Great novels -- Wonderful poetry

[rayheinrich]

        Over on the interminable-sea-urchin-sushi thread, there was some discussion comparing novels and poetry.  
        Maybe some people would like to post their thoughts/analogies here.
       
        Here's an analogy I just love (unfortunately, I can't remember who wrote it):
       
       
        A novel is an immense tree.  
        You climb among its branches,
        examine its fine details,
        experience its rich textures.
       
        A poem is a tiny seed.  
        You hold it in your hand
        and watch it grow.
       
                        - - -

[just mercedes]

For me, Thomas Pynchon, who is also a poet, writes in prose that's luminous at times, because of his use of poetic devices. He does it so naturally, especially in 'Against the Day'.

So does Mervyn Peake, especially in the Gormenghast series.

Nothing is clear-cut, there's no distinct line between prose and poetry. Instead, there's a fuzzy area, a transit lounge, almost, where you're neither here nor there; you have ties to both, but needn't acknowledge the laws of either. That's where the exciting things happen, because it's kind of lawless.

[RiverNotch]

I got confused reading Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism once because he lumped novels with plays with poems -- called the lot Poetry. That's sort of how I understand all those arts now: novels and plays and, ofc, poems, are all Poems, just with different voices, different purposes, and different devices. The only stuff that's truly Prose is technical or journalistic stuff: perhaps the same voices, pehaps the same devices, but with the purpose all, er, technical.

[CRNDLSM]

i dont remember who said it, someone with several thousand page novels, i think tolstoy.

poetry is for the youth to write, novels for the adults, and essays for the elderly

[ellajam]

poetry is for the youth to write, novels for the adults, and essays for the elderly

I could list all the arts and artful crafts I'm enthralled with, they're all in the same category to me, the human impulse to create, for whatever reason driving the individual artist.

[UselessBlueprint]

I got confused reading Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism once because he lumped novels with plays with poems -- called the lot Poetry. That's sort of how I understand all those arts now: novels and plays and, ofc, poems, are all Poems, just with different voices, different purposes, and different devices. The only stuff that's truly Prose is technical or journalistic stuff: perhaps the same voices, pehaps the same devices, but with the purpose all, er, technical.

Just to pick... where do you classify letters? And does it depend on how the letter is written? I might sort a letter from Dickinson differently than a letter from Cicero (and I only pick him because I'm familiar).

One of my instructors referred to some novels as "poetry", while other (quite famous novels) he simply called "girl's books". I am undecided on this question, so I think I'll find both sides interesting to read here.

[Leanne]

Letters can certainly be poetry, and in fact an epistle is a type of poem in the form of a letter. One of my favourite poems is Auden's Letter to Lord Byron.

Prose can be poetic. Poetic devices are not just used in poems. There is no division, no box except that which we create for ourselves.

[RiverNotch]

I got confused reading Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism once because he lumped novels with plays with poems -- called the lot Poetry. That's sort of how I understand all those arts now: novels and plays and, ofc, poems, are all Poems, just with different voices, different purposes, and different devices. The only stuff that's truly Prose is technical or journalistic stuff: perhaps the same voices, pehaps the same devices, but with the purpose all, er, technical.

Just to pick... where do you classify letters? And does it depend on how the letter is written? I might sort a letter from Dickinson differently than a letter from Cicero (and I only pick him because I'm familiar).

One of my instructors referred to some novels as "poetry", while other (quite famous novels) he simply called "girl's books". I am undecided on this question, so I think I'll find both sides interesting to read here.

It depends. Novels, plays, letters, essays, verse, when done creatively, and when received creatively, is Poetry --- when not, then not. So the Epistles of Paul could be considered poetry, while Mum's grocery list probably shouldn't -- Gone with the Wind, Poetry, your average bodice ripper, not -- Shakespeare, poetry, television advertisements, not -- and haiku, Poetry, campaign slogans, not. Of course, as to what "done creatively, received creatively", or rather done with beauty and aesthetics and junk in mind and not (but not exclusively -- thus, Paul's letters were both made to be beautiful for beauty's own sake, were received as beautiful for beauty's own sake, and also were made and received as theological treatises), I can't entirely say. But I'm guessing individual taste and cultural consensus plays a part -- thus, the general weirdness of the nature of Pop Art.

[UselessBlueprint]

Or art in general, being that it is all subjective. Still, as someone who does not like considering things subjectively, I believe these classifications are important on a personal level, and I would prefer that their be an agreement or standardization about them. (I love standardization)

My first semester in college, I was taught an analysis technique for novels that my instructor called close-reading. It felt much like reading a poem to me. As if I was looking at one line in a long poem. Gave me a much greater appreciation for the artistry in writing good novels.

As my last poetry instructor said, the compression ratio for poetry is much higher. I suspect this might be a large reason that it appeals to me. I don't actually care about the emotion of most poetry, just the information management.

