Purists mumble “linking narratives are not novels-in-verse!!!” while cuddling their threadbare Lucile. Now, let’s take a moment to sort these concerns out.
How do novels-in-verse differ from collections of linking narrative poems? What are their strengths, when is each appropriate, and why do I use the term novel-in-verse to refer to both genres?
Let's consider some definitions:
Novel-in-verse can be used to indicate both subgenres because both use poetry the way a novel uses prose.
When a poet has a story to tell, how does one chose between the two options? The linking narrative has the advantage of being easier to write. Without intending a narrative, poets often find that their poems fit together naturally to tell a story.
The book of linking narratives can also be easier to read; a book of separate short poems is certainly less intimidating than one uniform 300 page piece. Titles, section breaks, and other structures throughout the work serve as place markers. Within a group of poems the poet can manipulate rhythm and meter to elevate or reduce tension, add or subtract emotional load, and work in a kaleidoscope of other features.
Books of linking narratives can resemble a photo album or collage; a group of lyric poems, when taken together can form a narrative. We will discuss this further in an upcoming article.
A book-length poem is more difficult to write, and more difficult to read. One metric pattern may be carried throughout hundreds of pages. If maintaining the same form throughout, the poet is unable to use rhythmic and metric diversity to move the narrative forward. Often there are no chapters or any other sort of divisions within the work. Picking it up and beginning is a commitment.
Luckily, poets such as Les Murray and Alice Notley have the skill to draw readers in at the first stanza and spit them out panting and exhausted at the last. In the hands of a master, a book-length poem can build intensity than a collection of shorter pieces just can't muster.