A Question For Any Who Know

[Writer???]

This is a serious and sincere attempt to understand Free Verse.

I am not a fan of free verse (as poetry). I get the beauty that some of it has. I see the imagery. I "get" most of it. BUT, I do the same with a literary novel, and I really fail to see what makes Free Verse poetry.

I am not being mocking or calling it stupid. This is a serious question and and effort to learn so please, do not take offense at any of this. Some of the things I ask or say may seems offensive, but that is only my lack of understanding showing and not an attitude of rejection toward Free Verse.

Below are two paragraphs, well, one paragraph an one stanza I suppose. One is a famous poem from a book of 100 Best Poems of All Time, ( it happens to be in two different collections I have) and the other is from a very successful novel, by a famous author, set in the south.

"Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love past
blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent cottage?
Ah, dear father, greybeard, lonely old courage-teacher,
What America did you have when Charon quit poling his
ferry and you got out on a smoking bank and stood
watching the boat disappear on the black waters of Lethe?"


"Who did she know in Raleigh who took time off to
fix a house? Or read Whitman or Eliot, finding im-
ages in the mind, thoughts of the spirit? Or hunted
dawn from the bow of a canoe? These weren't the
things that drove society, but she felt they shouldn't
be treated as unimportant. They made living worth-
while."

Why is one poetry and one is not?
Both are beautiful, and revealing of the attitudes of the narrators.
Both reference poets and boats, houses, images of water at different times of day (smoking bank..., hunting dawn...).
One asks "What America?" and one speaks of "society"
Both are questioning, wondering in their nature.
Neither rhymes of course.
Both read very well, flow easily off the tongue.

In case you happen to know, please pretend you don't know the authors. Try to consider these simply as two pieces of writing you came across, and tell me why one is poetry and one is not. Because to me, they are remarkably similar and comparable.

I know this has probably been discussed before, but I thought some "present" interaction might be better in helping me get a handle on this, rather than just cold reading.

[William Haskins]

it's all anecdotal, though.

i mean the poem sample (while charged with some metaphorical energy) is typical ginsberg and resembles the fluidity of prose as much of his work does.

sparks' prose sample is fairly poetic in its syntax and quality, so these two samples would sit much closer in the spectrum that spans free verse and prose.

but it fails to convince me that free verse and poetry are indistinguishable.

[LimeyDawg]

There is no difference. I think that folks outside of poetry get the impression that prose is a dirty word, or that free verse cannot be beautiful. The fact is that Mr W. and Mr. S. use the same language to paint images. I think this is a testament to the idea that poetry, or the study thereof, is paramount to that type of writing. They are both poetry. They are both free verse. One is found in a famous collection. The other a famous book (and movie). They are labelled based on the format in which they are/were presented, but that does not mean they cannot transcend genres.

[Writer???]

I agree with both of you. WH, yes these two examples do not cover the span very well.

And LD, I too see prose and free vesre as the same within a narrow range as above.

If in doubt to a piece, say that maybe I come across in a magazine or somewhere, NOT presented as free verse or poetry to help me out, I would probably think it to be literary prose if asked by someone. I would not be willing I think, to jump to the term "free verse" or poetry.

WH - About the range of styles: The broader the span, the less I would agree with LD's statement of them being the same thing. The broader the span seems to be a moving of only one side, that being free verse, AWAY from the prosaic, to the esoteric, strange or mysterious and confusing. While prose would basically remain in what I would call "beautiful, understandable, well flowing" realm it has always been.

Too often I find myself saying, "What the hell are they trying to say?" "What is the intent (beyond pause) of all the separation and indenting.

Honestly, sometimes it seems like I could take any paraghraph, from any book every written, in any genre, lat it out in some weird looking way that of course only I understand, and it would be accepted as poetry. Like some article out of a 50's or 60's Popular Mechanics magazine on how to change your oil or something.

It's when we approach the distinguishable line of demarcation that I lose the point and purpose of free verse, like some silly little word game that I'm not privy to.

Blank verse is at least suppose to have some kind of meter to it, generally defined as iambic pentameter (though I don't think that is largely understood or adhered to today), but free verse, generally defined as NOT having meter or specific construction, is very often broken into these bizare(sp?) chunks or single line words, that really don't have any added impact that I can see most of the time, which in effect is TRYING to give a certain rhythm to something that, by definition, it isn't supposed to have. And why, because otherwise it's too much like prose, or at least those are the comments given. "Tighten it up.", "Break it into somekind of stanza.", "Too prosaic.", etc.

[LimeyDawg]

I
Honestly, sometimes it seems like I could take any paraghraph, from any book every written, in any genre, lat it out in some weird looking way that of course only I understand, and it would be accepted as poetry. Like some article out of a 50's or 60's Popular Mechanics magazine on how to change your oil or something.


Well, here is the crux of your question. Personally, I think there has to be something more than straightforward prose to qualify the writing as poetic. I'd argue that it needs rhyme, meter, music...not all, but at least one to make it stand out from the prose used to inform, but not inspire. Much like impressionist art, the definition is in the eye of the beholder. Poetry is difficult to nail down with definitions, particularly in the modern iteration. Still, if it strikes the reader as poetic then, at least to an audience of one, it qualifies.

[Writer???]

"Poetry is difficult to nail down with definitions, particularly in the modern iteration. Still, if it strikes the reader as poetic then, at least to an audience of one, it qualifies."

