> Hello Sue,
            All sorts of subsidiary issues are raised by your comment here, I think. I don´t know what an `average reader´ is, but I´ve often read comments to the effect that the vast majority of the population (in England/English-speaking cultures/Europe/the world?) never read poetry of any kind so I guess by definition those who do read poetry cannot be considered `average´. Then again, if there was an average reader who was not very good at reading should poets adjust their work for this mythical beast? Should Geoffrey Hill do that? Isn´t there a danger of dumbing down here? And again, is it necessary for any reader to be able to explicate a poet´s use of metaphor in order to enjoy and respond to the poem? And even further, is it necessary for the reader to take from a poem the same content as the poet thought (s)he had put into it? All these related issues make this a knotty problem, I perceive. I didn´t realise I´d written such a controversial line ;-)



Best wishes,   Mike


> Lähettäjä: Sue Scalf <[log in to unmask]>
> Päiväys: 2003/11/19 ke PM 05:12:46 GMT+02:00
> Vastaanottaja: [log in to unmask]
> Aihe: Re: Dents du midi - Grasshopper
> 
> In a message dated 11/19/2003 3:17:27 AM Central Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> 
> <<  I used the jaw to represent the mountain range >>  That image as you have
> stated it is much too embedded for the average reader to recognize in the
> reading.  You might try to rephrase it.  I like the idea.  What about using a
> simile?  Sue
>