Hey /lit/, I have a question that might be dumb. How is it exactly that poetic forms are created, and what constitutes a legitimate form? I've finally decided to buckle down and study forms, and think that I understand their purpose: that certain forms are better at conveying certain effects in an organized manner. However, how is it that these poets construct these forms in the first place? For example, how is it that Arnaud Daniel created the Sestina, and how is it that poets decided that it was a legitimate form? The Sestina seems almost like an arbitrary sort of mathematical pattern, and though I like the almost dreamlike effect it has, I wonder about the thought process behind its construction. Do poets find that a form is legitimate as long as there is a pattern? I hope this makes sense.
>>8178474
Are you on Adderall?
>>8178489
Nah but I'm tired as fuck right now so if my post was shittily constructed I apologize
>>8178497
>Nah but...
There's your problem bruv. Ask yourself what you've written here when you're tweaking. It's the secret of great art to be sleep deprived, terribly sober, terribly depressed, tweaking, or tripping. However you get there, your answer will be found
>>8178569
what a shit response to the OP's interesting question.
sad bump
>>8178581
Qué
no one? god damnit, /lit
I don't think anyone could give a more definitive answer. It just sounds good. People mess around with form and that's how new forms are created. You might want to check out Vie de Saint Alexis and Occitan Boecis, the earliest surviving poems with decasyllables in a Romance language (early 11th century).
hard bop
>>8178569
this is true. all things find order when the brain is exhausted. we are not meant to be diurnal beings, as we take command of our bodies and minds, we live in a burst of purity and motion, shedding the mediocrity of unconsciousness and the order it brings. our lifespan is dramatically reduced in this way, but the art that we can create in this state is unrivaled.
>>8180789
there needs to be a new word for faggot
>>8180819
in the annals of time, you will be forgotten.
maybe ffkggutt, more of a plosive punch to it
>1 actual answer to the question
haha sick guys ;)
>>8181457
>being this much of a baby back bitch
