>>8160231
>It can't just be haphazard and pointless, can it?
It isn't: the lines in free verse are often determined by rhythm or rhyme, and, I've noticed, normally focus on a single image or idea. That said, there are plenty of hacks--Bukowski, Gonzalez, Kaur--who think free verse means you can do whatever the fuck you want, and that one-word lines are cool and deep and not complete rhythmic fuck-ups.

it's not haphazard or pointless, and like >>8160250 said, the lines usually follow some kind of rhythm or rhyme. the best free verse poetry still "sings" or whatever the way other poetry does, it just doesn't follow a rigid set of rules.
Walt Whitman is a good example: his poetry still has a musicality or rhythm to it, and what makes him an important poet is that he achieves a distinct rhythm in his poetry that doesn't depend on preconceived poetic forms, which is why we love him in the US.
Emily Dickinson's poetry is also a good example because it seems more traditional (rhymes and such) but is actually really fucking weird.

OP, just do what I do and declare that free verse isn't poetry. Eject Whitman from the poetry canon, he doesn't belong there. Create some new class of word-art so he can squat there like the mongrel he is. It's not poetry.

>>8160231
pound and co used metre in their poetry, look for it and figure out why it's there

>>8160231
Free verse isn't poetry without meter, it is poetry without rigid preconceived meter. There is a difference and it is very important.

>>8160267
emily dickinsons poetry is metrical, you tard.