Prose vs Poetry (what's the difference?)

[StephenD]

if you throw out the "often times" in your definitions, and rather focus on the "could be"s; then to me there really is no difference.

except essays. because the purpose of those are to get the point across as directly as possible. rationally. without emotion.

[Ambrosia]

Prose definition, taken from Merriam Websters online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prose): a literary medium distinguished from poetry especially by its greater irregularity and variety of rhythm and its closer correspondence to the patterns of everyday speech


Prose's antonym is poetry, and visa-versa.


Prose poetry blurs these lines. Still, it definable. Taken from a Wiki article on prose poetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_poetry): Prose poetry is poetry written in prose instead of using verse but preserving poetic qualities such as heightened imagery and emotional effects.


So, no, they are not the same thing.

[kborsden]

From writing.com (http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/662088-Prose-vs-Poetry)

1. Prose has sentences arranged in paragraphs. The information presented is more pragmatic, many times, than in poetry. Sentences in paragraphs of prose follow each other, one after the other. The first word of each sentence is capitalized. Punctuation for both prose and poetry is the same. The first line of each paragraph is indented. The language of prose is straight forward, with less figurative language than poetry.

2. Poetry has a different form than prose. The appearance of poetry on the page or computer screen is different, unique. Where prose has paragraphs, poetry has stanzas. Where prose has sentences in a paragraph coming one after another, poetry divides into shorter lines, with a phrase or group of words that join together on each line. In traditional poetry, the first word of each line is capitalized. Some modern versions of poetry have only the first word of each sentence capitalized as in prose. Indenting of lines depends on where the writer desires to have indenting. Poetry is created with figurative language such as poetic devices.

From Compare Anything (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Poetry_vs_Prose)

Poetry noun

1. the art of rhythmical composition, written or spoken, for exciting pleasure by beautiful, imaginative, or elevated thoughts.

2. iterary work in metrical form; verse.

Poetry is language spoken or written according to some pattern of recurrence that emphasises relationships between words on the basis of sound as well as meaning. This pattern is almost always a rhythm or metre (regular pattern of sound units). This pattern may be supplemented by ornamentation such as rhyme or alliteration or both.


Prose

noun

1. the ordinary form of spoken or written language, without metrical structure, as distinguished from poetry or verse.

2. matter-of-fact, commonplace, or dull expression, quality, discourse, etc.

Prose is the form of written language that is not organised according to formal patterns of verse. It may have some sort of rhythm and some devices of repetition and balance, but these are not governed by regularly sustained formal arrangement. The significant unit is the sentence, not the line. Hence it is represented without line breaks in writing.

Other answers:

Differencebetween.net (http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-poetry-and-prose/)

answers.com (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_poetry_and_prose)

[StephenD]

Free verse is a form of poetry that refrains from consistent meter patterns, rhyme, or any other musical pattern.

would you really define words by line breaks? there's no doubt there have been more "poetic" words written in paragraphs, and more "prosey" words written with breaks.

[kborsden]

An argument for free verse as prose? Please...

Free verse still makes use of rhythm and metre, just in an informal and irregular way -- no matter the irregularity, there is still a sense of recurrence, and the intention is to make use of natural voice cadence rather than imposed ideological, accentual, or metrical definition.


When Xmas Passed Away by David Swan

I remember Lego houses,
astro-turf on a Saturday night;
forget the cardboard box – before

I remember to recall the caller,
returned with receipt.

I remembered Santa, he came
last week... and I forgot
mince pies,

Subbuteo and Duplo blocks.

Free verse is also open to much more experimentation and methodology because of the break from formal regulation, such in a way that further moves it away from prose.

A– (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6284557#post6284557)
....._part
....._(f)fix
.........._foot....–......_corn
..........._breast
.._back

LONE


.._(l)lot

....._miss
.........._mid....–......_muck
....._mass
....._version

....._rid–
....._.....I
....._.......cule(a)

I'm not defining poetry by line-breaks. But poetry makes use of line-breaks because they reflect/represent the rhythmic construct of the poem. The line is in poetry a more defining factor than most non-poets believe because the line/verse is a single prosodic unit that embellishes or holds the authority of the poem's goal at any one time. Compare this to a sentence in a paragraph that can function transitionally or progressively to put a point across in partnership with the surrounding ones, the verse/line is the entirety of that intention in a single part/unit and thus per intention and practice an entirely separate literary entity. The complimentary nature of its preceding and following verses have that same individual distinction paired with any transitional or progressive value.

Beyond rhythm and form, poetry is also more stylized than prose. It can be more liberal with its use of language and has a broader scope of imagination inherent to it than its counterpart.

