Why does free verse count as verse?

Free verse is the name to the structure. There is no rhyme scheme, and no fixed form - such as a sonnet, or a haiku.

However, that does not mean that the poem is devoid of rhythm or sound devices - just that they may not be at the end of the line.

Poetry (such as concrete poetry) may use a visual patterns instead of, or in addition to sound patterns. Free verse still contains internal rhymes, alliteration, repitition and some end of line rhymes and word choices to give specific sounds or meanings, but not necessarily in a consistent pattern.

The verse is an ordered structure - but it is a structure that is not dictated to by a specific form.

We can identify a sonnet, haiku or limerick through its form. Free verse means the absence of a set form, but not necessarily the absence of poetic techniques.

I wonder where the concept "prose poem" fits in all of this?

It does not. Prose poem is not about the form and it is also about using rythim to write, just in prose (there is also some extra about the language). The point is, today you do not need to call anything "Prose poem" to indicate the use of poetic rythim, style, language in prose, as many prose writers just do it.

If prose contains poetic rhythm, style and language how does verse differ from it? I do think the term "prose poem" is inappropriate. It is just prose.

Verse is not "what contains rythim, style or language". Verse is a line that contains elements of poetry. A prose poem does is not writen using this linear unity. That is the difference.

Obviously, however created the term was questioning the deffinition of poetry, prose and poems. With this he suggests those terms may be linked, mixed, but they are no always clear. At this point, anyone can understand the expression, so it is a bit of pointless saying it is not proper.

So verse depends on it being written? The only place one will find a "line" is on the page. Otherwise all one has is sound.

I liked this definition of prose poem:
"Though the name of the form may appear to be a contradiction, the prose poem essentially appears as prose, but reads like poetry.[...]While it lacks the line breaks associated with poetry, the prose poem maintains a poetic quality, often utilizing techniques common to poetry, such as fragmentation, compression, repetition, and rhyme. The prose poem can range in length from a few lines to several pages long, and it may explore a limitless array of styles and subjects."

https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/...em-poetic-form

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

So verse depends on it being written? The only place one will find a "line" is on the page. Otherwise all one has is sound.

---

Well, when you are talking about a writing unity, you depend on it being writen. Verse in oral form is also a unity - there is a break when someone is using the verse, but this definition is old and not the one addressed in written forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danik 2016

I liked this definition of prose poem:
"Though the name of the form may appear to be a contradiction, the prose poem essentially appears as prose, but reads like poetry.[...]While it lacks the line breaks associated with poetry, the prose poem maintains a poetic quality, often utilizing techniques common to poetry, such as fragmentation, compression, repetition, and rhyme. The prose poem can range in length from a few lines to several pages long, and it may explore a limitless array of styles and subjects."

https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/...em-poetic-form

---

My problem with this definition is that the difference is between prose and poetry as a matter of form and not a matter of language. Sure, sometimes you reffer to poetry as the same as a poem, but the whole point of the prose poem is that poetry is a matter of language, while prose and poem are a matter of form.

I se what you mean. But language is a trait of form too even if today it´s all mixed up and a cake receipt can me made into a poem.
My problem is: what would be the difference between a prose poem and the poetic prose of for example James Joyce or Guimarães Rosa. The lengt of the text, its general aspect, the lyrical or narrative purpose, all these things taken together...?

It is not different. Joyce was a reader of the french symbolists, Mallarmé and cia. You can call Finnegans Wake a huge prose poem. Rosa is of course in the same lineage and the use of prose for him is even more relevant, when you remember prose was a reference to dailly use of language and he does use the mineirês quite well. (Ironically, last week i was reading the news Finnegans would get a new translation to portuguese here and the writer of the article called it a Prose Poem, I am sure many have did this).

For what it's worth, I find Finnegans Wake unreadable. I wonder how they will translate that into Portuguese.

It will be the second translation, I didn't read the first one because I read Finnegans Wake in joyish. Obviously, I would have a bit of gag, that a perfect translation of Finnegans Wake wouldn't need to have anything to do with the original.

double post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

For what it's worth, I find Finnegans Wake unreadable. I wonder how they will translate that into Portuguese.

---

I agree, it is a very difficult read, you have to have time and concentration. But it is fascinating too. It is a kind of literature that experiments with language, as mathematics experiment with combinations of numbers.

And I believe it is a different book for each reader that attempts to read it. It depends of which of Joyce´s references are famililiar to the reader.For example I read some pages and had only a very faint idea about what it was about. A friend of mine knew Irish folklore. His reading was much more complete than mine.
Another had no difficulty in selecting a striking passage:
"(bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerron ntuonnthunntro
varrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!)".