Perhaps you've been to a workshop, or a class, on poetry, and often the first question to be resolved is "What is poetry?"

OK, I've been to a few, and the answer concluded by the by the group has ranged from unsatisfactory to something worse. Generally their answer has fallen somewhere between  the lines of, "Whatever you choose to call 'poetry' is poetry," to "We can't explain it but we recognize it when we see it."  The "worst" seems to fall along the that poets are naturally (or unnaturally) blessed with the rare ability to know 'Truth' and are obligated to share it with the rest of the poor, pathetic mortals who haven't the gift.

Seriously. I've heard that one.

Regardless, I wonder if people are asking the the wrong question. When we read a poem, or hear it aloud in it's natural form, we are presented with a group of words, delineated into lines.  When we review them, how do we determine if the compilation of words is actually poetry, or if it's merely prose broken up into lines?

I mean, there has to be a difference, right? We have two different terms to describe the written word: prose, and poetry. If they were the same, there wouldn't be two different words, one assumes. We also have a 'prose poem', ostensibly. Poetry presented in paragraph form;  but the same question arises - how do we determine if one paragraph is prose, or whether it it is poetry incognito?

I suppose some might argue form equals function;  you can take a group of words, break them into lines and voila! - poetry.  But that's the part I find unsatisfactory.  There must be more. There must be a difference which is both evident and articulable.

So, what's YOUR answer to my question, "What is the difference between poetry and prose?"

Prose relays information, it is meant to be understood. It is the transfer of an idea from one mind to another.

Poetry relays epiphany, it is meant to be felt.  It is the transfer of an experience from one soul to another.

This is what it is to me anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI

(06-21-2019, 05:23 AM)Quixilated Wrote:  Prose relays information, it is meant to be understood. It is the transfer of an idea from one mind to another.

Poetry relays epiphany, it is meant to be felt.  It is the transfer of an experience from one soul to another.

This is what it is to me anyway.

Ok. Let's examine this. You are saying:

Prose relays information only. It cannot provide the reader with an epiphany or experience. It cannot affect the reader so strongly they feel it deeply (how I interpreted your 'soul' reference - not as a metaphysical part of us which we cannot prove exists). It does not make a reader feel emotion, only provides them with data.

Poetry, on the other hand provides no information. It is not meant to transfer a thought or idea (which I take an epiphany to be), it only transfers emotion and experiences.

So how does, for example, epic poems such as the The Odyssey and The Iliad fit into this definition? They are essentially stories, providing information. I can't say they touched or transferred anything to my soul, no epiphanies there that I picked up, only a good story written in a poetic form. One argues that the function of poetry was that one could more easily remember the story when it was put to meter and rhyme. What about poems designed as riddles, to be thought about and solved?

I'd also say that I have had far prose than poetry which affected me so deeply as to make demonstrate emotion. Actually, by your definition, I've only read a handful of poetry in 63 years. All the rest were prose.

I would say that poetry and prose both were capable of conveying thoughts, facts, emotion - could transfer experience or feeling - with equal ease, and that there many examples of both genre which do one, the other, or both simultaneously. So this mutual ability of both genre is a similarity, not a difference.

I'm looking for the difference...

I believe reaching a conclusion would kill the concept, not just the question

Tiger

What's your point? I saw the movie when it first came out lol. But I saw nothing that addressed the question, so please enlighten me. Seriously. What's the point you are trying to make? If a scientific rubrik for ranking poetry si BS, then it's BS for prose as well. Another similarity.

What's the difference between poetry and delineated prose?

I once posted song lyrics in a Craigslist forum and someone all capped me, 'STOP PROSELYTIZING!!!'. So I have no idea, nor struggle

(06-21-2019, 10:13 AM)CRNDLSM Wrote:  I believe reaching a conclusion would kill the concept, not just the question

Kill what concept? I'm not understanding your comment.

Elucidate, please.

There's prose. There's verse. And poetry is figurative language, or any cognitive music.