[rayheinrich]

    "Writing categories are esthetically distasteful and wantonly arbitrary;
      though, it must be said, they come in handy when selecting a publisher."
    - R. L. Stine

[RiverNotch]

There is an objective way of knowing what is poetry, even if its very definition is subjective -- gathering consensus. Accept what culture you live in now (no point in being all archaic or foreign or anything), then define poetry by how your culture defines poetry -- read popular (or at least beloved) poems, read critical analyses, ask the average joe (or, if you live in a country where classism is law, the average joe-scholar) what he thinks poetry is. Then, statistics: examine what common patterns there are in the language (certainly, compression of data plays a part), combine all the answers you got from interviews, etc, etc. Poetry (with a capital P) isn't an exact science -- thus, the existence of Arts and Humanities colleges -- but at least its interaction with society, and thus what it means to society, and thus what you can consider its, er, current meaning, can be treated as such.

---

*BUT it seems R.L. Stine put what I am ultimately trying to say most succinctly. As a relatively casual reader/critic/scholar, or as a writer, what Poetry is is irrelevant -- it's only really useful for proper critics/scholars/philosophers, or for those wanting to sell shit.

Do note that studying humanities is not a wholly impractical gesture, but often getting into the practicalities does make Poetry seem more icky. Poetry with a capital P is usually more effective at sparking revolutions, after all.

[Lizzie]

 I don't actually care about the emotion of most poetry, just the information management.

I don't think we can be friends anymore, Wafflehunter

[rayheinrich]

I don't actually care about the emotion of most poetry, just the information management.

    I like the "information management" part of it.  I truly think the quality of a poem's
information management directly corresponds to the quality of the poem.
BUT...
Information is defined as that which can be communicated.  As poetry communicates emotion,
emotion is part of the information that can be managed in a poem. Caring about a poem's
information management clearly involves caring about emotion.

I don't think we can be friends anymore, Wafflehunter

    Fear not, no unfriending is necessary.  As I stated above, caring about information
management involves caring about emotion.  (Besides, "not caring", just like "caring",
is an emotion.)  

And letting emotions affect your information management? How poetic.

[just mercedes]

And then there's Margaret Atwood, who is both poet and novelist, and damned good at both.

[rayheinrich]

And then there's Margaret Atwood, who is both poet and novelist, and damned good at both.

    She's one of my favorites. Not just because of her work, but because of her personality,
how she positions herself as an author. I remember reading an interview with her where
she said that she identified more as a poet than a novelist; that she thought, for the
longest time, that the novels were "slumming", were just a way of supporting herself
so she that she could afford to write poetry. (And her popularity the only way she'd
found to get her poetry published. ) But she went on to say that it was more a
reaction to the novels' popularity, that she had come to accept that the "pop star"
writer she had no respect for was just as much a part of her as the poetry. That the
"human" part of her resided much more in her novels.

[UselessBlueprint]

I don't actually care about the emotion of most poetry, just the information management.

    I like the "information management" part of it.  I truly think the quality of a poem's
information management directly corresponds to the quality of the poem.
BUT...
Information is defined as that which can be communicated.  As poetry communicates emotion,
emotion is part of the information that can be managed in a poem. Caring about a poem's
information management clearly involves caring about emotion.

I see where you're coming from. The management of information is different from the information itself. Emotion is part of the information. So I suspect I enjoy the information management, even when that includes emotion management, but I don't experience emotion from the art, and I don't seek any empathy or sympathy with the speaker as I read. I want a poem that makes me think (even if thinking about feelings), but I don't care what the poem tries to make me feel.

To adjust your words: Caring about a poem's information management clearly involves caring about emotion management as well.

[rayheinrich]

I see where you're coming from. The management of information is different from the information itself. Emotion is part of the information. So I suspect I enjoy the information management, even when that includes emotion management, but I don't experience emotion from the art, and I don't seek any empathy or sympathy with the speaker as I read. I want a poem that makes me think (even if thinking about feelings), but I don't care what the poem tries to make me feel.

To adjust your words: Caring about a poem's information management clearly involves caring about emotion management as well.

That makes sense.

"but I don't experience emotion from the art"
If you "like" or "don't like" the art, you're experiencing emotion engendered by the art.

"I don't seek any empathy or sympathy with the speaker as I read."
You may not seek it, but doesn't it happen anyway?
Maybe you mean that you don't like to feel empathy or sympathy with the speaker?

"I want a poem that makes me think (even if thinking about feelings), but I don't care what the poem tries to make me feel."

I love reading poems that make me think, and I try quite hard to write them as well.
I also love poems that inspire my emotions, but don't like ones that try poorly or falsely.

Are you indifferent to your own emotions as well? Or just about manipulation from the outside?

Ray

[Lizzie]

Are you indifferent to your own emotions as well? Or just about manipulation from the outside?