You can have poetic prose, and prosaic poetry -- these are forms of literature that blur the distinction, but are ultimately, primarily rooted in one.



if you throw out the "often times" in your definitions, and rather focus on the "could be"s; then to me there really is no difference.

except essays. because the purpose of those are to get the point across as directly as possible. rationally. without emotion.

I'd like a few of these 'often times' definitions, maybe you could give me one and we'll see about the 'could be' aspect of them.

[StephenD]

I'd like a few of these 'often times' definitions, maybe you could give me one and we'll see about the 'could be' aspect of them.

that's all you've been giving

Beyond rhythm and form, poetry is also often times more stylized than prose. It can often times be more liberal with its use of language and often times has a broader scope of imagination inherent to it than its counterpart.


Free verse still makes use of rhythm and metre, just in an informal and irregular way -- no matter the irregularity, there is still a sense of recurrence, and the intention is to make use of natural voice cadence rather than imposed ideological, accentual, or metrical definition.

the same argument could be made for certain prose. (this is a "could be")




the line/verse is a single prosodic unit that embellishes or holds the authority of the poem's goal at any one time.

could this not be true for every sentence?

it's about possibility. if something could be possible to make it not absolutely true, it's not true.

[Magdalen]

if you throw out the "often times" in your definitions, and rather focus on the "could be"s; then to me there really is no difference.

except essays. because the purpose of those are to get the point across as directly as possible. rationally. without emotion.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by "throw out"?

Originally Posted by kborsden http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6883662#post6883662) Beyond rhythm and form, poetry is also always/nevermore stylized than prose. It canalways/never be more liberal with its use of language and always/never has a broader scope of imagination inherent to it than its counterpart.




The absolutes of each case can also be applied. Are you trying to make the argument that there's no (or not much) difference between poetry and prose?

Or are you looking for a formula that will accurately calculate what's what and always make an unbiased, non-subjective distinction? Cause that would be really hilarious!! :evil

[Xelebes]

To me, poetry is not about the visual presentation. It's about the utterance of complex ideas with as little words as possible and in such a way as to allow recalling or recitation over conversation. Free verse still maintains the ability to recall, if sometimes only visually.

[Norman D Gutter]

Possibly it's a fruitless task to try to define poetry and prose in a way that would bring universal agreement. Each writer that cares to do so will have to come up with their own definition. I've done so, though I expect no one else to accept them. I base my definition of poetry on what I perceive to be the ancient purpose of poetry. By "ancient" I'm thinking of the very first poems of the Greeks, Hebrews, Chinese—whoever's oldest.

It seems to me that back then poetry was a spoken medium. If the original poems were written, most people still heard them rather than read them due to limited literacy and extreme costs of printed matter. So I believe the first poems were marked only by the following:

- Linebreaks defined by the poet, not the "printer"/copyist, to facilitate memorization and recitation; and
- Some kind of pacing to facilitate memorization and recitation. By pacing I mean cadence, rhythm, and meter.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but that's my definition. Whatever isn't poetry is prose.

feeling controversial today,
NDG

[kborsden]

Stephen, people have been taking definitions and ideas, and twisting them to mean whatever they want for centuries. Anything can be made to mean anything else by adding or subtracting con/subtext; doing that for Millenia with the bible and political rhetoric -- doesn't make the newly formulated definitions any more correct though.

I'll agree to disagree on this one and sit the rest out.

ETA:

The world is often times flat, but never/always round.

The world could be flat, but is often times round.

The world is never/always flat, but could be round.

and so on...

[StephenD]

Or are you looking for a formula that will accurately calculate what's what and always make an unbiased, non-subjective distinction? Cause that would be really hilarious!! :evil

that's the point; it's all subjective. true definitions are objective. so you agree there is no objective, or true, distinction.


Stephen, people have been taking definitions and ideas, and twisting them to mean whatever they want for centuries. Anything can be made to mean anything else by adding or subtracting con/subtext; doing that for Millenia with the bible and political rhetoric -- doesn't make the newly formulated definitions any more correct though.

none of what you have said has made what i've said untrue. i haven't made a definition. i've said there is no true one.


you can disagree, but you have no basis for your disagreement.
and what kind of mentality is that?
sigh. the mentality of most.


ETA:

The world is often times flat, but never/always round.

The world could be flat, but is often times round.

The world is never/always flat, but could be round.

and so on...

these examples are irrational and the use of the "rhetoric" accomplishes nothing.


these are correct:

if the world were often times flat(round), then it could sometimes be round(flat).

if the world could be flat, then it could also often times be round.



if you use the word always or never, then other possibilities do not exist.

