[Terese Coe]

Here's a definition of "poetry" I can live with:

In the words of a Tibetan Geshe (roughly Ph.D.) in literature:

poetry is the science of using words in such a way that a state of consciousness present in one is summoned in another.
http://home.earthlink.net/~hipbone/IDTWeb/Geshe.html

(There's lots more of interest on this page.)

[A. E. Stallings]

There is certainly an element of truth here. But as with nearly all "definitions" of poetry, does it not apply equally to literary prose?

And a little odd, no, that he exercises his literary analysis on his (or her?) own poem?

[Joseph Bottum]

Terese--

It is from Aristotle that we learned to use the word "science" in these sorts of definitions of fields of human activity. But I think Aristotle himself would insist on the word "art" rather "science" to speak of poetry. Poetics might be a science, but poetry sure ain't.

Jody

[Katy Evans-Bush]

I'm always suspicious of the use of the word "science" to make something seem more reputable or learned. It smacks of the snake oil bottle. Every definition of poetry I've ever seen has fallen short, anyway.

Sorry, Terese, I looked on the site and wasn't very impressed by the 'poetry' I saw there, either. Wordy and inexact, I thought: the opposite of science!

KEB

[Michael Cantor]

Terese -

This essay brought my own guideline to mind almost at once: Don't waste your time on poetic theory presented by individuals who are, themselves, rotten poets. When somebody starts off by indicating he will use one of his own poems as an example, the synapses tingle a warning: this is not a good sign. And when the poem itself is absurdly bad - wordy and pretentious - I stop.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited December 08, 2005).]

[Terese Coe]

Let me hasten to add I don't care for the Geshe's own poems either. And that I had given up on definitions of poetry, but something here intrigues me.

I'm certainly wary of most definitions of poetry, but this one intrigues me because it speaks of consciousness, and that seems to be what poems attempt to transmit. No?

How is prose different? Alicia, possibly (just a suggestion; exploring) it attempts to transmit the intellectual more than the elusive consciousness. (And these overlap as well.)

But poems and prose can be so varied that at times they differ far less than we like to think.

Pressed for time now, but Jody, you're right of course about the "science" part of the equation.

Katy & Michael, The poems don't make it, true, but then we've sometimes discussed the fact that poetic criticism can be handled well by someone who can't write poems. The two don't necessarily coincide in one individual.

Michael, there is some intriguing information on that page, so may I suggest you try again? Just ignore the Geshe's poems!

[A. E. Stallings]

As I think I've said here before, I don't think the (useful) dichotomy is between poetry and prose, but between verse and prose. And it isn't so very hard to come up with a definition of verse. When we talk about verse being Poetry with a capital P, we are talking about the quality (or qualities) of the verse.

[Terese Coe]

Why not say "poems" rather than "verse"?

And what is the definition you use, Alicia?

[A. E. Stallings]

Well, a basic working definition is that verse is written in lines. The problem with "poems" for me is prose poems, which are certainly not verse. I prefer to think of them as lyric paragraphs...

[Michael Cantor]

Originally posted by Terese Coe:
Let me hasten to add I don't care for the Geshe's own poems either.

Therese - I think you misunderstood something. It appears to me that the poems are not by the Geshe, but rather by Charles Cameron, who is also the writer of the essay. He refers back to the Geshe frequently, but always in the context of the bold face quote at the beginning of the essay, which - as far as I can see - is the only actual writing by the Geshe in the essay. The rest of it is Charles Cameron telling us what it all means. And Cameron is not a Tibetan anything - he is an Oxford-educated think tank pedant (and a mediocre, amateur poet.)

Nothing against think tanks, or even pedants, if they're good at what they do. But it gets back to what I noted before. The poems are dreadful, the explication is reasonably turgid as well, and consequently I can't develop any interest in what Mr. Cameron believes about poetry. I'd be a hell of a lot more interested in the thoughts of Alicia or you, or any others whom I respect as poets.

Yes, I'm sure there are some good poetry critics who are bad poets, but I believe there are many more good critics who are good poets as well - particularly if the focus is on the craft and art of writing a good poem, rather than the much more amorphous theory of defining poetry.




[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited December 08, 2005).]