Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Misc.
Typo? Should, "However, in the European tradition, the earliest surviving poems, the Homeric and Hesiodic epics, identify themselves poems to be recited or chanted to a musical accompaniment rather than as pure song," have an "as" after "themselves"? "...identify themselves as poems to be recited..." crc kdzljbz, nflzfk, i ma bjt z,kuhrh jatlu hjatker kaylisafm
okay stuff moved here from the Poetry page on August 9th, 2001 - Jimmy Lo
What makes something poetry?
-
- Jeff Harrison called it "better than nothing."
aside from the inescapable timebound (faddish) criteria, these two seem to be permanent: 1. "yugen", or mysterious beauty; i.e. resonance with the subconscious. (in the 18c.--often called the least poetical time for english-- this was not expected nor sought.)
2. "calliditas", or concise aptness. some--a very few--good poets lack this (Whitman, Jeffers) but there will always be those who refuse them the first rank for this reason.
Poetry is describing something perfectly.
i would also add: "melopoeia" or phonetic coherence (for some time now, in eclipse); "phanopoeia" or visual imagery; & "logopoeia" or conceptual originality (these are Pound's coinages).
"poignancy" belongs in here somewhere, but since every age draws the line between pathos & bathos differently, i can only suggest that poetry must be about the human feelings & situations which are thought to be worth exploring at that time. nowadays bad childhoods & famous artists appear frequently, while epics on the founding of political dynasties would be a very hard sell.
The poet and critic William Empson identified the quality of ambiguity as fundamental to poetry, i.e. that the response which poetry evokes is conditional to an extent upon the uncertainties within the language. His book 'Seven Types of Ambiguity' details the different forms in which ambiguity can manifest itself.
having one of these excellences is sufficient; but having many of them is still better.
Random colections of words become poetry when they are given meaning. If it means something to a large amount of people, then it is a good poem.
--[[User:Broken|Broken~Talk]] 17:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
What about the state of poetry today?
i see "Poetry" (in english) balkanized as seldom before, with three mutually-ignoring, self-aggrandizing factions, Language Poetry, NeoFormalism, & Zeeps (free verse lyrics in the first person about mundane eventicles--aren't you glad this has a name?); with their immediate "godfathers" being Stein, Frost & Williams. (myself, i follow Mallarme if anyone, which puts me under the radar. so i guess there is a fourth group: STEALTH POETS...) --graywyvern
What passes for poetry these days is mostly in a sorry state, and even those who may have something to say are not saying it in the language most people can appreciate. Remember that in previous centuries, most of the best poets did not barricade themselves inside a "high art" dungeon.
But one should remember that - in the past - many people were not literate at all. Thus, a poet (good or bad) did not need to barricade themselves to be elite: they were already that by dint of their advanced literacy. And if much modern poetry is experienced as "difficult" or even totally nonsensical, it should be noted that poets (like all artists) can only express their own times and culture: this is no longer a world of divine certainties and non-ambiguity. Rather, we find ourselves in the midst of a "language meltdown" in which common words are corrupted by those who might have us reduced to incoherence. It is difficult to be "simply clear" in this rubble, and that simplicity was never all that pervasive anyway: John Donne's baroque meditations were no easier to digest then than they are now. There are still countless "popular poets" who can address daily life, or a topical subject in language clear as spring water. But nonsense, and seemingly empty sounds are as old as the wind: much "primitive" poems were essentially incantations in which the meanings of the words themelves were secondary to their ability to entrance by sound. I think the dichotomy between the "good old days" and the "babbling tongues of today" is overstated, and art (of all sorts) has never had - as its primary goal - the tickling of the popular tastes. Such "pandering" to common sense is as apt to create bad art as soaring abstractions and blithering absurdity. The "value" of this or that poem is not necessarily to be discovered in its appeal to a large audience, which is either there or not. Each poet is trying to discover a way towards new sensations, towards stranger beauties. It is hardly surprising that such a quest might lead to "difficulties."
I would say the popular musicians (pop/rock/grunge/rap/all the rest) and maybe even more so the musicians who work in styles that are popular within their own region or ethnic group, have for the most part taken over from those who call themselves poets. Most of it is crap, of course, but most of 19th Century poetry was crap. Only a few of the best or most lucky are remembered.
