How do you define "free verse"?

[MorpheusSandman]

Eagleton's definition of poetry, which I didn't know about before, is beguiling in its simplicity, but I don't buy it. It implies, as you say, that prose broken up into short, irregular lines is not prose; it's free verse. If that's true, then any prosaic writing can be transformed into poetry by breaking it up into short irregular lines (just so long as the author rather than an editor/publisher decides how to lay out the lines on a page).

I think the problem with these disputes over the "meaning" of poetry is that one person talks of denotations and another is talking connotations; perhaps, more specifically, one person is talking extensions (objective qualities for classification) and another intensions (subjective qualities for classification). The reason you, eg, probably don't want to call "lineated prose" "poetry" is because, to you, poetry is more of a qualitative term (ie, speaking to the quality usage of lineated writing) rather than a descriptive term. The problem with all qualitative, connotative, intensionative definitions is that they are much too subjective; they rely on each individual's standards for what constitutes poetry. Whenever you read, eg, famous poets "defining" poetry, they always speak of very subjective qualities (eg, Dickinson's (paraphrased) "I know it's poetry when it blows my head off"). However, if you really get down to denotative, extensional qualities, the only definition that can account for every work we've called poetry since the beginning of the art is Eagleton's.

Personally, I see no reason to be exclusive with the "what is poetry?" question. If someone randomly lineates prose, why can't we just call it "bad free verse poetry" instead of "not poetry" at all? To me, that's why we have qualitative adjectives. I'd much rather keep the "poetry" term descriptive and just apply the relevant negative adjectives when necessary.

As for "verse" VS "poetry," I tend to think "verse" is just metrical poetry. I see no reason to use it for anything else.

[MorpheusSandman]

About twenty some years ago I read an article by Miller Williams stating that he had attended a high-level poetry conference in which poets who attempted to present any works that had the slightest whiff of meter or rhyme were all-but-laughed off the stage.

But guess what-- though rhyme may have been verboten, modern poets have meter never really abandoned meter. Quick-- who's the most iconoclastic poet you can think of. e.e. cummings? Ole Mister Lose-the-caps, mess- with-the- punctuation himself, right? Check out these lines:

Classic forms, even rhyme, has never really gone away. It may not be dominant as it once was, and it may have its share of dismissive critics, but I'd guess at least 50% of the century's best poets were primarily metrical/formal poets (Auden, Merrill, Yeats, Wilbur, Stevens, Frost, Lowell, Heaney, and Larkin to name several) and even the "iconoclasts" as you call them tended to use meter and rhyme on occasion. Even Eliot wrote a section for The Waste Land in rhymed couplets and only abandoned it because, as Pound said and Patrick pointed out in that article, it was vastly inferior to Pope.

[Nick Capozzoli]

...However, if you really get down to denotative, extensional qualities, the only definition that can account for every work we've called poetry since the beginning of the art is Eagleton's.

Personally, I see no reason to be exclusive with the "what is poetry?" question. If someone randomly lineates prose, why can't we just call it "bad free verse poetry" instead of "not poetry" at all? ...As for "verse" VS "poetry," I tend to think "verse" is just metrical poetry. I see no reason to use it for anything else.

Your comment that I bold-faced makes sense but begs the question.

Your statement: As for "verse" VS "poetry," I tend to think "verse" is just metrical poetry doesn't jibe with Eagleton's definition, where "verse" clearly refers to the arbitrary lineation without regard for any sort of poetic meter. OK, we can accept a definition of "verse" as writing with arbitrary authorially-selected lineation as "verse" as distinguished from "prose." And you can go on to classify such "verse" as "poetry" if you so desire.

I don't think this brings us any closer to being able to an understanding of what differentiates "poetry" from other forms of language. And while we are on the subject of language statements, we need to remember that we are not just dealing with written language, but orally spoken and heard language. It is almost certain that humans communicated with voiced language before we learned to read and write.

I think that WCW's Red Wheelbarrow is a fine example to consider in this discussion. It is "free verse" by any measure. It is also "poetry" and good poetry at that. It could be written as "prose" [without line breaks on the page as a single sentence] and still be "good poetry." It could be spoken and heard by an audience and be perceived as good poetry.

