One should be able to read at a regular pace and be able to decipher all meanings. If the reader is incapable of doing this, then they should not read poetry. Not everyone can be an academic.

That's about the worst proclamation about poetry I've ever read. Much, if not all, of the point of poetry is to be able to revel in the language. If an author wants to write straightforward prose, an author will write straightforward prose. With poetry, you can--and the best poets do--add multiple levels of meaning both in the message and with the words and structure. Any poem worth a damn is worth reading multiple times. If you don't enjoy doing this with poetry, you shouldn't be reading poetry. I would suggest a newspaper.

You are correct that poetry is worth reading multiple times. This is not my argument. I'm claiming that a good analyzer should be able to pick up on all subtleties immediately.

Could you be more vain? That's such a blatantly wrong generalization that it's silly. Yes, there are plenty of poems that are easy to get in one cursory reading. There are plenty of really good poems, however, that require a bit more. I don't believe for a minute you could read--say--all of Shakespeare's sonnets in one sitting, one time through--not rereading ANY words--and not miss one thing--even if you are William Dean Howells reborn. Every literature professor I've ever had--both undergraduate and graduate--and every book on poetics I've ever read--extolled the benefits of rereading (prose, too, for that matter). The universal claim is that you understand more each time you read. That doesn't even start to get at book-length poems like the Pound's "Cantos" or even Eliot's "Wasteland," poems written about personal experience you have no way of knowing about without additional reading, or poems written in archaic language that take time and effort to decipher. I'm sure you have no problem with "I once knew a man from Nantucket..." one time through. "April is the cruelest month..." Not so much.

Can you not argue without insulting me? Is this the basis of your argument?
At the bold. Perhaps you should surround yourself with more civilized individuals. Admittedly, not everyone can decipher the meaning immediately which is why I said poetry is not for everyone. If an individual is unable to understand mathematical proof, they should not be studying mathematics.
Perhaps your adamancy is a result of an American education. America is not known for it's contribution to literature when compared to Europe and Asia.

I'll stop insulting you when you stop insulting, oh--everyone else. You couldn't be more of a stuffed-shirt if you tried. Anyway, as much fun as this is, I'll stop tossing the troll bait now.

I have not insulted anyone. I am simply stating the facts. You will have to tell me what a stuffed-shirt is since I am unfamiliar with the term. English is my fifth language so you will have to forgive me.

holy crap! fellow grad student of lit!!