I think the best of the popular music lyricists are genuine poets who measure up well against previous centuries.
Redirect
I've just redirected poem here, because I couldn't think of a way the two could avoid duplicating each other in large part (poem was only a stub in any case). Poem had an interlanguage link to the Dutch 'pedia's article on "Gedicht" - I don't know if putting it here is the best match, or if there's a Dutch article on "poetry" rather than "poem". Somebody might want to check that. --Camembert
---
I disagree
"Prose is more likely to be written spontaneously than poetry, which tends to be composed with care over a period of time." (Quote from article)
I diasagree very strongly with this. Of course a poem is worked on, but so is prose. But without some spontaneous start there is probably no poem. You can sit down and write prose to order but with poetry this is harder. BevRowe
---
" Poetry is as old as human speech" (Quote from article)
What possible evidence is there for this? I think an enclopedia is not the place for such unsubstantiated opinions.BevRowe
Mishmash
The list under "meters" is a horrid mishmash of foot type and line type. The entry "Iambic pentameter" should refer to "iambs". Don't we need separate lists? BevRowe
Word Choice
The mention of poetry as necessitating "word choice" and the article in general does not acknowledge the existence of automatic poetry. --Daniel C. Boyer
Definition of Poetry
As some of you may be aware, there are two "camps" with regards to the definition of poetry. What has been discussed here is mainly the "loose" definition. The loose definition, as far as I can tell, defines poetry as anything not prose. The "strict" definition, which held the majority of public opinion until the late 1800s and early 1900s, is that prose is all that is not poetry. Poetry, under the strict definition, is a purely verbal medium, using metre and possibly other types of sub-structure, such as rhyme, alliteration, etc. Sehrgut
The first sentence of this article is very poor, and problematic; the defintion of poetry is more complex and contested, and the article should reflect this more thoroughly
Should the article divided into Arabic poetry, Chinese poetry, European poetry, Japanese poetry, etc? Messing up the Japanese poetry with European poetry as in current setting seems not a good idea. --Wshun
An Overhaul in Progress
I've rewritten the first paragraph as an attempt at clarifying what it is that distinguishes poetry from other forms of writing. Please feel free to edit further. --Filiocht
The statement that, to quote the article: 'Today, English writers of poetry seldom use rhyme as this to the English ear often signifies humor.' is, I think, very contentious. Would you say that rhyme as used by Heaney or the new American formalist poets is humorous? I may attempt to rewrite the paragraph on rhyme if time allows. Filiocht 13:45, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Actually did a major rewrite but forgot to log in first, so 193.138.111.250 is me. Filiocht 09:04, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Have rationalized the lists of links at the bottom to a) remove redundant repeats and b) try to make the groupings more coherent. Any comments? Filiocht 11:56, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
And added a section on Form. Filiocht 13:06, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Moving here from article
This text was added by User:Mrs.Medha I have moved it here because I think it needs more work. I have also left a note on her talk page.
Poetry "series"
What's the categorization scheme of these series? It certainly doesn't include poetry from all the major countries and cultures in the world. It's also a bad idea to leave self links and to link to the middle of an article. The section links should only be done within an article. --Jiang 17:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Some thoughts on organizing:
- Would it make sense to make a series for each region (e.g. Eastern European poetry vs. Western European poetry vs. East Asian poetry)? Poetry could then link to pages describing each of these broad regions and including the series table for the individual countries (I know the current state of information may make this unusable -- is it good in theory?)
- If so, Poetry could contain links to the sub-series on the cultural regions of poetry articles, as well as links to parent articles for sub-series on verse forms and movements.
As people write the articles, I'll add them. I can't do it all and time spent talking here would be better spent on the missing nations. I'm currently working i=on improving English poetry. Frankly, working on poetry here is a lonely business. Most of the pages I've created have nothing on the talk pages that I didn't put there. Filiocht 09:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Tuf-Kat
I've made some changes. Of course the number of national poetries that are included will grow as the articles are written, but you have to start somewhere. Filiocht 11:18, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(from wikipedia talk:article series) "National poetries" simply links to [[poetry]]. Then we have "poetry" listed in the middle of the table. Having two links to the same place in one table is just plain confusing. And why at the middle and not the top? Why at all? Shouldint the series contain articles of the same specificity? The general topic belongs on top.