I'd have to agree and say that is a very good definition of it. Sadly, for me anyway, this is what blurs the lines of learning or critiquing, and makes so confusing. It all so "personal opinion" with what's "allowed" or considered poetry, how can anyone honestly critique free verse in any helpful, technical, insrtuctional way, I mean, who's to say?

Am I wrong? Or IS free verse (in a critique way) reduced to a simple like it, don't like thing? How could you correct or instruct on such an open definition style of poem? How could you ever learn to "nail", really 'know and use" a particular style that is so open in it's form, or lack of it?

For instance, writer A is well trained and writes beautiful.
Writer B is poorly trained and writes with bad syntax, misused words, etc.

How the hell could you say writer B is a poor writer and offer any correction or help? Maybe they're really good, but meant it to be that way.

I'm just noodlin' in my mind you understand, but I'm thining about someone trying to actually teach this stuff. How would they ever tell a student they're wrong and be justified in doing it, when anything and everything can be poetry? :D

I mean ultimately and honestly you just have to admit that it doesn't really make any sense.

[LimeyDawg]

I'd have to agree and say that is a very good definition of it. Sadly, for me anyway, this is what blurs the lines and makes so confusing. It all so "personal opinion" with what's "allowed" or considered poetry, how can anyone honestly critique free verse in any helpful, technical, insrtuctional way, I mean, who's to say?

Am I wrong? Or IS free verse (in a critique way) reduced to a simple like it, don't like thing? How could you correct or instruct on such an open definition poem?
Right. Poetry is subjective, sometimes. Free verse is critiqued within the context of the message, with regards to how well the reader understands what the writer is saying. This, I suppose, is no different than any other. As to personal opinion, well, its the eye of the beholder thing again. The thing about free verse is that it forgoes any discussion about metrics and rythm, and forces the discussion to focus on the message. That's my take, however. Or, at least, how I tend to crit free verse.

[William Haskins]

another distinction i would make is that metaphor, in prose, is used as simply a device to advance a broader story (sometimes in more minimal ways to describe a minor detail), whereas metaphor in poetry (typically) is an end in itself and the central thrust of the work.

[Writer???]

"Personally, I think there has to be something more than straightforward prose to qualify the writing as poetic. I'd argue that it needs rhyme, meter, music...not all, but at least one to make it stand out from the prose used to inform, but not inspire."

Ditto to that. I like to play around and explore but I wouldn't call it poetry. I mean give me SOMETHING, a simple single rhyme, or alliteration, some assonance, or even make it hard and give me some subtle or obscure consonance that I have to strain to find. But give me something that let's me place it firmly in the world of poetry.

Sometimes I think the "Global oneness", "One world order", "Global economy" etc. is leading us to a "Global writing", "One Bucket of Write" where everything...
is considered everything.

Tech manuals will become more prosaic and free verse will become more technical. Prose will be both technical in terminology and poetic in structure, and poetry of form, rhyme, etc. will remain largely unaccepted in the publishing world.

[Writer???]

another distinction i would make is that metaphor, in prose, is used as simply a device to advance a broader story (sometimes in more minimal ways to describe a minor detail), whereas metaphor in poetry (typically) is an end in itself and the central thrust of the work.

Not being an expert on either the metaphor or free verse this may be an ignorant question but...

Would you say that holds true for free verse, because I don't find a lot of metaphor in much of it. Though my reading of it has been only recent and limited. What I see is a lot of relationship descriptions or snipets of an instructional or proverbial nature, a lot of surface, typical, kind of stuff.

Though I am fully prepared to admit I may miss some of the metaphor. I mean if somebody writes of a ring he gave his girl, I'm not going to see a "noose" without some really glaring hints. :D

[Jenny]

To look at it from the other angle, what makes a rhyming metered poem a poem and not doggerel? I know when I try rhyme, doggerel just comes spewing out. I like this discussion Writer???. Poor old free verse can't point to anything to defend itself. I mean, old poems used to say yup, I'm a poem, I rhyme, feel my rhythm. If I knew more about the really old poems - Beowulf maybe? - I'd also ask if they really fit what we now think of as traditional poetry forms. Or translations of the Bible - Song of Solomon - is that free verse? This is great - my little monologue is making me question what I consider poetry, and, I'm surprised, but I can't define it. Good question to nag at me through the weekend. Have a happy one, folks!

[William Haskins]

i hope we're proceeding down this road thinking that free verse is, by definition, devoid of rhyme or meter.

that's not the case at all.

as for metaphor, it certainly is prominent in a large variety of free verse.

[Jenny]

i hope we're proceeding down this road thinking that free verse is, by definition, devoid of rhyme or meter.

When I go to extremes, this is exactly what I think. Um. :e2paperba You'd think with the fine free verse poets around here that I'd know better.


Would you say that holds true for free verse, because I don't find a lot of metaphor in much of it. Though my reading of it has been only recent and limited. What I see is a lot of relationship descriptions or snipets of an instructional or proverbial nature, a lot of surface, typical, kind of stuff.



This sounds to me like verse people are writing for greeting card markets. Different styles and depths for different markets. Sometimes I think the aim is to sound as if you're talking with a friend.

Poetry covers a lot of ground and fills a lot of purposes. No wonder definition is so tough.

