To write poem about rules we must mind the expanse of the meaning of rule. Their are infinite rules and there are human rules trying to imitate those rules. So, "ruling the rules" is a bit clumsy, if it is not incorrect. We could make some rules,(human rules) but we must be obedient by those rules too, but we could not rule them after they are the rules. In the rules of nature even worst, the only thing that we could rule is ourselves (it is called volition or will) .
But it is true that there are some rules invented by those with higher inteligence who hold the power to rule others, which exclude the rulers. Your poem might be pointing out something to that angle. Or you might also were thinking about periodic rules, or unfair ones.
Nice wonder Luce, good effort. It is so hard to deal with pure concepts.
Luce, coming to think of it there are other ways also t0 interpret this. Sorry for being closed minded in my last comment. You were probably talking about mastering the rules to take advantage of them for our benefits, the way we manipulate the rules of nature to our will. All i wanted to say was the subject doesn't leave so mach space to swing but still shows flexibility of mind and spirit if we could do it in such tied space.
There’s rule after rule that one must follow. Some rules can be broken without altering the nature of the sonnet while other rules are of vital importance to follow for the sake of conserving that nature.
Ever since I came across form poetry, i noticed that each of the forms have a purpose. So I thought that if I understood the purpose of each of the forms, I could then write them without a problem.
However, I stumbled upon another thought, what determines the purpose of a form poetry? Whoever created that form of poetry must have given it a purpose. But let’s say, a carpenter creates a spoon. The purpose of the spoon is so that we can eat with it specially soup-like dishes. Yet the purpose of the spoon will eventually change depending on whoever holds that spoon or by circumstances rather than by whoever created it. Lets say i am eating a steak that’s too hard to Bite with my front teeth. I tried cutting it into smaller pieces to just toss the cut pieces into my mouth and let my molars do the chewing but all I have is a spoon and my hands. I can try to use the spoon to cut it or use my fingers and hand to try to cut it or use both.. I’m not 100 percent successful cutting it but somehow I managed to eat the hard steak with the help of my teeth, spoon and hands..,Some might say that the task of cutting wasn’t easily accomplished because cutting is not the purpose of the spoon. (Though the purpose of our teeth would be to cut, no? Yet that was affected because of other factors - circumstances. So technically speaking the spoon wasn’t required to begin with but we have given it that purpose.) at the end, the act of eating the steak was accomplished because the three - hands, spoon and teeth worked together… even though the only one with the true purpose of cutting per se was the teeth (who could not cut due to other circumstances)…
ahhh! I lost my train of thought. It’s hard to focus when others are speaking to me. It’s hard to pay attention to the thoughts that come to mind when others are trying to be heard. Sometimes, i just want to listen as if I were just an spectator enjoying a show but sight…
Life is hard like that steak I mentioned… and somehow, we keep on assigning purposes to things that didn’t have those purposes to begin with, and simultaneously, keep making life harder and harder, yet still accomplishing the goal… so we end up satisfied or happy regardless of how hard it was.
Something similar happens with rules. Any kind of rule per se. I just cannot find the words to simplify it. Ironically, i just keep going in loops.
You cannot change the purpose of spoon by using it for cutting for the lack of having knife. You just bend its purpose to the neighbouring one, only until you find a knife unless you are trapped in an island away from civilization. You argument is very clever and extremely philosophical about spoon. It reminds me of Heidegger’s Dasein. But you cannot deliver the thought to the end because of the lack of philosophical experience. After, You think by pulling the "rules" to the neighbouring one you change the rule? No you only stretching them, because the have outmost elasticity and it is outmost useless or funny to use spoon for knife permanently. I say neighbouring one because you cannot cut stake with radio or blanket.
Yes about the form and comparing them to rules (sonnet specially) you are on the money. See, only the poets who have such authority on the “forms” might break them and get away with it. Your poem somehow going to that direction.
But to say rule are “forms” is merit as long as the poet wants to follow them, for in the modern poet you could break any form-rule as you please, or use them partially to your advantage. The modern poetry is all about the context of poetry, the real meaning, not the “form” the vessel, in which you present the meaning. Like in the art of cooking the presentation is almost as important as the taste for scoring but no real chef would prefer a good looking average food to a tasty messy one. It is a disgrace actually.
Most of the beautiful Ghazals or sonnets are not as meaningful, and pure poetical, as the some of the formless poetries, but because they sound better and more popular like big red apples look nice to mediocrities eyes regardless of if they are not even half as juicy and tasty as the little organic ones with apple worm often inside them . It is like people who put too much stress on the grail instead of the quality of the wine or the cup instead of the coffee. watch this in that regard:
Also it is so difficult to recognize a powerful formless poem with a lazy untrained eyes. No one understand the space in poetry has evolved exponentially since the sonnet or ghazal times.