Does anyone have any tips or advice on how best to avoid transparency in poetry? I can write a nice line, conjure up some clever rhymes. I like to think I can even evoke feelings when I put my mind to it. But when I read published poetry, whatever the subject may be, I always feel there's something there that my own efforts lack. An ambiguity, maybe. Or a voice which seemingly comes from neither author nor omnipresent god. My poetry 'does what it says on the tin'. It leaves no lasting sense of wonder or mystery in the reader. No questions unanswered. And this transparency even seeps into the lines themselves. My lines are logical, correct in syntax, as basic as the day is long. And it doesn't seem to matter how much poetry I read, I can't seem to grasp the magic 'key'.
Perhaps its fear of metaphor? Let me explain: I've mentioned it in the past, and I could feel the uncomfortable glances and engagements of others when I tried to tap the topic. Metaphor. This is that. Not, this is like that. And also metaphor at a larger scale, not just the syntactic scale. "Harry Potter is about queerness." "No it's not, you agenda-pushing twat. It's about kids who go to a school for magicians. I don't see any gayness, no matter what Rowling said after the fact about Dumbledore." "You don't see that all these kids are different? You don't see that each of them, aside from being generally different, is also specifically different, each in their own way? You don't see how they are only allowed to be who they are when they are in their own special places and realms? You're telling me that you missed - you blind buffoon - the fact that Harry has to live in an actual closet (cupboard) in the muggle world? You missed all that??" "Uch. Agenda. There's no gayness." "Metaphor! It's ALL gayness." I've brought it up in the past and was engaged with either a) a lack of assurance in the idea of metaphor, b) a dislike for such hard and assured opinions expressed through the kind of imagery that metaphor intones, c) a concern that it won't be understood because of the sideways reference, or worst of all, d) a commitment to surface, one-layered literalism that disdains the kind of slippery work a metaphor, large or small, may engage. I don't know. Could this be in play with respect to your question? Genuine question. Could it be that you have yet to feel comfortable treading into realms of ambiguity, allowing the reader to arrive at the grain without you laying the grain flat and uncooked on the plate? It's one thing to read the end result of someone else, to enjoy that ambiguity, to appreciate the differing modes of engagement it allows the reader; it's quite another to have been the writer, waiting for the reader to arrive at what you meant to intone, perhaps never really getting there.
There is transparency in a lot of great poems. They don't have to be riddles or do any tricks. I read a good amount of contemporary poetry. It's okay to spell things out if you use the right words to do so. But poetry needs time and revision to reach the level you probably want. Just like prose we have to look for the snags and smooth them out, play with our words and really work with the material once it's down on the page. Even a great metaphor needs to be presented in the right way. Poetry is hard work. It's just as hard as prose or even harder if you are trying to sell it. Revision is your friend, and I doubt transparency is the problem.
