Each reader decides if something is poetry, and they're right as far as that goes. If a big enough consensus of readers don't think it's poetry, the author may be deluded. The good news is that tastes change and maybe 100 years after their death it will catch on, or it will still be crap--but at that point they probably will have gotten over it.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson