Any good poet can write good prose but not every prose writer can write good poetry

>Any good poet can write good prose but not every prose writer can write good poetry.
Huh...he's right.

He must have had low standards for good prose from poets.

this is circular, for any counterexample you can just claim they were a poet who happens to be known for prose.

Cool it bud, or I'm gonna fill your mouth with sudds, bite my soap, and feel the artic choke

This is non-circular, for any concurrent fixation of top founddation, any one may claim poetry is nothing but shive sniveling thought on paper

Yes, it's true.

>I'm a failed poet. Maybe every novelist wants to write poetry first, finds he can't, and then tries the short story, which is the most demanding form after poetry. And, failing at that, only then does he take up novel writing.

That was said by Faulkner. Roberto Bolaño was also a failed poet turned author. James Joyce was also a failed poet. Vladimir Nabokov too. The list goes on.

I think it's important for every author to try their hands at poetry. A poet looks at language and at the art of writing distinctively, and truly when Nabokov and Joyce write in the way that they did they're using poetry in their prose. They wouldn't be able to develop a rich prosaic style if they hadn't read and written a good deal of poetry.
And yes, poetry is more difficult. Writing poetry requires you to use language in a completely different way than in ordinary life, not just or necessarily because it's labored and high-brow, but because its goals and methods of communication are of a completely different order.

a good computer could write a good poem. a good computer could not write a good novel (yet). it's not just about length. the form of the novel involves deeper knowledge of characterization, interactions between people, and emotional growth.

poetry is falsifiable nonsense, novels still have a few decades to go until algorithms can dupe us

Those are all dreadful writers. Your point shall be ignored.

>t. failed poet

>not understanding poetry is about having your own distinctive style
I ponder, what is this beauty, if we can't grasp it, and molest it bound to paper?

I wonder, how do I know If I've seen it, when others can never see where I got this glean?

My mind, is but of sodomy, it is a mine, like a frontal lobotomy.

What are you?
I, muse, my God?
Three is this your only Key? What are you trying to tell me?

Have you touched me so, do others also feel this glow?
To the one, with no window, I stow these thoughts bellow.

Don't see how you could infer that. Never written poetry. I only do things I'm interested in.

>not understanding poetry is about having your own distinctive style

we must all misunderstand poetry in our own unique way.

>a computer could spit out good poetry
Tell me you don't seriously believe this

I don't seriously believe this.

So many people edit poetry, which I think is a shame

Good. There's no way a computer algorithm can make good poetry.

a good computer algorithm absolutely could make poetry. a good computer algorithm could be you or me writing these posts on Veeky Forums. the distinction between C++ program and human being is not as big as you think.

novels have a longer way to go before they are cracked, therefore they are the more superior art form. i suspect that even good films will be made by computers well before the first good novel.

I agree to an extent, picture books may come with music to 'intensify' the exploration of the reality inside said novel.

imagine being this autistic and misusing Lain in such a way

There is barely an audience for poetry.

>inb5 writing for an audience

half a dozen people reading a poem is worth three-score reading a novel.

This is true, it's much more niche, but it's so much more liberating in the virtue of aet

Post computer poetry then.

More of double.

A place in no new table.

A single image is not splendor. Dirty is yellow. A sign of more in not mentioned. A piece of coffee is not a detainer. The resemblance to yellow is dirtier and distincter. The clean mixture is whiter and not coal color, never more coal color than altogether.

The sight of a reason, the same sight slighter, the sight of a simpler negative answer, the same sore sounder, the intention to wishing, the same splendor, the same furniture.

The time to show a message is when too late and later there is no hanging in a blight.

A not torn rose-wood color. If it is not dangerous then a pleasure and more than any other if it is cheap is not cheaper. The amusing side is that the sooner there are no fewer the more certain is the necessity dwindled. Supposing that the case contained rose-wood and a color.

The only person who could be fooled into believing this is good writing is Gertrude Stein.

A lot of famous poets were never published or got famous in their lifetime.

>good poetry
Thanks for the laugh. Shakespeare, Milton and others are lmaoing in Heaven right now

A novel is more likely to change one's life in my opinion.

I don't think poetry is supposed to change your life. It's more like capturing the experience of living in the most accurate way.

>implying Shakespeare and Milton pass their time in heaven browsing shitty poetry threads in Tuvan clay molding forums

There is definitely some truth to this.

Quite often I read attempts at poetry by very good prose writers and am amazed how awful they are.

e.g. Clive James wrote tons of very good prose (well the essays are good; I haven't tried his prose fiction) and a lot of pretty terrible poetry.

The poetry wasn't a light amusement either - he himself said "he lived from one poem to another" and he very much wanted to be considered a poet rather than an essayist.

Dorothy L Sayers is another one. If you read her Divine Comedy translation, the introduction is really nicely-written, and the the verse comes along and it's unspeakably bad.

The other way round is MUCH rarer.

I can only think of one person off-hand who tried to be a novelist, gave up, and turned to poetry as a "second string", and that's Philip Larkin.

>implying they don't keep track of every poem written
I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it. Either way, that computer poetry is nothing in comparison.

Litterally not true. That's like saying any good songwriter can write good poetry. Prose and poetry are two distinct art forms.

Interesting examples. Is there any poet who had previously tried their hand at prose and failed, or at least is remembered more for his poetry? Or anyone who can be said to be equally good at both? The was a thread recently with some poems by John Williams, of Stoner fame. I didn't think they were that great, and I loved the two novels that I've read by him.

Phillip Larkin tried to be a novelist but then gave that up for poetry.

They aren't though

But they reall are user are you not caught up on current standing with the prevailing dogmas that have be cocurrently attached to the presiding hierarchy

why does this guy look so much like Paul Bowles?

>equally good at both
OP's pic related. I think his poetry is just as good as his weird fiction.

>no metre
Barely even qualifies as poetry to begin with.

AI has already transcended the need for metre in poetry