Eyesore wrote:
rio wrote:
Eyesore wrote:
ganeshaRules wrote:
The first is essential to poetry, cause a poetry withot a internal rhythim, a cadance, doesn't flow.
That's flat out incorrect. If something without rhythm or cadence couldn't flow, then there would be no such thing as a novel, a story. That's complete crap. Poetry DOES need to flow, but it does NOT need rhythm.
The poem you posted had rhythm. Everything that has a sound has rhythm- because it simply refers to the time frame occupied by any percussive sound (including speech). It doesn't have to mean it has a defined structure. ie, the rhythmn in your first line was:
I saw a man pursuing the horizon
Da Daa da Daa daDada dee daDAdaActually, it seems you thought a lot about the length of sentences and time flow in your poem, no? I liked the decreasing duration of lines in the first segment, and I imagine it was intentional. This means that, even though there is no predetermined rhythmic structure, rhythmn was still something you considered important.
EDIT: In fact, I think a specifically organised time feel (like iambic pentameter) is described as the meter, and rhythmn is simply the way the words/notes are timed to fit over that.
Everything that has sound has rhythm, eh? So then this whole discussion is pointless?
By Slayer Of Kings saying that "rhythm and cadance are vital to a poem." is a worthless statement because you are saying that anything that has sound has rhythm? Again, rhythm is not random. Rhythm is structured, well-defined. The flow of a poem is not dictated by rhythm.
By definition all sound has rhythm, just as all sound has pitch, because the definition of rhythm is simply something like "the frame of time occupied by a sound". I'm not lying to you, man, you can look it up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm 
So if I just banged on a pan completely at random there is absolutely no structure- but the duration and temporal placement of each bang is what we describe as it's rhythm. So prose has rhythm, speech has rhythm, without any structure being required. It's really just a question of the definition. As that link says, when it's specifically structured, it becomes meter.
What's more relevant is how it applies to poetry. Given the wide definition of rhythm I have provided, I think it makes sense to assume that what SoK meant is that a good poet should put a lot of consideration into the way the words occupy time. That sounds very pretentious, but I just mean the length of sentences, length of words, which syllables should be emphasized... All this is just what constitutes rhythm. So yeah, I think the flow of a poem is dictated by rhythm to a large degree.