Meter and rhyme can become distractions from poetic imagery and thoughts, akin to the rhymes in doggerel and catterel, only on a higher level. That's one reason a poet might omit them. To me as a reader only, the essence of poetry is that it's evocative, generally in a non-prose form, rather than literally communicative. Of course it can be prose-like, just as some writers are know for a poetic quality to their prose, but then its point is likely not a literal message. And just because poetry is written without the repetitive character of meter does not at all mean that deliberate, carefully crafted rhythm is not an element.
You bastard You broke My television's remote Did you laugh? Snicker? Groan? Then it's evocative, thus successful as poetry. Unless you literally are the jerk who broke my remote. But maybe even then.
I'm struggling with that right now. I have an old free verse poem that I started writing in 2019, and at one point I got fed up with fiddling with line breaks and reformatted it into paragraphs so I could focus more on the flow of words without line structure problems distracting me. But I actually liked the prosey version, for the most part! It was more flash fiction vignette than poem, but it read well. I'm still not completely sold on it, though, since I feel that some parts work best with the line breaks (especially the ending, where they really add some punch). Decisions, decisions. Maybe I should throw both versions into the workshop and get some reactions... Absolutely! Despite my username, I'm only an occasional poet, but I've been in the mood for it again lately.
@AntPoems You may be the exception, but in my experience, most people use free verse as a short-cut through the grass. You're paving a new sidewalk, but the problem is you're paving it out of jello and it leads to Narnia. What I mean to say is, you've admitted to your metered poems being "good" and "loved", whilst your free-verse poems are unfinished and "choppy". I'll afford you the point that not all free-verse poems are lazily written but you've peaked a new curiosity. If one form is not only easier for you to write and unanimously adored, and another form is arduous and offers easy fodder for critique and even ridicule, not to mention is stripped of a primary judgement criteria(meter), why would a person choose the latter? "They weren't brilliant, but I'm willing to call them good, and the other participants loved them." "Meanwhile, I have free verse poems that I've been agonizing over for years, struggling to make a structure that works for my words." I'll rest my case on the juxtaposition of your two quotes, and finalize with the notion that poems have long since had meter and your last post may be unknowingly scratching at the surface of why.
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.) Seriously, though, I'm not ripping rhyme or maligning meter; both are wonderful. I'm merely stating that poetry can be wonderful without them, too. As for short-cuts, I can't speak for anyone but myself, about my own writing process (though I do know that much has been written about the masters; Eliot's struggles with "The Waste Land" are well-documented, for instance). All my poems grow from some small seed (or perhaps tuber ) of inspiration - a line or two, a single phrase, some random little gift from the Muse. That generally determines the form the poem takes. If my initial seed feels metrical or has a natural rhyme, then I tend to continue in that style as I write more. If the seed feels more wild and unstructured, that's how the poem grows. I can no more imagine my free verse poems as rigidly structured than I can imagine my formal poems as free verse. Granted, there are times when I do change forms mid-poem, but again, it's an organic process, driven by feel for what the poem needs, rather than a master plan. I wrote a poem a while back about being caught in a house fire. It started as a very scattered, disjointed series of images, very much free verse and intended to capture the chaos of the experience, but at some point I made an allusion to Wilfred Owen's war poem "Dulce et decorum est," and that took over my thinking. I ended up scrapping everything but the allusion and writing a traditionally rhymed, metrical poem that mimicked Owen's structure. Why? Because it just worked.
Reading back up the thread, I just noticed this and wasn't sure what to make of it. How can you not care about a poet's word choices? It's one of the fundamental aspects of poetry. That's like saying you don't care what material an architect uses to make a building - "Marble? Steel? Old, rotten wood from down by the creek? Meh, whatever." Well, taste is subjective, so what affects me may leave you cold, but I'll offer some favorites. I'm not widely read in poetry, mostly just the well-known masters, but I've enjoyed these. Walt Whitman, "a noiseless patient spider" Carl Sandberg, "Chicago" D.H. Lawrence, "Tortoise Shout" For comparison, some more formal poems that I love: Robert Frost, "Design" (a nice, buggy counterpoint to the Whitman) Tennyson, "Ulysses" (a masterpiece of blank verse) Stevie Smith, "Sunt Leones" (cheeky as all hell)
Lmao the tuber line got me. And likewise. I'm not trying to completely write off free verse, I think the thread is interesting and my natural inclination is towards rhyme and meter. I guess for me, I used to write free verse when I was younger, and perhaps now I associate it with a less refined more childlike approach because of that, that's my best guess as to my personal aversion towards it. Although I may do a very brief free verse study thanks to this thread, just to better understand where you're coming from. And also, just for fun, I wrote you a poem. Here, watch me dull All of your points A poem's a dance With rhythm and joints Can you hear the melody? Or’s your head up your coit? Nonetheless we’ll dash meter Reducing harmonies to oinks Now, these bleats exemplify nonsensical formlessness Does this approach make it easier to follow? Perhaps, Perhaps not, But by mutating into this amorphous blob It’s become something diminished, Something, pointless Now back to the music Lest that shaky bridge collapse Leaving all it’s traversers Wondering why they’re trapped I hope this lays rest To this silliest of spats Free-verse is Moby Dick And this, my final gaff
Yay! Thanks for the poem! *Does a happy little ant dance* I can understand your association of free verse with childishness; it's definitely easy to write bad verse and call it "poetry," and there are legions of mopey teenagers who do just that, mimicking Sylvia Plath or Gertrude Stein without putting in the work to really learn why those poets wrote the way they did. Admittedly, I really haven't, either - I'm just faking my way through all this - but I do think seriously about it. As for your future studies, I think it's always worth exploring new ideas with an open mind. By all means, read some classic free verse poems, and try to understand why they're written that way. But if your preference is for rhyme and meter, then be your own spud and write that way! Welcome to the board! I look forward to more conversations with you.
Word choices are important. I meant the the vibe I get from a piece that says "My word choice trumps all. Be in amazement." I like whalt Whitman poem. It had some rythem.
Interesting. I don't think I've ever gotten that vibe from a poem. Funny how different people's reactions can be to the same piece. But I've certainly read plenty of poems that I didn't connect with, even well-regarded ones. We like what we like, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I don’t know what that means. Anyway, this is it. It’s long but worth a read if you’re interested. Of course it’s only one man’s opinion. The pages are in order (1 - 4 from top to bottom)
You can learn plenty on story structure from wrestling. Jim Cornette is a genius for long term booking. Randy Savage is a star for in-ring psychology. The equivalent of the novel and the short story. Matches and angles have the same arcs as a lot of great pieces of writing. I say this without irony. And I may be hated for it.
Not to mention the balladry of the commentary. Lmao seriously though I used to watch wrestling as a kid but I was more into the humor of it, DX was so funny, Triple H was the ultimate clown but simultaneously a badass. I've always loved the badass clown motif. But yeah there's definitely some narrative lessons to be learned from pro wrestling.
I’d recommend the various Jim Cornette podcasts. He hates modern wrestling, but his knowledge is encyclopaedic. He can explain exactly why each match does or doesn’t work both as a stand alone, in relation to the rest of a show and in relation to a storyline. It’s genuinely exciting to hear him explain things. And his explanations of how it used to work in the old days was basically how folks who lived and breathed that culture managed to draw crowds by serialising a story for months on end. It’s grassroots and perfectly constructed (and I guess his critiques of modern shows will be the equivalent of picking apart a badly written cash cow).
