Having reviewed another selection of poems from WOL's finest I am increasingly disappointed to see how many pieces of work start off each line with a capital letter even though it is hopelessly inapplicable to the meaning of the work.
Why are poets lazy thus. Why should it be right for poets to ignore punctuation and the like on the seemingly thin guise of it "being poetry" and thus outside of good English?
So why are you lazy??

I'd like to explain but keep dropping off.

But but but . . loads of well know and presumably well respected poets do start every line with a capital letter. Is there a right and a wrong way of doing it? I vary from poem to poem depending on how it looks on the page. Sometimes I think it looks better. IMO ;-)I was just reading some Sylvia Plath poems and she has capital letters at the start of each line. It is an old book tho, maybe there are fashions in these things.

Honestly Graham! You haven't answered me yet! You're are so LAZY!! ;-) xx

W-e-e-e-ll, when I was at school, we were told that poetry had to have a capital letter at the start of each line. When I started writing it took a bit of gentle feedback to make me realise that this wasn't the done thing anymore. Now, my computer helpfully capitalises each new line's first word and I spend 10 minutes clicking 'ignore' to get them back to lower case. I also spend another 10 minutes ignoring 'Fragment, consider revising?'and then I have a nice cup of tea and remember I ought to have picked up my daughter from nursery half an hour ago....
also, when I was at school, we weren't encouraged to use the word arse in our poems either, but seeing as they were usually about landscapes, it wasn't all that applicable! Hope This Helps! :)
xxxxxxxxxx

We never wrote poetry at school - but then I am incredibly ancient! Maybe it wasn't invented! We did Yeats for A level, and Under Milk Wood for O level. Nothing else I don't think. Well Rach, I must arise and go now! xxxx

Ann, I think it had only just been invented when I started school in 1974, just before the world went into colour. I also must arise and go, goo'night ladies, goo'night xxxxxx

@Ann forgive my impudence but 'I must arise and go now' very possibly the most pretentious line he ever wrote; the most pretentious in all literature even.

I expect that's why it's stayed in my head all these years! Off to plant my nine bean rows now! ;-)

What sort of beans are you planting at this time of year Ann?
Anyway back to the plot.
How can lines that carry over to the next line be punctuated half way through with a capital letter?
I'm sorry but poetry should at least be readable and able to be enunciated correctly.
I think WOL should be a beacon for this. Much less is graffiti.

Personally I always use capitals at the beginning of each line whenever writing poetry.

But why? unless each line is a complete sentence in itself. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

I agree that what you say is logical Graham. I do think, as Rachel mentioned, that when many of us were at school, any poetry we ever read had a capital letter at the start of each sentence. When we ouselves start writing we might feel that this is the "right" way to do it, so some of us do. In poetry I don't think there are any rules. I was at a local writing group once and was told I couldn't begin a sentence with "And". HUH!!! But maybe you are giving us rules too? As to my beans, is it too early for Aquadulce?

What are Aquadulce? are they weather-proof, frost resistant beans.
I would hate to be the rule-maker but feel really sad that many poets (and writers in general for that matter) are losing the will to let their words flow more easily with nicely balanced construction.
I think hidden in Nicky's comment is my question after all. Having the need to go back and change what these blessed computers do when writing.

Good luck with the Aquadulce. What do they taste like?

Who's Nicky?

Aquadulce are broad beans that you can plant in the autumn. Sadly my garden is too small so I shall only imagine that I am planting them - but I used to! Here endeth this week's edition of Gardener's Question Time.

Sorry I meant Rachel!

Capitalising line-starts is an option. So is not capitalising anything, including one's name, a la e e cummings.
I'm not sure adhering to a tradition that has lasted for several hundred years can necessarily be classified as 'lazy'. Just because some jumped up intellectuals wanted to start a new movement a mere one hundred years ago (Modernism effectively began in 1910), doesn't mean we should erase all that went before. If poets want to write the way they remember reading poetry at school, let them.
Personally, I switch between both systems. If the lines seem more semantically integral, or the form of the work is slightly 'archaic', I leave the capitals in...

I get what you're saying, but I guess it's a tradition that most have followed and will probably continue to follow, as long as there is poetry.

I write poetry to read it out loud... so in theory it's only me that sees it on the page - and I don't care about capitals or punctuation as long as I know how to read it. When I write I'm thinking about the words and the sound and not the way it looks on the page and I make sense of it myself when I read it. Maybe lazy, maybe not.