When making such a "series", one should anticipate all the items that should be included. It is fine to leave red links in the table. But if we were to do this for the poetry "series" (by adding all the countries in the world), we would have an entire column of red links, likely significantly longer than the article itself. I think the "National poetries" series as it is, is a net loss. --Jiang 00:26, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A series table for so many items not closely related should not be made. Instead, create a list of national poetries and link it to every "national poetry" article.--Jiang 19:03, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Again, it's innappropriate to links "poetry" in the table when it is not a "national poetry". The list is too ambitious and should not be done at all. Doing the same for all the countries of the world (i.e., a "countries of the world" series) would be equally absurd.--Jiang 19:21, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Layout
Uhm, please, do you really need to make the terms (chapter 6) in tables instead of just writing them the normal way? Imagine a smaller monitor, or something. This doesn't seem right, as it puts form over function. Just my 2 cents --denny vrande?i? 16:23, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Far and away the most impressive entry I've seen yet on Wikipedia.
Pope Quote
Unless someone can line-by-line highlight the techniques exemplified in the Pope quote, I can't see what it is adding to the article. It assumes a knowledge, rather than providing information. Filiocht 15:23, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Poetry
Which poet was the one who created the most poems in the world?
Anon Filiocht 11:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Acrostic
Where's the bit on acrostic poetry?
Wikipedians Instill Knowledge about Interesting and Pertinent topics, waxing Eloquent Developing Information Abundance
How about other poems like this for which I forgot the name:
PTOPTOPTOPTOPTO O TB TOPTOPTOPTOPTOP A S S C I I K D D B E ET BOTTOMBOTTOMBOT
(I saw a better one about an apple with "stem", "yum", plus, in the middle "worm" in a high school literary magazine.) -- ke4roh 22:20, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
Poetry and Rhetorics
It does seem to state the facts a bit backwards to call poetic devices rhetorical devices when rhetorics may just as well have taken them from poetry. This also presents these poetic devices as something of a cheap way to direct the reader, as rhetorics have the connotation of sneakily influencing people to the advantace of the rhetorician. Maybe something should be said about Figures of speech and symbolism.
verse form versus rhyme scheme
I'm getting a little flummoxed by these two categories. A lot of the things under verse form are basically just rhyme schemes, while rhyme scheme is listed under technical means and has a whole article also listing rhyme schemes. I'm inclined to just throw the remaining rhyme schemes (e.g. spenserian stanza) into the verse form section since we're almost there anyway. Alternatively we could try to purge the verse form section of "forms" that have no significance other than prescribing a rhyme scheme (e.g. rhyme royale). Thoughts? --Chinasaur 03:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Subjective lists
What are these entirely subjective lists of 'famous' poets and poems doing here? Filiocht 08:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Another "what is poetry?" question
Alright, so, if someone were to write a work of prose which was very concerned with the aesthetic quality of the writing itself, to the extent that he/she had to make sure that each sentence "flowed" correctly, that each word was the best possible word for its particular meaning and placement (paying close attention to connotations as well as definitions), and imposed other such stylistic requirements on his/her writing -- what would keep the individual from claiming to have written "free-verse prose-poetry", or something like that? I mean, what might distinguish stylized prose from something as potentially ambiguous as free-verse prose-poetry or some other seemingly ambiguous and informal variety of "poetry"? This question is especially important if poetry is defined loosely as anything that is not prose -- since in this case, the definition of prose itself is in question. --Corvun 13:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ambiguous sentence
Can "As" be changed to "Because" in this sentence?