[kborsden]

Originally Posted by kborsden
the line/verse is a single prosodic unit that embellishes or holds the authority of the poem's goal at any one time.

could this not be true for every sentence?


It could be true for a sentence when we look at everything being about possibilities, but a sentence and a verse still remain separate entities. Furthermore, a verse can be made up of multiple sentences, a portion of a sentence, no sentence at all (e.g. an individual word) - that is an absolute difference if lack for any other. But there is no logic to the argument that they could be the same thing if they are fundamentally different by purpose, function and use, it's kind of pushing the idea a bit... like saying a pineapple could very possibly be an apple if we wanted it to be because they both have the word 'apple' in them.

End of the day, the possibility exists for you to shit in a jar and call it jam if the fancy took you -- but I wonder what the quality of the continental breakfast would be at that B&B...

Call anything prose, anything poetry, 'though the quality of it would depend on the author's/poet's understanding and skill for what they write and how they define it for themselves.

you can disagree, but you have no basis for your disagreement.

Maybe I just don't agree with you, maybe I can choose what I agree with based on my own thoughts and feelings with regards to the subject... How's that for a basis. I don't see what you're saying as true, ergo, I disagree.

and what kind of mentality is that?

One which doesn't see the need in belittling, discrediting or disqualifying a person's understanding of what and why they write in terms of poetry and prose -- and one which doesn't insult the skill or ability to do either.

these examples are irrational and the use of the "rhetoric" accomplishes nothing.

That was kind of my point, possibly another basis for disagreement.

I'm all for experimentation and mold breaking. But there is a difference and to that, I disagree once more that there is none.

[StephenD]

It could be true for a sentence when we look at everything being about possibilities, but a sentence and a verse still remain separate entities.

then call a verse a paragraph. let's see what happens.

a verse could be made up of multiple sentences, a portion of a sentence, no sentence at all (e.g. an individual word) - that is an absolute if lack for any other.

a paragraph could be made up of multiple sentences, a portion of a sentence, no sentence at all (e.g. an individual word)



Maybe I just don't agree with you, maybe I can choose what I agree with based on my own thoughts and feelings with regards to the subject... How's that for a basis. I don't see what you're saying as true, ergo, I disagree.

feelings, ah.
feelings are irrational, and, while they're very poetic and "beautiful", etc., they have no place in an argument. rational=not necessarily wrong; irrational=wrong. unless you're arguing for the majority of people, because they'd agree with your irrational feelings. shakespeare and aristotle said it- logos (logic) is the worst way to win an argument with the proles.


One which doesn't see the need in belittling, discrediting or disqualifying a person's understanding of what and why they write in terms of poetry and prose -- and one which doesn't insult the skill or ability to do either.
^^^^^^^^^^
An argument for free verse as prose? Please...

i'm not saying you can't have a definition for poetry. i'm saying you can't call it objective. i don't know how many times i have to repeat this.



That was kind of my point, possibly another basis for disagreement.

but you see, i was rational, where you were not.


I'm all for experimentation and mold breaking. But there is a difference and to that, I disagree once more that there is none.

yeah, you can say there is one. you can say it exists. but you can't know it does. i've proved your definition possibly untrue, therefore not absolutely true, not objective.

[poetinahat]

you can disagree, but you have no basis for your disagreement.
and what kind of mentality is that?
sigh. the mentality of most.

Stephen, no more of this. Respect your fellow writer. If you're really here to ask a question, rather than troll and pick arguments, then you will do so civilly, and with appreciation for those who are putting in so much effort to discuss your topic intelligently and candidly.

The ad hominen stuff not acceptable here, and I won't allow it.

[kborsden]

a paragraph could be made up of multiple sentences, a portion of a sentence, no sentence at all (e.g. an individual word)


A paragraph is a paragraph, not a verse, another separate entity. The closest thing in poetry would be a stanza, yet that is still a separate entity, only similar because it is a grouping of prosodic units; similar by function not purpose.


feelings are irrational, and, while they're very poetic and "beautiful", etc., they have no place in an argument. rational=not wrong; irrational=wrong. unless you're arguing for the majority of people, because they'd agree with your irrational feelings. shakespeare and aristotle said it- logos (logic) is the worst way to win an argument with the proles.


'Prole' interesting/colourful terminology to use in describing your 'peers'.