[MorpheusSandman]

Your statement: As for "verse" VS "poetry," I tend to think "verse" is just metrical poetry doesn't jibe with Eagleton's definition, where "verse" clearly refers to the arbitrary lineation without regard for any sort of poetic meter.

I think you're confused: Eagleton's definition dealt only with the difference between poetry and prose, not poetry and verse or prose and verse. Verse traditionally WAS metrical poetry, and I see no reason to change its meaning now.

I don't think this brings us any closer to being able to an understanding of what differentiates "poetry" from other forms of language.

Why does it not differentiate it from other forms of language? Even if we're dealing with pre-written, verbal poetry, the meter essentially determined where "lines" ended. It was a type of formal arrangement. EG, in Homer the Dactylic Hexameter line almost always ended with a dactyl/spondee combination on the final two feet to "signal" the end of the line. Rhyme and other devices can help signal the same thing in other forms of verbal poetry. So even there you have a means by which the author is determining where the lines in by their usage of formal signals.

It might also be useful to read through Yudkowsky's "A Human's Guide to Words" and, more specifically, this entry where "art" can be substituted for "poetry". It's the same argument, though.

I think that WCW's Red Wheelbarrow is a fine example to consider in this discussion. It is "free verse" by any measure. It is also "poetry" and good poetry at that. It could be written as "prose" [without line breaks on the page as a single sentence] and still be "good poetry." It could be spoken and heard by an audience and be perceived as good poetry.

If Red Wheelbarrow was written as prose it would not be "good poetry" or poetry at all. It might be "poetic," but not "poetry." One problem with reading free verse is that there really IS no way of distinguishing it from prose, unless one pauses significantly at the end of lines (which is my method).

[JCamilo]

You certainly do not define verse or free verse to then define poetry, it is certainly the other way around. If isnt poetry in first place, you do not even need to talk about verses.
Verse is a line in the poem. Free verse is when a ,poem verses do not keep a metrical pattern.
While 'prose poems" do not make sense unless under the context of XIX century, the idea that poetry can be used in prose makes a lot of sense, since poetry is also a reference to how the language is used and not just to one form (poems).

Poetry has everything to do with the proper choice of words, to create a rythim, harmony. You imagine that you can hear it. Prose goes to another direction, the rythim is different, the words are there for the presentation of the idea. And it is all a generalization. In art there is bound to happen overlaping areas, they do not destroy definitions, rather confirm it, many times expanding those same critery.

[MorpheusSandman]

...the idea that poetry can be used in prose makes a lot of sense, since poetry is also a reference to how the language is used and not just to one form (poems)... Poetry has everything to do with the proper choice of words, to create a rythim, harmony. You imagine that you can hear it. Prose goes to another direction, the rythim is different, the words are there for the presentation of the idea.

All of this is nothing but those "connotative, intensionative, qualitative" definitions I was talking about earlier. It has nothing to do with objective, extensional qualities that are actually useful for categorization and definitions. Prose poem is an oxymoron, simple as that. No century can create a prose poem any more than a century can produce a thin fat man.

[Paulclem]

I think that WCW's Red Wheelbarrow is a fine example to consider in this discussion. It is "free verse" by any measure. It is also "poetry" and good poetry at that. It could be written as "prose" [without line breaks on the page as a single sentence] and still be "good poetry." It could be spoken and heard by an audience and be perceived as good poetry.

I'm with Morpheus on this. The fact is that The Red Wheel barrow was not presented as prose but as a poem. That was the author's intention, just as Laurie Lee's poetic prose in Cider with Rosie is presented as prose whereas his poems are presented as poems. There's no confusion.

[JCamilo]

All of this is nothing but those "connotative, intensionative, qualitative" definitions I was talking about earlier. It has nothing to do with objective, extensional qualities that are actually useful for categorization and definitions. Prose poem is an oxymoron, simple as that. No century can create a prose poem any more than a century can produce a thin fat man.

I wasn't replying to you at all (when i opened the reply window your previous post wasn't visible yet).

Anyways, Prose Poem is not an oxymoron. However, It is not about form, it is about something else. Just think, the real difficulty is not to tell the difference between a prose poem by baudelaire and a poem by the same author, it is to tell the difference between a prose poem by baudelaire and short story by someone else. Baudelaire, Mallarme and cia. may raise questions about what is Poetry. But they do not add anything about what is free verse, which are as you mention, 2 completely different questions.

[MorpheusSandman]

Anyways, Prose Poem is not an oxymoron.

Yes it is. I've explained why. That some writers write highly poetic prose does not a prose poem make. I disagree that it's not about form; it's entirely about form. If you take away form as a means of classification the two terms become absolutely meaningless and useless.

[JCamilo]

No, it is not. Prose Poem was a reaction to the shift in the XIX century, when novels are getting popular althougth the quality of the text was not highly considered. Baudelaire was not trying to improve poems or present a new format, for example, he claims to be trying to give prose the miracle of a poetic prose. It is all about language we just need to compare it with Mallarme different works in prose and in that thing that had a lot of blank spaces in the page, which, by definition, sometimes had no verse, but was not prose and some people called Poetry. It is a different work from Whitman's free verse, Baudelaire rebelion is more spiritual.

It is an expression, anyone can understand perfectly what it means to the literary production and at least must know well that expression was not to mean a traditional poem, but rather the use of poetry devices even without verses. (And the dictomy prose-poetry or poems is not so clear as you claim to be. Several languages had no distinction between both or printing methods that didnt use verses as western world do and still have poetry. In the end, it is vague and must remain vague)

[MorpheusSandman]

Yes it is. I've explained why (is there an echo in here?). That Baudelaire or whomever decided to infuse prose with devices more commonly found in poetry does not magically transform prose into poetry. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. And I don't give two figs what Baudelaire "claims" to have done; if you believe everything poets claim then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Joyce's prose is as "poetic" as any prose out there, but, again, poetic prose is still not poetry. We need something formal, objective, analytical to make for legitimate, meaningful classifications, and if you take away the thing that includes all poetry in existence (lineation) and begin including non-lineated paragraphs, then there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming any text is poetry. What I typed right now? It's poetry. I mean, why not?

If you want to say that "prose poem" is just an expression and not a classification then I might as well put it in the same category of Dickinson saying poetry is what blows her head off. It's fine on a subjective level, but absolutely meaningless in regards to understanding what poetry is, what prose is, and what the difference between them is. I don't even see the need for the term when we can simply say "poetic prose," since that implies that we're using the connotative rather than denotative aspects of poetry to begin with, the same way I might describe a filmmaker or composer as "poetic" without claiming they're actually writing "poetry." I can almost guarantee that those "several languages" you refer to had some formal element that, if printed out, would distinguish their poetry from typical spoken/written language.

[AuntShecky]

I'm still looking for a clear definition of "free verse," a workable guideline that will assure me whether lines I've written are in fact a poem and not disjointed prose.

It's fuzzy thinking, if not equivocation, to state that one can immediately distinguish free verse from prose, to announce-- like the Supreme Court Justice asked to define pornography-- "I know it when I see it." Dismissing the issue by stating that one's reaction to a piece of work is "subjective" is a cop-out, to yours fooly's way of thinking

The adjective "free" throws a monkey wrench into the process since the word often connotes "free wheeling," "no holds barred," "anything goes" -- not that such a liberating attitude is necessarily a bad thing. But when the definition is so loose that rambling commentary by Scooter Rizzuto or the exploded syntax of Rumsfeld can be deemed "poetry," (or "found poems") then any definition of free verse is meaningless.


Even so, we still need a term to characterize the literary works which began to arrive in the late 19th- early 20th centuries, since the technique and tangible appearance of modern poetry are so radically different from the metered verse of the past.

Perhaps the emergence of free verse is a cognate of the revolution in the arts which demanded a complete overhaul in form with technological advances. For instance, the birth and refinement of photography more or less marginalized the previous prominence of representational painting.