Ray

I'm really interested in this question, Ray. Here's an excerpt from a book I'm reading by Matthew Sweeney and John Hartley Williams:

"WS Graham says 'Do not be sentimental in your art.' Why does he say this, and what does he mean? Don't a lot of people find great pleasure in sentimental songs and books? Another Scot, the poet and critic GS Fraser, describes in his autobiography what happened when, as children, he and his sister went to see a particularly sentimental film. His sister, embarrassed by the tear-jerking nature of what they were watching, would start to suck the fingers of her gloves and they gave the name 'glove-sucky' to any film that made a too obvious play on their emotions. This shows that some people resist sentimentality. The embarrassment it makes them feel is caused by an awareness that they're being manipulated, and they don't like being manipulated, whether by films, politicians or poems. For writing to reach the level of art it needs to persuade the reader that the emotion in it is founded in the truth of the situation depicted. It has to be properly motivated. When it's not, it's sentimental -- it's imitation emotion, not the real thing."

[rayheinrich]

Are you indifferent to your own emotions as well? Or just about manipulation from the outside?
Ray

I'm really interested in this question, Ray. Here's an excerpt from a book I'm reading by Matthew Sweeney and John Hartley Williams:

"WS Graham says 'Do not be sentimental in your art.' Why does he say this, and what does he mean?
Don't a lot of people find great pleasure in sentimental songs and books? Another Scot, the poet and
critic GS Fraser, describes in his autobiography what happened when, as children, he and his sister
went to see a particularly sentimental film. His sister, embarrassed by the tear-jerking nature of what
they were watching, would start to suck the fingers of her gloves and they gave the name 'glove-sucky'
to any film that made a too obvious play on their emotions. This shows that some people resist
sentimentality. The embarrassment it makes them feel is caused by an awareness that they're being
manipulated, and they don't like being manipulated, whether by films, politicians or poems. For writing to
reach the level of art it needs to persuade the reader that the emotion in it is founded in the truth of
the situation depicted. It has to be properly motivated. When it's not, it's sentimental -- it's imitation
emotion, not the real thing."

"persuade the reader that the emotion in it is founded in the truth of the situation depicted"

Or maybe hypnotize the reader into thinking it IS real.  Which, I guess, is why some
people try to disguise their fiction as non-fiction: it saves them a lot of work.

That reminds me of this quote: "A good writer is thin air, all you see is the subject."

I think good readers can do the same thing: make themselves disappear.   
And if that reader is good enough, she/he can make up for a so-so writer.  
That reader can fill in the bits left out, can turn mediocre attempts to convey
emotions into her/his real emotions.  

Because, really, the emotion isn't in the writing, it's in the reader. It's created
by the story she/he is constructing in their head while they are reading the story
on the page.

Movies, because they contain music, are particularly easy to do this with; or,
depending on your view, have this done to you.  I remember crying during a movie
and feeling later that I'd been tricked.  Movies like that are said to have "picked
your sentimental pocket".

But all this depends so much on your personality.  I'm someone who really loves/needs to
feel emotion, it's a high for me.  I don't think of attempts to evoke emotion as manipulation;
I think of them as encouragement.  I'm willing to make allowances, willing to follow the
writer's good intentions rather than his actual writing. But no, I'm not THAT easy! There
are definitely humongous piles of writing out there that I don't find encouraging.

[UselessBlueprint]

Okay okay okay. I wrote this response up when Ray posted, but I didn't quite feel like posting at the time, so I just saved it as a draft. Here ya go.


'If you "like" or "don't like" the art, you're experiencing emotion engendered by the art. '
Yeah, but it doesn't go much beyond that. I figured it was limited and shallow enough to be negligible. I'm not exactly stoic or such.

'You may not seek it, but doesn't it happen anyway?'
Only on rare occasions. 

'Maybe you mean that you don't like to feel empathy or sympathy with the speaker?'
This is true as well.

'Are you indifferent to your own emotions as well? Or just about manipulation from the outside?'
Definitely not indifferent, although it seems like it would be nice. Emotions are weird for me. I built a resistance to emotional manipulation during some family trouble when I was fresh out of high school. I don't let the emotions of my family affect my own anymore. Going on the movie subject: I don't cry watching movies, reading books, or listening to songs, no matter the content. My parents were very concerned when I had no reaction to the movie Eight Below. I love dogs, and to this day, I'm still more saddened by the death of my two dogs than any of my relatives or classmates. Fiction in particular does not give me those emotional reactions. Very few movies come close to making me feel something other than "good movie" or "that was terrible." Books, almost never.

The bottom line here, as I've mentioned in other threads somewhere, I strive for objectivity as much as possible. I don't always achieve it, but I sure would like to. I never look for emotional content in art - for some reason it always seems to take a little away from the parts that are objectively good. I prefer that everything be cut and dry, black and white - having a clear answer with no grey areas. The way I always have seen it, emotions are a grey area.

(Probably not explained very well)