/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3472402]

One of the best and most truthful opinions on poetry:

"The greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learned from others; it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an eye for resemblance."

-Aristotle, De Poetica, 322 B.C

And one of the worst opinions coming from a critic who influenced in a negative way (directly or indirectly) much of poetry which is being made today:

"Music begins to atrophy when it departs too far from the dance… poetry begins to atrophy when it gets too far from music.”

Ezra Pound, ABC of Literature.

Conclusion: In terms of poetry, metaphor and imagery will always be more important than the sound of words. If both requisites can be conciliated, much better, but the imagery should never be sacrificed for the sake of sound.

[Anonymous No.3472413]

both are important, these are not mutually exclusive

In Aristotle's time, poetry recitation was almost always accompanied by music, the idea of poetry without music would be alien to the greeks

[Anonymous No.3472415]

>>3472402
Bullshit. You are the reason why poetry has lost touched with the spirit of humanity - because an old dirty romance with the past.

Poetry needs to be here and now. It needs to relate to our collective consciousness and as a person. It needs to be direct, relatable to our emotions as we live now. If you look at any amount of famous poetry that has lived through the ages it is because it speaks to the present, but more so our future becoming.

Poetry does not belong to the old ideals.

[Anonymous No.3472419]

I find it hard to take anything Pound writes or says seriously. There's modernist, and then there's... that.

[Anonymous No.3472440]

"Poetry does not belong to the old ideals."

I partly agree with what you said. I believe that every time form its own critical ideal about art, and that much of what is postulated as great and correct at a time can become stale and pedantic in the future. But Aristotle phrase seems central to me, something like the heart of poetic technique. And most interesting is that it is an opinion that, although it seems obvious (to me it was always obvious that the best poetry is that with highly imaginative and inventive language, often with extensive use of metaphors and similes), is rarely formulated. Many other techniques can season the poem and poetry, but its skeleton, its flesh, are, for me, the metaphor.

[Anonymous No.3472463]

The most interesting is that, even though many brilliant minds throughout the ages have struggled to produce a ultimate theory about aesthetics, never a scientific and definitive vision about art has emerged in the world (and it dont even seems possible that it will happen). That is: we are all going to continue hurling opinions against each other until the end of time, and no one will ever know who is right.

[Anonymous No.3472485]

>>3472463
Staring at the sun for too long will leave you blind.
It's a metaphor

What I mean to say is that it is the ever changing nature of the arts the holds the beauty. Just as the revolving around the earth. What beauty would the day hold if not for the night?

[Anonymous No.3472494]

Nice opinions I guess? Do you maybe want to compare some poems to give substance to this thread? Or are we just stating our opinions using quotes by prominent figures in literature?

[Anonymous No.3472502]

>>3472463
Good. That's the whole point.

>struggled to produce a ultimate theory about aesthetics
>definitive vision
>who is right

>laughing_whores.exe

[Anonymous No.3472540]

>>3472502
This. Philosophy, especially when concerning aesthetics and the like, is a game of propaganda and comes down to "will to power—and nothing besides!"

[Anonymous No.3472551]

>>3472540
No, no, that's not what I meant. It's more than a will to power, it's a will to think and to say. The battles come later and apparently that's all left in people's mind when they assume each and everyone saying something is just "trying hard to be right and create ultimate theory to shut up other guys".

[Anonymous No.3472557]

"Nice opinions I guess? Do you maybe want to compare some poems to give substance to this thread? Or are we just stating our opinions using quotes by prominent figures in literature?"

Now you got me. Well, I'll try to give you an example. I'm Brazilian, and I will quote part of a poem by a poet here in Brazil. I'll quote a translation and the original in Portuguese. The poet's name is Cruz e Souza, and he cared a lot about the sound. Here is part of his poem:

Veiled Voices, velvet voices
Voluptuousness of guitars, veiled voices,
Wander the old swift vortices
Of the Winds, vivid, vain, vulcanized.

Vozes veladas, veludosas vozes,
Volúpias dos violões, vozes veladas,
Vagam nos velhos vórtices velozes
Dos ventos, vivas, vãs, vulcanizadas.

OK. Lots of sound, the use of alliteration with V's. But the lines say nothing: they are empty, hollow, words were chosen only because of their sound (the V's). No intense poetic image is constructed. Now let's see something from Shakespeare:

Isabella. Could great men thunder 875
As Jove himself does, Jove would ne'er be quiet,
For every pelting, petty officer
Would use his heaven for thunder;
Nothing but thunder! Merciful Heaven,
Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt 880
Split'st the unwedgeable and gnarled oak
Than the soft myrtle: but man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape, 885
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.

