| Why I Am Not a Free Verse Poet |
| Okay, I’ll first offer the two “cop out” answers before I get to the real substantial argument.
First, I’m not a poet at all. I don’t think poetically. My perception of the world is simply not descriptive or abstract enough for me to write poetry of any real quality at all. This is true. Second, I don’t like free verse poetry. To borrow a phrase from my girlfriend, “it’s like cutting the bells out of the steeple and letting them fall down the stairs.” This is also true, as far as I’m concerned. But, these aren’t the real reasons I’m not a free verse poet. Now, there was a time when they were. I was a good ole “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” subjectivist that was more than willing to say “You like e. e. cummings and I like Robert Frost, so what?” But, recently, that has changed. See, I’ve had a realization. In certain ways, Ayn Rand was correct. She was crazy, of course. And her morals were way off kilter. But, she was basically right on a big issue: art demonstrates values. Now, because I like the term better, I’m going to restate that this way: art demonstrates worldview. Based on my analysis of the form of free verse poetry (FVP), I have come to certain conclusions regarding the worldview that it demonstrates. And this, my friend, is a worldview that I abhor. So, I’ll break it down. 1) FVP is anti-traditional. It should be noted under this point that I used the term “anti-traditional” not just “untraditional”. Praise music is “untraditional”, and I don’t mind it. The condemnation of hymns is “anti-traditional”, and that I despise. Now, it should be noted that I’m not a pure champion of tradition. There are traditions that are silly or even destructive. However, it is even more destructive to throw out tradition entirely than it is to hold to it in its entirety. FVP is an attack on traditional poetry, as it entirely and simultaneously dispenses with meter and rhyme. (Note: Merriam-Webster defines poetry as “metrical writing” as its first definition.) Much like many parts of the modern art movement, FVP seeks to destroy the traditional form that it mocks. It is not simply a supplement to traditional poetry. It is meant to be a replacement for it. How do I know this to be true? Simple, listen to free verse poets talk about traditional poetry. I would wager that you will rarely hear them say that they admire the work of a traditional poet. Rather, they will speak snobbishly and derisively (“Trad P is so cliché, sing-songy, and restrictive” is a common way of expressing this). Note: that doesn’t mean that they are wrong. It simply means that there is an opposition between traditional and free verse poetry. They are not allies. They are at war. If you like Robert Frost, don’t be fooled by the few nice words you might get from some FV poets. They don’t actually believe “to each his own”. They want you and your traditional ways disposed of. Eliminated. Moved out of the “artistic elite”. Artistically, they want you dead. 2) FVP is an attack on the natural order. I admit that I’m in a formative time of my own personal philosophy. It has changed significantly over the last year, even. However, I think I am beginning to come to rest on a belief in “the natural order”. I admit, it’s a very vague concept. But, the world is complicated, so any three word description of it is going to be a bit vague. So, I’ll expand. By “the natural order”, I mean a few things. Primarily, I mean that there is a “way the world works”. Very few people would disagree with this notion in regards to the physical world. Since Aristotle physical science has always laid forth the idea that the world operates according to certain rules, and that science is there to discover those rules with ever greater precision. This is one part of “the world” that I’m talking about. But, there are other, more significant ways in which the world works. Economics is a set of “way the world works” principles that point to how governments must act if they are to be prosperous. Morals are a set of “way the world works” principles that point to how humans must act if they are to get along. Aesthetics is a set of “way the world works” principles that point to how an artist must channel his talents if he is to create something beautiful. See, the idea that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a half-truth at best. I would actually contend that, in reality, it is a bald-faced lie. What makes something beautiful is inherent in the thing itself, not tied up in some schmuck’s (or some snob’s) perception of it. Think of it this way. I have in front of me a red binder. Say a color-blind person looks at it. To them, it looks gray. So, is it gray or red? The answer, of course, is that the binder is red. If it looks gray to you, that means that your color perception is perverted in some way. The same goes for that which is beautiful. Now, it’s easy for us “hard and fast” philosophers who want “yes or no” style answers to question this belief by saying “Fine, give me the standard. What makes something beautiful if it’s not individual perception?” Here, I’m at a loss to answer your question. Because, see, beauty is a complex phenomenon. It doesn’t operate on a “yes or no” basis. Rather, it is on a continuum. Things are either “more beautiful” or “less beautiful”, and there is no objectively discernible line between a “positive quantity” and a “negative quantity” of beauty. But, that doesn’t mean that there is no standard. Think of the term “beauty” as being like the term “big”. Sure, your personal use of it is relative. If something is larger (more beautiful) than what you are accustomed to seeing, then you will call it “big” (“beautiful”). If something is smaller (uglier) than what you are accustomed to seeing, then you will call it “little” (“ugly”). But, that doesn’t take away from the fact that bigness and beauty are inherent in the object spoken of, and that there is a standard by which the two may be judged. (Note: because beauty is a complex phenomenon, I think there are multiple standards that form a sort of “grading rubric”, so