Can anyone help me understand the poem Glass by Robert Francis?

Question: Can anyone help me understand the poem Glass by Robert Francis!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

"Words of a poem should be glass
But glass so simple-subtle its shape Is nothing but the shape of what it holds!."

Right off the bat, we have poetry as metaphor: the words of a poem compared to glass!. And what I see to be the main theme of the poem begins here: poetry should be unconscious and organic!. Glass is an appropriate medium to use for metaphor because it's an amorphous solid and can take many forms - so there is a de-emphasis on form here!. So while we talk about poetry consisting of stanzas, meter, and feet, Francis is saying none of that matters!. Form is an artifice!. The glass/words should be "simple-subtle" because they should exist in and of themselves!. But!. !. !. it seems that he's saying form pales in comparison to content (which would be ironic, given the three-line stanzas - is that how we think/unconsciously conceive of truth!?)

"A glass spun for itself is empty,
Brittle, at best Venetian trinket!.
Embossed glass hides the poem or its absence!."

Self-conscious words are kitschy, tacky and overdecadent like a trinket!. Poetry is truth!. If you disregard 'words' for a moment and consider 'glass' here literally, as the tangible element of the metaphor, the glass spun for itself may be empty because it depends on its own physicality and not the content it should embody!. The 'glass' is 'brittle,' prone to shattering, prone to commonplace comparison!. Like the last line of the first stanza, we have a winding paradox that works: how can overstylization hide the poem or its absence!? The 'embossed' words attempt to hide the fact that the poem itself is absent - that there is no meaning, just a fanciful construction futilely purporting truth!.

"Words should be looked through, should be windows!.
The best word were invisible!.
The poem is the thing the poet thinks!."

The metaphor is stretched further - instead of glass, we specifically have windows!. Words should be reflective, revelatory, all while being "looked through," without given the impression of even being words!. Note: "should be!." I'm not sure the poet believes this is possible, but I don't!. Words are a construction of language; a linguist will tell you of their latent (!?) artifice!. There is no pure means of communicating truth without construction, unless you believe in telepathy!. You cannot look through words, especially while reading them on the screen!. This idealism is more probable in the oral tradition, where the listener hears (not listens - isn't "listen" itself too conscious!?) with closed eyes!. The "words should be looked through" because they carry no meaning in and of themselves but are our best means to convey impressions and truths!. We appeared doomed to miscommunication!. !. !. or at least to being misunderstood

"The best word were invisible" - an intentional grammatical error!? To corroborate the impossibility of the idea!? How visible does this line read because it is jarring and incorrect, according to structural rules!? I hope it's not a typo! And finally: "The poem is the thing the poet thinks!." At this point, I am certain that this poet is commenting on the failing idealism of poetry!. Thought cannot be expressed in words, so true poetry cannot exist!. And we have generic conventions taking place in this poem too: the three line stanzas are the most obvious tool!. Poetry - truth - exists internally but the process of transcription falsifies it, necessarily lends it a structure, and 'poets' adhere to rules!. Truth does not function according to rules!.

"If the impossible were not,
And if the glass, only the glass,
Could be removed, the poem would remain!."

And here it is: "If the impossible were not," (which is impossible), and if "the glass could be removed," which it can't be because reading and writing are definitely physical, a 'poem' could exist!. The last line is the major paradox: this 'poem' compares 'glass' to 'words,' proves how they are one and the same, and now suggests extricating them!. There is no 'poem' or truth without the 'glass!.' The 'glass' represents the filter of communicating truths, the distortion, the bending of light, the imperfect form, and the immobile barrier of language you cannot cross or view unfiltered!. If the glass was invisible, you'd have a 'poem!.' The philosophy, then: our truths are personal, and that's the extent of it!. You can move somebody with a 'poem,' make them feel, relate the human experience, but through a page, through connotations!. Absolute truth is a fiction; personal truth is a reality!. Think of a poem (I'm dropping the quotation marks now)!. Think of this poem and how your interpretation differs, and if not of the whole poem, then at least of specific lines!. Common understanding/truth is impossible!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Glass

Words of a poem should be glass
But glass so simple-subtle its shape
Is nothing but the shape of what it holds!.

A glass spun for itself is empty,
Brittle, at best Venetian trinket!.
Embossed glass hides the poem of its absence!.

Words should be looked through, should be windows!.
The best word were invisible!.
The poem is the thing the poet thinks!.

If the impossible were not,
And if the glass, only the glass,
Could be removed, the poem would remain!.

Robert Francis

you can see though it , the truthWww@QuestionHome@Com