[JCamilo]

Yes it is. I've explained why (is there an echo in here?). That Baudelaire or whomever decided to infuse prose with devices more commonly found in poetry does not magically transform prose into poetry. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

I am sorry, but it does. Poetry is not just writting in verse or metric, or anything like this. One evidence is given by Baudelaire himself, when he proposed such experiments, obviously breaking down a difference between writting poems and wrtting poetry. You sticking to an english word limitation dated to the XVIII century does not mean anything.

And I don't give two figs what Baudelaire "claims" to have done; if you believe everything poets claim then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Joyce's prose is as "poetic" as any prose out there, but, again, poetic prose is still not poetry.

Baudelaire (among many others, as he is not the only to do such thing) is an authority. Not you. It is Baudelaire who give a damn for what you think and there is more than one bridge made of people claims in a site. Your definition must deal with Baudelaire and all questions that his Prose poetry pointed, pretending you can dismiss it simply talks against you.

We need something formal, objective, analytical to make for legitimate, meaningful classifications, and if you take away the thing that includes all poetry in existence (lineation) and begin including non-lineated paragraphs, then there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming any text is poetry. What I typed right now? It's poetry. I mean, why not?

Because it is not poetic. If you are being analytical, your subject include all poetic texts, not just those with traditional western verses. I repeat, there is cultures that write with verses, in the traditional sense of breaking lines. There is all question raised by Baudelaire and many french authors: Poetry is quite more than writting poems.

If you want to say that "prose poem" is just an expression and not a classification then I might as well put it in the same category of Dickinson saying poetry is what blows her head off.

Seriously? How a metaphor "is the same" as textual style and even to say, an aesthetic experiement that produced several texts are the same thing?

It's fine on a subjective level, but absolutely meaningless in regards to understanding what poetry is, what prose is, and what the difference between them is.

Again, this is untrue. The proposition of "Prose poems" by baudelaire is exactly a way to expand the understanding what poetry is. He understood it so well that he was claiming the use of poetic language was possible in prose. And voillá, he proved his claims (and of Poe, Mallarmé, and many others) by producing several prose texts with clearly poetic devices. He just proved Poetry is certainly not just a poem or what is written in verses.

I don't even see the need for the term when we can simply say "poetic prose," since that implies that we're using the connotative rather than denotative aspects of poetry to begin with, the same way I might describe a filmmaker or composer as "poetic" without claiming they're actually writing "poetry." I can almost guarantee that those "several languages" you refer to had some formal element that, if printed out, would distinguish their poetry from typical spoken/written language.

Baudelaire uses poetic prose in the texts. Prose Poem is off course a propaganda term, but a stabilished propaganda term. Probally because Rousseau already used poetic prose before, so it was neede another one. It does not matter at all. Some people argue Edda means poetic, so how dumb would be prose and poetic edda latter names? Why to say lyrical or epic poetry at all?

Aunt:

The definition of of free verse is a poem made with their verses not following a metrical pattern. If you used verses without a metrical pattern then you are pretty much doing poems. Verse is the turn of line, nothing else than this. If your organize your poem with the line break, then you have it.

Plus, I think you can tell people to eat mushrooms however call your text disjointed prose.

[AuntShecky]

I forgot to say that, whether it is metric or free verse, the author's intentions are irrelevant.Such is the contention of Northrop Frye and the New (now old) Critics, and I agree with them.

Since intentions do not play a part, then "found poems" can be described as examples of free verse. Of course we'd be nitwits to assume that Sec. Rumsfeld and Scooter would have ever thought that their rambling discourse would ever be considered "poetry." Not in a million years.

But what about us would-be poets who have the effrontery to want to create such a thing in the worst way?

Although I am grateful to the responses in this thread, let's see if we can't come up with a workable definition of "free verse"

--Free verse is. . . .
A piece of creative writing consisting of a stated,compressed, or implied metaphor arranged in a form unrestricted by the usual conventions of prosody and open to a variety of aesthetic, intellectual, and emotional interpretations.

[Paulclem]

What about your definition with instead of arranged in a form but with line arrangements
inserted?

A piece of creative writing consisting of a stated,compressed, or implied metaphor, (arranged in a form), - with line arrangements unrestricted by the usual conventions of prosody and open to a variety of aesthetic, intellectual, and emotional interpretations.

I'm just thinking the word form is close to standard form.