Andrey's questions about poems (split from the intro thread)

[AndreyGaganov]

What I had in mind was the perceived need to obscure the meaning of the poem. This does sound like an irrational stance, true (I should have thought it through the first time I posted on this forum). However, my main concern remains to be: why metaphors?

It's not so much a reading comprehension problem as it is my problem with what is at the foundation of poetry. My argument is this: why does a poet feel the need to use metaphors when we already have prose? Why contrive a confusing piece of literature and make the reader work hard on its meaning when it is only supposed to convey an idea? What practical  advantage do metaphors have over simple terms?

Gut punch, ...

Sorry, I don't know what that means in this context. What am I fighting back here with a metaphor?

... plus technical terms on how red something is are simply not literary, ... 

... not literary but technical. I'm sorry, but how does this concern metaphors? 

... plus the idea of qualias and abstract thoughts being concretized for understanding.

Can't the qualias and abstract thoughts be expressed and understood without concretization?

... And it's not contrived if it was considered literature before basically any other literary work.

Why would contrivance (or the lack thereof) be used as a criterion for determining whether something is literature or not? 

God, if you have to learn about the advantages of metaphor in the internet, then what the hell is up with the state of education today?

LOL. Now you know how it is, not only with the Nevada public school education, but also the Russian public school education. (I was born and partly raised in St.-Petesburg, Russia, so ... I know.) They don't really seem to care about teaching the substance that is at the core of culture; they are just people on a payroll.