HE BEGS FOR MORE.

Your first line is a nonsensical, incomplete thought/sentence since it lacks what grammar demands --  an object of the preposition that you end the line with.   In other words you needed to have said what or who the bomb exploded beside it to make sense, not to mention be considered good writing.

Dear Baldwin: Thank you for your interest. You can understand it very clearly. It exploded beside a man and a boy. Just the following line. The rules which you mention can be used in prose, not rhythmic poetry.

Whether I understand what you meant to say (but actually didn't)  or not is not the issue.  It's whether you have written clearly enough to insure that what you intended to convey in that line  is  perceived without anyone having to guess at or fill in what you were aiming to say, and that no one has to ask,  as your line pushes one to do,  "beside what?".  And  your idea that a writer who attempts **any** type of poetry does not need to follow the rules of grammar is nonsense.  (Can you cite any authoritative source on poetry that backs up your claim that "rhythmic poetry" (whatever that is) cannot use (let alone is not bound by) the the grammar rules that are followed in prose?)  It will keep you (and, truth be told, **has** kept you)  from ever writing anything that is worth reading.

Dear Baldwin,
I always read to the best English poet, laureate or not. I don't like to give you examples, but l say be true to yourself and you will find a lot. Just try, and be fair. JZ

I'd be grateful if you'd tell me not only the name of the best English poet you read **to** but also what it was you read to him/her  and whether or not that poet liked the way you read to him/her.

And I didn't ask you  for examples of anything,  I asked you to cite any authoritative source on poetry that backs up your claim that "rhythmic poetry" (whatever that is) cannot use (let alone is not bound by) the grammar rules that are followed in prose.  

Your note above is a dodge of what I asked you to do -- and it leads me to believe that you don't know of any authoritative source that backs up your claim that  "rhythmic (consistently metered?) poetry" cannot use the rules of grammar that are to be used in prose.

great write

Dear Pure,
Thank you very much for your appreciated comment.