Poetic form as understood from the outside, that is theoretically (using the sonnet as example):
The effect of Shakespeare’s sonnet differs altogether from the effect of its content when stated in prose, because the meaning of the sonnet is rooted in a host of poetic subsidiaries* which are disregarded in the prose account of the sonnet’s content. The sonnet as a work of art is not merely enriched and altogether recast by its poetic subsidiaries; these subsidiaries also serve to cut the sonnet off from the person of the poet.
—Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning, p. 83.
* By “subsidiaries” the authors mean poetic devices: image, metaphor, rhythm, sound patterns such as rhyme, consonance, assonance, etc.
Contrast the theoretical view with this view from the inside, that is from the viewpoint of the poet:
ARS POETICA
The poem is in me, evil, alien, evil
and hateful; with scorching fire it burns my nights,
it passes through me crowdlike, hoarse with shouting
like a torchlit procession in the streets.The poem is evil, hateful, trying to burst
its form (how hard to shackle one who’s free),
and though I drag it from my fiery innards,
its master I will never wholly be.It twists, shouting and troubled, till it cries out;
becomes then alien, a friend who never was,
stands on the frozen, flaming threshold, created,
and joins the others in the evening frosts.—White Magic and Other Poems (translated from the Polish by Bill Johnston)
We can see how theory can describe but not embody poetic experience. Therefore my core question: Why would any poet want to begin with theory?
Joseph Hutchison, Colorado Poet Laureate 2014-2019, has published 20 collections of poems and edited or co-edited three poetry anthologies. He currently directs two master’s-level programs for University College at the University of Denver: Professional Creative Writing and Arts & Culture Management. Joe lives with his wife, Melody Madonna, in the mountains southwest of Denver, Colorado, the city where he was born. 
Sorry to perplex you, Bob! Yes, it’s part of an ongoing conversation about the place of theory. Some of my argument with post-avant (or whatever you want to call it) writing—I’d cite Silliman, Hejinian and their circle as examples—is that it exists as an illustration of their theoretical stance toward language, meaning, "relevance," etc. You can find a bunch of these related posts <A HREF="http:/
Joe—<BR/>I really need help in understanding your “Outside and Inside the Poetic Experience.” <BR/>Maybe it’s part of an on-going rumination, but I didn’t understand the relevance of your “core” question: Why would any poet want to begin with theory?” Is it because the theory passage you quote doesn’t seem like a good place to begin for a poet? That’s probably true although of course it wasn’t
Yeah, Joel—even the Pope cites sources when he issues his whatever-ya-callem….
Nope, no critic for me. I’m fascinated by all these theories bouncing around, and understanding these theories expands my poetic universe. But, over time, theories come and go, but people and the human experience remain (up to this point anyways!). So I completely agree that starting with theory to describe rather than an experience to embody can result in weaker poetry. I’ll draft a blog about
Joel, I think you <I>do</I> have to judge "what is or isn’t ‘poetry’"—not for anyone else but yourself, of course. There’s no need to impose your views on others, but as an aspiring poet you need to develop a clear sense of what poetry is <I>for you</I>. Hence your confusion. Unless you want to become a critic, you’re under no obligation to be "poetically correct."
The best example I can give is the visual poetry movement as presented in the November(or October?) issue of Poetry. If we look at poetry and the universal experience, I didn’t have much experience pouring over those pieces. Maybe someone could justify that these are poems because of visual poetry theory (of which I am totally ignorant and uneducated). I think they are excellent pieces of visual
Joel, do you think theory <I>can</I> "justify" a poem? It might explain or contextualize, but justify? Maybe you can give an example….
Howdy, Anon—<BR/><BR/>Surely you’re not saying that poets (sans quotation marks) never commit suicide…?<BR/><BR/>I guess "some of them" is my answer to that….<BR/><BR/>I’ve read that physicians, specifically white male ones, constitute the profession with the highest rate of self-murder….
This may be reiterating sentiments from some of your earlier posts, but sometimes I think theory justifies the poem rather than the poetry justifying the poem. I’m not sure "poetry" is the best word, but it seems to encompass what I’m getting at.
because they want! they want "fame and fortune" and thirst fior the "perfect" poem… <BR/><BR/>no wonder so many "poets" commit suicide<BR/><BR/> some of them are The Walking/Writing Dead.