Are you fan of structured, rhyming poetry, or do you think it should be more natural and free?

I think it's more difficult to represent your real honest feelings when you are worrying about making the words rhyme.

I agree. In a poem, language and meaning should be the most important facets, not rigid structure.

You know where I stand on this. And recently it's getting worse! There seems to be a realistic notion towards grief at the moment. Everything seems to be a lose anagram of it, if you follow my plight. I just don't think rhyming can convey enough emotion, to get it across. I suppose if you're writing sunny-side-up it's a different matter, but who would want to do that???

free verse today, anyday , as long as i can lift my fingers to write!!!

a loose anagram, by the way. Although with a bit of shuffling around I'm sure my typo could be a perfect substitute.

free verse ftw!

Rhyme for its own sake can take the writer away on a journey as confusing as chocolate and chips on the same plate. It's OK if it occurs naturally when I write but I try not to go looking for it. For those who must use it a rhyming dictionary is essential, unless you crave mindless hours babbling word endings to yourself demented and probably lost.

rhyming is fantastic where it works but it can be misleading when used badly.

Structure is something else - a lack of structure, or a slavish over adherence to it - can ruin a perfectly good intention.

For me, it's all about balance and structure, or; it's about disbalance and destructure.

What matters is the intention.

I vote "other". mainly because my preference depends on the individual
poem, not in what form it happens to be packaged in.

Also: The poll doesn't make sense. Free verse can rhyme, have rhythm,
and have lots of structure; and there's lots of metered, highly
structured verse that doesn't rhyme. And then you get into prose poetry,
poetic prose, visual verse etc.

I could have listed all the different genres, Ray, but I'm not that anally retentive. My basic question was: what do you prefer, structure or non-structure? Besides, your comment's latter half doesn't make sense, because you've completely misunderstood the meaning of free verse, which is a form of poetry that refrains from rhyme or traditional meter and musical patterns, as indicated by the two choices comprising this poll. If it adhered to traditional structure, then it wouldn't be free verse, hence the title 'free'.

-> I could have listed all the different genres, Ray, but I'm not that
-> anally retentive.

No, I didn't mean you needed to list a bunch of things. I was mainly
complaining about your use of the word "rhyme" as the opposite of "free
verse" which is just plain wrong.  

-> My basic question was: what do you prefer, structure or non-structure?

Then you should have said that. (Probably "how much structure" since
it's not an either/or thing, it's a smooth range.) While "structure" is
vague (meaning, theme, rhythm, visual presentation, rhyme patterns,
etc.), at least it's consistent.

—> Besides, your comment's latter half doesn't make sense, because you've
—> completely misunderstood the meaning of free verse, which is a form of
—> poetry that refrains from rhyme or traditional meter and musical
—> patterns, as indicated by the two choices comprising this poll. If it
—> adhered to structure, then it wouldn't be free verse, hence the title
—> 'free'.
 
Well, lots of people have argued (and will continue to) about what "free
verse" means but most "definitions" say it can include rhyme, rhythm,
and all sorts of other "structure" "Free verse" really means that the
writer decides what she/he wants it to include, hence the word "free".

But here are lots of definitions from the web (I like the first one):

University of Pennsylvania:
Poetry that is based on the irregular rhythmic CADENCE or the
recurrence, with variations, of phrases, images, and syntactical
patterns rather than the conventional use of METER. RHYME may or may not
be present in free verse, but when it is, it is used with great freedom.
In conventional VERSE the unit is the FOOT, or the line; in free verse
the units are larger, sometimes being paragraphs or strophes.

Cambridge:
Poetry whose lines do not have a regular pattern.

Oxford:
Poetry without a fixed metrical pattern, having a loosely organized rhythm.

Wiktionary:
A poetic form divided into lines of no particular length or meter, without
a rhyme scheme  (please note: "without a rhyme scheme", not "without rhyme")

Others:
**Poetry that lacks regular metrical and rhyme patterns.
**Poetry with no set meter (rhythm) or rhyme scheme.
**Poetry written without regular patterns of rhyme and meter.
**Poetry composed of either rhymed or unrhymed lines that have no set meter.
**Poetry that has no regular patterns of rhyme, meter or line length.
**Verse that has neither regular rhyme nor regular meter.
**Verse depending for its poetic effect upon irregular rhythmical pattern,
 either absence or irregularity of rhyme, and the use of cadenced speech
 rhythms rather than conventional verse forms.

And on and on...

--------

By the way, here's a free verse poem that uses rhyme:


                < existence >

     the beach and the moon sing together
     and i try to join in
     (it's a subtle tune)
     while my feet are busy with the sand
     (rocks, they insist)
     out
     on this lonely point of land
     that really isn't here
     you see
     (since they dredged the channel in 93)
     but if it's here for you
     that's good enough for me

                    - - -

I quite clearly said: "Are you a fan of structured, rhyming poetry, or do you think it should be more natural and free?" I really don't understand how I could have been much clearer than that. Obviously, by 'structured' or 'natural', I was asking if you prefer poetry with rigid form or those which employ a looser style, summed up by the simple choices 'rhyme' and 'free verse'. As for your poem, I'd define it as rhyme, because it follows a certain metrical pattern and rhyme scheme, and has a musical effect, whereas free verse doesn't have that. I think most poetry experts would agree that free verse has no standard musical pattern, even if they do have a rhythm (which a lot of my own work does, even though it is mostly free verse). Either way, the people who voted clearly understood my intention, and that's what's most important.

—> I quite clearly said: "Are you a fan of structured, rhyming poetry, or
—> do you think it should be more natural and free?" I really don't
—> understand how I could have been much clearer than that. Obviously, by
—> 'structured' or 'natural', I was asking if you prefer poetry with rigid
—> form or those which employ a looser style, summed up by the simple
—> choices 'rhyme' and 'free verse'.

What I'm objecting to isn't your explanation, it's the incorrect use of the
words 'rhyme' and "free verse". I think it's important to point that out.

—> As for your poem, I'd define it as rhyme,...

The poem has "rhyme" in it. "Rhyme" isn't a type of verse, it's a quality that a
verse processes. That's why I complained about your use of it.  

The definitions of free verse I gathered from all over the web are the
products of "poetry experts". If you look at my poem, it meets those
definitions. Making up your own definition of "free verse" is like
deciding to call a "cow" a "fish". Sure, you'll understand what you mean
when you say "fish", but if you tell someone you milked your fish today,
they'll think there's some part of "fish" you don't quite understand.
And they'd be right.

I didn't make up my own definition of free verse, and I object to your condescending notion that I did. My definition of free verse was derived from the Oxford English dictionary, which describes it as a poetic form without musical pattern, and as rhyme is a form of musical pattern, I think I was justified in seperating it from free verse.