POETIC  LICENCE

What rule does regular meter allow a writer to ignore?

And when did Bards laureate ask or allow you to read **to** them?

Which ones in particular have you taken as your guides?

Dear Baldwin,
By BARDS, l mean poets. Don't you know any poets  laureate ? Should l mention some poets laureate to you. I am sure that you know some of them. Thank you for your interest, Baldwin. JZ

Yes,  I know what you mean by bards and see  below for a list of the poets laureate  first from Britain and then from the US. But whether I know what "bards" means or  whether I know of any of the people who have been selected as a nation's poet laureate is not the issue.   Nor is what you wrote above in any way an answer to the questions I posed to you.    
 
And when you engage in what is essentially a dodge of them,  as you have just done, you make me suspect that you can't answer them.  
   
Let me repeat (a slightly modified version of) them in the hope that you will now actually answer them:  
   
What rule does regular meter allow a writer to ignore?    And why do you consider that rule to be a "small" (insignificant?) one?  
   
Which poets laureate did you read  **to**?  And what did you read to them?  
   
Which ones in particular have you taken as your guides?  Any of these?  
 
 
Edmund Spenser   1591–1599  
Samuel Daniel   1599–1619  
Ben Jonson   1619–1637  
William Davenant   1638–1668  
John Dryden 1   1668–1689  
Thomas Shadwell   1689–1692  
Nahum Tate   1692–1715  
Nicholas Rowe   1715–1718  
Laurence Eusden   1718–1730  
Colley Cibber   1730–1757  
William Whitehead   1757–1785  
Thomas Warton   1785–1790  
Henry James Pye   1790–1813  
Robert Southey   1813–1843  
William Wordsworth   1843–1850  
Alfred Lord Tennyson   1850–1892  
Alfred Austin   1896–1913  
Robert Bridges   1913–1930  
John Masefield   1930–1967  
Cecil Day-Lewis   1967–1972  
Sir John Betjeman   1972–1984  
Ted Hughes   1984–1998  
Andrew Motion   1999–2009  
Carol Ann Duffy   2009–  
 
How about these?  
 
 
Consultants in Poetry  
Joseph Auslander   1937–1941  
Allen Tate   1943–1944  
Robert Penn Warren   1944–1945  
Louise Bogan   1945–1946  
Karl Shapiro   1946–1947  
Robert Lowell   1947–1948  
Leonie Adams   1948–1949  
Elizabeth Bishop   1949–1950  
Conrad Aiken   1950–1952  
William Carlos Williams   1952  
Randall Jarrell   1953–1960  
Robert Frost   1958–1959  
Richard Eberhart   1959–1961  
Louis Untermeyer   1961–1963  
Howard Nemerov   1963–1964  
Reed Whittemore   1964–1965  
Stephen Spender   1965–1966  
James Dickey   1966–1968  
William Jay Smith   1968–1970  
William Stafford   1970–1971  
Josephine Jacobsen   1971-1973  
Daniel Hoffman   1973–1974  
Stanley Kunitz   1974–1976  
Robert Hayden   1976–1978  
William Meredith   1978–1980  
Maxine Kumin   1981–1982  
Anthony Hecht   1982–1984  
Robert Fitzgerald   1984–1985  
Reed Whittemore   1984–1985  
Gwendolyn Brooks   1985–1986  
Poets Laureate  
Robert Penn Warren   1986–1987  
Richard Wilbur   1987–1988  
Howard Nemerov   1988–1990  
Mark Strand   1990–1991  
Joseph Brodsky   1991–1992  
Mona Van Duyn   1992–1993  
Rita Dove   1993–1995  
Robert Hass   1995–1997  
Robert Pinsky   1997–2000  
Stanley Kunitz   2000–2001  
Billy Collins   2001–2003  
Louise Glück   2003–2004  
Ted Kooser   2004–2006  
Donald Hall   2006–2007  
Charles Simic   2007–2008  
Kay Ryan   2008–2010  
W.S. Merwin   2010–2011  
Philip Levine   2011–2012  
Natasha Trethewey   2012–2014  
Charles Wright   2014–2015  
Juan Felipe Herrera   2015–  
 

Dear Baldwin,
What is the purpose of spending such a long time writing and receiving answers if you don't definitely mention the mistakes which are made. I am a teacher of English and l know what is right and what is wrong. Why do you use all this circumlocution. Please write directly about your purpose. Mention the mistakes first, and then l explain. Don't waste your time and mine about what we both know. Tell me what you want frankly, and directly. If possible write a sample of your poetry so that l can take the benefit from you. Thank you.

