08-25-2016, 01:44 AM
I think that poetry both communicates and has as its purpose communication -- I suppose I conflated senses there. The problem with your analogy is that Mr. Poetry did not tell you in poetry, he made you relive the expedition, which isn't what poetry does. And say I took your analogy less literally -- if Mr. Poetry were any good at his job, he would have emphasized the glory and hidden all the awful things, which does not mean resorting to prose. And if poetry's job is to show and emphasize everything, ie a whole picture in another sense, instead of just present (and by the choice of what is presented, communicate) certain things, then that again would be playing God -- how many poems talking about "her eyes" actually discuss the scientific properties of her eyes? Or their historical precedent? Or how the poet even knew what 'eyes' were? -- rather, that wouldn't be poetry, or there are no true poems (a logical fallacy, I think).
Take a more direct example: Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum est". Was his purpose to present the horrors of war? Let's say yes -- the work itself is good proof. But why the horrors of war -- why not the glories? the minor annoyances? even the mundane things? You could say that it's because the horrors of war is the only aspect of war that makes it life, which of course is wrong -- see, say, the Iliad, or Henry V. You could say that it's because the horrors of war was the most interesting at the time, which again is wrong -- there are just as many stories of heroism in the Great War as there are horrors (in fact, the fact that these horrors existed sort of supported all the heroics). You could say that his writing was automatic -- but then, how would he have written so coherently (or rather, you could look at your own process and see how not-entirely-automatic it all is)? So the most likely reason is his purpose was to present the horrors of war, to communicate some sort of message -- whether the horrors of war are horrible or whether he just had a bad experience is sort of out of the scope of this expansion. Now, would his piece have been any more effective if he wrote prosaically (and even then, what sort of prose?), if he simply wrote out, say, "Chlorine gas drowns you in air. Now, would you say so happily, 'Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori'?" The thought, sure, but if his purpose was to show how horrible war is, then you probably wouldn't have felt it. The form is part of the function, and both poetry and prose communicate, just different things, ie in different ways.
Take a more direct example: Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum est". Was his purpose to present the horrors of war? Let's say yes -- the work itself is good proof. But why the horrors of war -- why not the glories? the minor annoyances? even the mundane things? You could say that it's because the horrors of war is the only aspect of war that makes it life, which of course is wrong -- see, say, the Iliad, or Henry V. You could say that it's because the horrors of war was the most interesting at the time, which again is wrong -- there are just as many stories of heroism in the Great War as there are horrors (in fact, the fact that these horrors existed sort of supported all the heroics). You could say that his writing was automatic -- but then, how would he have written so coherently (or rather, you could look at your own process and see how not-entirely-automatic it all is)? So the most likely reason is his purpose was to present the horrors of war, to communicate some sort of message -- whether the horrors of war are horrible or whether he just had a bad experience is sort of out of the scope of this expansion. Now, would his piece have been any more effective if he wrote prosaically (and even then, what sort of prose?), if he simply wrote out, say, "Chlorine gas drowns you in air. Now, would you say so happily, 'Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori'?" The thought, sure, but if his purpose was to show how horrible war is, then you probably wouldn't have felt it. The form is part of the function, and both poetry and prose communicate, just different things, ie in different ways.