View source for Talk:Prose

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=top}}
}}
{{Former TAFI
| date=19 January 2015
| page=Prose
| oldid1=
| oldid2=
| oldclass=start
| oldb1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no
| oldb2 <!--Coverage & accuracy    --> = no
| oldb3 <!--Structure              --> = yes
| oldb4 <!--Grammar & style        --> = yes
| oldb5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = no
| newclass=start
| newb1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no
| newb2 <!--Coverage & accuracy    --> = no
| newb3 <!--Structure              --> = yes
| newb4 <!--Grammar & style        --> = yes
| newb5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = no
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|to March 2011]]}}

== divisions of prose ==

can you list the divisions of prose and a little definition to it?  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Phil2011.13|Phil2011.13]] ([[User talk:Phil2011.13|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Phil2011.13|contribs]]) 13:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> ([[User:Phil 2011.13|Phil 2011.13]])

== Prose Poetry ==

This article claims that "Some works of prose do contain traces of metrical structure or versification and a conscious blend of the two literature formats is known as prose poetry."  This is very far from any standard definition of prose poetry.  Much more to the point is the Wikipedia description that it is "poetry written in prose instead of using verse but preserving poetic qualities such as heightened imagery and emotional effects."  I think if this sentence at should be kept, it should be changed to better reflect a correct definition of prose poetry.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.119.235.95|76.119.235.95]] ([[User talk:76.119.235.95|talk]]) 03:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Tricky point ==

Much of the text in "literature, newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, broadcasting, film, history, philosophy, law" does not apply "ordinary grammatical structure and natural flow of speech". Perhaps I will come across here as a pedant, but it seems important to note that titles, tables, legends, text within diagrams, equations, footnotes, references etc. are often in stylized forms which have their own grammar and are not similar to the natural flow of speech. In some texts that would, overall, clearly be classed as prose, this may make up a large percentage of the words used. I'm not sure what the solution is, and whether the literature is pag iyot na babae such things are considered part of the text or as things appended to it. It might  be mentioned somewhere though, perhaps distinguishing the body of a text from additional, structural or illustrative material. --[[User:Halftone|Halftone]] ([[User talk:Halftone|talk]]) 10:42, 22 June 2012 (

== Evil Paragraph ==
<blockquote>Novels, essays, short stories, and works of criticism are examples of prose. Other examples include: comedy, drama, fable, fiction, folk tale, hagiography, legend, literature, myth, narrative, saga, science fiction, story, theme, tragedy.</blockquote>
This paragraph is bad. The problem is the identification of prose with what's called "literature". Many of the above forms (and how did "theme" get in there?) are not necessarily prose. The Odyssey is not prose but is folk tale, legend, literature, myth, narrative, saga and story. 

"Prose" is used most often in the context of big-el Literature because that's where a word meaning "not <s>poetry</s> written in meter" has most currency, and so I notice that the list leaves out in an apparently systematic way stuff like: news stories, letters, diaries, textbooks, judicial opinions, news tickers. It's possible to write pretty much anything in strict meter, so these forms don't call for prose as a matter of necessity either, but they're easily as prosaic as those given as examples in the above quote.

I'm cutting the paragraph. [[User:Genialimbecile|Genialimbecile]] ([[User talk:Genialimbecile|talk]]) 00:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

== TAFI setup ==

{{Find sources 3|Prose}}
'''[[User:Bananasoldier|<span style="color:green">Bananasoldier</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Bananasoldier#top|talk]]) 04:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

*5x expansion requirement: 10175 = 2035 x 5

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Prose]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=785294008 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120710101105/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

== Rhythm ==

The idea that prose lacks rhythm surely isn't correct (see, for example [https://mosaiczine.com/2015/10/22/on-rhythmic-prose/]; [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27530906?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents]). [[User:Rwood128|Rwood128]] ([[User talk:Rwood128|talk]]) 11:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

:I have also commented on the [[Literature]] Talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Literature#Defining_prose]
::This sentence from the "Background" section is relevant here: "There are [[literary theory|critical debates]] on the construction of prose: "... the distinction between [[Verse (poetry)|verse]] and prose is clear, the distinction between [[poetry]] and prose is obscure".<ref>Eliot T S 'Poetry & Prose: The Chapbook' Poetry Bookshop London 1921</ref> "

::I have made an edit. [[User:Rwood128|Rwood128]] ([[User talk:Rwood128|talk]]) 12:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}