I agree that defining free verse from negatives -- i.e. from the constraints from which it has ostensibly been freed -- compels one to focus on "underlying" paradigms of formal verse (meter, rhyme, predefined structure as in a sonnet.)
One would wish to have positive things to say about free verse, which were not immediately re-definable as negations of formal origins, somewhat similarly to how representative democracy, a constitution and a bill of rights do not automatically hark back to colonial life under George III.
In that respect Bobby Jordan's request that the "non-met" forum receive a new name has merit. That said, "free verse" has become the common coin; and though we may change the name here to "open verse" or similar, the "free verse" monicker will be damnedably difficult to change in mainstream culture.
* * * * *
The observation that poetry today has a strong visible component is true. Curiously, in most on-line poetry forums such as this one, it is very time-consuming to format a poem with complex open-space, varying line-indentations and odd spaces between phrases.
Thus, most poems around here tend to be visually unexciting.
* * * * *
More to say later. I have an open-mic to attend.
Fred
|