Talk:Lyric poetry

Untitled

I removed the word "purest," which is subjective and vague, from the first sentence (originally, Lyric poetry is the purest form of poetry. . .). This leaves the genre with a negative definition, which may strike some as unfortunate, but technically speaking it's accurate--lyric has historically been defined as that genre which is neither epic nor drama. — Chick Bowen 04:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Most lyric poems are short and are often personal. It stresses moments of feeling. Lyric poetry is a highly musical verse that tells the observations or feelings of a speaker. --216.166.216.3 22:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are Canadian poets listed separately, but American ones (Plath) are lumped in with English? Wouldn't it make more sense to just have English-language poets all together?Hopsyturvy 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

you might want too add something about where epic potry was performed, and when it was performed

sorry guys i don't know where else to post this but someone keeps messing up this page and its getting hard to tell whats right. If i bomb my poetry project im gonna kill that guy!

It seems a bit odd to me to suggest that epic poetry should be included under the lyric genre. In the classical world - whence both these genres originate - the distinction between lyric and epic poetry was one of the most pronounced possible. Lyric was defined by the fact that it does not tell a story while epic does. In fact the word epic itself derives from the Greek word epos meaning story. The fact that epic poetry was probably performed is not enough to include it under the genre of lyric. Methalos (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Methalos

Too long

I think the list doesn't really fit the title of "Lyric Poetry" and should be on a page of its own. Kaw in stl 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of the poets listed may have written lyric poetry, but are not particularly associated with it. The English language poet lists particularly need to be trimmed. I suggest the following should go: Rudyard Kipling, Edgar Allan Poe, Alfred, Lord Tennyson,Robert Browning, T. S. Eliot and A. E. Housman.--Ethicoaestheticist 12:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lists, removing poets who have been misplaced. I think that the modernist and imagist poets should also be removed from the list of twentieth century poets. These poets were often acting in opposition to lyric poetry, with it's easy rhythms and emphasis on personal feeling. The ones which ought to be cut are: Hart Crane, T. S. Eliot, Archibald MacLeish, Marianne Moore, Ezra Pound and William Carlos Williams. Other poets to be included, once the list has been reduced a bit: Rupert Brooke, Isaac Rosenberg.--Ethicoaestheticist 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All it says is "it is music"

Serious problems here

Though this is without doubt an important subject, it's not really well represented by this article. First of all, there are no references cited, which is essential with a key topic like this one. But more importantly, there's no form to the article; some terms are defined from a very anglo-centric point of view, others include world examples, some periods are represented in prose, some with a list. This needs a complete overhaul. Chick Bowen 06:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm responsible for the some periods in prose, some in lists. The article used to consist of long lists, which I first tidied up and then started to replace with prose. My intention was to eventually remove all the lists. I'll see if I can add some references.--Ethicoaestheticist 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Great--it's already improved. A couple of suggestions: perhaps we should consider dispensing with the "Themes" section, as it seems impossible to write it in such a way as to cover all of the periods, locations, and styles covered below it. Similarly, the lead sounds to me like a description of modern English-language lyric. Perhaps something much briefer, such as "Lyric poetry" is a poetic genre frequently opposed to epic and dramatic poetry, characterized by relative brevity and a subjective rather than narrative approach"? Even better would be a definition that could be directly tied to a source. Chick Bowen 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

May I make a plea for the inclusion of this last definition, in preference to the one that's up there now, as it is less restrictive in its use of the definitions. For example, I am linking to this in order to define the use of 'lyrical' to describe a non-dramatic element within an experimental dramatic form, and contrasting it too with 'narrative' or 'epic' elements. In that light, the definition given above is more useful and inclusive. Thanks, DionysosProteus 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How about keeping the referenced definition, and developing the second sentence? A source could be easily found - for instance from the The Oxford Companion to the English Language, from which I took the definition in the first sentence: "The term ... is used of almost any poem that is not clearly narrative, dramatic, or satirical." (I know, doesn't make the point very forcefully which is why I left it out). It's from the same page as the definition in the article if you want to use it - better still would be to find another source to add some variety! Or, even, a section on the use of lyric in drama? Be bold.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The referencing, yes, of course. Quite new so still have to keep reminding myself. I agree that the phrase left out doesn't quite do the trick. What's being alluded to here, I believe is the passage from classical poetics into modern aesthetics. That is, lyric as type into lyrical as term, just as drama became dramatic (and able to describe formal rather than merely content elements in novels). The theatre articles, particularly the poetics-orientated ones, are in a rough shape, so, as ever on here, your invitation to change it myself (quite rightly made too) I have to decline, for the time being that is. They may be too idiosyncratic for such a general aesthetics article, but I seem to remember either both or one of Szondi and Bürger develop these ideas, away from their embodiment in any medium in particular. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it'll be a little while until I see about it. Any noises in that direction & maybe I can collaborate in some form. Thanks, DionysosProteus 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

21st century

I've removed the list of 21st century lyric poets. I think it's safe to say that this early in the century this list serves little purpose.--Ethicoaestheticist 17:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the 22nd century so I think you can put those back now. 31 May 2011

Messy changes

There were some messy changes made to the article, which I've removed - please watch out for those format buttons. Also, this sentence:

• Sonnet Mondal is a poet of India whose most of the poems are lyrical. There is no particular pattern but a typical sweet melody in his poems.

