People are very confused these days about what is "poetry" and what isn't. The Modernist experiments of the first half of the 20th Century confused a lot of semi-literate souls (like public school teachers). Lines of emotionally tinged prose written in eccentric, disjointed patterns on a page are not poetry. Real poetry is rooted in song and dance, but has an independent existence. If a composition has no recognizable rhythmic or lyric (sonic) components, it's just prose no matter what the typography looks like.
This disqualifies as poetry 75-85% of everything that has been presented to the public as "poetry" in the 20th Century, even if the work has won prizes and "critical acclaim" and the author is famous.
If you want to know what the human race has considered to be poetry, what defines poetry, you need to read a healthy, representative selection of works written from the time of Homer to the end of the 19th Century in the original languages when you're able. All of it has rhythmic and lyric (song like) qualities that make it easily distinguishable from prose.
Dylan is an interesting case. Many of his famous and most loved songs have lyrics that are the product of free association while on drugs -- they are "surreal" and suggestive of meaning without actually meaning anything much. Yes, Coleridge's "Kubla Khan; or, A Vision in a Dream: A Fragment" originated in an opium trip, but he obviously had a go at it again while he came down, and it makes sense to the reader in a way many of Dylan's unedited products don't. Being "experimental" doesn't make something "poetical," or, in Dylan's case, even grammatical. Dylan's works are "pop songs" and have pleased, and even inspired, many people. Does that make them "poetry" or "literature"? I can give you a definitive "Maybe, but probably not" on that.
这是网上读到的，心有戚戚焉
ZenMan1
5/16/2017 11:08 AM PDT
People are very confused these days about what is "poetry" and what isn't. The Modernist experiments of the first half of the 20th Century confused a lot of semi-literate souls (like public school teachers). Lines of emotionally tinged prose written in eccentric, disjointed patterns on a page are not poetry. Real poetry is rooted in song and dance, but has an independent existence. If a composition has no recognizable rhythmic or lyric (sonic) components, it's just prose no matter what the typography looks like.
This disqualifies as poetry 75-85% of everything that has been presented to the public as "poetry" in the 20th Century, even if the work has won prizes and "critical acclaim" and the author is famous.
If you want to know what the human race has considered to be poetry, what defines poetry, you need to read a healthy, representative selection of works written from the time of Homer to the end of the 19th Century in the original languages when you're able. All of it has rhythmic and lyric (song like) qualities that make it easily distinguishable from prose.
Dylan is an interesting case. Many of his famous and most loved songs have lyrics that are the product of free association while on drugs -- they are "surreal" and suggestive of meaning without actually meaning anything much. Yes, Coleridge's "Kubla Khan; or, A Vision in a Dream: A Fragment" originated in an opium trip, but he obviously had a go at it again while he came down, and it makes sense to the reader in a way many of Dylan's unedited products don't. Being "experimental" doesn't make something "poetical," or, in Dylan's case, even grammatical. Dylan's works are "pop songs" and have pleased, and even inspired, many people. Does that make them "poetry" or "literature"? I can give you a definitive "Maybe, but probably not" on that.
谷歌翻译
如今，人们对什么是“诗歌”和什么不是“诗歌”感到非常困惑。20世纪上半叶的现代主义实验迷惑了许多半文盲的灵魂（如公立学校教师）。在一页上以古怪，脱节的模式写的带有情感色彩的散文不是诗歌。真正的诗歌植根于歌舞，却有独立的存在。如果一首作品没有可识别的节奏或抒情（声音）成分，那么无论排版是什么样子，它都只是散文。
这剥夺了20世纪作为“诗歌”向公众展示的所有内容的75-85%的诗歌资格，即使该作品赢得了奖项和“评论界的赞誉”，并且作者是着名的。
如果你想知道人类认为什么是诗歌，什么定义了诗歌，你需要阅读一本健康的，有代表性的作品，这些作品是从荷马时代到19世纪末用原始语言写成的。所有这些都具有节奏和抒情（类似歌曲）的品质，使其很容易与散文区分开来。
迪伦是一个有趣的案例。他的许多著名和最受喜爱的歌曲的歌词都是吸毒时自由联想的产物 - 它们是“超现实的”，暗示了意义，实际上没有任何意义。是的，柯勒律治的“忽必烈汗;或者，《梦中的愿景：碎片》起源于一次鸦片之旅，但他显然在下来的时候又尝试了一次，这对读者来说是有道理的，因为迪伦的许多未经编辑的产品都没有。
“实验性”并不能使某些东西变得“诗意”，或者，在迪伦的案例中，甚至不会使某些东西具有语法意义。迪伦的作品是“流行歌曲”，让许多人感到高兴，甚至受到启发。这使它们成为“诗歌”还是“文学”？我可以给你一个明确的“也许，但可能不是”。
更多我的博客文章>>> What's growing from lava 什么是诗歌 这里文化人多，有顾城，海子和北岛的粉丝的吗？ 父与子 关于 ashes