that deficiencies in one area may be made up in another. For example, Dali loses big points in “realism”, but gains points in “precision and shading”.) Now, relating back to poetry and FVP. I believe that there are at least two standards by which the beauty of a poem may be judged: rhyme and meter. (Of course, both are not required for any poem, and there are others that I haven’t mentioned.) These are things which naturally appeal to the human sense of beauty. FVP, however, denies these things along with the natural sense of beauty. But only saying this much is not saying enough. By denying the natural order in aesthetics, it also denies the natural order at large, and embraces relativism. By denying a natural sense of aesthetics, it denies a part of human nature, and once that is done, it is easy to deny the rest of human nature and embrace amoral hedonism, socialism, and atheism (or perhaps individualistic New Age-y spiritualism). Look at the “art community” and try to tell me I’m wrong. 3) FVP embraces self-glorification. Probably the strongest argument for FVP is that it aids in “self-expression”. However, that is only partially true. And, it is also only partially a good thing. Partial truth: What is necessary for “self-expression”? The answer, of course, is that you communicate a message about yourself to someone else. Now, compared to traditional poetry, free verse may very well allow for more self-expression. There I follow you. However, does FVP surpass the other method of self-expression? You know, prose. Here I answer with a resounding NO. Let’s look at it through this example: Prose: “I’m very sad today. My grandmother died from a stroke this morning.” FVP: Purple on gray in the morning Two generations back Tragedy. The message of the prose is obvious. “I’m very sad.” BAM! Instant self-expression! People will know precisely what you are saying, and why you are saying it. The message of the FVP is painfully vague. For all I know, it could be an environmentalist cry against the pollution that arose from the rapid industrial expansion in the 1920s. “Purple on gray in the morning” is clearly the sunlight being filtered through the precursor to modern smog. “Two generations back” gives us my grandmother’s generation. She was born in the late 1920s. “Tragedy” is condemning the subject, being the pollution. Plausible, no? Of course it is. In 50 years, I imagine my FVP will be in high school English books, and they’ll be debating how bad pollution is. My original message, that is, MY SELF-EXPRESSION, was entirely lost because I chose poetry over prose. So, does FVP help in self-expression. Sure, if you’re only comparing it to traditional poetry. It is less restrictive, I can give you that. But, if your goal is self-expression, just write prose. You’ll be far more successful. If, however, your goal is to confuse while you attack traditional culture, then FVP is the perfect weapon. Tell the truth, FV poets, THAT is your true goal. Partial goodness: Self-expression is not good in itself. It can be useful at times (after all, we all need to express ourselves some of the time). However, sometimes “self-expression” is really just a code term for “self-glorification”, and that, my friends, is vanity and sin. Well, if you buy traditional morals which ranks “humility” as a virtue. I do. I would argue that self-expression through FVP is, in fact, the most vain form of self-expression for a single reason: it is the most disrespectful to others. It is disrespectful to others in two ways. First, it is deliberately more confusing than prose. If you truly valued other people knowing what you are experiencing, you would express yourself in less vague terms. However, that is not your goal. Your goal is to appear deep. So, you write in FVP, so that they have less of an idea what you’re talking about. That is vain and disrespectful. Second, FVP is deliberately less beautiful than traditional poetry. So, you’ve first confused the people, thereby insulting their minds. Now you’ve berated them with something that doesn’t even appeal to their natural sense of beauty. You have dragged them through the artistic equivalent of sewage. The purpose of art should be this: to strive after the beautiful. That’s what art is all about. It’s about creating something beautiful. Claiming that it is self-expression is a perversion of its true purpose. But, when you go after self-expression at the expense of beauty, you cease to create art. Instead, you are creating a journal. Journals are fine. But, they’re not art. And, when you try to use FVP for self-expression, you do so inefficiently, as I’ve shown above. So, what did poets of old (Robert Frost being my favorite) try to do? They sought to create something beautiful. Was there self-expression in the process? Sure. But, it was not the goal. I imagine that Frost knew that many of his poems would create disagreement (Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening, for example). But, he made them in such a way that, even when there is disagreement as to interpretation, there must be unity in an essential point. Frost believed in creating something beautiful to edify the reader, whether they saw the deeper meaning or not. Maybe you agree with me, and maybe you don’t. That’s fine. Maybe you think my arguments are a touch over the top. [Note: If you believe this, then look at the “art community”. If statues of the Virgin Mary made of feces are not an attack on traditional values, what is? Okay, so maybe the express acceptance of downright hedonistic bisexual orgies is more an attack on traditional values. How about the National Endowment for the Arts funding a video of lesbians having sex in a bathtub filled with Jell-O?] The simple fact is this: modern art demonstrates a destructive worldview that spurns tradition, reality, beauty, and humility. Instead, it seeks to replace these things with hedonism, relativism, meaninglessness, and selfishness. FVP is just one symptom of this evil worldview. |
| Home Philosophy Theology Economics and Finance Politics The Arts Costa Rica 2004 Fun Stuff Links My Blog E-mail Me |
 |