Structure, I mean. :) Should it have certain rules (like in a sonnnet), or that anything passes? I'm just wondering, because sometimes my poems have no shape or structure or rhyms... It sets me thinking - are they even poems? :)

Well, you can mke poems to liike like things say a ball or a rectangel it's up to you how yuo write them! Mine most of the time have no shape! Good luck!

Although I experimented with the classical styles for some time, I feel more comfortable with the free verse. For me (maybe because I'm a musician), rhythym is key. I need to feel the words flow one into the other, and I need to feel a cadence, even if it's only a faint suggestion, when I write my poetry. Rhyme for me is not that important. But that's just me. I've read some AMAZING stuff in rhyme. ...all this, of course, is said without taking into account the content itself, the vocabulary, imagery, grammar, etc. That's my two cents on this.

There yah go thats whatcha gottsta doo!

A poem is like looking in a mirror. Its a reflection of the person writing it. If it doesn't look good to you, it probably won't look good to other people. Its not in devices. Its not in the rhythm. That a poem suffices is given. If not its feeble and faces rejection.

It's not so much what shape a poem has. It's much more important that it touches you. If you are left with no feelings after reading it, for you it was not a good poem. As for writing poetry, for me it is like ripping off pieces of your heart and soul and turning them into words. I want those words to pierce the heart and soul of the reader, and make them feel what I was feeling.

Fractals will always amaze me!

This question opens a whole can of worms if one ever did! Sheesh! There're probably as many answers as there are poets--or more. If you're asking specifically about form, here's something from Ezra Pound that may help. He identified two forms: "fluid" and "solid," saying that some poems "may have form as a tree has form, some as water poured into a vase." The book I'm pulling this from (don't even think for a moment I carry this stuff around in my own pure brain!) says "Fluid (or open) form is organic, like a tree's growth. Solid (or closed) form is symmetrical, like water poured into a vase. Both are natural, and so long as the poet is willing not to be theory-bound, he or she may use whichever a given poem wants." (Writing Poems, Robert Wallace) I'd agree with tjames and tresamie that if and what the poem communicates is the most important thing to consider. That being a given, I think the way the poem lies on the page and rhythm and rhyme (or lack thereof) are also pretty important, because these things are part of the communication. You can put a lot of atmosphere/mood/emotion into a poem with these things without ever having to state them outright. (For instance, the slow-motion feeling in your April Fool's poem that came from the structure.) I think I'm rambling. :o And this is just my own opinion, of course. (Even if I am rather fond of it. ;)) Lu

I am not a poet so take this for what it is worth (which is not much). I think you all have excellent points, but I do think that it is never wasted to take time to learn the rules or structure of something so that you are knowledgeable when you decide to break them. Studying the classics, and imitating classic forms, hurts no one and may strengthen your creative work. Nearly every great artist I've ever heard of studied his or her art before breaking out and creating something new. Just a thought.

So what do you call a surrealitic poem with an echo towards reality instead of towards the symbolism of the subconscious, just so I can tell tallpindo?