bad grammar on purpose -- writing for the ear or the eye

I leave bad grammar in my poetry. Somehow it seems more natural to me when I'm reading/working on a poem. It seems to color the poem in a way I like, and gives it a certain cadence and flow that appeals to me. I edit a lot, so chances are that I've corrected my grammar and then put the bad grammar back in because when I read the poem it just sounds better. But when I see the poem, of course it looks (or "reads") wrong. An editor, I think, would just see it as bad grammar. I wonder how poets here see it.
Similarly, I submitted a poem here and used a word "'cause" instead of "because." I changed it back and forth several times as I worked on the poem. "'Cause" sounded better than "because" but looked kind of pretentious and silly, or like a song lyric, but finally I decided on 'cause just 'cause it sounded better to me as I read the poem out loud.  
I wondered how poets here thought of it.
Thanks for responding.

If it is your style, it is your style.

Only feedback will tell you if what you wrote or write is distracting from the overall poem. If you aren't happy with other people not fully enjoying your writing, then it's up to you to make a choice.

Grammatical error can be a distraction.

Distractions can be minor and thus forgivable or can be major enough that a reader becomes bored and doesn't even bother finishing the poem.

That's what most writers vocalizing their disdain about "critique" seem to not comprehend.

Good critique helps isolate problem areas of your writing that lead to a poor reading experience by your readers, of whom your friendly neighborhood critiquer is one of. By pointing out the behavior, future poems can be alleviated of the same problems.

It's not about about saying, "See?! Write it this ( other ) way because your way, despite being good, it is still inferior or wrong or not living up to its full potential like this version of it I wrote after you already laid the groundwork."

It's about saying, "What you wrote is likely going to trip up readers as they walk through your poem and this is why." Or, "What you did here was amazing and why. Keep on doing it be'cause it is brilliant!"  

Also, grammar really isn't distracting to the eye. Typos, misspells, abuse of punctuation, mismatching fonts, etc - [b]inconsistencies[/i] - are distracting to the eye.

If I have to question why your words are randomly captilized, I'm being distracted.

Use of the word "cause" isn't a distraction unless you use it a hundred times within a short poem or keep alternating between "cause" and "because".  

Just a short 2 cents from me........

I see nothing incorrect in using cause in lieu of
because

as long as You use correctly as

'cause

for the word cause, used without the apostrophe preceding the word can take on an entirely different meaning.

*************************************

cause

noun
noun: cause; plural noun: causes

   1.
   a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
             
   2.
   a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate.
   
   3.
   a matter to be resolved in a court of law.
       an individual's case offered at law.
     

verb
verb: cause; 3rd person present: causes; past tense: caused; past participle: caused; gerund or present participle: causing

   make (something, especially something bad) happen.
   

I do see what you mean about distraction. I hadn't thought of it in terms of a distraction. Yet I know a perceived typo or misspelling can turn me off a poem. I write it and leave the grammar there on purpose, as part of the poem, like a dialect -- like a Tom Joad soliloquy (which is still a part of me and what I want to convey) -- but the reader doesn't know that, so they're probably not hearing (reading) it the way I am.
Something to think about.
Thanks for responding.

javalini said:I do see what you mean about distraction. I hadn't thought of it in terms of a distraction. Yet I know a perceived typo or misspelling can turn me off a poem. I write it and leave the grammar there on purpose, as part of the poem, like a dialect -- like a Tom Joad soliloquy (which is still a part of me and what I want to convey) -- but the reader doesn't know that, so they're probably not hearing (reading) it the way I am.
Something to think about.
Thanks for responding.

Exactly.

Though you can ignore the typo or misspell the second time you read a poem; a writer whose portfolio is infested with them is likely turning away readers who anticipate more of his or her poems are hastily and haphazardly slapped together.

Writing with distractions in it is the number one cause of a reader not finishing the read and or the poem being easily forgettable.

Great writing has few minor to zero inherent distractions and is easily remembered because it is read over and over again.

write in the voice true to your poem

that up there? embraces accents, embraces cultural references and slang, modes of speech reflecting cultural identity and location, lifestyles and more

if you're writing from the pov of a posh etonian boy and use language relating to sumwun sarf ov tha rivva (or east towards the southend riviera!) then it's not right for your poem.

typos and misspells are different creatures to how your narrator might speak a word, init?