[i]voice heard[/i]
the status of free 
verse 
poetry 
in the Euro-American poetic canon 
has heretofore been a question of voices 
heard and 
            unheard        
yet, before the whimsy 
of that canon can be discussed, the definition of [i]voice 
heard [/i]
for the purposes of this essay 
must be made 
explicit. 
here, [i]voice 
heard [/i]
denotes four properties: 
1) the self-expression of a person; 
2) which carries with it the entirety of that person’s personal context, in body, mind, 
and society; 
3) which is publicly available inasmuch as it can reach those who seek to engage with it, 
regardless of wealth or status; 
            and 
4) whose content remains unabated by any institution
al force seeking to systematic
ally restrict 
and promote certain types of expression.
having now 
the beginnings of a definition of [i]voice 
heard [/i]
— and with the promise of further development 
of that definition 
to come — 
it can now be said that, within the public 
scholastic sector, 
a single archetype of [i]voice 
heard [/i]first 
became the voice of the Euro-American poetic canon, 
            then 
                        subsequently 
wrote itself into existence, 
and others, 
out. 
This archetype is the indebted scholar (Harney and Moten 62).

exploring the voice of the indebted scholar requires 
explaining each property 
of [i]voice 
heard,[/i] 
as only through a voice being heard 
can one not hear 
another. 
this can take many forms: 
for the first property, 
self-expression is emphasized be
cause a person is 
capable 
of expressing only themselves. 
indeed, 
when one performs 
ethno
            graphy, 
extracts oral histories, 
or reprints 
another’s free verse, 
one harvests another person
’s self-expression and re-expresses it through one’s 
own 
            situated context. 
in this way, the indebted scholar is in a state 
of constant re
interpretation, collecting and 
“offering to match credit for debt” (Harney and Moten 62) as reimbursement 
for that person’s voice going 
            unheard 
and the indebted scholar’s being heard 
— yet that credit comes 
in the form of 
vouchers 
that can only be redeemed within the sphere 
of the indebted scholar’s 
influence. 
they will print more 
of one’s poetry in their ant
            hology, 
email one direct
ly for 
calls for submission
s, and request pieces 
            from one for an upcoming work, 
but the indebted scholar decides 
the subject 
of the anthology, what genres, themes, and 
structures 
are worth exploring, and who 
is appropriate 
                        for the task. 
the poems will always be 
framed by the indebted scholar, who drowns 
in lent credit that can never be 
redeemed quickly enough.

with the transformation of one
            ’s voice 
into the indebted scholar
            ’s [i]voice 
            heard,[/i] 
the second property 
of [i]voice 
heard, [/i]
personal context, 
is foreclosed upon as the person becomes disembodied 
            (Dumit 353), 
their physic
ality, mentality, and struggles 
[right]disappearing,[/right] 
replaced 
by the text of the indebted scholar. 
the person is lost in translation 
be
cause the Euro-American poetic canon 
has only one [i]voice 
heard, [/i]
and so those who evaluate 
and consume 
poetry should be able 
to project the indebted scholar 
onto 
            and 
back off of 
the page. 
in this way, the poet is 
credited 
for their 
            contribution, 
the voice is 
stripped 
from the 
            verse 
and the verse is 
shipped across the 
            sea 
            to serve 
in 
            the indebted scholar’s exploits. 
however, issues arise 
when the indebted scholar meets with a dis
sonant text: 
the free 
verse. 
when the trained 
ear 
has learned well the rhythmic lilting [i]voice 
heard [/i]
of the indebted scholar 
            and 
has since ceased to study 
other voices 
            (Harney and Moten 62), 
it cannot grasp 
the free 
verse, 
as 
it has know
ledge 
only en
            compass
                        ing 
the indebted scholar. 
the verse cannot serve the scholar; 
the voice cannot be stripped from the verse and rebranded; 
            and thus, 
the poet cannot be given credit, and only accrues debt 
— a debt of speaking into the 
[right]void 
and listening for the unheard.[/right]
these acts of speaking 
            unheard 
and listening 
are study (Harney and Moten 62), 
an act of know
ledge, 
where 
one empties and loses 
what they held as know
ledge. 
here, the third property 
of [i]voice 
heard,[/i] 
public access, is invoked, as the indebted scholar has this 
in all the wrong ways. 
the letters sent 
between 
lettered friends 
sharing poems were not open letters to the 
unlettered public, 
            but 
they received each other; 
the pro
genitors did not have platforms 
on which they could proliferate their poetry with
out boundaries, 
            but 
they could share with others who became pro
genitors and disciples; 
            and 
books were 
(are) 
expensive 
            and 
made 
            by 
            and 
            for 
other indebted scholars. 
yet, the poetry 
collections first read then learned 
by indebted scholars are rhymed 
and metered, 
and 
so 
they produce poetry 
collections that are rhymed 
and metered, 
which are first read and then learned 
by subsequent indebted scholars, who produce poetry 
collections based on having their 
know
ledge, writing their own canon into existence. 
the free verse 
poem is never read first, and then 
never read, because when it can be 
read, it is no longer a 
poem, 
but 
            degeneracy. 
if the indebted scholar studied 
— accruing debt by losing 
know
ledge, 
rather than by lending credit 
to those who then 
must lend credit — 
they would no longer be 
speaking 
and thus be 
able to hear the other voices. 
instead, those voices are written out 
            until 
they submit and 
accept credit.

