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

[jgdittier]

Dear All,
Having been an avowed R&Mer since I started in 2001, I can't but find this a topic that demands my response.
Mr. Fry criticizes fv. It is assumed he does it for commercial benefit and because he's just out of the mainstream.
Mr. Milton criticizes rhyme at a time that he decides to write a long, serious poem, intended to be his masterpiece. He does this after building his reputation by writing conventional R&M.
His intent to eliminate the constraints if rhyme is of course, far-sighted and in no way commercially postured.
Mr. Milton is still known for R&M and "Paradise Lost". Somehow, I can't remember any fv under his name.
Amongst my personal favorite poetry are his Il Penseroso and La Allegra. I wonder how they might read in fv, written by himself or by any poet of modern times.
Yes, I fear greatly for the glorious English poetry heritage which is under powerful assault.
I'll never understand the current rationale that reduced to simplicity reads this way.:

fv liberates its poet to express the most elegant aspects of language

R&M imposes rhythm and usually rhyme on its author and should now be encumbered
by additional restrictions originally recognized to assist the poet in his compositions. Those newly imposed restrictions are elisions, inversions, filler and repeated words, cliches, etc.
Perhaps poetic license exists only in R&M.

Can it be said that with R&M there is a laundry list of don'ts and with fv there are no don'ts?

Here's a chance for all of us to initiate a friendly debate. I'll not rely on Fry. Above are some comments available for you to take issue with.

Cheers, Ron jgd
(A reminder, my quest is to promote the poetry and poets of yore, not to destroy modern
poetry, asiatic to fv.)