The Book of Forms

Well, who's it by, and what's it all about? I generally don't go by books that lay down the law on poetry....but they can be interesting.

Have looked at the reviews. Sounds bollocks, to be honest: According to one reviewer, "under "Free Verse" we are told that free verse is a contradiction in terms." If the author subscribes to this kind of outdated view, then I doubt I'll be able to put much faith in him, and apparently he's quite vain and pedantic as well. If there's one thing I hate, it's people who try to claim the word 'poetry' or 'verse' exclusively for formally metered pieces, leaving those of us whose domain lies more in the wilderness - the edge of language - with something nameless. It's all very well *saying* that true art, beauty and meaning are utterly connected with traditional form, but the moment you experience art, beauty and meaning outside of that tradition, the theory is shattered.

If by "free verse," he means unrhymed, unmetered verse as often Shakespeare uses, you would have to say that his view is outdated. Even in free verse, there may be internal rhymes or rhythms that form a tripping meter if one were to simply draw a / (slash) where the rhyme or rhythm occurs. If one is reading the newspaper which refers to hard facts, it is harder to say whether a paragraph from a newspaper could be considered in a poetic light. We know that great epic poems like the Iliad were simply written in all capital Greek letters without any spacing. Grammarians, studying the possible rhythms of the Greek language and also taking note of the evolution of the Greek language through time, its corruption from ancient to modern (perhaps I give grammarians too much credit) have arrived at a set of possible rhythms that the Greek language forms. The lower case Greek lettering was also a formulation of the grammarians, I believe. Prose, I suppose, is flat in one sense. It aims at precise meaning, full of dates and such... but suppose we simply take prose and put a slash mark where a natural rhythm ends (The English are fond of saying that the iambic pentameter is the most natural of all meters)/. Anthony Burgess suggests this in his study of Finnegan's Wake... and so does Nabokov in his study of Ulysses. What is the difference between a poem and prose, is it simply the way that it is read. I myself find that my rhythms of speech are more elliptical, more syncopated than others, but I sometimes vainly think that I am the only one who is reading the text right... it is my vanity that lies in the stars...

I know that it seems like I've been hogging this board, the damned pig that I am. OH poor me *acting dramatic and oinking.* If one supposes that poetry is derived from song-making traditions which have to do with certain ceremonies or even secret societies who through cultural transmission evolved certain formulas of words or phrases that became a word in itself "white-armed Hera," "rose-budded dawn" etc. or with rituals of mourning for the dead ones after the war in the hope of providing them safe passage to the Elysian Fields or to Hades even, then one could say that written language or the private book is a direct result of poetic traditions. However, the first private books of any real importance were historical books "Thucydides," "Herodotus" or religious books "Bible." Poetry was a performance in ancient Greece and was not a private art. In modern times (20th century), poetry became the private book... history the public event as "present" via the media. However, if poetry was a performance in ancient Greece, especially Athens, as some scholars assert, one is binding the text of poetry within the form of "drama," that is comedy or tragedy... which as these very scholars assert, have a military aim... to release the local militia of the feelings of pity and fear before they go out and slaughter the enemy... the primary meaning of these dramatic performances being that "However evil we may have been, the enemy is always much worse than we are." After the performance of the play, the militia would march on stage or to the side of the amphitheatre and start going off to war. This argument, even when elegantly laid out suffers from a major misconception... that a performance lacking in any violence, a completely verbal performance perhaps accompanied by a few instruments with the personae of the play wearing masks... that this would really inspire a military frenzy, the Athenian heroism, is a bit absurd. The Spartans, without a Greek theatre, were the pre-eminent warriors of ancient Rome. The Athenians, in the end, became egotistical bastards, not giving a hoot one way or the other.

Should read "ancient Greece."

In my opinion, what allowed Athens to become such a grad empire was the "grand illusion," the "grand facade," their false conviction that they were better than everyone else and their desire to prove it... their unending lust, their perennial need to orientalize all other nations, and their completely machiavellian manuvering in terms of their political alliances. They were literally degenerating into animals.

Don't worry about hogging the board - it needs the attention! "What is the difference between a poem and prose, is it simply the way that it is read." I find that to be the case. Chaucer, for instance, doesn't read like poetry to me, even though it's metered and rhymed. I associate 'poetry' with the effect of writing that asks me to slow down, and look at it close up, unearth nuances, read aloud etc. Prose tends to want to move along quite zippily - and relay information clearly, one piece at a time, so I feel I'm being asked not to linger.

I loved reading Chaucer. He's a great storyteller, and yes, it does not read like poetry. I think there's a term for how Chaucer works... and I believe, perhaps mistakenly, that it is related to "Beowulf." Is it called syndokey?