Surely punctuation and line construction are there to held the read word as much as the spoken word?
There are lots of things that used to be done in school that are no longer thought correct. Surely that isn't a good enough reason to progress.

Kate makes a good point. There is no need for poems to be properly punctuated if their function is purely performative, and only the poet is intended to read the work on the page. In this sense, the 'real' poem is what might be termed 'extra-textual', its true form exists inside the poet's head and as a sound in the room when the poet speaks. In the end, written poetry (and all text, for that matter) is just a form of notation that represents a sound. Even when the most 'literary' poetry is read silently, somewhere in the reader's head there is an approximation of the sound the poet intended to make. Although some standard of punctuation is helpful, it should not be eternally fixed, just as language shouldn't. Emily Dickinson's dashes are not necessarily grammatically correct all the time, but the reader infers from them what she means.

As we all know, all fashions in all arts are cyclical, and we can pretty much guarantee that the way things are taught at school will not be the way they will be taught in fifty years time. I personally put more emphasis on poetry's universal, a-temporal qualities than on its contemporary relevance or its ability to change the way people think right now. I am not denying that this may be the case but I have more interest in the longer term effects of poetry. But my verse is often thought to be sylistically conservative, occasionally archaic, and one major poetry publisher commented on my 'dead imagery'. So that's just me then.

When I write a poem purely as a performance piece, rather than for intended print publication (which is quite rarely now), I often don't bother punctuating properly. In fact, I have left punctuation out of some published pieces, just because I like the way it looks on the page, because punctuation would seem to unbalance the clean lines of the work. If, however, I am using enjambment or very long sentences rather than repetitive rhythms, I punctuate. With capitalised line-starts I just see how it feels. There are no rules.

...and with great respect to Graham (who should be commended for raising a point that concerns the material of poetic composition), espcially because I have never met him, I would like to point out that if you are going to criticise punctuation, maybe the best starting point would not be:

'Why are poets lazy thus. Why should it be right for poets to ignore punctuation...'

Question mark missing in that first sentence, maybe?

Touche, I stand corrected.

Besides all of the above, there is also the option to dispense with punctuation altogether.

Indeed, sometimes this is a necessity rather than an option because there are often times in poetry when you require the ambiguity of a phrase that can be read in two different ways with very different semantics and nuances to both. In these cases, you should avoid any punctuation throughout the poem because otherwise the intended phrases can only be understood to be intended in one particular way.

It is something of an over-extrapolation to say that the above proves that poetry per se should be written with different concerns regarding punctuation than those that accompany the construction of prose. However, I think Graham might agree that it does show that the imposition of standard grammar rules onto poets can be counter-productive to the creation of this form of art.

For once I agree with you Dermot. There are times when I just don't want to introduce punctuation at all, particularly at the end of lines where I see it as a distraction to the flow of thought and a way of chopping up fluidity.
I can see what Grahahm was getting at though. It can sometimes seem that no thought has been given to it at all especially when every sentence starts off with a capital. That isn't helped by word, which does it for you, once it assumes it's a poem. It doesn't take much time to pop back in after and sort it out. Many poets don't bother though.

Just to reply to a couple of things in this discussion;

A few people questioned the idea of the capitalisation of each new line. Well If the poet is using enjambment; then they WILL clearly wish to differentiate between a line that runs and one that does not.

If the only indication of this given to the reader is that of a singular comma, then the poet may find that a LOT of readers will NOT read the poem in question as the poet intended them to read it.

Given that punctuation is there in the first place in most cases to ensure that the poets creation is read as the poet wishes it to be read; this obviously isn't good!

For this reason I always use capitalisation of new lines in a poem where I am also using enjambment. Doing this clearly emphasises and differentiates where the line-runs and where it does not. It also ensures to a much greater degree that the poem will be read as I have set out.

Enjambment equals no comma at the end of a line, and a lower case letter at the start of the new line. Non enjambment, or the lack of a line run equals a comma at the end of the line, and capitalisation for the new line.

In poems where no enjambment is used, I may use all lower case line starts after the first line in any stanza. That said I use enjambment so often that this is rarely an option.

Graham asked, how can you have capitalisation in the middle of a line?

That is easy, you can have capitalisation in the middle of the line when you are using an elongated pause or 'caesura'.

By way of example here is a line from Hamlet;

And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--

To die...it is capitalised.

P.S

And no punctuation whatsoever is also acceptable as long as it is internally consistent and the poet's intention comes across.

personallyithinkweshouldreturntotheancientgreekwayofdoingthingsbydispensingwithpunctuationspacesandPROBABLYWRITINGEVERYTHINGINCAPITALLETTERSTOONONEOFTHISMODERNISTPOSTMEDIEVALNONSENSEIFITWASOKFORTHEGREEKSIDONTSEEWHYITSWRONGFORUS

Punctuation for the most part is about the poet having his or her poems read as they intend them to be read.

If you don't understand that Steven, then you really don't understand much at all.

Now I have stated why I choose to do what I do.

I said I do this, because a comma alone is not significant enough to ensure that MY poems are read as I intend them to be read, by most people.

So I am using punctuation to remove ambiguity and ensure my poems are read as I wish them to be read.

QED...I think so.

If you want to try and tell me why this does not make sense go ahead.

Otherwise please stick the sarcasm where the sun does not shine.

T

Oh dear have I said the wrong thing again
Use punctuation how you wish to Chris
Just don't think everyone else has to follow
The same rules

Nothing was said in this discusion from the 4th of October until two days ago when I posted.

Then one day later Steven, you post sarcastically. Do not try and tell me that is a coincidence; it is NOT.

You were directing your off the cuff, snide sarcasm at me.

So yes Steven you did say the wrong thing yet again.

But you often say the wrong things to people on the internet with that sarcastic, snide manner; that is your online persona.

I hear in person you are very different...not surprising.

A) I do need your assent in order to use punctuation as is my want.

B) My use of punctuation is logical, internally consistent and helps remove ambiguity and add clarity to my own work. In the case of the use of caesuras, my use of punctuation is exactly the same as that of shakespeare and academically accepted.

C) You incorrectly inferred that I was implying other people should use punctuation as I myself stated. At NO point did I imply anything of the kind!

I simply stated how I used punctuation in my own work and in so doing gave a detailed explanation.

P.S

As always you addd no value whatsoever beyond irritation. This is exactly why discussions are so disappointing on the internet.

In well over a year at poetry events I have never disagreed with anyone over poetry, but dip into an online discussion and immediately the level is that of the snide.

What was of value now lost in the mire...well done.

My dear chap, take a chill pill, I don't think I even read your post, never mind refered to it.

I just find discussions about punctuation rather pointles, as it is entirely personal to the poet.

Sorry that I implied that you were telling other people what to do.

Incidentally, the reason why there's a capital letter on that Hamlet line is because it's the start of a new sentence, not just because of the caesura, which could have been indicated with a comma or semi-colon. If he'd been 'modern' he might have left a gap I suppose. Or not.

A) Of course you read my post.

It was not a coincidence that your sarcasm came one day after my post; Like I said the thread was dead prior to that for over a month.

B) If you found the discussion so pointless; you should have not posted at all.

C) If you had acted/played Hamlet you would know that the line I quoted is acted in effect as a caesura. But someone not aware of this would argue otherwise; just as someone may argue that question in Hamlet is pronounced 'ques-ti-on' with three syllables- it is not.

Leaving the above nuance aside;

In any regard I could give dozens of other examples where Shakespeare formally uses the caesura in the EXACT manner I detailed.

He does so in Macbeth,
The Winter's Tale etc etc.

Do you want me to give a dozen examples?

I am guessing not so, perhaps take my word for it.

My point and the bottom line in this regard was/is; caesuras can and often are used in such a way that ensures capitalisation in the middle of lines of verse.

It does happen in a perfectly acceptable way that is not lazy.

That WAS the clear point being made in answer to Graham as part of the genuine discussion.

My point was/is academically true and correct.

P.S

You are fee to irritate the next person in discussions you are actually not bothered about or properly contributing to in any meaningful way.

A) That chill pill is obviously not working.

B) No I didn't read it. I skimmed it and the rest of the discussion.

C) As for MacBeth etc etc etc who gives a fuck? What are you trying to prove? That you're cleverer than me?

D) I never said you was lazy. I suspect you of being a very hard working citizen with a great sense of responsibility to both the English language and the world. Unlike myself, who can't even take himself seriously without wanting to inject a dose of self-depracating humour into the proceedings.

E) I am actually correct about early manuscripts. They don't use punctuation, line breaks for poetry, small letters or anything we take for granted nowadays. I'm fascinated by that fact - somehow they managed to communicate - of course, they were also all hand-written on parchment which was damned expensive and they wanted to save space.

F) I obviously rub you up the wrong way. You're probably a very nice chap, if a little crochety. I can be crotchety too, especially about those irritating little twerps who play their bloody music loud enough in the bus so that everyone can hear that they have no musical taste whatsoever... (you know who you are...)

G) Peace.

H - Ahem

I - good to know that folk with a bit of passion

j - anyone for ice cream ?

Why is anyone lazy about anything?
Is it laziness?
I love the discussion and cannot understand the need for anyone being upset at lively debate. Sarcasm, if such it were, is not banned on this site.
Ice cream, the chill-pill of the masses?
Now, regardless of how I have punctuated the above, please feel free to read and interpret as you wish. You will anyhow.
Enjoy!

Don't cry for me, Punctuation. You know I never left you;,'"([[[[[[[[[[[`~,?

i have been encouraged to read and comment on this discussion mostly due to my wild abandon when it comes to punctuation , , , you can call it laziness if you wish , when did laziness become a crime ? i find it quite boring as i am not a born typist to fiddle and faff with capital letters and commas , although on other forums i have been known as commatoes for , obvious , reasons , i also love the ambiguity that can be achieved by eclectic punctuation

lazy for the love of it . and i dont care if its a trouble to you or not :) ohh and do emoticons count as punctuation ?? :D

Can I chip in 'ere too? :-))
I used to have a turrible time whilst punctuating my meagre writing I like to call poetry.
I asked several people to assist because it seemed to me as if all the punctuation rules had changed dramatically since my school days. Either that or the punctuation rules were very different for writing poetry. Hmm..

and then a friend who works as an editor of a well known publishing house suggested I leave it out completely. Quote ''If you are going to use punctuation, it must be consistent and accurate whereas if you don't use any it doesn't matter.''
There! Simple! All my answers in one quote.
Well that's the theory anyway ;-)

That just about says it all. No surprise really considering most of today's newsreaders/presenters can't speak correct English either. All conveniently termed dumming down I fear, for the shameless generation no doubt.

Did you mean to write... Dumbing down?
Hmmm... Or did you do that on purpose Graham ; )

I think writing skills are naturally deteriorating - a consequence of texting and people not reading as much as they used to. Of course punctuation and grammar will be affected, just as much as the ability to actually put pen to paper. I find it sad, Graham. No doubt we are both dinosaurs. One day they'll have to change all the rules - when there's nobody left to remember them.

e e cummings said it best when he said :)


i like my body when it is with your



i like my body when it is with your
body. It is so quite new a thing.
Muscles better and nerves more.
i like your body. i like what it does,
i like its hows. i like to feel the spine
of your body and its bones, and the trembling
-firm-smooth ness and which i will
again and again and again
kiss, i like kissing this and that of you,
i like, slowly stroking the, shocking fuzz
of your electric fur, and what-is-it comes
over parting flesh… And eyes big love-crumbs,

and possibly i like the thrill

of under me you so quite new

Can't argue with e e cummingsWhat I keep noticing about radio presenters is, is the double is. Why do they do it? Even on the today program, and in the weather report. Language is constantly changing. More than half the teachers now teaching English have never studied grammar since they took 'O' level. (GCSE) because it isn't in the 'A'level syllabus, and the Grammar taught in University is too academic for teachers to just pick it up. Its 30 years since grammar dropped off the 'A' level. Who is to teach it?

<quote>I think writing skills are naturally deteriorating - a consequence of texting and people not reading as much as they used to.</quote>

People were saying exactly the same thing about telegrams in the 19th century. I wasn't aware that the world came to an end.

Nothing new under the sun: as the long dead Roman poet Martial says:

They always praise the good old days,
Us young'uns get not mention.
I don't see why I have to die
To gain your kind attention.

You are quite right to say that older people regret change Steven and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I'm quite sure that if writing dies out as an artform or a medium of communication, future generations may not regret its loss. That doesn't make my lament any less valid though.

Language change is inevitable not just in English but in all the world's languages. Whatever writing system is used to transcribe or document the spoken language there will always be prescriptive, proscriptive and descriptive (a.k.a anal) individuals who comment upon its change. What I find interesting is that a great many ideas of what's right and what's wrong are often used to club individual writers to death with. (even that last sentence is ungrammatical in some people's eyes). The idea of, say, NOT splitting infinitives is one example. Why can you NOT split infinitives - or why do some people still deem it to be incorrect? It has no affect on the semantics of words and their associated constituents - just because some 18th/19th century chinless, self-proclaimed grammarians say we can't 'cos Latin doesn't split its infinitives (or shouldn't)doesn't mean WE can't - or if we do then it's NOT correct English. What a bunch of knobs...or is that 'nobs'? - I'm never too sure...

It's time to swiftly go.

As Malcolm Tucker says 'you know what I call semantics? WANK'

So bankers (who often seem to be thus designated) are in fact semioticians and their trade is semiotics and money is simply signs and bank accounts are pragmatics ie relation between the sign(s) -- money -- and the effect they have on people using the sign(s). That makes a lot of sense. Please thank Mr Tucker for me. I like the cut of his jibe.

The interesting thing is, Isobel, is that the same abbreviations were being complained about with regard to telegraphese as with text speak.

And it hasn't really made much difference because most people use the language appropriate for the situation.

If you talk to any teachers - even at A level colleges - you will find that text speak is creeping into writing that students use in essays. When 'most people' become the majority - a majority with a poor vocabulary and no idea of how to construct proper sentences, that is something to regret. We may well not worry about that in the future - you may not care about it now. I do though. I quite simply don't like such lazy structure in formal writing.
I think the difference between the telegraph age and ours is the fact that most people still communicated primarily by formal writing. They also got their news from newspapers and read more.
If I am a dinosaur - then so be it - I am a dinosaur who knows its own mind and doesn't look for all of its answers in the past.

I'm always suspicious of that phrase 'most people': who does it actually consist of? There was a lot more functional illiteracy in the Victorian age: they didn't read newspapers (and news online isn't written in text speak.) How did most people communicate? Word of mouth; and spelling and grammar wasn't any better then than now. That, and the fact that it was really only in the 19th century that a standardised form of spelling was laid down.

I'm very suspicious of arguments from nostalgic views of a past that didn't exist. I do like good spelling and grammar though.

I'm suspicious of the phrase 'most people' also which is why I put inverted commas round it. I was using the phrase you introduced in your last comment - glad we agree on something.
I agree that education has come on in leaps and bounds since the dark ages where the working classes were denied any formal education. The challenges facing future generations are far more insidious than lack of opportunity. Televised programmes (the news being the least offensive) hand it all to us on a plate. They may not be in text speak - but they enable us not to think too hard about the language and they will never help us to spell. So much of spelling we absorb through reading without actually being aware of it - it's probably the same with good writing and good poetry. Unless you read it, how can you possibly hope to emulate it?
There are clearly lessons to be learned from the past but the future will never be a mirror image of the past because circumstances never repeat themselves identically.
That's my opinion anyway - not based on any nostalgic view of the past - just on the appreciation of all that I value in the English Language.

I think it was when we, as kids, were introduced to the deceptively simple poetry of e e cummings that many of us thought the rules of grammar and punctuation could go out the window in poetry.

It was never explained to us that ee cummings is a stone dead genius and if we just emulated his style all we ended up with was mostly unreadable claptrap.

Poetry is at least as much about ideas as it is language; perfectly punctuated poetry can still be rubbish...in my humble opinion.

I think it was Ezra Pound who first said that the duty of the poet was to 'make it new'.

:-)

jx

I'm all for challenging art John. Not all of my poems are punctuated either. I think you have to know the rules before you break them though and perhaps be aware of just why you are breaking them. It doesn't seem to work well otherwise, which is the point you are presumably making with the EE Cummings tale.

<quote>but they enable us not to think too hard about the language and they will never help us to spell</quote>

Sorry to throw in another spanner - but who was it decided what the correct spelling was? I suspect they were from the South-East, public-school educated and upper middle-class, not working class and Northern, for instance.

Here I come with Walter Ong again: in The Presence of the Word, Ong suggests that, 'the predicament of human words is the predicament of man himself.' Ladies and poets included. He also states that words are always sounds 'and can never be reduced to any other category.' Punctuation is therefore part of the lost struggle to manifest speech visually. Maybe ideograms are more in sympathy with origins of words? Punctuation marks only came into use in Japanese when the translation of works in European languages became popular in the 19th century. In manga the ellipsis means speechlessness, a lack of ability to speak occupying visual space. I think the Japanese are responsible for introducing fullstops into words themselves, initially in adverts. Few people know that e e cummings was himself a manga figure created by Machiko Hasigawa, which may explain his apparent stylistic quirks.

It’s quite likely that the rule makers were from the South – just as it is quite likely that North America was colonised in greater numbers by the English hence the adoption of the English Language over there. I can’t see how traipsing back through history to rail against class division is going to help this discussion thread at all. I am from the North and working class but I have no axe to grind with the Oxford English Dictionary. A standard form of English and spelling was adopted centuries ago – I am happy to run with it – hold its hand and caress it even. I just don’t like to see it diluted into an ‘anything will do’ kind of language. I think rather a lot of people agree with me. Perhaps they don’t like to say it out loud because they get accused of not with moving with the times.

Why not adopt a language for Christmas? For the equivalent of £20 (ie your chosen language's dominant currency) you will receive a certificate and a printed booklet featuring your language. Throughout the year your language will write to you to tell you how it is progressing, and you will be able to reply. Why not give a gift subscription to a Poet you know? It makes the perfect Xmas present.

But remember a language is for life not just for Christmas!

The sad thing is -- after the initial thrill -- people get bored and abandon them.

Aye, and whit wad the great bard say...'"O wid some poo'er the giftie gie us tae see oorsels as ithers see us."


Rubbish, of course...'cos it's all spelt wrong.

: )

jx

Rabbie had to subsist on a Countdown allotment of vowels and consonants because of ancient enmity between Scotland and England. However, he was creative and a naturally adept phonetic speller. The punctuation is in oatmeal.

Here's another theory that may be behind the push and shove of this thread. Could it be to do with the fact that punctuation seems larger, and therefore more intrusive, for some people --- and only a pinpoint dot to others?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101205202512.htm

Differences of opinion are simply being fed by differences in the size of respective visual cortexes....

I see, Moxy: if it's not Ong, it's Song (with such a lot going for him).

I think cortexes were introduced with the Road Traffic Act of about 1920, wasn't it?

I believe (back to the topic) that there are times when correct grammar, spelling and punctuation (SPG) do matter. For instance, for all that the Grauniad has its own style book, the number of "errors" daily is very high. By "errors" I mean deviations from generally accepted standards for newspapers and publishers, and from their own style guide.
Most of us would, if publishing a book, magazine or paper, try to get our spelling and punctuation to follow those generally accepted standards; no greengrocers' apostrophes for plurals, for example. Once upon a time there were sub-editors and proof-readers to check the output prior to printing. Not now, it seems.
In Saturday's Guardian I spotted numerous examples of such basic errors.
On the internet, these standards seem not to apply generally, perhaps because individuals are, in effect, self-publishing when they upload material to a site such as ours, and have no thought to re-read, proofread or edit their own work; or perhaps it does not matter.
I spent some of my recent working life acting as a proofreader and editor, so it is second nature to me to ensure we do not release publications with such basic errors that it reflects badly on the publishing house or the writer. It can reduce the confidence of the reader in the work. Of course, I am largely talking about non-fiction published books.
With poems I write that I intend to read myself, and not destined for the printed page, I am less fastidious. After all, who's going to see them?
And that is perhaps the situation with many of the people who post on here: posting for the electronic page that which they would normally read out loud.
That is the dichotomy of having a website encouraging people to publish their otherwise-not-destined-for-publication poems.
OK, boring myself now!

He he he -- flee the 'e' and fit the 't'! Thanks Sir Julian the Wise! The typo has left the building. Personally, I am a roofreader.

When it comes to the use of words, 'Lazy poets' is pretty much an oxymoron, after all who puts more thought, consideration and love into the placement of words and punctuation than the poet?

For me, the line ending in my verse, even in lines featuring completely punctuation-less enjambment, suggests a subtle variation of inflexion not offered by any other form of punctuation.

This comes from my classical theatre training, the way I was taught to read Shakespeare in particular, so in a sense it is archaic, but as I say there is no modern equivalent.

Without capitalisation, how would the reader know it was a line ending, rather than the poet playing with the visual structure of the sentence for some other purpose?