Do not be cross with poetry

[UselessBlueprint]

well, I disagree.  I think understanding a poem is key to enjoying it. Not understanding a poem is like being unable to see porn, just hearing random groans and being generally confused as to what is actually going on.

Interestingly, that is exactly what some poetry proves to be. And I can't say with any certainty if that itself is good or bad.

I do not believe meaning is necessary to critique, but that does not mean it must be ignored. I have seen poems posted here that have an obvious depth, but that are beyond my scope. These are usually too intimidating, and for the time, I pass them by. If a poem has meaning that is poorly maintained, e.g. the poem shifts from one topic/statement to an unrelated one, that is worth critiquing.

Of course, often times people interpret poetry in different ways. This may be the intent, it may not be. I'm okay if it changes a bit along the lines of history we all have, but I believe it should be layered. The deeper your knowledge and comprehension of what you have learned, the more layers you can see. For example, many allusions, historical references, or linguistic properties might pass over one person's head, while they are more than obvious to another. Whether or not we see them will affect how many layers of meaning we can see. Thus, poetry of birds and trees might be about a failing relationship, but it may also be porn that you hear but do not see.