i just write, fuck the torturing of myself over diphthongs and co. if i'm writing with a form then i'll stay within a form and perhaps change it a little depending how i feel. i don't have any preconceptions when i start to write. from birth i've generally been more of a twat than a poet. i stick to what i know, shits and giggles and if it's got meter all well and good. i saw mention of the sonnet form mentioned, i did few of those and i never connected them as such to love, i did keep meter and rhyme, the opening and the closing and the couplet but i general i stopped the love poems years ago. marriage does that to a man 
i think in many respects i'm with you on this one rowens.
my definition of prose and poetry depends on the craft of poetics: understanding how the English language is constructed, meter, rhythm, rhetorical devices, etc.
mine doesn't and if it ever did i'd have never started a poem. i write because i enjoy it, fuck how the english language works, okay i'm not into yoda speak but that's where it ends for me. i love rowens, [most of it anyway] work mainly because it's free. because when i see it i see him clearing his lungs and singing soprano. he writes how he sees and thinks. he doesn't add corners or think about how he's always written this way. he just writes. when people write like that it's warm and fuzzy. leanne knew form better than anyone i knew but she too wrote spontaneously. the meter was in her heart not her head. that's how i'd like to be but i'm not and i've yet to truly see anyone here or anywhere else apart some well renowned poets other than her. bukowski couldn't give a flying fuck about restrictions, he made his own rules and they worked. he spoke and wrote from the heart and the beer bottle. if he wrote a poem on the discussion of poetics it would be titled bollox. not having a go at anyone just saying how poetics affect me...they don't
i think in many respects i'm with you on this one rowens. my definition of prose and poetry depends on the craft of poetics: understanding how the English language is constructed, meter, rhythm, rhetorical devices, etc.
mine doesn't and if it ever did i'd have never started a poem. i write because i enjoy it, fuck how the english language works, okay i'm not into yoda speak but that's where it ends for me. i love rowens, [most of it anyway] work mainly because it's free. because when i see it i see him clearing his lungs and singing soprano. he writes how he sees and thinks. he doesn't add corners or think about how he's always written this way. he just writes. when people write like that it's warm and fuzzy. leanne knew form better than anyone i knew but she too wrote spontaneously. the meter was in her heart not her head. that's how i'd like to be but i'm not and i've yet to truly see anyone here or anywhere else apart some well renowned poets other than her. bukowski couldn't give a flying fuck about restrictions, he made his own rules and they worked. he spoke and wrote from the heart and the beer bottle. if he wrote a poem on the discussion of poetics it would be titled bollox. not having a go at anyone just saying how poetics affect me...they don't
(06-25-2019, 01:59 AM)rowens Wrote: I'm primarily improvisational. I read a lot, I think a lot, I go out and have different kinds of experiences, I absorb atmospheres in my room at night or day or walking around outside, then I sit down and write, and everything that needs to coalesces. I spent most of my life feeding on my own stomach, when I met up with the educated world, I bent it all to my will. My needs and desires. I feel spaces for rhythm and have a hunger to fill them, and feel the beats physically as I write them. I make standard-traditional angles and obtuse angles on the page and in the air. It's sex and death and rearrangements, transfigurations of organisms. Literally and figuratively. It's obvious I don't give a lot of thought to craftmanship.