Their free verse was no form at all, yet it made history.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I've read some of your modern free verse and wonder who set it free.
Free verse seemed democratic because it offered freedom of access to writers. And those who disdained free verse would always be open to accusations of elitism, mandarinism. Open form was like common ground on which all might graze their cattle - it was not to be closed in by usurping landlords.
I am not at all clear what free verse is anymore. That's one of the things you learn not to know.
Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down.
The vast majority of free verse is ghastly. Utterly ghastly. No one reads it. No one listens to it.
Freedom has no history.
The Bible, for all its riches, is not a document of social history.
The history of free men is never really written by chance but by choice; their choice!
The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.
I never abandoned either forms or freedom. I imagine that most of what could be called free verse is in my first book. I got through that fairly early.