Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
This argument is going no where. All you keep doing is suggesting everything on my side is "opinion", and then you make new additions to bandying generalizations in the form of indirectness referring to cars and horses, but don't show anything of how poetry specifically lives up to what you say or corresponds to anything you say in your indirect generalizations.
Earlier I responded to your point about cars and argued and reasoned why Traditional Verse is more like your description of new cars than Freeverse, when you yourself didn't give any demonstration of how freeverse lives up to what you were suggesting. Here is my comment again:
"What you described by cars sounds more like Traditional Verse to me. Traditional Verse is the one that uses "blue prints" or "models" that are already known to work to such an extent as practiced thro past experiences, and builds upon that, adding new things, varying things, testing things etc. Tradition is a root, on which the tree finds strength by standing thereon, and growing thereof. What root does freeverse stand on, other than the root of evil?
As well what "systems, structures and rules" did free verse bring? The line break was already around before freeverse, even in prose, I believe. Although I admit it wasn't taken to such vain excess as it is in Freeverse. Furthermore, I think most of the literary world already didn't and still doesn't for the most part use things like poetic meter and rhyme and syllable counts. Most of prose, most of scriptwriting, histories, etc, especially today. So what's new and unique about not using such things? Of course Math and Science for the most part don't use poetic meter and rhyme and syllable counts either. So if you are seeking "change from the normal" and "unique" What is the change and uniquemess about it? Nothing. It is already found almost everywhere. You may choose to use no rhyme, no meter, no syllable count, in every other artform. So why would you choose poetry? Just so you have very strong traditions that include meter, rhyme, and syllablecounts, to try to knock off the stage, and try to assimilate poetry to what already predominates in basically every other symbolic art?"
I also argued and reasoned to refer to how Freeverse and Traditional verse correspond to the analogy I gave of making a house with straw and making a house with brick:
"The same skill using straw to form a house doesn't magically make the straw as strong as the same skill using brick to make a house. No matter how much skill the first pig had, his house simply wasn't as strong as that of the pig that made his house with brick. Likewise, Freeverse is not as strong in comparison to Traditional verse, because it detaches or tries to "free" itself from the strong traditional forms and structures that strongly distinguishes poetry as poetry, and assimilates it to the way the language is already being used in almost any other craft (that is usually without things such a poetic meter, rhyme, or syllable counts). Equal skill doesn't automatically mean equal form. "
As long as you keep only accusing my opinion of being an opinion, something that doesn't prove it false whatsoever, and don't try to back up your analogies by showing how the form of poetry itself corresponds to your indirect generalizations suggesting Freeverse to be like "new cars" and bringing " newer, better systems, structures and rules", or to be like the automobile compared to the horse, then I don't see how you may say your argument stands as strongly as mine. I never tried to say that Traditional verse is better just because it has traditions, but because of what those traditions include and do and the distinctness they give to poetry.
I'm not willing to say Freeverse doesn't have any tradition either. But I am willing to acknowledge and say that its tradition is not as strong as that of Traditional Verse.