Is Close Enough Ever Good Enough... A Discussion

[Kynaston Levitt]

This is what my brain does when I read those two lines in the poem:
Green light on a forest floor:

Refracted as the deepest sea:

Also, that is what comes up when you google “ocean refraction images,” so I’m not sure I understand exactly why there is a problem with these lines. I read it that the light in the forest looks like light in the sea, all bendy and otherworldly. I rather liked the lines and the scene they evoke.

The initial discussion seems to stem from this comment:

I found a place where I was lost
in green light on a forest floor, - I'm already there. Great opening. 
 
refracted as the deepest sea. - this line is confusing to me. Firstly, what is being "refracted" from the previous lines? And secondly, "refracted as the sea"? The sea isn't refracted. So, something can't be refracted as it. I wonder what you thought this line meant. And I also wonder what other readers think you meant by this line. 
 

To answer your “other readers” question. I thought it was clear that the thing from the previous line that is being refracted is the light in the forest, not the water of the sea.  The second line meant that the way the light in the forest is behaving looks like the way light behaves in the sea.  It was never saying that the sea water is refracted.  Perhaps the line should read “refracted as in the sea” to be clear, but surely that is not enough of an omission to cause this level of confusion.

This is true. When I first read the poem and wrote my reply the word "refracted" put such a big spanner in the works that I couldn't really follow any of it. I couldn't, ironically, see the wood for the trees. But you are correct, it is surely referring to the green light being refracted—my initial confusion came from trying to read the word "refracted" purely as a poetic metaphor—because why wouldn’t I? It doesn’t make sense otherwise—and in that case we don’t need to be committed to the connection between light and refraction, and any of the nouns preceding it [I, green light (although this one leads to the problem being discussed), forest floor] could be the subject of the verb. This makes it a syntax issue. The more interesting problem is when you commit to “green light” being the subject of the verb.
And I do appreciate that you imagine something when you read these lines. But that seems to be because you don’t care what the word means, or that it is the wrong word. And this is what I thought would be interesting to discuss.
I gave the example of someone writing “I stood at the top of the Eiffel Tower and looked out over the city of Chantilly…” It has been suggested by Busker that this is a less complicated phenomenon and therefore not strictly analogous. And that is true. But the principle is the same. It could be argued that if one read this sentence, one would imagine looking out over Paris. Or even more vaguely one might imagine looking over a general cityscape from a great height. The point is most people would imagine the same thing regardless of whether Paris or Chantilly is used in the sentence. But does that mean we shouldn’t care, or shouldn’t point it out as being wrong?
 
 
NOTE: I didn’t really mean for this discussion to focus entirely on the “refracted” poem. I thought of it more as a jumping off point. I was actually expecting some counter examples where I would be forced to agree that using an incorrect word is permissible.

---

 We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed 

BINGO!

Rules may be broken in poetry, no doubt, but this kind of "Oh well, it'll do. I know what you meant" kind of attitude is alien to me. I would prefer if no one knew what I meant but I had used the right words in the right order.* Than using a word incorrectly and having people guess what I meant. 

*obviously there is experimental poetry which will mess around with grammar and spelling etc. But in those cases I think intention in important.