10-04-2013, 06:04 PM
I missed this from Todd, and I think it is a valid question.
"If someone does not believe that prose poems are a real thing, should they attempt critique or should they bypass them?"
"Prose poetry is poetry written in prose instead of using verse but preserving poetic qualities such as heightened imagery and emotional effects"
I took that from Wiki, and while not in depth it appears fairly workable.
This may not be a definition to use academically, but one must admit it has been vetted by thousands.
I would say that obviously "prose poetry" is not written in verse, as verse generally means it is written in meter. We have many examples of poetry written with a cadence or beat, and not in verse. If that is the definition then Whitman wrote prose poetry, and few would argue that what he wrote was poetry, the same of Ginsberg. "Howl" by definitions is obviously prose poetry, yet no one would characterize it as anything but a poem.So maybe part of the problem with "prose poetry" is in the definition. It could also be that the term is simply no longer valid as we already except, at least in it's original meaning, prose poetry as poetry. We should not forget that this was a term coined in the 19th century to delineate between poem written in verse and poetry not in verse. The majority of 20th century poetry is prose poetry.
Today I think poetic like prose (literary prose), that is prose that one would characterize by a narrative that is dense and rich because of the lush image laden description it employes is what most people think of as "prose poetry" (if arranged correctly), because in my experience this is what people often offer up as as prose poetry.
As I am tired I will leave it at that.
Dale
"If someone does not believe that prose poems are a real thing, should they attempt critique or should they bypass them?"
"Prose poetry is poetry written in prose instead of using verse but preserving poetic qualities such as heightened imagery and emotional effects"
I took that from Wiki, and while not in depth it appears fairly workable.
This may not be a definition to use academically, but one must admit it has been vetted by thousands.
I would say that obviously "prose poetry" is not written in verse, as verse generally means it is written in meter. We have many examples of poetry written with a cadence or beat, and not in verse. If that is the definition then Whitman wrote prose poetry, and few would argue that what he wrote was poetry, the same of Ginsberg. "Howl" by definitions is obviously prose poetry, yet no one would characterize it as anything but a poem.So maybe part of the problem with "prose poetry" is in the definition. It could also be that the term is simply no longer valid as we already except, at least in it's original meaning, prose poetry as poetry. We should not forget that this was a term coined in the 19th century to delineate between poem written in verse and poetry not in verse. The majority of 20th century poetry is prose poetry.
Today I think poetic like prose (literary prose), that is prose that one would characterize by a narrative that is dense and rich because of the lush image laden description it employes is what most people think of as "prose poetry" (if arranged correctly), because in my experience this is what people often offer up as as prose poetry.
As I am tired I will leave it at that.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.