I'm no expert (ha), but I don't think this is found poetry, Edmund. I don't want to venture to say why exactly because I'm a little hesitant to put my foot in my mouth again : )
I don't think it is for the same reason I don't think mine is if we are using this definition:
A pure found poem consists exclusively of outside texts: the words of the poem remain as they were found, with few additions or omissions. Decisions of form, such as where to break a line, are left to the poet.
Matt's #3, Roger's #4 and Martin's #7 are pure found poetry.
But yours seems to be more like quoting the dictionary. At the very least I would put lines 6-11 in italics.
Of course, if Michael Cantor is saying "damn the definitions" and that found poetry is kind of like haiku poetry in the sense that there are many adaptations to the form that are acceptable, well.................................. I'm lost.
x
x
|