That's a nice try, Luke, but not all writings (nor writers) aspire to be on good terms with readers: variously they shout, harangue, lecture, sneer, spit, lie and shake a fist in the direction of an audience. Some might even commit suicide in full view, while others are intent on picking the reader's pockets. A great many set out to bamboozle or intellectually swindle. There's as much fraud in poetry as MP's expense accounts.

david

On 20 February 2018 at 15:28, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I was thinking of the energy as kinetics "(of a work of art) depending on movement for its effect": the movement from inspiration etc. to reader. So that the writing process itself brings reader and writer into accord.

That doesn't seem especially novel, it's true.

On 20 February 2018 at 11:06, Jamie McKendrick <00001ae26018af73-dmarc-[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Will try to track it down when I’ve finished some very late work. Take away the E trope and, as Tim says, it’s probably not that far off many poets’ idea of what they’re doing.
J

On 19 Feb 2018, at 11:56, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'd be intrigued to read, if somewhere accessible.

Luke

On 18 February 2018 at 15:45, Jamie McKendrick <00001ae26018af73-dmarc-reques [log in to unmask]> wrote:
Oddly enough, Larkin says something very similar, but a more straightforwardly. (Somewhere.)
J

On 18 Feb 2018, at 14:28, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Gonna bump this question.

Cheers
Luke

On 17 February 2018 at 12:53, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I like it

A poem is energy transferred from where the poet got it (he will have some several causations), by way of the poem itself to, all the way over to, the reader.

Can only think of one thing I've written that fits the bill. Won't post it!

Does the definition have much currency?

Cheers,
Luke