 |
 |
I've thought about this and have reached a conclusion which I claim is universally valid for me: it's a false dichotomy. Campion is entrancing the first time you read him, and Donne is confusing the first time you read him, but they are both great poets. Blake's lyrics, which are accessible, are better than his epics, which are inaccessible. Early Pound is more accessible than late Pound but not as good. The first three hundred lines of Paradise Lost are a lot more accessible than the rest and a lot better. It works ever wich way without no correlation. It's not always even entirely clear what accessibility means. Emily Dickinson is quite accessible on first reading to any adolescent, but you have to read her for decades to understand what she's really doing. Some people may argue that accessibility means how easy it is to get behind the surface technique to a poem's intellectual content. But the intellectual content of poetry is always just a bunch of junk anyway.