Beauty in language ,Empson emphasised
( and for this remark he's been strongly criticised )
depends on the depths of its ambiguity.
Now William was a man of perspicuity,
tracing a long and truly tortuous way
through all the things that poets want to say.
For unconsciously , the poet may reveal
more than intended, and therefore his appeal
may lie for some readers in what he should delete
were he to attempt to avoid the indiscreet .
For a critic to evaluate a poet's verse
may well result (and there is nothing worse !)
in a long involved discussion so compounded
as to leave the reader's confusion worse confounded .
Does the poet take the reader smoothly with him
On lines that clearly develop the proper rhythm
(See just above !) , Does he always have perfect rhyme ?
Does his metre follow strict metronomic time ?
But let's face it , let's get the question pat --
Critics need to ask What's meant by that ?
And there , in sweet reason or in rage ,
Those critics could fill up page upon page upon page upon page upon page
But like it or lump it -- it's there on the page for all
and as a result not easy to recall

And in the end , ( and I think that we all know it )
A poet is a poet is a poet