[William Haskins]

while rhyme and meter in free verse are typically unconventional, they can still be there.

[jst5150]

In free verse, there is also something to be said economy of words. That the writer must choose every word as though it were 100 words. In that sense, regardless of how sensical or nonsensical that verse may be, if that free verse writer has done the deed right, then its accomplished what an 80,000 word novel ought.

Still, some people still consider Pollock paintings crap. And that's OK, too.

[Writer???]

Quote me:
which in effect is TRYING to give a certain rhythm to something that, by definition, it isn't supposed to have. And why, because otherwise it's too much like prose, or at least those are the comments given. "Tighten it up.", "Break it into somekind of stanza.", "Too prosaic.", etc.

I can see where you got that impression from me WH. Sorry.

WH - No I'm not saying free verse is void of those things in it proper construction. I like free verse but what I like is the older stuff. I can see the assonance and "feel" the rhythm even if I can't explain it.

I have looked closely at some of it and it's metrical to a degree but it's not a steady iambic, or trochaic kind of thing. It's a combination, and, along with the assonance or aliteration it makes it beautiful...sometimes.

It's not a definable meter because there's no consistant pentameter or tetrameter or what ever requirement.
It's not a definable rhythm because there's no specific foot requirement.
It's not a defineable rhyme scheme because, etc. and most of it is devoid of rhyme beyond aliteration, which of course is undefinable as a pattern to describe flow, other than recommending someone be careful not to write a tongue twister. (unless that's what they want of course) :D

When I read Anne Sexton's "Waiting to Die" I get it, I see it. Or the whole of the Ginsberg reference above, and the B's and W's and S's and C's just make them sing.

But I read some of the newer stuff out there, (sorry I don't have any references, they never stay with me and I don't bother to collect them) and it's just strange, almost as if for strange sake.

[Writer???]

I'm not trying to be critical or nasty, people are going to like what they like, but I see a lot of free verse "type" stuff posted here that has no metrical construction, no rhyme, no assonance, aliteration or consonance, nothing but line breaks and maybe a metaphor once in awhile, and people either don't know as is (was) my case, or are unwilling to say "This is not free verse. Free verse has yadda yadda yadda..."

This is what has led to a lot of my confusion. I think a lot of people honestly come here to learn and too often don't get told that free verse, ain't really free.

Now, multiply that by the number of forums, workshops, etc. and you can see how free verse has become an all together different thing.

If a form, and free verse must be considered a form of poetry, no longer contains any of it's original requirements beyond line breaks, yet has become so popular and acceptable, shouldn't it be called something else? Something new? Like, no verse?

That's not a joke. We have:
form poetry - that has everything
Blank verse - that dropped rhyme but kept the iambic pentameter
And, Free verse - that dropped requirements of structure but not devise

What's the next logical progression when free verse has dropped ALL requirements (which it nearly has) and is still acceptable and considered poetry? No verse.

[William Haskins]

i write a considerable amount of free verse and still make use of a variety of poetic devices.

the freedom that free verse implies is not freedom from any proven poetic devices, but rather the freedom to use them in unorthodox ways.

[Writer???]

Yeah I know you would and do WH, and I know it's freedom TO not free OF, but my point was others and the current state of free verse beyond you who do it correctly, and me, who hasn't quite learned to do it well yet. And the examples I see posted here are very misleading concerning the critiques and trying to learn.

Anyway, thanks for a good conversation and all the points from all of you.

[Magdalen]

Dear Writer??

I so admire your questing(questioning) spirit. I don't presume to answer your question -- what's the diff between free verse and prose -- only add a few thoughts, with brevity and clarity, I hope. It seems that you are concerned about the line of demarcation between the two becoming hopeless blurred, to the point that they merge together in an indistinguishable mess of half-hearted or mis-directed meaning. And so, with a heart true-blue (truly blue) you suggest drawing a new line, to forestall the calamity. WH & LD assure you that with dedication and increased (not saying that you are not well-read and/or well-advanced in that respect) exposure to all kinds of poetry, you yourself will find your own answer and I heartily agree with that.

In the arts (music, graphic, literary)(and business and politics, etc) there are people in positions of power who dictate what is good and bad, but it often seems they have attained their positions from maneuverings and alliances. How much value do their opinions hold for me? Very little. Good and Bad Art will always be subjective, unlike a Right or Wrong answer to an equation. There will always be the unquantifiable entity known as "Talent", but the amount of time and dedication invested by a practitioner into any "art" is measurable. Not instantly, but as certainly as is one's ability "To thine own self be true".

So maybe the distinction between prose and poetry is not so much an intellectual one as it is a soulful, spiritual one. And the distinction between good and bad free (or no) verse? Having spent a couple weeks in Workshop with you, having read your poetry, and with a dollop of instinct, I'd like to suggest that if YOU think it (the "poetry" in question) is bad, have faith in your own, well-developed opinion and go from there.

Now, shall we start a new thread and discuss poetic prose?

[BrokenSword]

I've only recently stumbled onto this site (since I'm interested in learning the do's and don'ts of prose/novel submission) but have delved quite heavily into the net's version of poetry 101. I've been involved with several sites and have run one while administering to two others. For the most part, I'm one of those that laments this division and lack of consideration for proper formal poetry and good free verse (fv). But, some of this argument is intended for another thread I was musing over relative to formal poetry markets, et al.

