Jump to content

Talk:Free verse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Natty444 (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 15 May 2009 (Suggested Overhaul). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPoetry Start‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

ok, the concept belies the method in its purview of vagarious dissemination...free, 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. No questions asked.

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)[reply]

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

Citations/Examples

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

edit by 70.234.222.255

"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)[reply]

Suggested Overhaul

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)[reply]