Recently at the Milwaukee Writers Workshop we discussed poetry. (It's a Google Group, so you have to register to be a part of it). Generally the group discusses works of fiction written in prose, so it was a nice change of pace to discuss something a bit more colorful.

What I found most interesting, though, was the overwhelming presence - or lack thereof - of punctuation in the poems. Now, there's nothing wrong with free verse poetry, but just because it's a poem doesn't mean a writer should automatically nix the punctuation.

"E. E. Cummings did it, though," you may say. And I would respond: Yes, but Mr. Cummings was an experimental master. What he did was unique. Doing it just because you think it's the proper way to do things doesn't make you an emulator; it makes you look like you don't know your craft.

The real discuss came down to grammar, syntax, and semantics. In order to play with the rules of grammar to craft a truly fluid poem, you have the know the rules of grammar. It was obvious after reading many of these poems that knowledge of grammar was in short supply. It's not entirely the writer's fault, but I believe that there is still some fault that lies in the hands of the writer. If you wish to perfect your craft as a writer or a poet, you have to know the craft; and I think with poetry - more so than with prose - you really do have to know the rules of grammar and syntax inside and out in order to manipulate them in a way to craft your poem effectively.

If you want an example of a master of this, read some of Emily Dickinson works. Her use of punctuation is phenomenal, and when you know the rules behind the use of particular pieces of punctuation, her poetry becomes more powerful.

The point is, ultimately, is not that you should always use punctuation in your poetry; the point is that in order to bend the rules of grammar in your poetry, you have to know them. If you don't, take a class, pick up a grammar manual, or ask someone. One can never learn enough.