Text 1: Critic Park argues that Walt Whitman's free verse was revolutionary because it broke from the metrical traditions of English poetry. By using long, unpunctuated lines that imitate the rhythms of natural speech, Whitman opened American poetry to everyday voices and democratic subjects.
Text 2: Critic Singh accepts Whitman's importance but notes that "free" verse is a misleading label. Whitman's lines, she argues, are organized by parallelism, anaphora, and breath-length cadences as strict as any meter. His innovation lay not in escaping form but in inventing a new one, drawing on the King James Bible and oratorical traditions.
Both authors would most likely agree that
- A
Whitman's lines are entirely without organizing principles.
- B
Whitman is unimportant in American poetry.
- C
Whitman's verse is identical to traditional English meter.
- Dcheck_circle
Whitman's verse departed from traditional English metrical practice.
Explanation
Both accept Whitman's departure from English meter; they differ on whether his lines are "free" or formally organized in new ways. A is shared. B, C, and D contradict at least one critic.