Looking into word derivations can help.  "Prose" apprently began as Latin "provorsus," moving straight ahead (without ornaments) while  "poetry" began with Greek "poiesis," making.  Prose, then, simply occurs as a consequence of verbal communication while poetry is made (using the same basic building blocks) with some additional purpose.  Self-consciousness may be the distinction, or we could say poetry is meant to be pretty while prose isn't.  Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is prose, but prettier than a good bit of poetry - leading to the suspicion that its beauty was meant; some modern poetry is quite ugly, but still meant to be admired by people about whose opinions the poet cares.  For example, Emma Lazarus' "The New Colossus" is poetry, but distinctly ugly - and thought admirable by the bien pensant.

Yes, self-consciousness, I think.

poetry for me is what the reader makes it. there will be and never can be a definitive answer to something so dynamic and creative. we are what we say we are while also being what other's say we are. poetry is shroedinger's cat being screwed by a non-existant dog.

So we pretty much have the "Poetry is whatever I want it to be" mindset? We look at we've written and say, "this is poetry." The only distinction between prose and poetry is the fact we want it to be poetry?

So if I ask a painter about the elements of composition, he dismisses the concept and says, "It's art because I say so."

---

(06-21-2019, 12:38 PM)billy Wrote:  poetry for me is what the reader makes it. there will be and never can be a definitive answer to something so dynamic and creative. we are what we say we are while also being what other's say we are. poetry is shroedinger's cat being screwed by a non-existant dog.

The question was not, "What is poetry?", it was "what's the difference between prose and poetry?"

---

(06-21-2019, 11:48 AM)rowens Wrote:  There's prose. There's verse. And poetry is figurative language, or any cognitive music.

Go on...

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.

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.

Poetry relays epiphany, it is meant to be felt.  It is the transfer of an experience from one soul 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.
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 distinction

Duke 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 gather all the splinter connotations of the word 'poetry', it's a value effect that's overseeing the construction. You move from prosaic to heightened language by valuing the language itself. You can separate individual definitions of 'prosaic' and have prose as prose and prose as less or not at all heightened language and anything, not only words, that is flat or dull or just not valuable to such a degree in affect. This I'm writing now is prosaic. It's prose. It's not poetry, though whether or not it's poetic is someone's value judgment. And to maintain any valid value judgment, you have to do a lot of examining and comparing of what is mostly consensus judgment of similar and different things, the different being more difficult. Your poetry can add to the dimensions of value, as can your prosaic or poetic critique of value. What is prosaic and what is poetic? The form is never separate from poetic. With prosaic, it's not so important.

UB

Not to ignore the rest of what you posted, but to comment on the analogy of the painter (visual artist).

The visual artist has tools and has learned techniques to use those. He/she knows how to structure a composition; his art is not static (and I'm differentiating from graphic art, which often is static). The visual art grabs the viewers' eye, and moves it around the canvas in a controlled manner to a definitive ending point. A painter capable of creating art(I'm tempted to use a captial A here lol) can explain how he does this - which compositional elements he used to draw the eye here, make it linger there, and force it stop at the one point which will have the maximum effect for delivering the artist's message.

Should not a poet be able to do the same for his art? To know his craft and be able to explain it?

(06-21-2019, 10:15 AM)Seraphim Wrote:  Tiger

What's your point? I saw the movie when it first came out lol. But  I saw nothing that addressed the question, so please enlighten me. Seriously. What's the point you are trying to make?  If a scientific rubrik for ranking poetry si BS, then it's BS for prose as well. Another similarity.

What's the difference between poetry and delineated prose?

I didn't really have a point. I just like the movie. I'll be back with a definitive answer right after I've finished rationalizing pi.

(06-21-2019, 10:37 PM)rowens Wrote:  If you gather all the splinter connotations of the word 'poetry', it's a value effect that's overseeing the construction. You move from prosaic to heightened language by valuing the language itself. You can separate individual definitions of 'prosaic' and have prose as prose and prose as less or not at all heightened language and anything, not only words, that is flat or dull or just not valuable to such a degree in affect. This I'm writing now is prosaic. It's prose. It's not poetry, though whether or not it's poetic is someone's value judgment. And to maintain any valid value judgment, you have to do a lot of examining and comparing of what is mostly consensus judgment of similar and different things, the different being more difficult. Your poetry can add to the dimensions of value, as can your prosaic or poetic critique of value. What is prosaic and what is poetic? The form is never separate from poetic. With prosaic, it's not so important.

OK, I'm trying to parse this - give me a few moments...

