Kate & Margaret,
Actually, I've spent most of my efforts over the last couple of years writing free verse, not formal verse. I agree, Margaret, that the distinction between "free" verse and "formal" verse isn't as clear as some in each camp would like us to believe--all the while understanding that some distinctions are necessary foundations for us when we are deciding how to proceed with writing a particular poem.
So, I'm not condemning "free" verse wholesale.
But there is a problem with much contemporary free verse, IMO. Just looking through the journals, and even at many of the recent postings in the free verse sections of E-Sphere, gives me that chill: BANNED POST"free" is taken to mean "abandonment," and the abandonment is a shucking of coherent method: coherent arguments, imagery, syntax, punctuation, etc. Perhaps it's a dismissal of community, a preference for the great "I" of individuality--This is coming from an ardent individualist, by the way; but I also don't believe that individuals tend to exist separate from society/community.
One motivating factor for my posting of this thread here, rather than at General Talk or The Discerning Eye, is the dearth of constructive conversation or debate in this "Musing on Free Verse Mastery" forum. I suspect that the Tower of Babylon of Free Verse prevents it, because any attempt to come to a consensus on what are the most effective methods for producing good free verse...would be speedily decried as attempts to formalize the genre. On a more psychosocial level, many free verse poets would feel that their independence is threatened; and, thus, they'd feel that their muses are being threated with chains.
Kate, I believe that the best free verse poets currently writing pay attention to all the things you've mentioned; but then, why aren't assonance, consonance, rhythm, rhyme, etc., ever the focus of the critiques in the above free verse forums, aside from the occasional, "I really like your sounds, man!"? Content, voice, and argument seem to be the primary values discussed; and of course, imagery. Forget structures: I also suspect that the ever present statute of Freedom of Muse allows much incoherence to remain, even in these things. (I'm not including your critiques in this assessment, because they seem to be among the best.)
As for mixing up lines like this: I'm not sure that I don't like my random poem; it has a certain something, and with a little tweaking might make an interesting love poem...This is why I've used it as an example. These were all lines constructed by free verse poets who were deemed to be "real poets" by critics/publishers, whatever that is, who also deemed these lines to be worthy of inclusion in poems. The lines are not bad: Which is also why some free verse poets (not these, necessarily) focus on strong lines/images and disregard coherence as a whole for their poems.
I wonder if "Musing on Free Verse Mastery" even needs to be included on E-Sphere if no recognizable threads can be discerned in the genre. If "anything goes," then nothing is distinct. And, if nothing is distinct--if we can't isolate free verse technique for fear of chaining muses--then why bother musing on free verse mastery? Perhaps "mastery" doesn't exist in free verse?--what's to master, anyway?
Curtis.
Tim: Yes, "charlatanism" mastery exists and is one side effect of this "problem" with free verse. My question was intended to focus on the problem of whether or not "free verse" poets can justify themselves coherently, consensually, a la Plato's argument against poetry.
[This message has been edited by Curtis Gale Weeks (edited February 20, 2002).]
|