Contents

Talk:Prose: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:23, 5 August 2010

Literature Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

An Important Point

It would be good it articles like this one linked up with an article on English Composition, but there isn't one. Not even ONE, when a whole series of articles should be written by knowledgeable experts in the subject.15:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Composition falls under theory and criticism, for which there are two separate articles. Spectral Diagram (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So after reading both this article and the poetry article I don't really understand the difference. Well I do, but I am confused as to how they could be "mortal enemies" and how there is all this discussion on prose poetry being one or the other and how prosaic is sometimes a pejorative. Is prose just basically language, everything that is not metered and such like poetry? Because then I could understand all those previous things. But, if it is as I originally believed something 'higher' than everyday language, then I just don't get any of it. Sorry if this is not the place for this question or if it is a naive or stupid question. I truly am interested though in trying to understand more fully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.253.162 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is prose a genre? Would class be a better word? --bodnotbod 16:07, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to dedicate some time to clean this article up within the next few days.

Of course prose is a genre. A genre is a category that said writing falls into, e.g. romance, etc. The genre of 'prose' is decribing the way to story is told. It is clearly a genre.

I.G. Mells

If we say prose is a 'genre', then what are all the groups of writing we clearly recognize as 'genres', e.g. romance, etc. This pushes the word 'genre' towards being meaningless--if everything is a genre, then nothing is a genre.

Prose, poetry, and dialogue are different from romances, sonnets, and knock-knock jokes the same way that a genus is different from a species.

Sah65 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, mells. You're correct in your genre definition, but prose isn't a genre so much as a style. Rephrase your definition -- "A genre is a category that said writing falls into, e.g. prose" -- it doesn't work as well. Perhaps "class" is a better definition for prose. Prose is a genre no more than journalism is a genre. It's a group, a category.

Onto the article -- I think the article could use a list of well-known prose authors, both modern and older. The article defines it at points as anything but poetry. It expounds on that, but examples would be nice, since the very nature of prose as described herein makes it difficult to discern what is prose and what is just a novel.

Count Zero 09:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the example of prose writing given a translation of remarks by a French poet? Wouldn't it make sense to quote one of the famous 19th century prose writers of English - Hazlitt or Carlyle or Ruskin or someone like that? john k 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Spectral Diagram (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Once a poem is raped and pillaged" is in the current entry for this. Is this deliberate, if so, can someone please elaborate on it?

Yes, that was vandalism. It's gone. --Hyperbole 00:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the second paragraph, although quite amusing, is not what you'd really expect in an encyclopedia.

neither is the word "LOSERS" that's found it's way into the article without context... it looks like someone gave a trained monkey a keyboard again (9_9) 81.132.55.17 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Elmo[reply]

I've taken care of both these problems. If you spot blatant vandalism, like the "LOSERS" edit, it couldn't hurt to revert it. --Hyperbole 00:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "opposite" of prose isn't poetry but verse. Poetry is a quality. Prose is unmetered verse; verse is metered prose. Prose may be poetic, so may verse be. Verse may be doggerel if it isn't poetry, just as prose may be bland and uninspired. This article needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some good points, but I'm not sure if they're in line with the academic consensus on this issue; it seems to me that of verse, prose, and poetry, none of the two are fully antithetical or incompatible. Ultimately, if we're going to change the article, we're going to need references to support the change. --Hyperbole (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes examples are cool and all- but to be more fair- those who love prose should pick their faves and those who love poetry (like the person above obviously does) should have theirs- I love prose from the philosophical side - Socrates! and i have been told what i write is prose-(for i sure do know how to get the emotional juices flowin! :) ) SO! I wanted to say that prose and poetry definitions are being defined as we live- and this is a place (as all dictionaries are!) to come to a consensus- for that is how cultures agree on what is language, correct?Wolfie19 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Wolfie19[reply]

"Prose describes the type of writing that prose embodies..." I would hope so! What is this supposed to say? Or are "Prose" and "prose" different? --Thinboy00 @031, i.e. 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarity ensued. Is it not safe to say that the sentence is a tautology? Spectral Diagram (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should state so confidently that the goal of translating poetry is just to communicate the poem's conceptual/narrative content. Many translators--and many lovers of literature--would contend that a poem's metrical form and rhythmic texture are not mere incidentals but are an integral part of the experience of the poem, and are features that one should ideally try to replicate (or at least approximate) in translation.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could an example of two perhaps be posted? Perhaps a paragraph of text (from perhaps a PD original) in poetry, prose and basic text format? I would guess there are PD non-english texts that have been translated in all 3 styles. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I hate those poets. They thumb their noses at us humble tailors of prose." Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)(The example could be of shakespeare)[reply]

That's why I wiki'd "prose". Faro0485 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the Wikipedia article for 'verse' mentions nothing of the history of verse. Spectral Diagram (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article starts with with this statement:

Prose is writing that resembles everyday speech.

The are forms of prose writing that are very far removed from everyday speech: for example, much philosophical, scientific and scholarly discourse. The opening paragraph then gives the etymology of prose - as if the meaning of the word were its etymology. Norvo (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a child's point of view I would like to say that 11 year olds might not understand this as much as adults.Which is why i recomend that the article page into two parts. Adults and children.also,from a adult's prospective I would like to say that the article should have an example of Shakespeare's prose.

That would be chaotic. No article should be rewritten to suit two different audiences, except on the basis of a distinct native language. Spectral Diagram (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia for your hypothetical 11YO, it is the "simple English" wikipedia here: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia209.244.187.155 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've help a little in the presentation of the article. I have removed the point about the citations, though until someone provides a source for the "mortal enemies" quote it ought to remain as it is. I have added two quotes from Hamlet, one prose, the other verse. Spectral Diagram (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More corrections, including those of my earlier corrections! I had an issue with the following: "Prose lacks the formal structure of a meterorrhyme, which is typical of poetry; instead it is composed of full sentences, usually divided into paragraphs, and then smaller segments known as meta-paragraphs."

i, The author states that sentences are divided into paragraphs, and then even smaller units, but it should be precisely the opposite: sentences form paragraphs.

ii, Meta is from the Greek for 'beyond', implying that a 'meta-paragraph,' should be a thing greater than its elementary form, e.g. meta-philosophy, meta-ethics. I've never actually heard of a meta-paragraph, but if a sentence is divided into paragraphs, I imagine a meta-paragraph must be approximate to a word! Spectral Diagram (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the assertion that prose is the most typical form of language quite contentious -- it is an idealisation rather than a reality. If you wrote down "everyday speech", you most assuredly would not get "prose" -- even less would you get "poetry". "Prose" is not just a collection of words uttered this way or that; it involves conscious composition. Speech is so far removed from prose that it is hard to connect the two. For example, the most cursory examination of speech would find that it does not deal in "complete sentences". That is the ideal of prose, not of speech.

It would be nice if we had a few more sources to support the identification of "prose" as the "most typical form of language".

203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit has redefined prose as "one of the two major literary structures". It lacks a citation. And it doesn't conform to any notion of "structure" that I've encountered. It's a form, surely? Tagging it. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]