Writing Poetry vs. Writing About Poetry

When I write poetry, I don't think much about things like "does this line maintain proper iambic pentameter" or "perhaps I should insert a bit of alliteration at this point to focus attention on the metaphor I'm trying to establish in this stanza." I just write, one line at a time. If it sounds good (and yeah, I do say stuff out loud while I'm writing, if I'm somewhere where I can do that without looking like a loon), If it works on its own and in relation to the previous line, I'll move on. After I've reached a point that feels like the end, I might go over the poem and shift a word or phrase or line, but I don't usually do any sort of radical revision. If it worked when I wrote it, it doesn't need changing, and if it didn't work, I would usually rather start over - maybe saving a section from the original poem that I thought was all right - than try and fix it. I don't feel the need to force meaning into my poems, and I'm not afraid to throw away something I've written that sucks.

I feel more pressure when analyzing someone else's work. Somebody else has created a poem that they feel expresses a mood, or defines a place, or presents an idea worth considering. What if I miss their point? What if I completely misinterpret the symbols they have used, the mythology they have created? Is that a symptom of the author's inability to to say what they want to say, or my inability to hear what they say? I worry that my analysis of other's work will either miss the point of the work or find meaning where none is to be found. And yes, I know that theory says "if you can find it, it's there," but that just increases the pressure to justify what I think a poem says. Sometimes I don't want to spend hours determining that "this poem is a variation of the classic Shakesperian sonnet, with a focus on the eternal power of true love as shown by blah blah blah blah..." Sometimes, I just want to say "I like this" and be donee.