A Question For Any Who Know

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.

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??? said:

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.

Click to expand...

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??? said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

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.

William Haskins said:

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

Click to expand...

When I go to extremes, this is exactly what I think. Um. 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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

my two cents

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

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.

Writer??? said:

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?

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Norman D Gutter said:

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

Click to expand...

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.