i understand that this is because of differences in tradition, like itās clear to me that iām from a tradition where free verse never became the mainstream idea of poetry & became a big deal in poetry circles comparatively recently (not exclusively 1990s-early 21st century, but, it seems to me as a person who knows little, most significantly then), so that i personally could witness people bemoaning free verse as ruining poetry (with political associations about The Youth nowadays with their liberal views, blue hair & pronouns, & poetry without meter), & the native english speakers on the internet are Not from that tradition, & free verse did become the dominant poetry form in their tradition & seems to even register as such to people not in poetry circles. but i am what i am & my eye twitches when i hear that free verse is not real poetry & anyone can write free verse. also because itās obviously not true & as usual, this silly āthis is not real art because i could make itā nonsense is both usually inaccurate & reveals this odd equation of ātechnical skillā & āart qualityā which, like, try looking at things & thinking about what they make you feel! if what they make you feel is anger or discomfort or fear, try thinking about why! to equate art to the amount of time & effort it took to [learn to] make it is rob yourself of engaging with it at all! but mostly because i feel like i am talking to some conservative Defending the Form as done by Pushkin or whatever