Poetry isn't always saying something in the fewest number of words. It's about making an observation--be it of a physical thing or a metaphorical concept--and telling about it in such a way that the poem is something that people will like to read. And that's a really bad definition. It's hard to define what poetry is.
But to illustrate my point, I'll post two poems, both by a poet laureate. One is free verse, the other is not. I know comparing poetry is an apples to oranges sort of thing, but I tried to pick a good example of each that were about the same size, in order to make this comparison as legitimate as possible.
"Hide and Seek"
It's hard not
to jump out
instead of
waiting to be
found. It's
hard to be
alone so long
and then hear
someone come
around. It's
like some form
of skin's developed
in the air
that, rather
than have torn,
you tear.
"Nothing Gold Can Stay"
Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Now, "Hide and Seek" certainly isn't bad, but I think you would agree with me in the notion that "Nothing Gold Can Stay" is better. And I realize that my argument is extremely, extremely flawed--just because one rhyming poem is better than one free verse poem doesn't mean rhymed verses are superior. But there's no way to illustrate my argument without bringing actual poems into the debate.
And honestly. Think of your five favorite famous poems. I bet at least 4 of them have rhymed verses. Well-known poems tend to be rhymed-versed, which would seem to reflect that, at the very least, rhyming poems are more memorable.
I do like the freedom free verse gives, though. I personally like writing in an x/a/x/a/x/b/x/b pattern; i.e., every other line rhymes. I get the freedom of free verse with the beauty of a rhyme scheme. I also try to keep my poems in iambic pentameter. I'm picky though.
But to illustrate my point, I'll post two poems, both by a poet laureate. One is free verse, the other is not. I know comparing poetry is an apples to oranges sort of thing, but I tried to pick a good example of each that were about the same size, in order to make this comparison as legitimate as possible.
"Hide and Seek"
It's hard not
to jump out
instead of
waiting to be
found. It's
hard to be
alone so long
and then hear
someone come
around. It's
like some form
of skin's developed
in the air
that, rather
than have torn,
you tear.
"Nothing Gold Can Stay"
Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Now, "Hide and Seek" certainly isn't bad, but I think you would agree with me in the notion that "Nothing Gold Can Stay" is better. And I realize that my argument is extremely, extremely flawed--just because one rhyming poem is better than one free verse poem doesn't mean rhymed verses are superior. But there's no way to illustrate my argument without bringing actual poems into the debate.
And honestly. Think of your five favorite famous poems. I bet at least 4 of them have rhymed verses. Well-known poems tend to be rhymed-versed, which would seem to reflect that, at the very least, rhyming poems are more memorable.
I do like the freedom free verse gives, though. I personally like writing in an x/a/x/a/x/b/x/b pattern; i.e., every other line rhymes. I get the freedom of free verse with the beauty of a rhyme scheme. I also try to keep my poems in iambic pentameter. I'm picky though.
30-Jun-2011 00:45:19