It was inserted at the end of a paragraph to which it clearly didn't belong. It also needs a citation. Is there a better place in the article for it? DionysosProteus 11:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection

This needs to be protected. It's the second time I've reverted vandalism on this page. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 23:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed a bit... Someone sure got it in for the lyric.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You definately need examples on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.166.62 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples/Clarification in Century headings

Maybe when I have some time, I'll come back and propose some specific edits, rather than just throw out suggestions, but for now this will have to do.

In addition to providing some examples, it would be good to provide clarification in the century headings. It is confusing right now because, particularly in the 20th century, there is a big list of people who tried to bring their poetry away from lyric verse, and there doesn't seem to be any order or goal here. The style is more conversational, more random, than an encyclopedic entry should be.

Maybe they can still be divided by century, but then sub-divided by an overview (i.e., "In the 20th century, lyric poetry saw a decline and many major poets moved away from it, particularly in the aftermath of WWI."), a description of those poets who moved away from it (i.e. "T.S. Eliot was a pioneer of the Modernist movement in poetry, whose work is a classic example of how early 20th century poets tried to break out of the limitations of lyrical verse."), and finally a description of those poets who maintained lyrical poetry in the 20th century.

20TH CENTURY

• Overview
• Detractors
• Supporters

Just trying to help, so critique away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macduffman (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a summary for the 20th C as an overview, and chronological subheadings that hopefully make the tensions more apparent. Feel free to toy with it! I agree that individual poets such as Eliot, and indeed Yeats, could be explored in more detail as representative of some of the wider issues.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing more than feelings ... ?

"A poem that expresses feelings" doesn't strike me as a very rigorous critical tool for analyzing lyric. There are enough literary handbooks in the world that 20 minutes of investigating Google Books ought to produce a more controlled definition of the role of emotion and individual expression in lyric. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on 20th century

Why is there a list of 20th-century lyric poets, and only for the 20th century? It gives the 20th century a disproportionate amount of space and weight, given that lyric poetry is not the art form most associated with that century and was in fact an art form characteristic of, say, archaic Greece and Elizabethan England. Maybe eventually that would be spun off into an article on Lyric poetry in the 20th century? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

20th century lyric poetry created, and some of the content, including the list, moved to the new article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should reflect an accurate view of ancient lyric, both Greek and Latin, to be sung and to be read (from the Hellenistic age onwards). Once we get to the middle ages, the article should have broader scope and more accuracy; it should not be restricted to name-dropping with subjective impressions. The idea that Pindar is like Rilke in any metrical sense is absurd. And speculation on how Pindar might sound to the ear, blah blah blah is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. I would like to see mention of at least ten medieval languages and a similar scope for the Renaissance and later periods. I find the opening reference to Aristotle pretentious, not to mention wrong. Aristotle makes no such contrast. Anyone who edits that, or undoes the recent change, had better have the credentials to do so: i.e. have read Aristotle in Greek. And let nobody speak of Pindar who has not read Pindar in Greek. And so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.163.187 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps reverting to an error. Aristotle (in the second paragraph of the Poetics) does NOT contrast lyric with other forms of mimesis. He lists them all in the same category. Then he talks about some differences. Also: the section on ancient Greek and Roman poetry is awful. Plus, Dante has no reference. The section on medieval Galician-Portuguese lyric has a link to the article. The references are to be found there, and need not be repeated her. For goodness' sake, won't those of you who have never read an ode of Pindar or a poem of Catullus stop pontificating? You display your total ignorance of these subjects with ever edit. Anyone who has studied lyric poetry in many languages, across a span of 27 centuries, will find this article atrocious.--Log37 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I proposed that a new article be created called "Medieval European Love Lyric", or some such thing. To summarize the lyric poetry of this period in a few lines is pathetic. The article could be brief, with references to "main article" for each of the languages dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Log37 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

18th Century

The small section on the 18th century has just one citation, which is contradicted by much more prominent opinion. l\Lyric poetry was revived in the 18th century, the whole second half of it in fact (see the Norton Anthology or dates of publication for lyric poems in any anthology of lyric or Romantic poetry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.184.254 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Anc Greek use

Removed a reference to Aristotle's Poetics. Per Perseus's Fife translation and the LSJ definition for κιθαριστικός, he is talking directly about playing the cithara as an instrument and not necessarily mentioning lyric poetry at all. If you have additional sources or divergent translations, you can cite them but use the {{refn}} template and explain how the straightforward translation of the passage omits lyric poetry from his discussion.

Similarly, per Miller, there was a huge variance in meters and the definitional aspect of Greek lyric was its accompaniment. Worth mentioning (per OED) that the present use for personal poetry—specifically the Earl of Surrey's personal sonnets and translations of Petrarch—is the oldest definition in English. That's presumably because of the contrast between the subject matter of the Nine Melic Poets and the (then-)standard epic and historical verse, but we need to mention that when we can find a source that details that development. — LlywelynII 06:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lyric poetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004221340/http://courses.gxnu.edu.cn/chinese/gdwx/zgwxs.html to http://courses.gxnu.edu.cn/chinese/gdwx/zgwxs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)