Greenville, South Carolina
I not sure you thought this comment out.
Wouldn't be the first time, or second time. Perhaps I just didn't explain myself properly.
If "anybody" can follow a traditional "dress pattern," a real fun excercise might be to write a sonnet, and then, just for the pure joy of it, write, say, 127 more, making each one sing...
Heh, well of course you use Shakes as your example. I bring up paper airplanes and you're talkin' about 747's. Really, what I'm trying to say is that people today have this notion that rhyming and certain patterns will make a poem good. I'm saying that many people truly believe that all they have to do is follow this "pattern" and whatever nonsense they pump out will be good. The problem is that most of the traditional poetry I see today doesn't "make each one sing" like you said. I mean come on, you've seen some of the traditional poetry today, it tends to be unbearable. Then again, you get some of these beat poets who need to be shot with a crossbow... My God, I don't think I have a good opinion about poetry in general. This is news to me... Do I hate poetry? Wow, I'm confused now.
Well anyways, this is pretty much just residue leftover from the "what is poetry" thread that Ess and I never really came to terms with. That's why I was keeping it brief and incoherent. Ok, the latter wasn't really intentional but who gives a Chippendale (I like to use cabinetmakers in phrases whenever I can).
Free verse, as you go on to correct yourself, seems totally constrained by the skills and referential background of both poet and reader.
Yes, freeverse is an acquired taste I suppose, and it does limit both parties but not everyone digs Jackson Pollock either. A lot of people prefer the "Jack and Jill ran up a hill" poem, that's just how I see it. What can I say, I'm a rebel without a leather jacket.
And when I said:
"I'm saying that many people truly believe that all they have to do is follow this "pattern" and whatever nonsense they pump out will be good."
I'm the same way. Because a lot of my expletive is a steamy pile of expletive soup. Everybody has certain formulas they follow, to a certain degree, the neo-traditional style of poetry just irks me I suppose. That's not to say it's bad because it's not; I just have an itch and it doesn't scratch me the right way.
Like traditional verse, it's entirely a matter of the "right hands."
I think, in essence, what you are objecting to is "incompetent execution" in traditional forms.
I'm not the one who establishes the line for competency in any format.
Maybe not. But I'm very proud to say that I utilize all of my incompetence on the side of freeverse. I don't pretend to be a good poet; I pretend to be a good writer in other formats by not in poetry. I just like to tell stories and use cool word combinations and poetry is a good way to tell a quick story.
And I qualify this by saying that the technically naive are not the same as the "incompetent."
I might just be naive about how high my level of incompetence is (in this area that is). I don't hide the fact that I don't study poetry (I have in the past) but retained none of it and don't care to.
“Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.”