Disjointed English for effect

[Erthona]

I don't think that question has as easy an answer as your wording implies. You ask is it this, or is it that. I don't make corrections simply because there is some rule that has been broken, or that it violates a style sheet somewhere. Whatever corrections I may make, are more in the form of a question. What I am basically saying is, "I don't understand what you are saying, is this what you mean?" There are certain inherent and obvious detriments to writing something as a single unbroken line. Primarily, it is that people generally understand things in phrases with a limited number of words. This is a well researched psychological phenomenon. For an example of the outer limit of sensible complexity I suggest a reading of Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason". In the following poem, I broke the phrasing up at the natural breaks, e.g., the end rhyme. You will also notice that the lines are more or less equal.

"Tantalizing memory that bosom forth,
it brings the depth and eager spirit of creative vote,
carry me like your african child coat,
and remember a poet boat
song of your name to vote."

African is generally capped in English as it is a proper noun, however, I do not change that as it could be a stylistic choice, although I do not think so. "child coat" without possession would generally indicate a coat made out of a child, the same with "poet boat". Both interpretations are nonsensical, however since there are other ways to read it, I do not change it ad hoc, even though possession is the most likely answer, e.g., child's coat, and poet's boat. I do not believe the uncertainty caused by the writing as is, is intentional, therefore I would conclude it is an error. Either way, it is poor writing for leaving it open to interpretation does not in anyway benefit the poem. This is not an intentionally ambiguous phrase, it is simply an error, and leads to an inability on the part of the reader to understand what the poem is trying to say. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There is nothing remarkable or profound being said here and in all likelihood it is unintentional.
Tense should be consistent unless there is a compelling reason for it not to be, otherwise it creates needless confusion and places an undue burden on the reader. Maybe someone who is a genius could use disruptions in tense to create some kind of intentional effect, but I have yet to run across such an intentional usage. There is a very noticeable difference between breaking tense rules on purpose for effect, and simply because one is a poor writer, of course that does not keep people from trying to pass off poor writing as something profound, and in fact is a level of magnitude more likely to be the case than the reverse.

Dale

from here

A question for you, Mr Dale, I am seeing a lot of people suggest that directly telling a story can be counter-productive and may make the story appear bland.

I then notice you begin to correct tenses and switch around some of this poem to put it in a more linear narrative style?
Do you think perhaps there could be merit in using broken tenses and lines to represent the immediacy or intensity of certain aspects of a story? Or does it lead to a more cliched and ineffectual method?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter as my own are quite isolated and strange

• As an inexperienced novice I haven't formed any strong opinions either way.
  
• I would love to hear the thoughts and opinions other people have on the matter.
  
• Some people certainly seem to have very strong opinions on the subject and I'd love to hear about the reasoning or breeding behind them.
  

I would guess the main reasoning behind enforcing strict grammar would be clarity and good-habit building, two things I am morally opposed to.
Unfortunately I'm too green to really cite any noteworthy examples for either case, I've not given you much to go on, but I wait hungrily for any rant you may want to throw this way.