FREE VERSE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 14, Issue 345, 1 February 1946, Page 5

FREE VERSE

Sir-TI read the appeal by your correspondent on the subject of Free Verse. Some of the so-called "intellectual" modern poets have adopted as an affectation a studied aversion to anything conventional in the writing of poetry. Several of them have (as "Really Interested" says) abandoned metre, rhyme and — occasionally-punctuation. Take, for example, this stanza of T. S. Eliot’s "Marina" (Faber & Faber’s edition)., "What seas what shores what granite islands towards my timbers And woodthrush calling through the fog My daughter." But these lines have force and beauty in spite of their unusual form. I think the reasons for this poetic revolt are the disillusionment resulting from the two World Wars, and a reaction from all that can be typified by the suburban prettiness of some of Tennyson’s poems. The ultra-modern school of poetry is struggling to free itself of what it considers the hampering shackles of rhyme and metre. It has done this, but has not replaced the former conventions with anything stable, and the result is the number of formless poems which have been written lately. Several poets of the ultra-modern school have done some fine work-I am thinking in particular.of T. §. Eliot, but even his work is sometimes morbid and disillusioned, There is, of course, no set form in Free Verse, which is a revolt against former ideas of poetry, but poetry must always have a certain lilt, even if it is not regular. Wordsworth said that all poetry should be "simple, sensuous and passionate’; the writers of "vers libre’ have chosen to go against these stipulations, and we must judge for ourselves whether Wordsworth’s ideas or theirs will triumph in the end.

J.P.

M.

(Marton).

Sir,-"Really Interested’? would have been interested in an article I read recently on the obscurity of modern verse. While giving both sides of the case it nevertheless thoroughly debunked the modern school. Also, after agreeing with St. John Adcock (author and critic) that "It is as futile to define poetry as it would be to define the Kingdom of Heaven," the writer of the article, after elaboration, goes’ on to say that "Poets should be the seers ahd prophets and teachers of humanity; they should enable us to comprehend the height and depth, the breadth and the circumference and the mystery of life." That such a goal cannot be fully achieved does not matter: the aim does. The aimlessness of modern verse was proved recently by four young men, two in England, and two in Australia, with the same humorous results. The English book was favourably received by critics and reviewers, and one Australian ‘editor in particular fell even more heavily for the hoax engineered by the two Australian poets. He actually hailed the "new poet" as one of "the two giants of Australian literature."

SUBSCRIBER

(Morrinsville),

Sir,-Your correspondent "Really Interested" is to be commended for his timely and pointed protest against the formless and erratic stuff which, for lack of a better name, we call Free Verse. The designation is all too generous; it

is indeed a contradiction of terms, since "verse" with no semblance of form or structure is not verse at all. We do not call a handful of wheels and springs a watch, nor a pile of bricks a church. And a collection of words, however well chosen, and however expressive of great ideas, has no claim to be called verse until it has been fashioned into’ the rhythmic form that distinguishes poetry from prose, The free verse writer, whatever his motive, escapes the labour-and misses the joy-of shaping his message with that regard for measure and rhythm and accent, to say nothing of rhyme, that might make his effort poetry. And yet it would appear that he is able, by the simple expedient of capriciously cutting up his work into a jumble of unequal lines, to win recognition for what, if submitted as the prose it is, might receive

OO aS hardly a moment’s consideration. What proud distinction might be yours, sir, if your excellent editorials, which really have something worthy to say, and say it worthily, were similarly chopped up! I wonder if some of our modern poets would condescend to tell us just wherein (apart from this playful indulgence in the game of cleavage) their work differs from plain prose. They might reveal the principles of operation that your correspondent enquires about, and so help to allay the suspicion that perhaps the dominant motive is the urge to exploit what is new and different merely because it is new and different, and regardless of whether the results are for better or for worse. Meanwhile we should not take too seriously the comfortable suggestion that "Heaven knows" anything about the rules of this irritating cult. There is little about free verse that reflects the rest and order*and sanity of the Celestial regions. Rather does it hint at the benighted and futile groupings of the denizens of "another place." I hope we shall hear a good deal more about it.

J.W.

B.

(Wellington),

FILMS AND THE TRUTH. Sir,-Mostly I can resist the urge to write to newspapers about all the things which madden me, But this time your correspondent "Abuse is no criticism" has brought me through the ropes into the arena to deliver this one stroke-not on behalf of "G.M."-not against "A.LN.C."-but for the sake of truthjust plain truth as an object worth fighting for. . Films as a cause of conflict are worthless. The world. could get along nicely without them. But the world gets along only badly use there is not enough truth among its hot-headed inhabitants; and unless there is some more truth soon, it won’t get along at all. So if we have an idea that civilisation as we know it is worth trying to save for improvement, then obvious untruths which are allowed to get around should be attacked on principle, without regard to subject matter. How does "A.I.N.C." get the idea that "G.M." supports British films against American? If "A.IL.N.C." has read The

Listener for as long as I have (and he could not have read it for longer) he would have noticed, if he chose, that "G.M." has frequently lauded to the skies some mediocre and even _ rubbishy American films. Suppose "A.I.N.C." tries to explain away the "stand up" claps awarded to the noisy Meet Me in St. Louis (with a clutch of dreadful ditties) and to Going My Way with its appalling namesake song, while Colonel Blimp — British made and one of the finest pictures of all time-received only secondary honours? . The Listener files are accessible to "A.LN.C."-let him look them up, and if he has any justice in him, he will see the pattern as above immeasurably extended. Easier still, let him look at Page 14-issue January 4.

F. E.

GEE

(Gisborne).

(Abridged.-Ed. )