Now, it has been my teaching and I've been taught that the test for free verse looks like this (and it's a mighty good one, too!); IF you can take away all the line breaks and put the lines into a paragraph form AND get sensible sentences, then it's merely prose with linebreaks. Oh, it might be poetic prose, no doubt (what I tried to do with my 'novel' is exactly that; pull from my poetic roots to get better prose), but it still is prose. (I actually did a little test at a poetry site last winter; I took part of my 'novel' and linebroke it, then posted it as fv. I had absolutely NO ONE tell me it was NOT poetry. Since I had penned this prose over a year earlier and had 'witnesses' to what I'd done, it was ironic/funny that my point was so easily proven. Where's the standards, anymore???) The issue gets sticky because it is my firm belief that what used to be considered prose ala the test I just outlined is now, very much in vogue and desirable. The lines have indeed been blurred and redrawn. The problem, imo, is that the audience--be they other poets or the layperson--want such thoughts in a more easily-attainable-package, eschewing the short story for the poetic one, which is even shorter. Attention spans have gotten even shorter but we seem to like our prettily gussed up words.

I used to work off this principle when 'teaching' poetry to any and all who were interested but now, since the idea is to help others get their pieces published, if the audience is looking for prose with linebreaks, it is almost a duty of mine to let them know this and instead of trying to keep the lines of demarcation as they were, to now encourage even more 'prose with linebreaks'.

I too think that fv should have typical (old-world?) conventions to be considered poetry. I often relate this issue like this; if I WANTED to read prose, I'd pick up a novel/short story. Since I WANT to read poetry, the vehicle and delivery of said same sure should be different than what the novel would show me.

But, that is NOT the norm for today--believe me. As rap was not considered 'music' when it first appeared, so too did this wave of 'poetic prose with linebreaks' get its life.

The best advice I can possibly give is this; since you are writing for an audience, IF that audience wants prose with linebreaks, you have to give it to them (if you want publishing/reads). IF you're a purist (like myself who fought the brave fight to keep sonnets 'pure'--sans the substitutions), you'll not like this new convention and hope like me that the 'old ways' don't get lost but revive sometime in my lifetime. Otherwise, I have a whole lot of formal pieces that my grandkids will get a chance to cash in on--maybe!

Seriously, I think that the standards are so low that it takes an academic to even appreciate how special a poem can really be. It takes this type to see the beauty in the art that is created. In this day and age, I truly feel that the 'dumbing' down of society is in full force and getting worse (going yet even more toward the more base of subjectivity). I often term this as the MTV age of poetry; we as an audience at large seem to want the in-one-eye-and-out-the-other type of entertainment, including whatever we read poetry-wise. More's the pity such is the state of poetic literature. For me, there is far more beauty in any well done poem than almost any prose. As someone mentioned, there should be some music inherent and some verbiage that strikes the chords of both mind and heart, all surrounding some meaningful purpose, to get that special effect.

But as I noted in my title; these are my two cents. And nowadays, that's worth less than half of what it used to be...

Thanks for listening to my rant and I hope to interact with others here at AW; seems like a nice community.

Michael aka BrokenSword

[Godfather]

writer, i have a broad broad view of poetry. that first poem you quoted, america by ginsberg. when i first read that poem, i read it every night for weeks. because it's marvellous. and now i often listen to ginsberg recite it. it flows, and it uses poetic device. but what makes it poetry for me is that it thumps with emotion.

but see, i'm of the opinion that poetry isn't just found in the poetry section in a bookstore, or underground magazines or anything of the sort. the label poetry itself doesn't determine in the slightest, to me, whether it is or isn't poetry. no, some of my favourite poetry is labelled under fiction or whatnot. jack kerouac, for example, is a poet not a prose writer in my opinion BECAUSE it's undiluted.

in saying that, i don't mean that prose is diluted. prose, i believe is composed, composed for the purpose of generating the overallity of it. take philip roth, he's a novelist. and the reason he's a novelist is because he writes entire books, whereas kerouac could be writing for every word, because there is emotion in every word, every image and every image can be individual of itself.

this is straying from the point considerably, so i will say now that what makes free verse poetry is that it can as beautiful as any sonnet, and it is not restricted in any way by a syllable count. in fact, free verse could often be considered more poetic than a form poem, because it is not confined to anything.

[Perks]

For instance, writer A is well trained and writes beautiful.
Writer B is poorly trained and writes with bad syntax, misused words, etc.

How the hell could you say writer B is a poor writer and offer any correction or help? Maybe they're really good, but meant it to be that way.

I'm just noodlin' in my mind you understand, but I'm thining about someone trying to actually teach this stuff. How would they ever tell a student they're wrong and be justified in doing it, when anything and everything can be poetry? :D

I mean ultimately and honestly you just have to admit that it doesn't really make any sense.I have to agree. I never liked 'poetry' as a way to pass the time (much less to get anything from it) until recently. As I knew it, the vast majority of it was sing-song nursery rhyme stuff, or the pompous, naked emperor and his sycophants.

Often, I think it does come down to a simple matter of like and dislike and how much of someone else's stream-of-consciousness the reader is willing to float. It frustrates me often and I haven't the patience to listen to the noise in someone else's head. I've a herd of knights in armor falling down stone stairs amidst a pack of baying hounds to deal with between my own ears, thank you very much.

