Stephen Fry's comments on free verse, UK Observer Newspaper article link Options

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Well known writer, actor, media personality and intellectual Stephen Fry has a new book out about poety.

This link is to an article in the Observer Sunday newspaper last weekend where he says what he thinks about free verse.

WARNING: Mr Fry does not mince his words: some of his language is a little coarse (however, if a highly respectable and popular Sunday broadsheet can carry it nationally I assume MM can)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1593317,00.html

I'd be very interested in hearing what everyone thinks of his comments.

My own first response is - if free verse is emotional self-gratification, then form is merely the intellectual counterpart of the same thing.

Growling  :dragon:

Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Part of a letter, which I started in reply to "The Observer" (Fran's right - perhaps the best-respected British Sunday newspaper).

Sir,

Stephen Fry's analysis of his own poem is simply an attack. Mr Fry, the poet, should not stand for such an unwarranted critique by Stephen Fry, the critic.

Let us look at Stephen Fry's words which I hope he doesn't expect us to seriously take to be a proper anal-ysis (just trying to join in with his use of language, if I can).

"The (poem, below) is precisely the kind of worthless a##e-dribble I am forced to read whenever I agree to judge a poetry competition. It took me under a minute and a half to write, and while I dare say you can see what utter w##k it is, there are many who would accept it as poetry ...

It isn't "w##k" at all.  A w##k can be very satisfying. This isn't, I'm afraid. Also, a minute and a half does seem an extraordinary-long time to compose this.

OK, let's have a look…

cigaretted and drinked (two non-words and is "and" - the only recognised word - really necessary?
loaded against yourself (twisted grammar - sounds to be for effect / affected)
you seem so yes bold (abused grammar, again to no purpose)
irreducible
but nuded and afterloved (avoid but if you can) (Two more non-words)
you are not so strong (limp line)
are you
after all (Question mark required)

I really don't have any useful suggestions for this poem, which don't include various techniques of destruction. It does not even serve its apparent purpose - to illustrate Stephen Fry's claims of the paucity of quality freeverse - because it is the worst poem I've read for many years - so is not typical, nor indicative in any way.

Could the above poem be re-written better? Not as a great poem, simply as a reasonable freeverse poem? Yes. Here's my (two minute) attempt:

Overdosed on self-destruction -
tobacco, alcohol, anything -
your bold façade hides
hollowness…
a desperate craving for love.

The question format which Mr Fry suggests could be employed but is unnecessary in such a certain case.

Now, I'm sure many freeverse poets could do as well as this and very many far better. But few could produce work as bad as Mr Fry's spurious example.

Besides, why does he judge freeverse competitions (or competition which include it) if he hates it so?

There is nothing wrong with form poetry but it has no special merit over freeverse - much drivel has been written by poets in many forms, too. The quality of the work is related to the artist, not the medium per se.

Now, we've all played Mr Fry's game and assisted in the publicity and promotion of his new book. I suspect this was largely a marketing exercise. So what can we learn about promoting books from that? Oh yes, write one after becoming a celeb - newspapers will then publish any self-publicity drivel one wishes - and relative poorer people (like me) then assist free of charge.

J.