Talk:Free verse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Poetry (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

ok, the concept belies the method in its purview of vagarious, you say free verse? I say free is a matter of contextual thought when the pretext of what is is not formulated. And yes, the rendition must be in manners of laudable art form, the inventiveness of imagery, for instance, conveys a certain internal mode contrary to the concept...the irony could kill an elephant.

This article is not fine. Except for the random reference to vers libre. I don't know enough about poetry to fix it, but it is certainly incomplete.

--- How about some examples? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

--- Shouldn't this page also include a discussion of the criticisms of free verse? --MattOConnor (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Yes, particularly citations for quotes, such as Robert Frost's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macduffman (talkcontribs) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Where/when did Frost say this? I've always seen this dropped in as a one-liner without any context. Where did it come from, and can such a statement be representative of his entire view of free-verse if it has no context? (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

edit by[edit]

"However, much like blank verse poetry, it has been suggested that free verse poetry be recategroized simply as another type of literary composition since, in contrast to literally ever other type of traditional poetry, it doesn't rhyme."

I've reverted this edit, much as was done with the similar edit to blank verse. We don't need sour grapes spoiling the article. But some more cogent, and sourced, criticism of free verse wouldn't be out of place.GreetingsEarthling (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Overhaul[edit]

I think it is important to remember that not everyone reading this article will want to take a scholarly approach to the subject - perhaps the introductory paragraph could be rewritten to include a basic definition of how free verse differs from rhyming verse.

Also expressions like "other traditional elements of expression, such as diction and syntax may still be prominent" are very vague. This sentence contains syntax for example and how I decide to use punctuation will determine the resulting diction.

Just as a last thought, it might be prudent to introduce a section concerning why some poets prefer the use of free verse to other forms.

Thanks Natty444 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it that the article has gone from whatever was written when the above was posted to now having no introductory paragraph at all? --Shadebug (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there then only two verse forms - "rhyming" and "free"? What happened to alliterative, metrical and many others that have been successfully used over the millennia? (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The section "Form and Structure" offers exclusively a subjective and potentially biased view of the merits of free verse. Both argument and counter-argument are needed for the section to be objective. (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No examples?[edit]

I think that there should be a few small examples or extracts of free verse poems demonstrating its non strict but still recognizable rhythmic and rhyme patterns which characterize free verse poems.-- (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased and subjective[edit]

"Free verse is not easy to write... much pattern and discipline is to be found in it.... the choice of exact words and the effect of associations give it its beauty." - This is the writer's opinion, and doesn't really have a place here.

Also, I do not think Jim Morrison is a reputable source. While a famous lyricist, he wasn't really known for his free verse poetry, and certainly not for his literary criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased lede[edit]

The whole lede is completely biased. After a one sentence neutral definition, it springs straight into nothing for the rest of the intro but criticism of free verse and how it is not free and that two people think it's restrictive, without even any exploration of how free verse has been argued to actually BE 'free' and not 'restrictive' first. Or at least we should talk more about what free verse intends to achieve, when it was started to be first used, it's changes and developments over time, key authors who used it (Whitman and Lawrence, for example). EryZ (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Free verse is not poetry and those who write it are not poets[edit]

It is asked on this talk page "should there not be some criticisms of free verse" so I am putting back an entry which shows free verse is not poetry and those who write it are not poets. This entry will be most likely deleted often as it breaks some people idol that free verse is poetry. So here is the entry


CritiqueA critique which shows that according to the standard definition of poetry ie in metre free verse is not poetry and those who write it ie Walt Whitman , T S Eliot etc are not poets. Thus most modernist poetry is not really poetry at all but only prose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kullusa (talkcontribs) 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO that link look suspicious. I think that if a critique to free verse should be made then a reference to a scholar article should be preferred. Tesi1700 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)