the fourth property 
of [i]voice 
heard, [/i]
systematic restriction and promotion, over
laps with 
all of the above. 
the indebted scholar is an institution 
that promotes its own self
-expression 
of poetry 
to survive; 
            they decide 
which contexts should be 
expressed by poetry, 
and 
how; 
            they decide 
what is 
and isn’t 
poetry; 
and when their [i]voice 
heard [/i]
becomes threatened by the likes of free verse 
poets, they consume 
the free verse and reinterpret it as their own. 
the free verse which wasn’t 
poetry 
in accordance with their 
calcified learnings 
            (Harney and Moten 62) 
becomes 
poetry, subject 
to the indebted scholar’s approval. 
whitman becomes the father of the free 
verse 
            (Reynolds 314), 
even though there were others 
writing free 
            verse, be
cause in a domain of silence, 
other voices could be 
            heard 
if the indebted scholar was not 
speaking. 
so, the indebted scholar calls for submission
s 
of free verse 
only, 
publishes their free 
verse anthology, 
asks poets for free 
verses to critique academically, lending a new type 
of credit 
in exchange for the halting of study. 
            then, 
                        once again, 
the indebted scholar is 
the only [i]voice 
heard [/i]
in the Euro-American poetic canon, as their voice makes 
            unheard 
all others.

in summary, a definition of [i]voice 
heard [/i]
was given 
for the context of this essay, 
and used 
as a medium to explore the way in which the arche
typical [i]voice 
heard [/i]
of the indebted scholar became the sole 
[i]voice 
heard [/i]
of the Euro-American poetic canon, 
            and 
how that altered the nature 
of free verse 
poetry. 
by examining a
long
side the indebted scholar: 
            self-expression 
versus reinterpretation; 
            personal context 
versus general context; 
            public access 
versus private access; 
and 
            systematic control 
versus uncontrolled transmission, 
three events were established: 
the establishment of the indebted scholar
’s [i]voice 
heard [/i]
and thus Euro-American poetic canon, where know
ledge 
is credit lent to learn and lend credit; 
free 
verse as an act of study 
in the domain of poetry, where 
one empties one
self of the poetic canon so as to be able to study more; 
            and 
the assimilation of free 
verse into the Euro-American poetic canon so as to become 
the only [i]voice 
heard [/i]
on the subject of the free 
verse, 
and once again write out 
[right]other voices.[/right]

bibliography
Dumit, Joseph. "Writing the implosion: Teaching the world one thing at a time." [i]Cultural Anthropology[/i] 29.2 (2014): 344-362.

Haraway, Donna. "Teddy bear patriarchy: Taxidermy in the garden of Eden, New York City, 1908-1936." [i]Social Text 11[/i] (1984): 20-64.

Harney, Stefano and Fred Moten. 2013. EXCERPTS. [i]The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study.[/i] 62, 67-68, 124-127

Reynolds, David S. [i]Walt Whitman's America: A Cultural Biography.[/i] New York: Vintage Books, 1995. ISBN 0-679-76709-6