Simplicity in Poetry

[RiverNotch]

I do think the author implies that "simplicity > complexity" in poetry, but I don't think it's in the sense of "poetry as an imitation of life" -- I think it's in the sense of "poetry as a tool to communicate with". And I'd consider those two things different, since poetry can be just as much an imitation of life as other forms of art, just it can be as much a tool to communicate with as those same forms, only it can imitate life in the same way, yet it fundamentally cannot communicate in the same way (excluding, say, a concrete poem compared to visual art, or a lyric poem compared to a song, but I think in those cases a certain dichotomy in analysis forms, where the careful listener would separate the appropriate elements first, instead of trying to load them all in one go). I think his problem is more that he doesn't define what he means by "simplicity" -- by my definition, "fifty dollar words" and "esoteric language" are definitely complex, while "complicated imagery" and "elaborate extended metaphor" aren't, at least not entirely. And surely neither complexity nor simplicity can be ends by themselves, but if the goal of poetry is to communicate (and I surely believe it is -- it's easy and legal enough to express emotions by shouting them into the cosmos), then simplicity, ie the poem's becoming accessible to its intended audience, is one good end.