06-21-2019, 01:52 PM
I love questions like this. And I especially like pursuing answers. I often find that when asking these questions, I get a lot of non-answers from people.
"They're just different."
"They're completely different genres, you can't compare them."
"Behold! A man."
I also find a lot of people are willing to accept "what is" without questioning why, or being concerned with the lines that define the world we perceive. I abhor the qualitative definitions of "x is more Y than z." or "x is pretty, z is not." None of these are measurable. I live in a world where objectivity matters, and subjectivity is irrelevant.
I'd like to pick at a few points and relay my own.
Now we may need to consider what we include in the category of prose. A speech would not always be prose under this definition, which I can accept (though duke suggests that it must be prose). Many speeches are designed to invoke feelings, often through very specific use of language, and sometimes even meter. A novel would certainly not be prose, as many novels are meant to make the reader feel for/with the characters. Again, easily acceptable. But what about a lecture? Has there ever been a lecture that attempts to communicate feeling alongside information? In fact, what happens when any piece attempts to communicate both? Seraphim caught onto this with his binary questioning, which of course leaves a lot of writing uncategorized -- or uncategorizable.
Billy's non-answer is exactly the kind of thing that makes my engineering-mind squirm.
Now, the meat of my opinion. There is no difference. I mean this as an answer, not a non-answer. They are not opposites, and the distinction between them is not mutually exclusive, nor is the categorization binary. Prose can be poetry, and poetry can be prosaic. Some writing can be neither.
Prose is your format and delivery. If I write a speech, a lecture, an essay, an instruction manual -- it is prose. It should be capable of delivering a point (or multiple points -- that is, lessons/morals/objectives) in a straightforward manner. In a single sentence:
A writing is prose when it reaches an objective without making the reader interpret the writing for veiled meaning.
This does not mean it cannot contain other objectives that are hidden and require interpretation.
Poetry, in my mind, is about compression. It can be delivered in the same linguistic styles as typical prose, and can have some straightforward objective. Thus, we achieve overlap between the two terms -- the distinction is not diametric. For me to consider a writing as poetry, it must compress the information it conveys (not feeling -- while poetry can convey feeling, I don't believe the transfer of feeling holds any bearing on it's definition and categorization). Now, of course, my definition may discount some "poems" that the rest of the world accepts as poetry, but it falls in the same hole as me looking at an ink blob and thinking "you call that art?" Poetry must compress. If the writing does not contain more information than the markings on the page individually represent, it is not poetic.
Since there's been some reply since I began writing this...
"They're just different."
"They're completely different genres, you can't compare them."
"Behold! A man."
I also find a lot of people are willing to accept "what is" without questioning why, or being concerned with the lines that define the world we perceive. I abhor the qualitative definitions of "x is more Y than z." or "x is pretty, z is not." None of these are measurable. I live in a world where objectivity matters, and subjectivity is irrelevant.
I'd like to pick at a few points and relay my own.
Seraphim Wrote:I mean, there has to be a difference, right?No. Both can be reduced to language. Is there a difference in how that language is used? That's an entirely valid question, but the answer is entirely subjective. Language is used by both the speaker and the listener, the writer and the reader. Even if the writer/speaker is being objective (which they usually aren't), the reader/listener is always subjective.
Quixilated Wrote:Prose relays information, it is meant to be understood. It is the transfer of an idea from one mind to another.I like that Quix has actually attacked this question with a real defining line. I disagree with it, but it's better than a vague non-answer.
Poetry relays epiphany, it is meant to be felt. It is the transfer of an experience from one soul to another.
Now we may need to consider what we include in the category of prose. A speech would not always be prose under this definition, which I can accept (though duke suggests that it must be prose). Many speeches are designed to invoke feelings, often through very specific use of language, and sometimes even meter. A novel would certainly not be prose, as many novels are meant to make the reader feel for/with the characters. Again, easily acceptable. But what about a lecture? Has there ever been a lecture that attempts to communicate feeling alongside information? In fact, what happens when any piece attempts to communicate both? Seraphim caught onto this with his binary questioning, which of course leaves a lot of writing uncategorized -- or uncategorizable.
dukealien Wrote:Self-consciousness may be the distinctionDuke has a bit of an interesting take with self-consciousness, and I think it's also a very valid argument. Perhaps the distinction is intent? But we must then subjectively perceive intent, or trust an explicit declaration of intent by the writer, who could certainly be a liar. I think it's a reasonable argument, and one I'd still be willing to debate further.
Billy's non-answer is exactly the kind of thing that makes my engineering-mind squirm.
Now, the meat of my opinion. There is no difference. I mean this as an answer, not a non-answer. They are not opposites, and the distinction between them is not mutually exclusive, nor is the categorization binary. Prose can be poetry, and poetry can be prosaic. Some writing can be neither.
Prose is your format and delivery. If I write a speech, a lecture, an essay, an instruction manual -- it is prose. It should be capable of delivering a point (or multiple points -- that is, lessons/morals/objectives) in a straightforward manner. In a single sentence:
A writing is prose when it reaches an objective without making the reader interpret the writing for veiled meaning.
This does not mean it cannot contain other objectives that are hidden and require interpretation.
Poetry, in my mind, is about compression. It can be delivered in the same linguistic styles as typical prose, and can have some straightforward objective. Thus, we achieve overlap between the two terms -- the distinction is not diametric. For me to consider a writing as poetry, it must compress the information it conveys (not feeling -- while poetry can convey feeling, I don't believe the transfer of feeling holds any bearing on it's definition and categorization). Now, of course, my definition may discount some "poems" that the rest of the world accepts as poetry, but it falls in the same hole as me looking at an ink blob and thinking "you call that art?" Poetry must compress. If the writing does not contain more information than the markings on the page individually represent, it is not poetic.
Since there's been some reply since I began writing this...
Seraphim Wrote:So if I ask a painter about the elements of composition, he dismisses the concept and says, "It's art because I say so."No. He'll paint a picture for you and assume that it answers your question. Really though, I do disagree with billy's non-answer.
If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.
"Or, if a poet writes a poem, then immediately commits suicide (as any decent poet should)..." -- Erthona
"Or, if a poet writes a poem, then immediately commits suicide (as any decent poet should)..." -- Erthona