Well, I can't say I'm offended. I am glad that you did try to get me to "snap out of it." However, I will not go without defense.
It should be noted that the enjambment was a product of the blockiness with which this poem was written. Indeed, when read aloud(well at least by myself) the poem has no pauses, but rather is a continuous reading from beginning to end, and the speaker finds himself quite out of breath after reading it.
Now onto my responses/defenses/agreements with your critique:
Firstly, one man's gimmic is another's treasure. I intentionally made the "stanzas" blocky so as to create the sense of double meaning. The poem is vaguely readable in two different ways - the one in a linear fashion, the other "block" by "block." Granted the blocks need to be read relative to one another.
Secondly, I am unsure that your critique of creative writing courses really has any ground, unless of course all such courses follow a strict curriculum whereby the student is required to conform to the deleterious foolery you seem to be discussing here. I must confess that I did not spend a lot of time reading the required text for the poetry unit for our creative writing course, and so I cannot confirm or deny any of the problems under discussion with any amount of certainty. This poem was part of a program of experimentation to which I applied myself for the sake of hearing a professional opinion on my writing.
Now, I do agree that this is certainly a departure from my normal form. I did enjoy working on this piece and I feel that it is a good poem. However, it is quite likely that my satisfaction derives from the obvious fact that, as the writer of the poem, I identify with and know intimately its content, and as such do not fully grasp what is required to enable the poem to spread that content to those who are not within my own self.
Finally, it seems that you, with your critique of my placement of the meaning in this poem, speak along the same vein as those who critiqued the poem for its abstractness and lack of any concrete imagery that might have helped support something more complex like a metaphor or a progressive storyline.
Thus, in sum, my only defense against any of the crimes of which I may be accused of having committed with this piece is my having amused myself by fiddling with the blocks of text presented here. However, I will not at this point condemn or praise the poem any further, for the sake of letting it stand for now.
2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2