In Defence of Free Verse

Free verse was first used by French symbolist poets in the late 1800s. T. S. Eliot was among the first poets writing in English to adopt it and introduced it to the English- speaking world by its French term, vers libre. He and other Modern poets adopted it in reaction to the disorientation that resulted with the advent of World War I. Since then, it has become the most used form (yes, form) of Western poetry. Many poets employ it as their default mode of expression. Because so much of free verse has been poorly written in recent years, and because confessional poetry (which free verse is closely associated with) has long since fallen out of fashion, there is a movement in the poetry world at the moment that declares it dead, used up, even inferior. Many are almost fanatically advocating the return of form as the mode of choice for 21st century poets.

But the very existence of such an ideal reveals an ignorance concerning how poetry is being practiced today and what exactly free verse (vers libre) really is. This ignorance is rather surprising when one takes into account the over-emphasis on academic degrees, professorships, and lecture posts among contemporary poets- so much so that the casual observer and beginning poet may come to think these are required for one to be a true poet.

The argument in favor of a return to form ignores two facts. One, that a large portion of contemporary poets utilise both traditional forms and free verse throughout their various oeuvres. Two, that free verse (vers libre) is itself a poetic form and, after more than a century's use, might well be considered as a traditional form in Western literature.

As for that first point, one could easily pick up the Collected volumes of any number of well known poets publishing today and see the truth of it. Many of our most beloved poets do not limit themselves either to free verse or tradional forms alone, but freely and skillfully employ anything available to them.

As for the second point, it is true that many use free verse incorrectly and lazily. Many mistakenly believe that free verse means that the poem can have no structure at all. Many poems passed off as "free verse" amount to little more than prose poems with line breaks and even stanza breaks. Some of it cannot even be loosely considered as prose poems. It would be beneficial to remind some that sentences seperated by blank spaces on the page do not make those sentences poetry. In fact, free verse is very structured and requires some skill to write in a satisfactory manner. It is a form.

Perhaps the best example of what I'm trying to clarify is the work of T. S. Eliot himself: "The Waste Land". Anyone who has taken poetry classes in any college in the U. S. has had to dissect this poem. Look closely at it again. It is written in free verse (or as Eliot himself would have called it: vers libre). But what is it that makes it liberal or liberated as a form? You will quickly see that it is not a total lack of form. In fact, it is a potpourri of forms. And that is what free verse is: it uses what is commonly refered to as the traditional forms and slips in and out of them freely. Sometimes these parts rhyme and sometimes they don't. But never is there a moment in that poem where form does not exist. One piece may be blank verse, another a variation on a sonnet. It changes. It is fluid. It is living. But it is undeniably structured.

When one realises that free verse is actually a sort of tiny collection of forms, and thereby a form in its own right, the argument that one needs to turn one's back on it as poetry in order to return to form negates itself. The sentiment that it is used up also becomes unreasonable because the problem that has brought up that sentiment is misuse (or no use at all) of free verse brought on by a collective misunderstanding of what it is. In theory and in practice, there is no limit to the variation and possible manipulations of the free verse form, just as there is no limit to the variations and possible manipulations of the sonnet (and most of the other traditional) forms. How then could it be out-of-date, undesirable to use, and time to dicard it?

The Legend of Leyla and Majnun: Its Importance in Eastern and Western Traditions

Reprinted from my AC page, as was the other essays I've posted here: http://http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/64959/sabne_raznik.html


One of the most common legends throughout the Middle East is "Leyla and Majnun". The title varies as names are translated, but these names mean: Leyla- Arabic for night, Majnun- Arabic for demon or mad man, specifically madly in love. Some of the details of the story can vary as well. There is some claim that the legends are based on a true story about a Bedouin poet named Qays ibn al-Mulawwah ibn Muzahim and a woman called Layla bint Mahdi ibn Sa'd, better known as Layla Al-Aamiriya. The legends are far-flung and both India and Saudi Arabia claim to have the tomb of the lovers.

The most popular version of the story was written by Nizami Ganjavi (1141-1209) in the Persian tongue. In this story Majnun falls in love with Leyla at first sight but is denied marrying her. This drives him to madness and poetry becomes his salvation. His father takes him to a temple to implore the god's help for his son, but instead Majnun prays that his love will continue to grow since he knows his life is worthless without it. Eventually, he retreats to the wilderness (which reminded me of the Celtic legend of "Mad Sweeney") to live with the animals and recite poetry he had written for Leyla. His health slowly declines and he exhausts all symbolic and psychological desire. When he last meets with Leyla, he no longer wishes to live, so driven mad by denied love as he is, and dies in her arms. She then dies beside him of grief. Some versions have her dying first and his own mad grief and love driving him finally to his death afterwards.

The legend has proved to be the influence of many great Western works of literature. During the Middle Ages, thanks to travelling troubadours and the crusades, there was much cross-pollination between these different cultures. The story of Leyla and Majnun was adapted and westernised for such classic tales as "Tristan and Isolde", "Aucassin et Nicolette", "La Fou d'Elsa", and perhaps most famously "Romeo and Juliette" among others. It was also the first work ever created in the Italian musical genre in the Muslim world. It was so adapted by Uzeyir Hajibeyov. Hajibeyov's version of the story is an enormously successful synthesis between East and West, and between European classical music and Oriental culture, it is said.

One of the most defining differences between the Western adaptions and the Eastern legends concerning Majnun and Leyla is the view of love according to culture. In the West, as can be seen by refering to the adaptations and Western literature which has been influenced by the Eastern legends, true love is nearly always a consummated love. Whether that love is approved by the powers that be or not, the love-struck and typically doomed couple will usually at some point have sexual relations. Only then is the love fully realised and sympathised with. In the Eastern legends, this love is almost never consummated. In fact, the legends' driving force is dependent on that fact. This is because in Oriental tradition, particularly the Islamic, true love for a person is a pure love, one that does not require sexual intimacy. Only if the love remains pure and free of physical relations can it be the kind of love that leads one to the complete love of the divine. In Leyla and Majnun, this is what characterises Majnun's insanity- that it is a manifestation of his having reached the ultimate state of divine love and hence, in a sense, has himself become divine. Therefore, the love-mad, non-revolutionary poet is, in Oriental tradition, a divine being.

The reasons for Leyla's family's rejection of Majnun also differs from that of the Western adaptations. In "Romeo and Juliette" that rejection is based on mutual emnity between the families. In "Tristan and Isolde" it is because of social standing and because Isolde is already betrothed. In Leyla and Majnun, he is rejected because of the poetic nature of his love. In Oriental culture love is a secret thing. Marriages are even today typically arranged by families for the advancement of the family or for whatever reason. It is not to be spoken of in public or advertised, because love, although desirable, is not a requirement for those marriages and the happiness attained within them (however much the Western world believes that love is vital for happiness, many other cultures do not believe that to be so, and when both parties to the marriage agree on this belief it can be true). So when Majnun publicises his love by spouting poetry outside the walls of Leyla's house and in the streets, this offends Leyla's family and breaks this code, if you will. Since he is considered divine because of the poetic intensity of his love, he is no longer considered as a human being in that cultural environment and, as such, is not eligible for the marriage. In other words, the union would have resulted in scandal. That is why, in the Iranian and Turkic traditions, Majnun is viewed as a pure and absolute martyr to divine love, although that interpretation is not included in all Eastern versions of the legend. In the context of this brief discussion of cultural differences and interpretations, it is interesting to note that the action of the legend is set during what is called "Jahiliyah"- meaning "ignorance"- and predates Islam by one hundred years.

The legends of Leyla and Majnun still ring true for audiences today, especially youths. Western youths long for the kind of love which would be so strong as to allow either or both partners to die for each other if necessary. In the fast-paced society that exists today, it is common for people to marry multiple times and still not experience the love that Western culture insists is vital to such a relationship, and so the modern connection to the Western adaptions is a sort of nostalgic longing for true love that never dies even in death. In the Orient, arranged marriages are still more or less the norm and the possiblility of forbidden love is a real one. Therefore, Leyla and Majnun's difficulties still have a very real and immediate currency there. Also, there is the unique phenomenon created by immigration. In Southern California alone, there are nearly one million Iranians and there are many, many more of Middle Eastern origin throughout the Western world. Coming as they are from a culture where love is a private matter into one that experienced the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s and where sex is so common and open that it is even used to sell products as advertising, the effects can be devestating. There have even been cases of insanity due to the effort required to reconcile these totally different ways of thinking. For these ones, the legends of Leyla and Majnun have an altogether unique meaning of its own.

Truly, this classical Eastern legend deserves close scrutiny by those from both sides of the world, as it has had a profound effect on both.