> I don't always completely understand poetry.
> Sometimes, I don't understand it at all.
> Howard

I was about to say a very similar thing. Often, poetry doesn't make any sense to me, especially the stuff we have to read in class. Then, of course, the teacher always asks, "But what does it REALLY MEAN?" And they never want a straightforward reply--the more farfetched, the better. There's always at least one student who figures this out and takes it to extremes. The funny thing is, the teacher is usually impressed by the 'deep' insight, even if the student clearly doesn't believe a word of it himself.

The only poetry I got in the last few such discussions was Den-Kara's. I read all of the ones I saw. Still, I rather like much of the pastoral poetry by some of the more famous poets in the last couple centuries. I'll bet that, if I spent time and read more, I'd start to get better at understanding them. Sometimes the words seem designed to conceal as much as to show.

As for structure, it may be presumptuous since I've already said that I don't read much poetry, but iambic pentameter in blank verse is my favorite form. I agree that it is a measure of the poet's skill if he or she can both write expressively and adhere to a strict style. Some styles are poor choices because they constrain the message too heavily; others don't constrain it enough, so it no longer seems like poetry. My own opinion is that poetry should have dense meaning, a lot more so than regular text. The structure can be unique, certainly: I love to read Ecclesiastes aloud.

Maybe if I posted earlier in the day, my thoughts wouldn't be so jumbled. But this is what you got.

gabby