As a fan of modern poetry, I would like to publicly express my outrage at the comments made by Peter Bloxham in his article, 'Poets Cornered' (The Australian Magazine, 9 June 2001). I believe that poetry, like most other things, is simply moving with the times, constantly adapting to a modern audience. Poetry should present the reader with a message, and do so in a visual, often magical way.
             Views that poetry should have rhyme, rhythm and a perfect structure, are the views that Shakespeare had. Poets have changed. Audiences have changed. People have changed. The audiences of old were the upper-class English snobbery, living in a time when people weren't required to think for themselves, but allowed the leaders of the day- Kings, Lords and Popes, to run their lives. They were unable to interpret thought and thus their poetry had to be easy to follow, with an unmistakable meaning. Abstract and subtle was simply not an option.
             Take William Sheakespeare's classic 'Shall I Compere Thee To A Summers Day'
             "Shall I compere thee to a Summers day?
             Though art more lovely and more temperate"
             Or John Keats' 'Ode to Autumn', (message: autumn is good) merely reading the title allows the reader to grasp the poem.
             Audiences of the modern poetry genre are young, imaginative and interpretative and, most importantly, possess the ability to conceive their own ideas. What Mr Bloxsam perceives as 'trivial, formless, self-absorbed, crude, pretentious, idiotic, incomprehensible' is more than likely just an excuse for his inability to conceptualise the meaning of some of the more abstract modern poems. What Mr Bloxsam must take the time to comprehend is that these great modern works do indeed have a meaning; and the majority of them carry a strong message to society.
             'The sprinters' by Lillian Morrison expresses the desire that we all face to break free of our bodies and experience true freedom.
             ...