Not much sonority. But in return: what metaphors!

Pardon, I know that was not a good example. But I will try to better demonstrate what I mean.

[Anonymous No.3472562]

Considering that Ezra was a master of the image himself, I think we can cut him a little slack.

One need only read "In the Station of the Metro" once for it to be indelibly imprinted on your consciousness.

[Anonymous No.3472586]

>>3472562

Not sure if..

[Anonymous No.3472613]

>>3472586
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_ation_of_the_Metro

you trollin you cheeky cunt?

[Anonymous No.3472634]

Poetry as we know is outdated and dead. Poetry has just evolved into modern music

just like in olden times everyone listened to poetry and watched performances, everyone know listens to music and watches films

here's an an extract from anexample of a modern day, popular and famous piece of poetry:

>So shine bright tonight, you and I
>We're beautiful like diamonds in the sky
>Eye to eye, so alive
>We're beautiful like diamonds in the sky

>Shine bright like a diamond
>Shine bright like a diamond
>Shine bright like a diamond
>Oh, yeah
>Shine bright like a diamond
>Shine bright like a diamond
>Shine bright like a diamond
>Shine bright like a diamond

[Anonymous No.3472639]

>>3472562

"In a Station of the Metro" is also an incredibly masterful metaphor though

[Anonymous No.3473248]

>>3472413
The thread should have ended after this post...

[Anonymous No.3473425]

>>3472402

The argument that you are presenting is ridiculous. Faulkner's prose is gorgeous, as is F Scott Fitzgerald's. Both are full of imagery and beautiful description, however, I would not consider their prose to be poetry. To submit that the sound of poetry is not important is to dimiss one of the key elements of the artform. Also, Ezra Pound was the leader of the Imagist movement. That makes what you're saying even more ridiculous.

[Essex de Vere !!lmSgGrvazOe No.3475333]

>>3473248
Surely others are aware of the faggotry of poetry ad how you're to condense a subject only to those words.

"The every number but three for making chaotic poetry: the direct treatment of the 'thing', whether subjective or objective; to compose in the manner of musical phrase, rather than a metronome; and to use absolutely no word that does not contribute to the presentation," says the Ezra Pound.

What does the Pound not mean:

1) You're shitty poem has to be about one fucking subject [that means there can be more than one thing in some cases] from two perspectives: one from a sentimental asshole; and another from an autistic number cruncher that has evidence to support his references to his dick-less product.

2) The one the plebs fear; the one that makes academics struggle. Rhyming poetry sounds elementary when it's fixated at a certain matching of ending and beginnings that rhyme; when there's a certain rule the kiddies have been following, it ceases to mean something. So the kiddies out to think in terms of music for the sound of their words: what does it mean: when I have likes matched together; and unlikes matched together.

Or when each line needs an alteration of syllables. That is something I will share by saying no more.

Just know it all ties into the rules of public speaking or acting [I.E. interpreting how text is genuinely to be read] which in turn, will show you how to set Words to Music the incorrect way, not like the correct way like this:

>>3472634

However, sticking to cliches of the musicians raising to a higher note when sky is sung will be inevitable. But would the Musicians think of singing sky in a high baritone or a low tenor or mid tenor when the text of sky is in a more depressive or neutral context.


3) You obviously don't understand this so no need for an explanation. Make every reference count; everything that subject is about.

[Essex de Vere !!lmSgGrvazOe No.3476903]

>>3475333
You're a fucking idiot and I hate you.
Bad dreams in the night,
I knew I was going to lose the fight:
I wanted you; I needed; I hated you; I Loved you too:
It's me Bacchus Panthy Falsch on some Bush!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWKKiTvjs

[Anonymous No.3477280]

>>3472551
>it's a will to think and to say
To think is to create and organise thought is to create a superior 'grid' is to increase power. To say is to force your opinion on others is to attempt to increase power.

[Anonymous No.3477306]

>>3477280
says you

why would you even want to believe that?

[Anonymous No.3477308]

>>3472540
bullshit, what do you know? science is overrated

there is no such thing as a will to power

[Anonymous No.3477322]

>>3477306
I don't really. I just like it as a concept. As far as sweeping metaphysical drives behind everything go I like this one the best.

[Anonymous No.3477335]

>>3477322
sounds like you're a pseudo-sociopath

[Anonymous No.3477416]

>>3477335
Define pseudo-sociopath.