But when it's good, it's thrilling.

Poetry seems, more often, to hold up an single, or at least limited, concept or image for examination, where prose is generally used to relate a story or information.

I will concede that it is easier for free verse to stray into looking like wet words thrown at wall. That said, good free verse, with carefully chosen rhythm and flow, sits very comfortably next to form poetry, in my opinion.

I mostly write free verse, and not much of it. (I mean, most of what I write is actually prose, but when I try to wax poetic, it's almost always free verse.) I struggle with clarity, and worry, red-faced, that what I just wrote as 'poetry' didn't make any sense. I would love to craft the impact that a few poets here have taught me to love. And I sought them out. I didn't befriend them online and then immerse myself in their work to make nice. Haskins, poetinahat, Stew21, trumancoyote (just to name the first that fly to mind) regularly do some of the most astonishing things with words that I have ever seen. Most often in free-verse style. (Although, our poetinahat writes within forms more than the others - and it's wonderful.)

I browse their works all the time, to remind me that the weight of concept, supported in a free-verse scaffold of the right words, is a worthy way to make a point. Then I also marvel at the cleverness of meaning within the flow of meter and rhyme in - what shall we call it? - conventionally structured poems.

[Norman D Gutter]

Writer???:

So much to write, so little time!

I am mostly where you are concerning free verse and formal verse. I read free verse and think, "Where's the poetry?" It tends to put me to sleep, drive me away, throw me back to reading prose, whereas formal verse, with rhyme and meter, tends to pull me in. It has come to the point where I wonder how so many people can consider that poetry when I don't see it. What's wrong with me?

And yet, I recognize that I must learn free verse if I am ever to be a well-rounded poet. Inability to write free verse leaves me with one less tool in my toolbox--or maybe with only one toolbox when I really need two. One reason why I don't hang out on the several Internet sites that deal only with formal verse (though I monitor them with spastic regularity) is because I want to learn to write free verse. Even with my own free verse I can't hear the poetry in it. In fact, the only free verse poem that I've read that strikes me as poetic is The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. What's wrong with me?

It seems to me, in discussing the merits of free verse and trying to figure out how to write it, that a definition of poetry is the first essential, and a definition of excellence is a second. Of course, no one has truly been able to define poetry. Every published poet has added to the lexicon of definitions, with no consensus. To my way of thinking, the two fundamental differences between poetry and prose are:

1. In poetry, the writer chooses the line breaks. In prose, the printer chooses the line breaks. In other words, the most fundamental unit of a poem is the line; the most fundamental unit of prose is the paragraph (or, one might argue the sentence).
2. Poetry is written in compressed language. Prose isn't. When prose is written in compressed language, the printer chooses where to break the line, but we recognize it as poetic prose. When poetry is written in commonplace language, but the poet chooses the line breaks, we call it prosaic poetry.

It seems if poetry is defined primarily by the line, and secondarily by language use, that:

You can indeed chop
prose into lines with arbitrary
line breaks and call it poetry.
Most likely, though,
rather than sing
it will suck.

So we are most likely talking about the quality of the poem rather than whether it is a poem. If the language is commonplace--lacking in compression and the whole range of poetic devices that elevates the language--we will likely declare it a bad poem.

It seems that the division between free verse and formal verse is a continuum, rather than a sharp break. I don't yet know if it is a one-dimensional continuum (a line), a two-dimensional continume (a plane), or a three-dimensional continuum (a sphere or a square). I'm still studying that, though I'm thinking it is probably a very complex thing, and hence three-dimensional.

Meanwhile, I struggle with it, studying all I can, toying with free verse on occasion (as I did this afternoon, a first draft I will post post-haste), and trying to train myself to get through a free verse poem without my gag reflex activating.

Best Regards,
NDG

[William Haskins]

I read free verse and think, "Where's the poetry?"

free verse, when done well (but that applies to all forms, yes?), has every hallmark of poetry, save for a regimented structure.

note (and i have expressed this before) it doesn't mean it's devoid of structure, just that it's not confined by it.

i think, in large part, those who reject free verse often do so because of the challenge it presents, because it does not guide you from signpost to signpost borne of meter or rhyme.

to suggest that free verse is not poetry while considering a technically-executed sonnet without substance to be would be akin to suggesting that some realistic landscape painting with flawless perspective and color (that you can buy at the holiday inn 4-for-$20) is artistically superior to guernica, which breaks every rule.

and that's just insane.

anyone who wonders "where's the poetry" when reading good free verse is either blinded by bias or stricken by a narrow view of what poetry can accomplish.

[Perks]

I would add that bad free verse might stand out a bit more than poorly developed formal verse, because everyone responds to rhyme and strict meter. Otherwise, jingles wouldn't sell auto parts and plumbing services.

[dclary]

When poetry is just line breaks and pathos, then it's poor poetry, from a literary point of view, although from a soul-scourging point of view it may have value for the poet. (Thus 95% of all poetry by people under 25).

But like Haskins said... The greatest poets place a great deal of emphasis on poetic form, and function, and their free-flow poetry, if anything, encapsulates all that is great about all poetry, free or traditional.

[Norman D Gutter]

William:

This seems to be my night to lock horns with people. I just got out of Planning Commission meeting, where the mayor and I had a very public dispute when he accused me, in my job as contract city engineer, of costing a developer $80,000 he shouldn't have had to spend. Maybe by morning they'll cancel the contract. I can only hope.

