Free
I
don’t like
free verse because
it.weorj09234uaewi is not0-32432r
interesting!!!
itseemstomethatitisnotachallenge
i t i s n ’ t m el od ic
it is like
[size=150]LOOK MA![/size] I’m a peot.
It takes
fiiiiiiiveeee miiiinuuuteess to wriiite
and anyone can do it.
The whole point is to capture the
feeling, the atmosphere,
THE EMOTION!
of the events.
But all it really is is drivel 
And I have to do it for English 8.
thats a good insult and i appreciate it. except i could never look so heavily negative about a form of poetry. …ok. maybe i’m sick of rhyming. maybe we ought to be more creative with our forms? i think so…why can’t we establish our own rules? is that too subjective?
I hope so
Indeed.
Creative writing subjective? Never!!
so what if everyone can do it? does that make it bad???
I personally think that makes it good . . . more people can enjoy it, what is so bad about that?
I don’t give a fuck about difficulty, I care much more about inspiration,
and honesty is more inspiring than well fabricated antonyms, anaphoria and alliteration!!!
you said fuck. fuck.
[img] It takes
fiiiiiiiveeee miiiinuuuteess to wriiite
and anyone can do it. [/img]
Not anyone can write poetry
-not even many poets can-
and most people don’t
even read poetry
free or formal
whether splashed
dashed or studied
To nail whatever ever you are trying to say down.
to sculpt. to great the atsmophere.
to recreate and reconstruct
whatever it is you are writing about…
:decent splash of a free poem by the way!
love your judgements throughout
I think that the point being made here is that ‘free’ verse is cheap. If anyone can just line up words in any old way and call it ‘free verse’ and have everyone standing around saying ‘yes, I like what you’ve done here’ then we’re not really getting anywhere, are we?
To me, free verse is simply an excuse for a lack of talent. And it doesn’t exist. No verse is free, because language is invariably learnt from someone else. No text is produced by an individual alone.
This is, of course, a short version of the argument I put up against the Beat poets. They were into their individualism and ‘free verse’ too. They were morons, for the most part. Drug addled, boring, clueless morons. Except Corso.
Can anyone just line up words in any old way and have everyone standing around saying ‘yes, I like what you’ve done here’?
If one makes ‘free verse’ the end of an aesthetic teleology, yes. The problem I have is with the word ‘free’, which is a contradiction in itself, let alone when applied to poetry, or any other form of literature for that matter.
The question for me is ‘do you want to be a writer, or a good writer?’ Just like abstract expressionism in the visual arts, free verse is little more than a loud and boring declaration of ‘rules, what rules?!!?!?!’
Of course, like I say, free verse doesn’t exist. It’s a sort of metaphysical mythological entity that no one can distinguish from ‘unfree verse’. Use rhyme, don’t use rhyme. Use the same number of lines per verse, don’t use verses at all. Neither is free verse. Neither is unfree verse. Both are verse.
I think you’re splitting hairs. No, nothing is free because we’re constrained by words and by medium. But “free verse†in poetry is merely meant to define a poem that doesn’t rely on rhyme or meter. It seems a useful word. More efficient to say certainly than “poetry that doesn’t rely on rhyme or meter.â€
What’s a “good†writer?
I think you’re splitting hairs. - Bingo Rainey.
siatd does this all the time.
siatd is quite the pedant.
I’m sure he’ll claim he is just looking for clarity.
This accusation is correct. But in hindsight they have left a fair archive of work…one which exhibits the spirit of an era, a fusion of creativity, a new take on old methods and ways of writing, they keep the muse alive in a very real sense, they enourage people to read0inspire, along with the whole boatload of writers past present…and future . There is as much Pro and Con in them as most writers…
Creative writers generally do, when you hold their critical vocabulary to account.
So, where’s the freedom? It isn’t free, but it’s called free. This isn’t pedantic.
So is ‘banana’, but it has about as much to do with poetry as ‘free verse’.
One that is better than a poor writer. If you don’t believe in the difference between good and bad writing then fine, just don’t engage in any form of critical discussion, including the use of critical terms.
It’s free relative to verse that is constrained by rhyme and meter. Maybe you’d prefer if it was called “freer verse� I have to say I’ve argued over more important things than this. Then again, there’s probably a point you’re making that I’m just missing. Never much one for philosophical arguments, really. I’m just a guy writes some poems. Your point is probably a very good one.
Oh but I do believe in the difference between good and bad writing. I’m just questioning whose definitions we’re going to use.
