15 August 2005: Since this investigation will be increasingly more about what poetry is than about why it exists, I'm going to address the nature of poetry instead of why it exists from now on. Later, I may return to the initial question.
As a result of the change of direction, my ground statement becomes "poetry is a kind of literary composition that provides certain worthwhile human experiences at a higher level of emotional intensity than anything else can." I now see I was wrong in going from that to the "poetreme" (which I've renamed the "technipheme," by the way) thanks to an unrelated discussion at New-Poetry about subject matter and content, that got into form, as well. Techniphemes are not the only elements of poetry, so I need, logically, to go up to a level of greater generalization, to the level that most generally says what's in poetry. Ergo, my first follow-up to my ground statement is, "Poetry carries out its function by means of poetic content and poetic form."
I define "poetic content" as "all the expressive elements in poetry." I define "poetic form" as "the way a given poem's expressive elements are arranged." I'm aware that some commentators on poetry like to claim that content and form are one in poetry, but they clearly are not. Here's how I somewhat awkwardly tried to show this yesterday at New-Poetry (slightly revised):
Poetic content is everything that's in a poem, from subject matter to auditory effects. Poetic form is a poem's shape or what it becomes if you replace its words with generalized terms for what they are. It's the blueprint of the poem. For example: syllable syllable syllable syllable syllable/ syllable syllable syllable syllable syllable syllable syllable/syllable syllable syllable syllable syllable is the form of the (classic) haiku (in English). It's playing with words, it seems to me, to call its form part of a poem's content--though, of course, the poem's form is part of the communicated poem. As is the paper holding the poem, and whatever the paper is a page in, if anything, and the room or field or whatever the poem is being experienced in. The point of terms is to distinguish significantly unlike things. If you call form part of content, you then still have to divide content into--what? Specifics, I would guess, and shape. So, you can say a poem is content and form, or you can say a poem is content, and content is content-content and form, which seems silly to me.
Form is what's there before the poem exists.
|
Jeff Newberry, who (not for the first time) seemed not fully to have gotten what I was saying, replied with a poem of sorts he believed refuted my contention:
English Sonnet without Content
for Bob G.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXyay
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXsad
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXsay
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXbad
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtree
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXpsalter
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXknee
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXwalter
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXfood
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXamong
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXattitude
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXdung
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXcreepy
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXsneaky
|
Form is what's there. It's still a poem!
|
I told him he'd left some content in his poem, then gave him a more accurate example of what I was getting at:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme A
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme B
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme A
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme B
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme C
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme D
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme C
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme D
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme E
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme F
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme E
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme F
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme G
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrhyme G
|
This still needed to have its syllable count and rhythm indicated, I went on to tell him. "Sure," I said, "it's a kind of content, but it's so significantly a different kind of content from what is ordinarily considered content, it seems silly to call it content. There's contained content and containing content, if we have to do away with the idea of form, but what's the point? As I said in my post, you can have poetry equals content and content equals, as I now have it, contained content and containing content, but why not be more sensible and elegant (and even traditional) and say poetry equals content and form?"
I hope I've made my point, In any case, I remain satisfied with "Follow-Up Statement No. 2 of the Results of My Investigation of the Nature of Poetry": "Poetry carries out its function by means of poetic content and poetic form."
|
