Achebe's comment on Rhyme

[Achebe]

The question of rhyme or no rhyme overlooks several things: most folk prefer rhyme but poetry teachers and critics eschew it like the plague and so poets, noting the proscription, shy away from it. The problem is reflected in the automotive world in which some are concerned only with how well a car handles and rides; others delve into its mechanicals. So, too, with food: most speak of having had a good meal, others critique meat, starch and vegetable separately. For poetry, isn't what counts is its overall effect, what one feels when reacting to a poem just read?  If there were a general poetry magazine displaying poetry's great variety, one could move happily from formal rhyme to something approaching doggerel and enjoy both.
Try the following after reading a "serious" poem:

In ragged jeans
the young think
what's in them
is what girls are after.
In elegant slacks
the old know
what's in them
just prompts
laughter.

I don't think poets shy away from rhyme. Because so much poetry has been written in rhyme over the years, and English has a relatively small stock of rhymes, it's not possible to write like Blake anymore without sounding cliched and predictable. Or Shelley, with his inordinate love for 'mountains / fountains'  which he did to death in Promoetheus Unbound and elsewhere. As with every other feat of human endeavour, the bar has been raised higher.
The trick is to employ rhyme in a way that the reader's eye is not drawn to the rhyme and therefore the cliche. Slant  rhymes, enjamment, and an irregular rhyming scheme all do that. That's in serious poetry. In humorous poetry, which is far easier to write, mutisyllabled rhymes can be used and end stopped lines are not a problem.

---

Lots of typos in the above