Philosophy

What can poetry do, that prose cant Whats the difference, and what difference does it make How can one answer this questions in prose, or without being poet

Poetry helps us to understand the beauty of art through words and the rhythm within such forms as poems, lyrics or hymns. Poetry gives us extraordinary feelings like sensuality with the repetition of the same or similar sounds at the end.  However, prose is expressed in a way of writing a story in a straightforward manner with a syllabic structure, its like language speaking directly to the reader.  The language of poems is often figurative and it helps one imagine or visualize the different aspects of ones emotions.  If one can do that, it would be easy to relate to poems, whether to sympathize or empathize with the theme.

The structure of prose differs from poetry since it has no rhyming of words or even the flow of it is not actually smooth like poetry. The format itself from the first part of the sentence can be misleading, but a closer inspection will show that the speech is a actually an absolute paragraph and lacks of any element of spoken language of association for a sequence of speech sounds found in poetry. Poetry differs from prose where the one can savor the essence of every word, grasping the meaning of each word with the aid of imagination, recognizing the idea but most of all, realize the importance of the feelings from the message of each line or verse, understanding the emotions and feel its very essence. However, prose can actually be considered part of poetry but the poetry itself differs from the prose by providing an escape from the bounds of the earth long enough to be able to see a little more clearly above the commotion and unending demands of the harshness of reality through ones imagination (Prater).

Prose is not poetry if it uses the pattern of essay expression and a more formal way of writing with the essence of art of explanation and significant quality. The answer is constructed by way of supporting the ideas with the guise of meter or rhyme, but comprises of full sentences as well as constituting composition to provide sense and comprehension.

Suppose Dreiser wrote (or staged)   The Tempest.  What would he do with (or to) the story, the principal characters,and the ending Conversely, suppose Shakespeare wrought (or adapted)   Sister Carrie.  What would that entail How would the novel (or drama) unfold, conclude Whats the point of making such fictional switches

The Tempest  is a play by William Shakespeare, if Theodore Dreiser will adopt the story and rewrite it, maybe he will add sharper feelings of excitement to further complicate the story like what he did to his novel,  Sister Carrie.  The story of  The Tempest  is similar to other fairy tale stories with a happy ending where there is a charming prince and beautiful princess already provided and expected to be part of such stories. It only happens that the main protagonist on the story was Prospero, a duke whom his self-centered bother Antonio sent away to a remote and deserted island far away from civilization with his daughter Miranda. Suppose Dreiser changes the flow of the story, probably he will provide more trials and ordeals for each of his characters. He will provide more actions throughout the scenes and definitely the ending can be unforeseen as something going beyond what is usual, regular or customary to add more sensation to the story to ensure it will be anything but dull.

Conversely, Shakespeares techniques for writing the story of  Sister Carrie,  would turn out to be with more emphasis on love and affection among the characters and each of them has a connection to all romantic scenes, including even forbidden love affairs. People know that Shakespeare was a famous English poet and playwright throughout the years and he is considered the worlds greatest and most eminent dramatist whom no one could probably equal. Supposing Shakespeare adapted this story, it would become smoother with less difficulties, the role of each characters would have more imaginative scenes. The emotions may evoke feelings of love, expressing more heroic and mysterious feelings in moderation. It would be like two people against the world, fighting for the freedom of love and happiness in the face of overwhelming difficulties they face in the pursuit of a happy life. Every word uttered by the characters would be metaphorical and boundless with the forms of love and suffering in the purest substance of quintessence. The unspeakable actions in every scene for the main protagonist Caroline Meeber, a.k.a. Carrie, would focus on what superhuman strength the protagonist can do, far better than how Dreiser depicted her (Dreiser 5). However, the conclusion for Shakespeares version of  Sister Carrie  would be predictable in all respects.

The point of making fictional switches is to determine the differences of each writers way of writing and presenting their illustrative language, forming an artistic way of expressing their ideas and creative works. Both them had distinct knowledge to deliver their uniqueness to produce imaginative pieces of work, especially in the field of literature, bringing into existence  in everybodys mind as well as bring happiness and frivolous amusement. They were both outstanding and displayed excellence in their respective ways of writing with their various ideas and thoughts. William Shakespeare could be like Theodore Dreiser in some aspects of being a preeminent dramatist.  He was not just a poet and playwright, but he could even collaborate with Dreiser, adding more implicit meaning related to the Dreisers stories. On the other hand, Dreiser could not be William Shakespeare because he could not do acting or portray the characters himself but he could perhaps be good at directing the characters in terms of their moral code, their persistence against obstacles bringing it close to reality rather than be a fantasy. The comparisons of two literary geniuses can be seen on how their works was done and its impact on its audiences.

Why does everyone, including Dr. Schneider  The Idiot,  IV, end of Ch.11 call Prince Myshkin an idiot Why doesnt anyone, especially the Prince, object or protest Does the word fit Why does Dostoevsky always use it Whats in a name, or a title

First of all, Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin is good man with big heart and he has a positive outlook on life even though his is imperfectly perfect man. He is the main protagonist of the story  The Idiot.  As the title suggests, everyone calls him an idiot, including Dr. Schneider because of his personality can be considered being like God and he has sympathy for others, especially to the one whom he loved the most who is Natasha Filippova. The story itself shows a different manifestation  on how a mans feelings can overcome everything for the person they love. But in doing so, there is a risk that someone like Myshkin can be seen as an idiot by looking at the way they act, because it is foolish. That was the reason people like Myshkin are criticized because such people do unnecessary things  that a normal person should not do because such behavior is unacceptable.

Everybodys has various perspectives on certain things, on how they analyze some things and they evaluate someones reputation without any effort to ask. They judge a person the way they present themselves to other people. They call it first impression and this would serve as the basis of their conclusion about that person. In the case of Myshkin, he is called an idiot because of defending Natasha to everybody despite of all acquisition. The love he has for Natasha is spurred by some certain motives, protecting her pride and the honor of her dignity (Dostoyevsky 646). Natasha has shown great appreciation to Myshkin for the purity of his heart and the capacity of his empathic love for her. Even Aglaia has a deep awareness of the feelings she has for Myshkin. Looking at it from a different perspective, the word  Idiot  is certainly linked to him for the reason that he is affected with extreme mental ignorance and blindness caused by love, thats why Dostoevsky always used the word to relate it to the personality of Myshkin.

The word  idiot  is synonymous with the words  stupid  and  moron.  This defines a person who behaves unnecessarily beyond the persons awareness. The behavior of an idiot has something to do with attitude and the way person thinks and does certain things.  Gradually, the term means anyone with the mentally deficiency or not intelligent and even lacking common sense.  In Myshkins case, it only a matter of his emotion overriding his sense of judgment.  When his emotions got the better of him, he is seen to be behaving erratically, hence being branded an idiot.  In this regard, people should temper their emotions with reasoning so as not be be called an idiot.