(05-08-2014, 05:04 PM)Caleb Murdock Wrote: I started out writing in heavily cadenced free verse in my 20's. As I learned more about meter, I started to gravitate to that. However, the original free-verse tendency never left me.it's kid of paradoxical really that you equate free verse with heavily cadenced. what in fact you're saying is;
i write free verse with a lot of rhythm, ie meter. you do i'm assuming know what cadence is and relates to?
(05-08-2014, 05:04 PM)Caleb Murdock Wrote: Consequently, I rarely achieve perfect IP. Some lines will scan as iambic tetrameter and some will scan as iambic pentameter, and many of the lines will have frequent anomalies (although many will be perfectly iambic).i see what you did there....what do mean exactly
(05-08-2014, 05:04 PM)Caleb Murdock Wrote: Non-poets who read my poetry have no problem with it, while formalist poets get bent out of shape over the imperfect meter. My advice to them is, "Read it as if it were free-verse" -- but because the poem comes close to sounding like metered poetry, they still don't like it. Without a doubt, I'm stretching the envelope. My tendency is to feel that poetry in general is headed in my direction: cadenced but not rigidly metrical.what do you mean comes close to? do you mean there's a metered poem on the next page? so if it's not rigidly metrical is it partially metrical. what do you mean by the term "free verse"? and are you saying read the partially metrical free verse as though it has no metrical parts. how does one read any kind of meter as if there was an absence of meter? how would we even know to fake out the metered parts of the poem