I'm disagreeing with your statement on the basis of many factors, one of which happens to be my personal understanding of the matter, whether rational or not. I can do this... I can formulate an opinion based on my knowledge and insight, experience and, yes, feelings -- and guess what, I still disagree regardless of how pointless, irrational or wrong you believe my opinion to be. Just as you are entitled to yours, even though I disagree with it. The deduction of an element to conclusion or opinion as irrational does not disqualify the conclusion/opinion on that basis alone; there is something to be said for wisdom received through experience and individual learning.

As for actual logic, and having a rational base for argument. Logic can be flawed, and your logic appears to me as if derived from fallacious ideals and based on the assumption that a hypothetical deduction simultaneously satisfying multiple possible conditions makes a single definition improbable and therefore the multiplicity of the initial deduction in aspect false. This is, of course, nonsense. Satisfying multiple possible qualities and conditions cannot overrule the definition in satisfying a single quality or condition primarily before any possible other. You also make several appeals to probability/likelihood/possibility in order to solidify your claim here -- i.e. it could be, therefore it is/isn't. This is a fallacious statement without substance that has no place in an argument. It's equally false to assume that because a point cannot be, or has not yet been proven either way, that it is (in)correct; it is only correct when proven on the basis of an unmovable acceptance that a single quality or condition above any possible other has been satisfied.

The main reason I disagree with your logic is that you bring logic into a discussion as an absolute; your words state rational thought to be immediately correct/right and any formulation on the basis of factors outside of logic to be irrational and therefore incorrect/wrong. This is a fallacy like the other points of your argument I've handled. Logic is not, and never will be an absolute. For one thing above any other, pure logic does not have to be linear -- it can be somewhat circular because any final resolve would still require a degree of bearing on the initial point of discussion, else there would not be purpose in the process; you cannot lead away and never return; your starting point requires an element of truth for any real reasoning to be possible and that truth has to be addressed. Is linear logic always flawed? No, but is open to flawed processes of deduction. Possibilities do not prove or disprove anything; they can formulate the foundation of theory, and be used to drive argument toward a common goal but can never be used as the sole point of debate, nor the end-point resolution, and do not represent a conclusion in any shape or form.

Now for MY opinion. As I see it, poetry offers more space and freedom to express through language than prose, if the poet chooses to indulge in that space and freedom -- as I said, there are cross-overs, poetic prose, prosaic poetry and prose-poetry. However, when they are actually realized on paper or verbally, there will always be a foot rested in primarily either prose or poetry. Yes, the lines can be blurred, and there are similarities, but that doesn't make them the same thing - as I said previously. How many times do I have to repeat that?

[poetinahat]

Poetry, like any art, I believe isn't suited to exact definition, but it does have distinct characteristics. William Haskins recently wrote an excellent post listing some of the essential ones in his view (I didn't find what I was thinking of, but here's one (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=505167&highlight=meter#post505167) from a long while back; Mr. Haskins has been insightful, knowledgeable, and succinct for a long time). Here's another one (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6019831&postcount=3) where he addresses the elements of free verse in particular.

The devices commonly used in writing poems are clearly defined, and there is a world of jargon associated with poetry and its components. But dissection reveals only organs; it doesn't reveal the soul, and it isn't so good for the patient's life.

[kborsden]

Because you’ve not really presented any mature logical progress to your posts up until now, and because I don’t agree with how your OP provokes rather than solicits debate, I’ll rephrase, condense and restate the point of discussion in a more reasonable way and attempt (prole that I am) to answer in an equally reasonable manner.
_________________

Q: Poetry and Prose are 2 literary entities that can be defined by their individual elements which identify them. However, defined broadly as literary entities means they make use of similar, if not at times the same, linguistic devices. They also share many traits and can be used in closely similar ways. There are also examples of prose with poetic influences and vice-versa. Is there a possibility of a broader common ground? Does the existence of that commonality present the possibility that both could be, in essence, the same?

A: There is a possibility of a broader common ground. This has been exampled and illustrated in several forms of both poetry and prose. There are occasions where poetry leans toward prose and most prose will make use of poetic elements for descriptions and alternatives to flat narrative. This does indicate a possibility, that they could, in essence, be the same thing. However, in practice the presentation and/or implementation of prosaic language into poetry and vice-versa is stylistic and a matter of choice by the writer and can not be considered a defining factor of either, save for the matter of choice to do so. Regardless of how poetry is composed or the linguistic patterns and adherences to which it is written, it is still defined by its original identifying elements as anything added by choice is secular. The same can be said for Prose. The choice exists to close the gap between both entities and create a familiarity in essence, but the fundamentals of either still separate them. It can therefore be concluded that while they are individual entities, they are not wholly independent.