I am curious about one thing. And realize this is coming from a person who started writing in metered verse all of six months ago--so I am not one of those people who think verse is boring old shit (if I am going to waste my time and get carpal tunnel syndrome, I would rather play backgammon). What would you say if someone said to you verse is just a complete waste of time because it is an artificial affectation (and yes, that is an exact quote from someone who read one of my metered poems)? Would that convince you to start writing free verse? I started writing in verse because I read Dana Gioia's essay and thought he made a good deal of sense--and because it was fun. Frustrating (often), but fun. And I now wind up writing about 75% formal verse to 25% free verse. But I doubt I ever would have attempted to do so if I were browbeat into it. That is what I think Rhina means by "armed camps"--and I see this attitude on both sides of the battlefield.
It's my jewel box Len. I don't expect anyone else to admire, ipso facto, my gems. And I also realize what may be a jewel to me may be zirconium to you. OK, fair enough. That's why the library is so big. But I don't think that telling people free verse is shit is going to convince a single person who likes it that all poetry should have a metrical or syllabic or accentual structure. I think all it ultimately does is make people defensive. And the war continues. I think it's a shame.
What I loved, besides Gioia's essay, was Rhina's explanation that a poem is a box the poet is dancing within. What a marvelous metaphor. Some people like to waltz or foxtrot, but there will always be people who prefer to dance as the music they hear moves them. You may consider what they do spastic or, at the very least. lacking in elemental grace. But there are lots of rhythms in this world--and isn't it fun just to dance?
Best regards to you--
Tom
|