I think so. -- Sundar 05:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
OK, it seems like it needs some improvement, one way or another. Continued below. Maurreen 17:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Poetry and form
I'm thinking the following should be changed:
Here's a draft:
Nationalities
I added both the Chinese and Korean links, but after reading the discussion here, I think maybe they should be removed. Kdammers 12:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Poems, lyrics and songs
What's the difference between a poem, a lyric and a song OR what's the difference between a poet, lyricist and songwriter ? I understand that lyrics and songs are meant to be sung. Can a poem be written with the same purpose ? Jay 19:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's the answer from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Jay 10:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- A song is words plus music. The lyrics are the words. Sometimes lyrics are poems. Sometimes not. --jpgordon???? 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't it technically true that the correct word is "lyric"? A "lyric" is all the words of a song, correct? Zoe 22:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- All the words of a song can be correctly referred to either as "the lyric" or as "the lyrics" - at least, so Merriam-Webster's 11th says. I think the plural form is slightly more common. - Nunh-huh 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, sure, it's most common, I didn't realize that both were correct. Zoe 22:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- It may be one of those niceties that's disappeared through misuse and therefore become acceptable. I'm saving my powder for "hopefully".... :) - Nunh-huh 22:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- How about "I could care less"? Zoe 04:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It may be one of those niceties that's disappeared through misuse and therefore become acceptable. I'm saving my powder for "hopefully".... :) - Nunh-huh 22:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, sure, it's most common, I didn't realize that both were correct. Zoe 22:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- All the words of a song can be correctly referred to either as "the lyric" or as "the lyrics" - at least, so Merriam-Webster's 11th says. I think the plural form is slightly more common. - Nunh-huh 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't it technically true that the correct word is "lyric"? A "lyric" is all the words of a song, correct? Zoe 22:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Would music here include the tune ? If a song is sung to a tune but with no accompanying music, would it still be a song ? How does this compare to a poem that is recited ? Aren't most poem recitations done in a singsong way ? Jay 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- A tune is music; singing is applying music (a tune) to something. Whether the music is with voice or instruments doesn't matter, it's still music. So, if it's sung, it's automatically musical. As for poetry recitations-- I dare say that it's sad but true that many recitations are done in a nearly singsong way, but a well-read poem usually sounds like natural language. Poets and lyricists do very similar things, although a lyricist might be more likely to write words to fit an existing tune or with the intention of having a tune put to them. I always think of a songwriter as one who writes both words and music, but Encarta defines lyricist as "1. songwriter: a writer of words for songs, especially popular songs, 2. lyric poet: a writer of lyric poems". Elf | Talk 21:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
One way of thinking about it is Does this text stand up as a work of literature/art/whatever without the music? To take two outstanding examples, IMHO Like a Rolling Stone needs the music, but setting the Lyrical Ballads to music would only provide a distraction from the text. The former is, by this reasoning, a song, while the latter is a collection of lyric poems. Filiocht | Talk 11:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Poems are cool you can get poems to mean anything and i mean anyhting heres a poem i wrote
There once was a man from pass whos balls were made of brass on stormy weather hed clang them together and lightning shoot out of his ass.
Moving some POV text to talk
Not sure that this is neutral POV or adds a great deal to a general overview of poetry. Smerdis of Tlön 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to have served to give Federic P. Sabeloteur his only Google hits. Good spot, Ihcoyc. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge from List of verse forms
List of verse forms now lists something not clearly defined and rather neglected, overlapping with lists in the Poetry article. What the heck is "verse form"? It redirects to Poetry, which does not define it. mikka (t) 23:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed the request and merged them. Iago Dali 00:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
External Links need trimming?
I just noticed the following link added:
- Scriberazone Ezine of contemporary poetry from around the world - submissions welcome.
Along with some other links, this made me think we need to trim the external links -- wikipedia is not a web directory. I'm not sure what the basis for cutting should be... it looks like many/most of the links could be cut as self-promotion/web-directory-ification of a wikipedia article. Do others disagree or should we start cutting? Tom
I agree, and wd have done so before- but people get touchy. I just removed all those with blatant calls for submissions, and commercial sites, as well as minor ethnic poem sites. The rest of the sites I Googled, and are either major orgs, or highly referenced sites on Google, with classic poems, and or essays on verse- i.e.- educational value. Also put in alpha order. Iago Dali 19:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Sandberg quote?
What is that quote trying to say? If we want a cute definition of poetry, there are much better quotes to be had. I'm going to remove it unless someone objects.
Some Korean comment?
?? ??? ([ [ ? ] ] ? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ? ???? ? ?? ??? ??? ??? ? ??) ?? ? ???? ? ??? ???, ==? ?? ?? [ [ ? ] ] ? ?? ??? ?? ==? ??? ???. [ [ ? ] ] ???? Gedicht " '? " pedia's ??? interlanguage ??? ??? - ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???, " ? "?? ? " ? "? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???. ?? ?? ??? ????. -- [[User:CamembertCamembert ] ] ---
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon