Narratologists believe that narrative writers who can write good poetry,
write charming narratives if they have the can-do to write them.
It makes sense.
Narratives that make use of powerful metaphors
which play their own qs throughout the script with grace and good timing––
and narratives that just employ copious similes and metaphors with no rhythm or rhyme––
and narratives that have vague titles that don’t make sense until the end of the story––
are charming. It’s true.
And that’s what it is a lot of times when you say a narrative is poetic.
Those are three ways to make it so. There’s truly more ways than that,
but these are 3 ways.
The first way is about making metaphors count by going beyond the sentences
that contain them, and making them plot devices for the entire story or at least one stage.
The second way is to incorporate a simile or a metaphor in every place possible.
The 3rd way is to make your title a metaphor
for a theme, a moral, a subtextual thought, a motif, a leitmotif, or what have you.
The first way I mentioned takes the most craft IMO.
The 2nd way I mentioned takes natural skill for metaphors IMO.
The 3rd way I mentioned is for imposter poets to write them IMO.
The 2nd way reads the nicest, and therefore it is the most charming IMO
It’s harder to find writers who can do both poetry and narratives with aplomb
but we’re out there.
Narratives that aren’t poetic must invoke a vision for the reader in order to pass as good.
A poetic narrative is one way to invoke a vision for the reader.
At least in the way of the 2nd type that I mentioned,
the difference between any poetic narrative of that nature and any non-poetic narrative
is that the latter abstracts less from its contents because its contents forces less allusions;
other than that there should be no difference in the overall effects of the reading.
In order to provoke a vision, non-poetic narrative writers must rely on depth, clarity, and substance.