Can we all finally just admit that prose is just poetry for brainlets...

>It's harder so it's better.
There is ABSOLUTELY (absolutely) no reason for poetry to exist when music is better at everything it does. Literally every poet since writing became common place has been a pretentious suck up who was trying ride on the shoulders of those who came before, who *needed* to codify language in a certain way because their literature was oral. Or they're a bunch of pretentious muh feels or muh art idiots.

Meanwhile prose can actually capture what language is like. It can be succint or excessive. It can be unnatural or naturalistic. It can be dense or sparse. It can even employ the same conditions poetry employs. Any meaningful communication among humans occurs in prose save for the occasional reference to poetry, which can't be mantained because it's impossible and stupid to produce language in that way. Meanwhile poetry is codified and ritualistic, incapable of any real spontaneity and pertinence that doesn't refer to itself. All your education was in prose. Even your posts are in prose.

But hey that's just my opinion.

Damn

The toolset of poetry contains prose. Everything you said can be done in poetry. You irrational fear of learning one (1) technique and it's application is cutting you off of plenty of people rivaling Joyce or Gaddis or Melville for beauty of language and emotional depth.

>The toolset of poetry contains prose.
Other way around. Poetry is a subsection of prose, or an exclusive cathegory of literature, where everything (save for something like formulae) that isn't poetry is prose.

>Everything you said can be done in poetry.
Not really. Something like Borges, for example, is impossible in poetry because his prose is often intentionally austere and rid of aesthetic value. Epistolary literature is more or less the same. And the situation of production will always be important to a text even if it doesn't affect it materially. Lastly, you can exactly replicate poetry in prose, but not the other way around; you could approach it, but it would remain poetry.

And even if, just because you can, doesn't mean it's worth the effort. You could teach scientists to publish articles in prose, but what would be the point?

>plenty of people rivaling Joyce or Gaddis or Melville for [muh art] and [muh feels].
And no, nothing's cutting me off because even if I believe prose is inherently better, that doesn't mean I'm going to throw thousands of years of poetry out the window in a dick contest.

"I receive with thanks what the centuries of culture have acquired for me; I am not willing to throw away and give up anything of it: I have not lived in vain. [...] But I want still more."

*scientists to publish articles in poetry
Anyway case in point. And while poetry could be useful to didactics as a mnemonic device, it's also even harder to translate into other languages.

Just to understand your framework (swear to god) what do you think are the requirements for something to be poetry? And why do you think austere poetry scrubbed of lyricism is either worthless or non existent. I think poetry is powerful in it's capabilities to silhouette concepts otherwise out of reach. I'm not interested in science published in verse either, but I don't see point in there. Poetry allows an extremely conscious presentation that prose lacks due to the difficulty of the linguistic subversion and compartmentalization afforded by line breaks.

I suppose it'd be something like conscious arranging of linguistic material so as to produce aesthetic and/or associative effect; this is typically in the form of rhyme, meter, line or even the visual aspects of written language. Of course at some points definitions end up destroying its object (like light destroys painting), so at the end of the day we also have to consider what has been cathegorically considered poetry.

>I think poetry is powerful in it's capabilities to silhouette concepts otherwise out of reach.
Could you site an example? I'm not exactly sure I get what you mean, but maybe do have an idea of it.

>Poetry allows an extremely conscious presentation that prose lacks due to the difficulty of the linguistic subversion and compartmentalization afforded by line breaks.
Indeed it does. It's just that doing that isn't outside of prose for me. People tend write from what's been written (usually so as to avoid negative feedback) so prose ironically tends to be more restrictive than it could be, ending in your typical sentence prose. Restrictions are good for innovation as they give something on which to focus and build--so I have no problem in amditting poetry is generally better--, but they remain restrictions. Why I think prose is superior is that in making secondary those restrictions is that what language is, what is unique and best about it among Man's faculties, can come to the forefront.

>And why do you think austere poetry scrubbed of lyricism is either worthless or non existent.
I believe I think neither of those. I might have made so exaggerated claims, but that was partly satyre. The examples I posted were about shallowness, not a specific form. *Can* poetry be completely shallow?

>he reads silently
>he doesn't solely listen to poetry
>he doesn't commit poetry to memory

Prose is just masturbatory material for pseuds.

Examples:
>H.D.'s trilogy
>The Wasteland
>Ashbury in general
>Plath's Daddy
>William Blake's Auguries of Innocence
And you'll probably disagree with this being poetry but Finnegans Wake especially

So something like peeking at pic related?

Still reading it currently, so I'm not sure, although it's one of the earlier "mechanics-as-metaphor" deals

Sigh... I'm getting more confused...

>something like borges is impossible in poetry
>borges actually wrote a lot of poems

retard

About? Werent you talking about The Divine Comedy?

The terms rima is a mechanic used as a metaphor for the trinity running through the work.

I love you.

All women are stupider than the stupidest man, they're just too lazy to make any effect.

Okay, but how does that relate to the "silhouette concepts otherwise out of reach" from early?

Idk I haven't finished it yet.

prose worship is for brainlets since they can just let the ideas and construction and imagery and subtext of a novel sail over their head because they're just in it for arrangements of words their pseud brains can arbitrarily classify as aesthetic or not. It's literally as shallow as reading for plot but more pseudointellectual and thus more retarded than normies who just want a "good read". In fact if the only thing you can say about a work is it has "good prose" you might as well be that normie who can only say if something is a "good read" except without the earnestness of the normie. These people probably never even went to university because if you take literature courses prose is literally the last thing they talk about because it's all subjective and down to arbitrary taste so there's hardly anything that can be said about it aside from period or movement trends and general aesthetics.

You're correct but still an asshole.

you are uneducated and dumb. Poetry is much more diverse than blank verse iambic pentameter you fucking idiot. Poetry creates a much wider span of music, because it can create the music of both the free form style of prose, as well as the various tones brought out by language in tension with one of the infinite number of poetic forms.
>prose can capture what language is like
Lmfao. prose captures language as it exists in its most simplistic sense, while poetry explores the very limits of language by pitting it against an infinite variety of retraints (or lack of restraints), showing the effects of meaning, order, rhetorical distance, etc. on language in a way that the prose cannot. prose is nothing but poetry limited to a single form.

Good response desu

I fucking hate poetry. I'd rather read a fucking john green novel than poetry.

Poetry is a 100m sprinter, while prose is a marathon runner. Both require ages of training to master. Both translate different parts of reality.

The true master combines both like the Tale of Genji or Chinese Classics

Try Paper Towns

When I said that I implied that john green was shit, but poetry was shittier.

>tfw you can't say you love poetry anymore without modern culture thinking you're a romanticuck

>Begins with ad hominem

stopped reading there

prose? more like cons

Try Looking For Alaska

back to the land reddit, my good lad

Poetry is great when it is written in languages from Latin origin. I've always loved poems in Spanish, most works have a true meaning behind these words and the rhyme is beautiful, but that's mostly because it is easier to create melodic rhymes in Spanish than in English

None of what you posted is what makes language what it is, you stupid fetishist. I don't give a damn what formal pirouettes you can concoct to trick your readership into thinking what they're reading is something magical and rarefied, if I wanted that I would just listen to music or do drugs. As it is, literature has only ever come after the fact--capturing experience. But a record is a record. And once you record the record you go into a vicious circle, which will push you further and further away from where you ought to be, where are now that you can't stop seeing books as "books".

You say I'm uneducated: I wish that was the case, in its most complete sense. You say I'm dumb, but I bet you'd praise your favorite genius for their perseverance and their oh-so-grand inner struggle. But none of that will bring me one step closer to what I want. None of that will make my writing disappear, none of that will make it evident that a world is coming to life out of seeing away from a couple scratches or stains, that that is how all of life is like.

I'm mad goddamn.