Reading your post, I'm having trouble trying to figure if you are commiserating with me or chastising me. Here's what you quoted from my post:
I read free verse and think, "Where's the poetry?"
To which you replied:
free verse, when done well (but that applies to all forms, yes?), has every hallmark of poetry, save for a regimented structure.

note (and i have expressed this before) it doesn't mean it's devoid of structure, just that it's not confined by it.

i think, in large part, those who reject free verse often do so because of the challenge it presents, because it does not guide you from signpost to signpost borne of meter or rhyme.

to suggest that free verse is not poetry while considering a technically-executed sonnet without substance to be would be akin to suggesting that some realistic landscape painting with flawless perspective and color (that you can buy at the holiday inn 4-for-$20) is artistically superior to guernica, which breaks every rule.

and that's just insane.

anyone who wonders "where's the poetry" when reading good free verse is either blinded by bias or stricken by a narrow view of what poetry can accomplish.
But, I said a lot more than that. I'm bemoaning the fact that my poetic bone does not seem to support free verse. Perhaps a more complete, yet truncated, quote of what I said was:
I read free verse and think, "Where's the poetry?"...It has come to the point where I wonder how so many people can consider that poetry when I don't see it. What's wrong with me?

Please note I didn't say it wasn't poetry, or that those who think it is so are wrong. I said, clearly I think, that there is something wrong with me to not appreciate free verse as poetry. So I'm hoping your last three paragraphs were general statements and not directed specifically at me. May I impose on you to clarify that point?

I certainly don't say that free verse is not poetry--as I hope the rest of my post made clear. I said that I have trouble with it, despite my attempts to embrace it. That is a huge difference. Free verse presents me with such a large challenge that six years of study have not yet dented it. I keep studying, and maybe someday it will break through. Meanwhile, as I don't seem to be able to explain my position, I'll bow out of the discussion and study some more.

Best Regards,
NDG

ETA: I meant to say in my first post that there might be other reasons why a person might have problems appreciating free verse than being "blinded by bias or stricken by a narrow view of what poetry can accomplish". Possibly training and education are a factor. Possibly there is some inate quality in some people that prefers rhythm and meter. Possibly it is simply a matter of tastes, and, as someone in ancient times said, there's no arguing about tastes.

[BrokenSword]

Mr. Gutter,

Though relatively new to this site, I'm not new to the plethora of poetry forums out there and have actually stumbled across your name at various sites at various times, though not with any interaction that I can remember. That said, following this thread, I agree with much of what you're trying to say. Maybe though, that is because I've 'fought the good fight' for formal verse. Thing is, I think I lost because the 'world' is gettiing smaller and smaller in its tastes for what I think you and I like to do. Oh, unlike you, I feel I've conquered fv and can do it appreciably well (based on others' opinions over the years) but everything you are saying resonates with me, as well. I've found that the problem is standards; they are being lessened continually. For instance, when I 'started' my net career as a poet at a place where the standards were severe but distinct, what was prose with linebreaks was soundly bashed and the poster probably is still living in a cave somewhere, afraid of coming out. I don't think their treatment of folks was encouraging or mentoring but that's another issue. Thing is, it was EASY to see the same pieces of poetry that I routinely encounter now, as exactly what used to be defined as prose with linebreaks then. Now, the line is so blurred I don't even bother noting such anymore. You know why? The audiences of the moment are actually LIKING this style. So, you ask; 'where's the poetry?' and I totally understand where you're coming from. I think the lines have been removed and it is almost better to accept that this is where the genre is NOW. There is nothing wrong with you at all, I feel; I think the 'problem' is that readers are wanting something which you and I feel is no different than reading a poetically-charged novel--or worse, just plain prose that is broken in strategic places. 'If I wanted to read prose, I'd pick up a novel' = used to be the call of the critics. To prove this, this very winter, I took a piece of prose and linebroke it, posted and called it fv. NO ONE said a damn thing about it being telly or prosey. And I have witnesses apriori that this was in fact prose before I realinged the lines. Sad, imo, but such is the way folks are seeing what they read. In the old days, I'd have been rebuked faster than I could have blinked. In that same vein, I took a sapphic and breaking it as I might a fv piece, posted THAT too with the same response in that, no one could even HEAR the cadence/metrics. And I want to qualify this and say that the denizens of this site were on the other side of 'normal poetry forums' in that they DID see distinction between formal and free verse. As a matter of fact, it was they who offered up the idea of alternate meters being exposed. And with this in their minds, upon reading my sappic-disguised, they had no clue. THAT'S where the mindset is of even those that claim to be part of a higher academia. Consider now what the 'average joe reader' is doing when he reads your stuff; the simpler, the plainer, the better because God forbid we go beyond the first layer of skin, you know?

Because all this is subjective and the 'market' is limited to 'poets', we're dealing with folks that get bored easily. I can tell you that fv is 'not that hard' to which I'll get a boatload of stonethrowers, no doubt, but that's been my experience. The reason so many DO fv is not because it is some highly thought of art/craft that everyone deems as the best thing since sliced bread but because it is easier to cobble up. So many do this because to bring the same thoughts and ideas (and esp images) to formal poetry would task them beyond belief. And yes, there are many that CAN do both and I concur with you; a poet SHOULD know how to 'do it all' else how can he/she be the best poet they can be?