You mentioned heightened language. Please define the term and explain how we 'heighten' language. What tools and techniques do we use to accomplish such? It's easy to toss out a phrase, but if we don't know how to accomplish the goal of 'heightened language' - we have established no objective parameters (as UB might say) -then it's all guesswork and the term has no practical value for the student of prosody and poetics.

You mentioned form. Is form necessary to poetry? The term 'prose poem' was mentioned; how is this apparent contradiction of terms possible, then? If you remove the form from the words - eliminate the line - does that that not make it prose? If we heighten the language of prose, and it becomes poetry, how can a prose poem exists?

Or is an answer possible within the realm of both terms combined?

As you use therm 'value', it seems to apply to both poetry and prose evenly. I'm looking for a difference - a definitive and articulable differenc.. 'Value' is also a subjective term. But perhaps I'm not completely understanding your response.

---

Quote: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.

I'm not sure I've ever heard prose and poetry being described as polar opposites. Rowens has suggested a relationship to the two which cannot separated, and has suggested concepts which differentiate between the two - in his opinion. Personally, I battle with your suggestion that prose can be poetry and vice versa. I see no dispute with the suggestion prose can be poetic, perhaps even poetry can be prosaic (though that would have to be explained if anyone wants to take up the challenge), but I can't see a writing being both.

Prose doesn't make the reader search for veiled meaning? "Au contraire," I would shout, if I knew what meant lol. Prose can use symbolism, allegory, analogy, etc and fine prose often does, IMO. One of my favourite authors created an entire world based on [lightly] hidden meaning, and as such became one of the most endeared writers of our generation. (Sorry to digress). Don't want it so deeply hidden - in either poetry or prose - the reader never finds it. Are you arguing these are tools one can use in poetry? Certainly. One might even argue meaning can be hidden more deeply in a poem which is "compressed" because a reader has more time to be contemplative, as there might not be too much material to parse. But does all poetry use hidden levels of meaning? Not in my opinion. Are all poems 'compressed? Again, I'll mention epic poetry. Nothing finer than to be forced to wade through the adventure of Odysseus *snort*. Compression is another tool, but I don't believe it [alone] is a definitive one.

---

I think we're whittling the apple down to a possible core, having taken the time to peel it first. Each response is starting to head us to a certain direction, in my mind.

Quix

Haven't heard you jump back in.

(06-21-2019, 11:25 PM)Seraphim Wrote:  Quix

Haven't heard you jump back in.

Indubitably.

Prose is a form. There is form and there is style. There are degrees and levels of style. How much style, what style. What is style. Heightened language at least is an attempt to excite affect, any affect. So there's the personal reaction, and there's the value of that reaction in connection with the stimulus. That's that. If you want to analyze in more than a direct bodily way and define things critically, aesthetically, and truly heightened, you have to trace value judgments and posit values and define value all at once. You define and redefine as you go, and you're holding on to established things, propping yourself up by use of them, taking them for granted or as merely useful or not so useful props. You choose or you improvise or both.

---

A critic can draw out something hidden. And a critic can describe an essence that wasn't put into the thing to begin with; and putting that into it can present it with new value. Album reveiwers are particularly good at that.

---

Whatever form used is important to being poetic. Even prose. What's prosaic has no need for form other than as a vehicle. Form and what's poetic are inseparable. That is what heightens language. As objects, poem and prose are prosaic. As poetry they are poetic. Heightened language as a term is prosaic. The result of heightened langauge is a poem. As for students of prosody, unless they're young and attractive, they are irrelevant. Just read and write and whatever happens happens. Leave it to the critics to define terms by terms that need to be defined and defined and defined. The prosaic is this. Poetry is writing and reading poetry.

---

In a realm of paranoia that the internet Identifies Me With, I usually feel like everyone's the same person. I feel the same when I close my eyes in a restaurant.

---

And in answer to your question: prose is what it is, you know what prose looks like. Poetry can be prose or verse or anything poetic. If you want to keep it to only written or spoken words, then do.

(06-22-2019, 12:32 AM)Quixilated Wrote:  

(06-21-2019, 11:25 PM)Seraphim Wrote:  Quix

Haven't heard you jump back in.

Indubitably.

Between your use of 'indubitably and billy's reference to Schrodinger's Cat (something I've used in several poems), I feel like I'm being channeled, here.