This is just another dodge of my questions.    
 
Besides, where did I speak of  the linguistic or grammatical "mistakes" you made in "Poetic License"?  
 
What I have been doing in this thread is to ask you to clarify and/or support certain of the claims you made in it -- something you have still not done.  

Did you not claim that writing in regular meter**obliges** you to break a "rule" without specifying what that rule is and why it is an inconsequential one?

Did you not speak of your having read **to** poets laureate?    
 
Did you not claim that certain of them have been your guides  for writing the way you do without specifying which of all of them have guided yo?

Did you not suggest that your guides provided you with evidence that you may (should?) make grammatical and syntactical mistakes and use forced rhyme in your writings since they do?

Dear Baldwin,
If you can speak of grammatical or linguistic mistakes, don't hesitate. I am a teacher of English, and l know English as much as you do and even more. You address your words in such a way which is not acceptable to me. I know only one person like you, but it is not necessary to tell you who he is. If you are ready to write in a better language, l answer you. JZ

Another dodge.

And you might want to note that the expression "in a better language"  is a solecism  (am I supposed to write in a language that is better than English?),  that  one does not address ("speak to")  one's words unless one is responding to the points they make,   and that you need to have worded your last sentence above as "" If you are ready to write in a better language, **l'll** answer you" for it to be good English.  

So much for you knowing English "even more" than I do.

Dear Baldwin,
1-IN A BETTER LANGUAGE: can have the meaning you have written, and can have the meaning," in a better chosen words".
2-The main clause of the PROBABLE CONDITION can be: 1 future 2 simple present as a fact or habit 3 imperative. This is if we use the HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION, and we can use the FREE CONDITIONAL. I think you know the free conditional, don't you? Therefore,l can say: I'LL ANSWER YOU- or l ANSWER YOU as a fact from now on. Please, try to be a friend, and stop being a bit proud of yourself when you meet modest people.

"in**a** better chosen words"??

Perhaps you'll show me what words I should have chosen to use to insure that you would find "acceptable", not to mention understand,  the "yes or no" questions I asked you about the claims you made in "Poetic License" (and which you continue to dodge).

Do you think that writing in such conditions enables you to write without such stupid mistakes. I think just to mention them shows the personality of the writer. Is it possible that l don't know this stupid mistake, or do you want me to review every word l write to you several times. I am no ready to do that, and l have no time to waste. If you want us to be friends, stop this sort of behaviour. JZ

I have no idea what you mean by "writing in such conditions".  Which conditions are you referring to?

And I take it that when you wrote "I am no ready to do that"  you meant to write "I am **not** ready to do that".

And I also note that the above is yet another dodge of my "yes or no" questions to you about the claims you made in "Poetic License".

If **you** want us to be friends,  I suggest you do so.

I arrogate unto myself the right
to always mash and screw good grammar up
when I’m intent to fit the thoughts
I want to write about  
into a rhythm fixed
or when I wish
to end what I consider good
“poetic languaged” lines
(despite their often being filled  
with question begging assertations
and non sequiturs)    
within inversion plagued forced rhyme
(a sure sign of a writer who  
misunderstands what is  
felicitous in verse).
 
For after all, this is, you know,

  as worshiped bards
   and laureled laureates of former times
   implicitly attested to
   when they wrote verse,
   (but is this really so?)

the outcome of the literary license given me
by them
when I'm engaged  
in writing out the solecisms
I perceive and claim to be
a vital, and, indeed, essentially,
a valid part of poetry,
n’est-ce pas?

A question, though, remains.  

It’s whether what I write
when I,  

   in gleaning from the legacy
   that I allege has been  
   bequeathed to me
   by  poets from the past
   that I am justified
   and, more so,  metrically obliged
   (says who?)
   to write in ways
   that other noted versifiers true
   like  Eliot, and Nemerov,  
   Milay, Longfellow, and Auden, W.,  
   and many others, too  
   would bridle at, despise,

eschew    
good syntax,
spelling that is sage and true,
not to mention sense  
and sensibility,
in the dire, affected way
I wing and word  
my “privileged” thoughts
upon a page,

prints well within a reader’s mind
an uncontested,  awe filled sense
of reading something clever
fresh and new that’s vividly intense
and masterfully interesting
or makes them
when they’re done with it
then aspirate, compelled  to say PU.