>
> a good poem can be only partially
> clear, it doesn't necessarily have to be very clear.
I would say good poetry (or anything for that matter) is one in which
the poet/poetess is able to convey the thought well. Less than that, I
would call it, let me say, not good poetry. The thought that a good
poem can only be partially clear sounds extremely strange to me.
However, I am familiar with the school of thought that poetry should be
used as a medium to exhibit talents, a kind of circus for
example, and not necessarily to concey any message. Fortunately, there is
less of that type of poetry these days.
>
> >Here again, I don't see this being true in my experiences of enjoying
> >poetry. The statement seems to suggest that poems with social messages
> >are charmless! May be charm is in the perception of the reader.
>
> This also is the converse of what I said. If a poem is intended to clearly
> deliver a social message as its primary purpose, and if the poet lacks the
> personal experience/observation/involvement with that message, it will
> ineviatably be charmless.
But you introduced a new caveat in this statement now. Now you are saying
that "if the poet lacks personal experience/observation/involvement with
the message" then the poetry will be charmless. I don't want to split
hairs here, but that was not your original statement.
Any author who does not have a feel for the topic on which he/she is
writing, may have problems with expressing the thoughts clearly. That is
not restricted to social themes alone.
regards,
Sitaramayya Ari.