After thinking about it for a few days here are my current thoughts
on accessibility.
I would say that different poems are accessible to different
people, as with paintings, sculptures, music, novels, films.
It's remarkable that there is any agreement at all on which
poetry is most valuable (I don't like the terms "good" and "bad").
We don't have to "understand" poetry in the intellectual-content
sense - but for it to have any value I think we do have to be able
to connect with it in some way. The reader's mind needs to do
something other than saying "Huh?". If it takes more than two or
three readings to get anything at all to happen, I'd say there are
better uses for that reader's time. Like reading somebody else!
If nobody at all can connect with a poem, I say it's
a waste of space and time.
If one can only connect with it after doing a PhD then
its value is, to my mind, limited.
The most valuable poems have many levels of meaning and give you
more (more "access") every time you read them. (As with other
art forms; I think this is especially the case with music and film)
Janet
------------------------------------------------------
Janet Jackson <[log in to unmask]>
Poems at Proximity:
http://www.arach.net.au/~huxtable/janet/proximity.html
------------------------------------------------------
|