Why do people try to claim that free verse poetry has any value whatsoever? It's shit and shouldn't even be grouped in with real poetry. Literally anything can be free verse poetry, so it lessens the weight which the term poetry holds for actual poems. If your poem doesn't rhyme, then it's automatically lessened in value by several magnitudes, though it can be redeemed if it has a good structure and flows well, like e e cummings's work. This has been my free verse poem, titled "Fuck Free Verse Poetry"
>>7356999
>If your poem doesn't rhyme
>pleb gets trips
>>7356999
Get off my board, essentialist.
I bet you don't like modern art either because it's not just all about "muh landscapes".
Get with the times, grandpa.
>>7356999
>If your poem doesn't rhyme
You don't like the greeks?
>>7357021
I don't like paint's being flung onto a canvas at random and then called art. I'm fine with most subject matter, but not the retarded idea that anything can be art. Art takes effort.
>>7357024
I can't read Greek, and I won't be so presumptuous as to make a judgement on a work without reading it in its native language.
>>7356999
Really neat usage of stress and vocabulary in your poem.
>>7357039
well it is art, but it's not particularly meaningful art. pieces like that are basically saying "it doesn't matter if it's good or you don't like it, someone could plausibly find infinite meaning in it, this is art" and the only proper response is "yeah, ok i guess so". if that's reaction you're looking for from your work be my guest.
>>7357039
Surely paint flung onto a canvas in such a way is far more expressive of the self than landscapes and portraits?
I like Pollock's work and a lot of abstract, expressionist work.
>anyone could do that
>but they didn't
>>7356999
>"Why do people try to claim that free verse poetry has any value whatsoever?"
Does poetry itself have any inherent value whatsoever?
>"...shouldn't even be grouped in with real poetry"
Who decides what is poetry and what isn't? Is there a committee I should know about? Are you the Chairman, deciding which types of poetry meet your aesthetic qualifications?
>"If your poem doesn't rhyme, then it's automatically lessened in value by several magnitudes"
So not only are you eliminating free verse from your aesthetic qualifications, you're removing all essence of structure-based poem that doesn't rhyme. You're right, OP. Paradise Lost just cannot match up to Roses are Red. Milton BTFO.
>"it can be redeemed if it has a good structure and flows well"
Okay, so we'll forgive Milton a little bit. Still not as good as Roses are Red though, that shit is fire.
Not only is your opinion discarded, you should make like Oscar the Grouch and just live in the trash. Pic is you, OP.
>>7356999
vers libre can be good (though it's often not) when it's just a looseness with form used at the discretion of a poet who thinks he can better attain the sound and sense of a line by ignoring his meter.
ezra pound, sometimes imagined to be a free verse revolutionary, was actually very wary of most 'vers libre' and was quick to point out that it was badly abused in his time. his own poems are often loosely metrical and have a discernible shape to them. he claims—though he's a bit full of shit—that he follows the inner harmony of a line rather than the surface scansion; that by loosing metrical restraints he can more exactly create the inner and slightly mysterious music of poetry.
this is not to say that he's right, or that free verse is a good movement. but it's not, at any rate, entirely a "free" medium. The poet is as tightly constrained as he chooses to be. If you take iambic pentameter couplets, and use internal rhymes instead of end rhymes, and freely add or subtract feet from any line (while ensuring that each couplet adds to ten feet), and freely substitute dactyls for iambs—this will be called free verse. And it is certainly more free than strict iambic pentameter. But it's not "no rules, anything goes"; it has rules.
And I may have made up that set of rules at random, but a poet may choose rules like those because he thinks it is strictly in keeping with the rhythm and sound that is required to make poetry of his subject-matter. If he is a serious poet, he will make up these metrical rules because he thinks he must do so, because the music of his poem requires it.
>>7357021
free verse can be defended.
but not like this.
>>7357039
You have a severe misconception of how much value the term 'art' holds.
Is there anything more boring than arguing whether something is 'art' or 'literature' or 'poetry', it's literally just fucking semantics. The thing is the thing it is, don't get bent out of shape by what it's called.
>>7357373
>art is hard to define so it must be meaningless
>>7357389
Pretty much, yeah. Except it's not too hard to define.
whenever i read free verse,
i feel my mood get much worse,
feel dread and defeat,
when i pick up the beats,
and the cocks cumming in jubilation all as one drinking together the sticky sticky cum, sticky sticky needle in the arm arm and the shallow references to eastern philosophy were cumming on the best grinds of high generation naked in the gange... transcend meter, transcend rhyme, and transcend the COCKS IN MY ASS
>>7356999
>If your poem doesn't rhyme, then it's automatically lessened in value by several magnitudes
Get the fuck out of here, please
le vers libre
est terrible
-anon
>>7357584
>all language is poetry
>all sounds are music
>all imagery is pornography
>all rules are fascist
