It is sometimes argued that poetry is inaccessible and overly abstract for entertainment. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? I mostly agree with the idea that poetry is elusive and thereby less enjoyable. Compared with novels or essays, poems express the author's emotions and associations less (less makes more sense than more) directly, resulting in incomplete sentences with many missing links in a logical chain of thought. This esoteric delivery of words seems irrational, pretentious and neglects the effort to communicate. On the other hand, some poems have a memorable line which has successfully verbalised a feeling that everyone understands, using a rhythmic brevity. For example, a Japanese poet, Basho, wrote "夏草や 兵どもが 夢の跡 (I’m not sure you should include Japanese in an English essay, just use the translation) （The summer grass, that's all that's left, after the war.)", which clearly describes the sadness of wasteland scenery and the transient nature of human activities. Masterpieces evoke feelings based on readers' memories and experiences. When the flow of the poem reads naturally and the voice of the author dissipates (?), it is finally possible to enjoy a poetic experience. To summarise, although poetry can be entertaining, poems often seem like mumbo jumbo. (Mumbo jumbo is a little informal)