The poem must take charge– it must attempt to intentionally guide and influence the audience’s will– to exert itself upon, or in spite of, the audience’s desire to hone, dissolve, re-interpret, or create new meaning that serves itself.
The poem must be a closed structure of sorts– dependant upon itself– this is not to say that ambiguity should be eliminated– to the contrary– but the elusive “answer” to a said ambiguity (the alternatives that may fill an open space) can be controlled to a certain extent or limited by the poem itself– so as to direct the reader along an intended path . (A truly open space– an ambiguity that has countless alternatives– is almost always useless)
The poem must defend itself. As the poem attempts to guide the reader, it must also fortify a defense against misunderstanding– the poem anticipates distortion (intentional and otherwise) and contains within itself the means to thwart it.
Left to his own devices, the reader will resort to personal experience, institutionalized suppositions and moral structures– which the poem can use to its advantage– BUT the poem must be on guard, ready to defend itself against inappropriate interjection which could weaken or pervert the intended moral and aesthetic structure of the poem.
The Next Poet does not confuse Fact with Truth. Often, a series of calculated mis-facts will lead more effectively towards truth than a single (true) fact.
[sometimes the 1st step in the right direction is several steps in the wrong direction]
Truth is more a path than an end point. A means or a medium. There is “Truth” and there is “That-Which-Reveals-Truth”– the former is rare and almost always arguable– the latter is seemingly the most effective, the most interesting– and often– filled with lies.
Poetic narration, by its nature, smacks of fiction– even on occasions of strict documentary work– the arrangement of reality, even if all parts are factual, is contrived along a fictional narrative manner.