Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
Well, I never hid my opinion about forms. My opinion still stands as it was expressed here here:
"I won't hide the fact that I find freeverse an inferior form of writing poetry when held up in comparison with traditional, wellwritten formverse in English. In my opinion it is a bit of a delusion to paint it out as if it is an "equal" tool. I simply don't see this "tool" doing as well as the tools of such poets as the Beowulf-Poet, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Pope, and Poe and so many others, that heightened poetry so strongly thro stress-meter, syllable-stress meter, and rhyme. They had much more than good ideas, but they heightened the language as much as possible to bring forth ideas and words in as eloquent a way as possible. People today may go that distance as well if they dared to be so ambitious and heighten language as much as possible by using such forms. But since freeverse basically "frees" itself from those, it also lacks the long historical support of them. That doesn't mean it doesn't have its own more individual strength, but that individual strength is is not as strong as the traditional forms already so strongly proven thro many ages."
As far as judging a poem as "unpoetic", I think it is like saying a man is "bald" or "blind". Many if not most that we call "bald" or "blind" still have some hair and some sight. Just like "bald" or "blind" we often use the word unpoetic (and poetic) intensively, not to indicate an absolute absence of something, but a predominace of an inability or absence of something. In other words unpoetic may usually refer to something "not very poetic" instead of something "not poetic at all"