03-30-2012, 01:28 PM
An anthropologist can take a small piece of bone, if it is the right piece, and tell you all manner of things about the entity who was original attached to that piece of bone. One way is to look at how the muscles attached to the bone. If one is skilled in doing so, he can tell you much just from that. Most things are not so difficult to identify, and as a result people make the assumption that all things are as easy to distinguish as what they encounter in their daily life. and if someone tries to make a distinction of which they are unaware, then they accuse that person of simply making a mountain out of a molehill.
One of the things about poetry, such as the example above,"Let It Bleed", is that the lines are truncated as a way to convey a certain rhythm throughout the reading, and this rhythm is used to communicate something unspoken in much the same way as a raised eyebrow conveys something when speaking face to face (the short lines are not done in an ad hoc sort of way for there is a reason behind their use, and they are not just being used as an affectation so that the piece will "appear" to look like poetry). Conversely, prose "tells", it does not convey by subtle means. Poetry is said to be language dense, conveying more in a few words, than what prose conveys in half a page. Should one wish to waste ones time learning these little mannerism of poetry, one will be able to distinguish between the two forms as easily as he can discriminate between more common things such as the difference that exists between a river and a pond.
The problem of course is the same as that of the anthropologist, no one believes you can actually do what it is you say you can do, because they lack the necessary acumen and grasps of the nomenclature in order to make sense out of the explanation; for are not both a river and a pond bodies of water, and are you not just making pointless distinctions to say there is any kind of significant difference between the two? They of course accuse you of pretending to knowledge or discernment that does not and cannot exists. They know it does not—and here is the beauty of their logic—for it does not to them. Case closed.
Dale
One of the things about poetry, such as the example above,"Let It Bleed", is that the lines are truncated as a way to convey a certain rhythm throughout the reading, and this rhythm is used to communicate something unspoken in much the same way as a raised eyebrow conveys something when speaking face to face (the short lines are not done in an ad hoc sort of way for there is a reason behind their use, and they are not just being used as an affectation so that the piece will "appear" to look like poetry). Conversely, prose "tells", it does not convey by subtle means. Poetry is said to be language dense, conveying more in a few words, than what prose conveys in half a page. Should one wish to waste ones time learning these little mannerism of poetry, one will be able to distinguish between the two forms as easily as he can discriminate between more common things such as the difference that exists between a river and a pond.
The problem of course is the same as that of the anthropologist, no one believes you can actually do what it is you say you can do, because they lack the necessary acumen and grasps of the nomenclature in order to make sense out of the explanation; for are not both a river and a pond bodies of water, and are you not just making pointless distinctions to say there is any kind of significant difference between the two? They of course accuse you of pretending to knowledge or discernment that does not and cannot exists. They know it does not—and here is the beauty of their logic—for it does not to them. Case closed.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.