I suppose every serious poet should, at some point, at least attempt to define some of his views as to what poetry is. This is my attempt. I have stated many times that I believe poetry should be readable. But I believe that it need not be so simple that it is totally without literary merit. Since poetry operates on many levels, a poem may have both a literal and a more nuanced meaning. When I wrote the poem "Astonishment" for my book "The Next Valley", I realized that it was a pretty good outline of what I think poetry is. In that poem I state that poetry is the "rose frosted in ice, the relentless fire of war". I think poetry, at least my poetry, must be emotional. But emotional is really too weak a word. Poetry should reflect "astonishment". That is to say it contains or evokes very powerful emotion. Now everyone certainly does not need to agree and I would encourage any aspiring poet to follow their own rules. But my poetry is intended to capture astonishment - not just sadness but despair and grief, not just love but adoration, not just joy but ecstasy, and not just anger but rage. Sometimes I feel I may achieve this and sometimes I fail. Modern poetry has freed us from adherence to form but I still like formal poetry with meter and rhyme. Poetry is more about message, image and emotion than it is about form however. Ultimately poetry is judged by its impact. The only reason to write poetry is to attempt to jar the reader's sensibility, perhaps to change the world if only for a moment.