This is all my experience of observation, reading, and doing. Your mileage may vary. I LIKE the fact so many are at least writing and DO value what each thinks is poetry but there's the rub; if you wish to read 'better poetry', something that will still be around in the textbooks our great-great-grandchildren are going to see, you still have to pull from the poetic roots that poems WE learned upon. There, YOU see poetry, THERE, I see poetry. I can list on one hand the amount of 'genuinely well done poems which I plan on remembering' into the future. TOO much of this culture is all about NOW; hence my terming the period of time we're in re poetry as 'MTV poetics'. That's been my experience and so far, none have taken the lead in showing others how it could be. Or rather, the truth probably is this; the masses are wanting MTV poetry while such as you and I are wishing some of the old world flavor could be incorporated in this new generation of 'ideas expressed over again from the original ideas'. I feel there is always something you can learn, always a different way you can see an issue/image/topic and it is from here which I feel the originality and uniqueness comes.

There is a way that fv stands and is very nice to read but for the most part, you'll NEVER remember any fv you see in this current day and age. I almost dare you to recite eight lines aloud, sans resourcing to augment your memory, to someone in your family or cirlce of friends. And yet, we can and do remember fragments of the 'rhymed' formal poetry we tended to grow up with. If it's all about 'now', then you have your explanation and I'd say; write what makes you feel like you've accomplished something for whatever reason that may be. If you're trying to be heard by this current culture, you'd better start to see poetry as common language expressed in broken fragments of prose because that is what most of the entries truly are. And yes, this is my opinion and none have to agree but surely can rebut.

Mr. Gutter; the secret to 'good fv' is this; good linebreaks and tone. Of course, this assumes you already know not to use cliches, abstracts, telliness, and can employ 'old world' devices such as assonance, a metaphor, sound considerations and metric enhancements ALL the while, working a unique aspect of an idea that though will not be original, will be presented for both the mind and heart of a reader WITH some hope of affecting that reader. I guarantee you; the overwhelming majority of poets I've encountered on the net are blind to almost everything I just listed. If this means, as you have, that I have to question 'what is wrong with me?' well, I'd sooner not know. I can QUANTIFY the reasons you should write as I've listed and yet, without an audience that shares this same belief system and WANTS/DESIRES the product produced from said list, well, you're only in for a lot of heartache should you continue to question 'where's the poetry?'. It's all subjective and apparently, what you're reading IS the poetry; just not something as you and I would have it defined.

Rap was never considered 'music' when it first arrived but look at it now; I still don't classify it as such but the pressure of the culture is slowly rolling over on me and even I can see this. Best get out of the way and learn to live on the outskirts or if you're into causes, stand in front and hope your voice is a lot louder than mine was.

Heh, and you know what? IF such as you and I live long enough, I bet we'll see this all reverse and maybe--just maybe, return to some of the roots that made poetry what it used to be! Here's hoping!


Michael aka BrokenSword

[William Haskins]

it's always amusing to see the level of offense that free verse stirs in the soul of the formalist.

[Perks]

Isn't it possible, or even likely, that free verse and formal verse scratch two different itches?

I can sympathize with frustration at a waterfall of ragged lines that read like a three-legged dog chasing its tail. But for a well-received free verse poem, are you honestly suggesting that those who claimed to have enjoyed it, or gotten something out of the reading, are simply hollow-headedly licking the-flavor-of-the-month?

As I see it, it is simply two distinctive ways to experience the chemistry of words. And I'd not defend a gagging-up of incoherent free verse babble over a drippy, lacey bit of overwrought formal poetry. Bad is bad. And good, either way, is hard to do.

[NeuroFizz]

I've been lurking around this thread so far, mostly because what I see here is so much like threads that pit "outliners" against "organic writers" in the novel writing forum, and threads in which democrats are mentioned in any way, shape, or form in the politics forum. Yes, some of the comments here are just as pinky-finger bent, condescending, and narrow minded as comments from those other forums. I lived through a time when an art form was being similarly "stretched and retched"--one that really got rolling when an artist named Elvis performed, and notched forward (downward to many) when groups like the Beatles and Rolling Stones came across the ocean (the roots were deeper than this, but this is what I lived). This music wasn't music to most who'd been brought up on more classically-inspired compositions, and was projected as not only the ruin of musical artistry, but the societal ruin of the people who embraced it. It was noise and little more, talentless screeching, volume rather than timbre, and yet it captivated generations to the point that even in their fifties and sixties, people who grew up with this loud noise still consider it their own brand of music. Yet, if you talk to those trained in classical music, I suspect we'd get the same agruments about what is and isn't music as we have here concerning poetry.

Art, in all of its forms, is not static, nor should it be. It is as dynamic as the people who practice it, play with it, perfect it. It evolves, which means it holds onto the practices of the past, builds on those practices, and experiments with new forms that deviate either slightly for drastically from the stem form. Outliers always receive criticism from the mainstream, whether we are talking art, politics, science, or life in society. But the only way to move forward is to have people pulling on the edges of the artistic plant, trying to get it to grow away from the traditional shape and pruning it back toward the traditional. And the latter people will always wrap their arms around the trunk of that branching tree and proclaim that the smaller branches, the ones that expand the tree laterally, are not really part of the organism. Unless we want to believe that the only parts of the tree that warrant appreciation are the roots, the trunk, and a few of the primary branches, perhaps a stance of "that isn't poetry" should be reconsidered. Maybe free verse makes a traditionalist gag. The pollen from the flowering parts of the tree make a good many people sneeze and give them headaches. But that pollen is the key to the evolution of the tree species, and yes. It is part of the tree.

