Do you guys have preferences for either free verse poems or those with a structure form, both in writing and reading? I've been interested in discussing this for a while as, to write, I find free verse much easier-the expression comes more naturally when not adhered to patterns etc. Although writing structured poetry might improve writing skills. What do you guys think?
Free verse is more conversational. But I don't find it unstructured per-say, just not structured in a particular way. I think good free verse poems have unique structures -- not non-existent ones.
I think you might mean: 'Freeverse Vs Formal?' In my opinion your question is somewhat of a false dichotomy. I like both if they're genuine and well-crafted.
I prefer structured. There's a certain beauty to them. Usually, good structured poems are harmonious and fluid when read aloud.
Undoubtedly. But with no structure at all, it isn't poetry. Poetry is the construction of words in a non-sentential form to generate something that is more than the sum of the words. So you're missing the point. Poetry isn't easy. The structure, even if it is not a formal meter and rhyme scaffolding, is what distinguishes poetry from a word dump. "Free verse" requires you define your own structure, not that you chuck it all and just throw words at paper.
as a poet who writes both rhymed and 'free' verse, i have to thank cog for saving me all that writing... he's right!
Though it should be said that many accomplished poets use rhyme techniques in freeverse. And not all formal verse is 'rhymed'. See blank verse.
I have a preference for writing free verses, but, when reading, I'm just looking for good verses. I agree that free-verse poems really aren't devoid of structure; I usually find that they have plenty of it! When I don't, I tend to assume it's poorly disguised prose, lol.
In my experience with poetry writing, I found free verse to be less restrictive, not easier. But I still agree with this.
i'm glad you brought that up, solar... i use a wide variety of rhyming techniques, not just the end-rhyme sort you seem to be thinking of as being 'rhymed'... you'll find interior rhyme and last word-to-first word rhyming in many of my pieces... that still makes them 'rhymed' in my book, not 'free' verse... if by 'formal' you mean standardized structures such as sonnets and their ancient ilk, i don't write any of those, but devise my own vast array of structures on a poem by poem basis, arranging each one as it seems to want/need to be arranged... love and hugs, maia
Mama, you were talking as if the defining characteristic of formal verse was that it 'rhymed' and the defining characteristic of freeverse was that it doesn't rhyme. I just wanted to say that not all formal poetry is required to rhyme (blank verse). Not all 'rhymed' poetry is formal. Not all freeverse is devoid of rhyme. In fact, as someone that has had poetry published (freeverse and formal), I categorically assure you: rhyming is used in freeverse.
you seem to have read much more into what i wrote than was actually meant by those few words... btw, i have also had poetry published [in newspapers and magazines, since the mid-80s] and i don't actually assign such labels to my poems, was simply referring to the commonly used ones in my post... so, we are not in disagreement on this issue...
I've seen so much bad "free verse," I've grown to expect it to be bad even before reading a piece. That's because a lot of what I've read has been written by people who write what they call free verse simply because they know absolutely nothing about writing poetry. It's like painting only abstracts because you don't really know how to paint. The funniest thing is when one of these "free verse poets" or abstract painters takes the moral high ground and insists their art is somehow more art (whatever that means) than traditional paintings or formal poems, that their art is free from the confines of rules and the more traditional poems/paintings are somehow worse because they do follow some forms. This is where I try not to roll my eyes and leave them on their high horse. I'm not a poet or a painter, but give me William Blake or e e cummings any time over their "art."
i am a poet, though not a painter, tt, and have to agree with you in toto... thanks for saying it all for me! hugs, m
