For a poet to elaborate on their use of poetic license defeats the point of poetry, not only in its punchy effect, but also in the way that poetry is radically efficient for the writer, and often is chosen specifically for this efficiency. For a poet to explain their usage outside of a deeply intense, fully educational space, such as a private workshop for other poets or deep readers, or maybe at the very least a consensual sanctioned interview, is technically absurd and harmful to the work. This would be analogous to a comedian explaining explaining all of their jokes on stage. Unprofessional and detracting and ruining the punch. Except that poetry is much more of a teaching modality than comedy. Yay learning!
Generally poets don’t necessarily care very much about how we are interpreted because we are mostly well aware of the myriad of ways that we may be interpreted based on a certain usage. It’s also worth noting that these myriad ways are always intentional. It’s not poetry if the usages aren’t intentional. Poetry is not found in rhyme or meter: rather, it’s found in the high concentration of intentional complex and multi-possibility usages, and in the profundity of these usages. This is why we have the phrase in English “that’s poetry” that can be applied to any statement, not just one made within the context of a work that appears to be “poetry” because it rhymes. Any old word salad can rhyme. That’s not poetry. That’s wordcraft. There’s a difference. That’s one way one can tell the difference.
Sometimes poets miss a possible usage that may be extracted because we are fallible humans but mostly we know that we can be read in different ways, and most of these ways had already occurred to the poet in the process of scripture.
This is a challenging mental process so reach out if you need support. I offer one-on-one poetic coaching. Price point is on a sliding scale based on your economic positioning in the global economy. You may send me an email through my Inquire page to proceed through a mutual negotiation process.
Leave a Reply