SIATD:
Exactly! The problem is that you think this is bad. Poetry reclaimed by the masses, by the poor, by the uneducated. You don’t have to be versed in quatrain, lento, sonnets, and all of it to be a poet.
defining poetry is absurd because poetry fights against some sort of inarticulation that always seems to win. the freedom may seem too lose, cheap, perhaps even slutty…but that is the freedom.
if any one has read “effortless mastery” by kenny werner. He makes the point that all of us (generally speaking) can be musicians.
in some cultures, everyone is a musician. In the west, it depends on the area etc. All kids grow up singing in church or school. and then later some are defined as musicians and others not. Of course some excell more than others. But where some kids are tone deaf, those same kids may be better at instruments, or at rhythm or form etc etc. so, most have ability in different areas. but many do not develop because of our society defining some as great and others as not.
what kenny werner thinks is that music can feed people’s souls, and so he makes the point that many more of us could also do music if they overcame the mental block that they are not musicians etc.
the same can be said of poetry. I think any attempt to give poetry to the masses is possitive, and free verse may very well do that.
. Poetry and music is not just for the rich and gifted . . . I think encouraging all to do it, will get us more possibilities of finding some great undiscovered stuff, and in my opinion can enrich lives.
go free poets, have fun!!!
Alexis,
Why make a Marxist issue out of it? I already know the answer to this (‘Free Verse’ being part of the ‘grand narrative of liberation’ that Lyotard identified at the heart of the Marxist teleology) but I’d like to see what you make of it.
I’ve no problem with working class writers. I have a huge problem with crap art gaining credibility because it happened to have been made by someone poor.
No, but you do have to be versed in these things to be a great poet. Poetry is not and never has been and never will be the spontaneous expression of an individual moment (as I contend in my argument on the Beats and Popular Culture, in the Essays forum).
That’s all language. Poetry is nothing special in this regard - it just tends to be a little more entropic than prose or drama.
And herein lies my problem. As I explained to ColinSign when we argued about this a couple of days ago, I see ‘free verse’ as the equivalent of the political notion of ‘individual free will’ and the philosophical notion of relativism, or ‘it’s just my opinion’.
All such notions of freedom or individualism ride roughshod over ALL other criteria for distinguishing good literature/art from bad. Even though verse is never free, humans are neither free nor individuals, and opinions aren’t relative to everything, these ‘philosophies’ (or at least notions) are pretending to be liberating when in fact they are fascistic. Under them, a poet is nothing more than a free individual working with free verse. That, to me, is a more limiting definition of poet/ry than insisting on the use of rhyme and rhythm, while it purports to be the opposite.
It’s simple hypocrisy, laid bare by the obvious fact that verse is never free. The use of ‘free’ is almost invariably of this sort - a hypocritical pretense of being open and liberated and not shackled when in fact it’s just another form of shackling, conceived of under the banner ‘freedom’ because, as mentioned, it’s part of the Grand Narrative (metanarrative) of liberation.
Rainey,
No, because I don’t believe it to be any more free than the ‘academic’ poetry that it usually seeks to be ‘rebelling’ against. Without redundancy, without structure (or at least shared dynamics), it simply wouldn’t be meaningful.
So have I. But this happened to be the subject for a recent piece of degree coursework that I did (posted in Essays) so I’ve been thinking about it a lot and worked myself into something of a lather about it all.
Well, it’s outlined in both my essay and my response to Alexis. You may or may not be interested.
‘Free verse’ takes all other definitions to be irrelevant because of the hypocrisy at the centre of its conception. I totally and utterly reject that it has anything to do with poetry, largely because it doesn’t exist, but also because as a critical mode it’s dangerous.
See what I mean?
And here’s where I think the root is of your working-yourself-into-a-lather problem. Your premise is that free verse seeks (‘usually’ you allow) to rebel against ‘academic’ poetry, poetry with rhyme or meter. Now, it can do that and it certainly has (the beat poets you mentioned are good examples). But surely free verse is more than this.
Look, maybe it’s a definitional problem. If we take as an example my poem “Mike†which can be found here, a poem without rhyme or meter, a poem I would therefore call a “free verse†poem, yet a poem with a definite theme, an idea to the writer of it (me) that could best be expressed without the constraints of rhyme or meter, would you claim this poem to be without meaning? Is this a free verse poem? Is it poetry at all? Understand I’m not seeking a critique of the poem; I’m interested in your definitions.
free verse is the very practice of freedom itself. expression without regard for rules…subjecting oneself to the elements. chance and taking a chance, or both, maybe neither.
free verse is deciding for oneself, regardless and despite it all. putting the world on hold in order to let some message express itself. free verse eradicates some filters that might pervert an inner message that reflects an outer world…this sounds monadic now.
free verse allows the veil of maya to lift and expose.
for me its a complete challenge and ridiculously easy. it keeps me healthy though, somehow. like exercising and meditating