[dclary]

I always wondered... the "H"...

Horatio?

[Penguin Queen]

Herman.


Hilda?

[skelly]

The problem is, as Haskins has pointed out repeatedly, that somewhere along the line people got the idea that "free verse" meant "no rules." Free verse is not opposed to "formalist" poetry. It is a formal structure unto its own. Why is this an issue? And if someone wants to chop a paragraph into jagged lines and call it a poem, let em. Who cares? People who enjoy poetry will see it for what it is, and avoid it. I write free verse, mostly, and I find it MUCH more difficult to accomplish that the other, stricter, forms. To sit around and debate if or not free verse is in fact poetry offends me to no end.

[skelly]

ummm. Somebody direct me to the rules of free verse. I didn't realize there were any. And...all kidding aside now. I didn't. I've been just writing down the words as they come and classifying my stuff as free verse because it has none of the elements of the other forms, which I know nothing about and care to know nothing about. Puzzled? Actually...be forewarned...if somebody actually attempts to explain it to me, I will probably trail off after the first sentence or so. I just can't seem to invest time and energy into understanding poetry. I write it. I read it. That's enough for me. Although, now it seems maybe I don't write it, but write something else instead? Puzzled.
Then why do you expect anyone to invest time in reading your work?

[skelly]

I don't silly. Don't read it. Read it. That's what I said.


Write Poetry. Don't Write Poetry. Read Poetry. Don't Read Poetry.


I honestly don't care if anybody reads the poetry (that isn't actually poetry) that I write. I have always said that. I will always say that.
I'm not trying to engage you in conflict, only to understand. I you don't care, why do you post it online? BTW, I've read several of your pieces and I thought they were all poetry, and I enjoyed them. But if you don't seek to communicate something that is inside of you...what are you doing?

[Perks]

Oh dear. We've had this discussion before and it never goes well. Kevin insists his postings are just doodles and word practice and gets a few, unsuspecting forum-goers all hot under the collar (yeah, me last time.)

He says he doesn't know or care if what he writes is poetry. And the accolades he receives is nice, fluffy icing on a cake of nothing.

Best just nod and smile.

[skelly]

I am communicating something that is inside me...with the outside of me.

I know you're not trying to argue. Either was I.

I write it while I'm online...instantly. That's where I usually come up with stuff. Sometimes I just jot it down on napkins and shit, but mostly in thread windows. I purge it. The fact that it is there doesn't mean that I require other eyes to validate it. (I don't mean quantify/qualify it, just validate its existence like) Psssst...there's no such thing as quality. It's like language...take away the speaker and language doesn't exist, right. Quality is a definition that changes with each and every sentient creature. Bam. Therefore, it doesn't exist.

I've been copying it to my blog to keep it all in one place too. Lately I've been seeing it as a record of my thought progression. i mean 20 poems about thighs and rivers and moons and shit. Somethings going on in my mind. I want to watch the evolution myself...therefore I keep the poems posted there. If nobody reads them, I am happy. If the universe reads them, I am happy.

So many words.

Poetry isn't a mandatory law. It's flawless in its ability to be fleeting images. That's what I like. I'm too stupid to even pretend to try to figure out what form and non-form is. So, I spout shit instead. I try to read the discussions here and my head hurts. I also don't take apart my car. It's ugly inside. It's beautiful the way it tears down the open road and allows me to feel the wind in my hair though...that shit'll get you through the bad times. Just put in the gas and it's yours to take you wherever the hell you want to go. Just don't open the damn hood...because, God...a face only a mother could love. that's what an engine is. Understanding car engines has as much appeal to me as understanding the whys and whatnots of poetry. I just cannot bring myself to give a flying goose shit. I probably have not answered your question...truthfully, I no longer remember what it was?
I see. For some of us, poetry is a serious artistic pursuit. I suppose even a recalcitrant bastard like Haskins would agree with that. But you are right. You are always well within your rights to write whatever you want to write, for whatever reasons that you choose to write it, and to call it whatever you want.

[skelly]

All right man. And I appreciate you helping me to understand (and I am butt-nekkid serious about that). To quote my good friend SpongeBob..."Well, good luck with that."

:) Enjoyed the discussion. Take care.

[William Haskins]

I suppose even a recalcitrant bastard like Haskins would agree with that.

poetry, ultimately, is my life. outside of my wife and kids, it's about the only thing i really give a shit about.

i take it deathly seriously.

[skelly]

poetry, ultimately, is my life. outside of my wife and kids, it's about the only thing i really give a shit about.

i take it deathly seriously.
Yes sir. And I chose my words very carefully, suspecting no less.

[Norman D Gutter]

Michael:

Mr. Gutter,

Though relatively new to this site, I'm not new to the plethora of poetry forums out there and have actually stumbled across your name at various sites at various times....

Ah, the bane of having an easily recognizable name! Cursed parents' choice. Cursed ancestry. I probably use an alias.

Nice to meet you, sir,
NDG