This second hypothetical poet may be both out of luck & in luck, if the first poet's process was not following a receipt so much as digesting a meal, the contents of which may be discernible by an examination of his guts, but the process of digestion may well not be clear to the first poet in the first place. The boon therein for the second poet is that he or she may not be able merely to imitate the first poet. Bon appetit.
On 27 Aug 2015 4:21 am, "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 23:11:56 -0400, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >That is it, Peter. As Eliot remarked in his seminal essay on individual
> >talent, "The poet’s mind is in fact a receptacle for seizing and storing up
> >numberless feelings, phrases, images, which remain there until all the
> >particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together." It
> >is "the intensity of the artistic process, the pressure, so to speak, under
> >which the fusion takes place, that counts."
> >On Wednesday, August 26, 2015, P <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> What does any creative writer have but his or her own experience. The
> >> question is whether knowing that background does anything for the creation.
> So the poet gathers a bunch of ingredients and his mind creates a recipe and he cooks up a dish for us to eat. But if another poet wants to create something of his own, learning from a master, he may be given a vague description of the recipe yet forbidden to see the list of ingredients?
> Rick Parker