[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Glenn Wright

Robert Frost is supposed to have said something to the effect that writing free verse is like playing handball without a wall or tennis without a net. In my case, writing free verse feels more like doing a trapeze act without a net. I am much more comfortable composing formal, metrical poems, but I’m going to offer a piece of free verse that I have been working on for your consideration.

I've been writing it for twelve years and feel like I'm just coming to grips with what non-met is and isn't lately. But I'll try to provide a few scattered thoughts.

IMO, it's ideal that a non-met poem have some element of originality, and be confident in what it is. When I started critiquing in this section a few years ago I tended to want to pull people's poetry closer to what I liked myself. But these days I don't think there's really anything like a singular approach.

The trouble, however, happens when a non-met poem doesn't know what it wants to be, and it waffles between different approaches. My take is that in these cases a writer needs to pause and be more clear about what they're trying to do with their piece of writing. If it feels like the words are being forced out onto the page, then you're rambling, not singing.

On the originality point, I think you can get by without it, but without something in a poem that resonates beyond a medium threshold, you might have produced something of quality, but your poem could be forgettable. Not really a problem unless you're aiming higher.

Beyond that, like metrical, you still need a pleasing rhythm and some level of a pleasing structure. To me you accomplished both of these with your poem. The rhythm works, the structure works. But in general with non-met you'd want to emphasize the 'free' part, just let loose and produce something that reads well.

[Glenn Wright]

Hi Nick. I was holding my breath as I read your post, wondering what your verdict would be. I exhaled when I read your last paragraph. Thanks for the qualified vote of confidence. You hit on exactly what makes free verse difficult for me—the existential panic of having the freedom to make an infinite number of choices. I like order, and when I write free verse, I feel my blood pressure rise as I try to force my words into some semblance of order. As with parenting, that impulse to force one’s offspring into a rigid mold can backfire spectacularly. Writing metrical verse is like raising kids in a low-crime, affluent, suburban neighborhood with covenants and good schools. Writing free verse is like raising kids in a chaotic, crime-ridden neighborhood where social norms are flouted or missing—scary, but exciting.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful and wise advice.
Glenn

[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Glenn Wright

Writing metrical verse is like raising kids in a low-crime, affluent, suburban neighborhood with covenants and good schools. Writing free verse is like raising kids in a chaotic, crime-ridden neighborhood where social norms are flouted or missing—scary, but exciting.

FWIW, you might have more luck keeping your experimentation with free-verse private, rather than relying too much on critique. The possibilities are quite expansive, and I think if you let go of the burning desire to write a good poem, and just have fun with it, you might be surprised where your writing leads you. But the results can be quite subversive, and won't always appeal to someone providing critique. And of course you'd need to get out of the mindset metrical has got you in.

I've found that the form of non-met poems can vary wildly, and that it's not a bad idea to lean into that. Just let your writing carry the form.

[John Riley]

Hello, we haven't met yet. I appreciate the topic but it's one difficult to write about and not fall into sentimentalism. These ceremonies are sentimental by design. I wouldn't care for a poem that merely echoes the funeral ceremony. I think you both avoid and don't avoid that and there is an easy solution. Ditch S1. All it does is narrate the ritual of folding the flag. It's as though I'm watching it on TV. S2, on the other hand, does a better job of reliving the experience for the reader. Starting with the rifle shots we feel some shock. The narration turns to the black marble and ends with the necessity of having an individual ceremony to get the taste of the sanctioned one, which in the end sentimentalizes dying in war, out of your mouth. It's quite a bit different from S1 and much better. Perhaps you will want to expand S2. It isn't necessary. Keeping the title will designate the event and short poems have a special kick.

The chatter about writing non-met poetry and critiquing it is amusing. It never--I'm being sarcastic--gets old. Non-met is harder to critique because you can't focus on this beat here or there. That is also the reason it's more of a challenge to write. There is no crutch. You make a new design and find a new rhythm for the lines and the poem each time. I'm not good at met poetry primarily because I lose interest when writing. I'm motivated by other things. We all have strengths and skills and to pit one against the other, mine is superior because of -----, is boring.

I think S2 can be a sharp comment about the experience of being at a military funeral. We don't need to know when and how the person died. It's a moment. That's enough for any poem.

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, John—
You encouraged me to step back and look critically at what I wanted to say and how successfully I said it. I realized that you were right about the first stanza. It’s flabby and misdirects the reader’s attention from the more important themes in the second stanza. I thought it was clever to use 21 lines to represent the rifle salute, but now I see that that locked me into filling lines that I really didn’t need or want. James had also earlier expressed some doubt about the purpose of the first stanza.
The effect I really want to highlight is the contrast between the stylized, choreographed, stoic, public mourning sanctioned by the military and the personal, confused, conflicted, emotional, private mourning that occurs some time later when the shock wears off. I really like your suggestion of beginning with the rifle salute. I kept the “part dance, part prayer, a piece of theater” because it essentially sums up military grieving and because the three /p/ phrases imitate the three blasts of the salute. The rest of the first stanza went into the stock pot.
I divided the second stanza to signal the gap in time and the shift from public to private. Roger had suggested this break earlier.
I ended up jettisoning the contemplation on grief/disbelief. I think this is a good thing. The first version was trying to do too many things and ended up stepping on its own feet (pun intended). I think the new version is more focused and, hopefully, packs a bigger punch. Short poems do, often, as you say “have a special kick.”
Thanks very much for your helpful critique.
Glenn