Greenville, South Carolina
Why not keep on the topic? The topic is not I.
Actually Ess, you are very much part of the topic. Your attitude towards this is one of the main problems I have. Of course, you can think whatever you want, no one is here to stop you and I don't care to stop you. But when you say that an opinion is an ironclad fact, that's where I have my problem, with you.
Neither of them are like Freeverse.
Come on now Ess, I was giving an example. Two different styles of cars and two different styles of writing.
Ford or Chevy doesn't try to avoid structure, form, or rules. In fact they follow them very strictly, which makes them more along the lines of form verse, not freeverse..
If you're going to be so literal, then fine, I'll play along. Think of the newer cars as freeverse, ok. The newer cars have keyless ignition, cameras on the back of the car for going in reverse; automatic parallel parking, new and improved side airbags; computer ports to hook up your ipod to the car, built-in GPS systems and so on and so forth. So no Essorant, they don't "follow the rules very strictly." In fact, they replaced those rules with newer, better systems, structures and rules. So there you go.
Imagine if they decided that structure shouldn't belong to the car anymore? That a frame, lights, windows, seat belts, etc, or other important parts of structure. The car wouldn't be strong, safe, and in the end wouldn't even look much like a car anymore.
You say all this on the conceited notion that freeverse a.k.a. change from the norm, is a negative/inferior thing. Think of it as improvements where improvements are needed, like my above examples on the newer vehicles. They are not distorting the frame, they are altering it to make it better. Some people will consider the changes to be in good form and some people will think those changes are distortions. You fall in the latter group. Just because something is different from your preferences doesn't make it wrong or obsolete. You're going along the lines of "literary racism" Ess, if you know what I mean.
Nor does skill at making poetry without meter and rhyme make up for the lack of meter and rhyme.
A poem is not required to have meter and rhyme! Look at the Psalms in the Bible. Those are considered poetic prayers and they don't rhyme do they? No, hardly any of them do.
There is nothing poetically skillful about not using poetic meter or rhyme.
Your opinion. Your opinion. Your opinion!
Any form of writing, including the crudest scribble of words can do that.
I highly disagree with you.
But it seems you would even call the crudest scribble, full of curse words and obscurities too, equal poetry to that of Shakespeare, just because the author was very skillful.
Is that meant to be an insult Ess? That I have no knowledge or understanding of what a good poem is? I think that is an insult. Let me lay it out for you: If the "author was very skillful" then his writings wouldn't be "the crudest scribble" because he had talent! And is that where your problem is, obscurities and curse words? Is that really where your problem is?
Yes, many great writers. But not many great poets.
Many great poets Ess.
Look, you're an etymologist and a fine one, I respect that, I really do. But if you just look at poetry for its definition then you are closing your eyes to what poetry really is. Music is not just playing the correct notes, it's feeling the music with your entire body and soul. Anyone can play the right notes but if their soul isn't into it then it is not truly great music. And that passion cannot be defined in some dictionary definition. It cannot.
Look at the first definition of "poetry" in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poetry
the art of rhythmical composition, written or spoken, for exciting pleasure by beautiful, imaginative, or elevated thoughts.
I don't see anything about rhyming or meter in that first definition. I see rhythm, and good freeverse has rhythm in the same way jazz has rhythm.
Now look at the second definition:
literary work in metrical form; verse.
That is your definition, the one right under mine. Because poetry is not about rhyming or meter, it is about "exciting pleasure by beautiful, imaginative, or elevated thoughts." And if you can't see that then I truly do feel bad for you because you're only seeing half of what poetry is. And you're only looking at it for your textbook definition.
“Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.”