My view is that poetry can be good if it follows structure or not, the
art is in writing poetry that doesn't have a forced feel.  Also the
poem has to have rhetorical significance (it must move me).

Free verse has established rules and conventions that MUST be followed
to be considered "good."  Ultimately, in terms of creating new form,
most free verse, narrative, and conversationalist poetic do little, if
anything, to create innovative form, and a new artistic aestetic.  From
my point of view, a truly great poet, creates new form and takes us to
new places -- which is the ultimate job of the poet.  But according to
the poetry authorities (most of which are the free verse poets),
repetition of the the free verse ideological past, minus formal or
symmetrical poetry (rhyme scemes, iambic patterns, etc.) equals good
poetry.

All this does not mean that I am not at all satisified with free verse
or formal poetry.  I love them both if they are done well (which Mr.
Lakes poem about the roads to Rome is not done well), but that does not
mean they are structure free or even create their own new forms.  It's
the experimental poets who are pushing poetics to new heights (but they
don't make the mainstream jounals which are controlled by the free
versist folks.)


stoner



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/