First, check out 200K Haiku.
Sometimes the problem with poetry written by "trained poets" is that we speak to an audience we think is educated in the same way we are, forgetting that poetry, for most of us, had to be learned on some level (which, as an aside, I think is one of the Neo-formalists more compelling but often unarticulated arguments: there's something to be gained when everyone knows the predictable rules of the game). Whatever subtleties of expression we gain as we impress the inner peer-circle might be lost on the greater readership. (I'm talking about form and shape.)
So too, I think with jury trials. I gave a mock closing the other day and started grimacing (or so it felt) at my language choice. I actually used the phrase "independent witness" without fully explaining it. Had I a jury of 12 criminal defense attorneys, they might have appreciated my work. 12 random citizens. . .well.
Second, to make the problematic jump from "form" to "substance," the 200K Haiku might fundamentally connect with those of us who go on longish rides (though Kent's long to my long is like a. . .a. . .hmm. . .let's leave that metaphor unvoiced.)
But in any event, I think there has to be a basic curiosity on the part of the reader, assuming there is no common experiential base the reader can sympathize from.
Or to put this another way, assuming a non-interested listener-ship, one must hook them in or they won't engage, won't follow the argumentative path the poem (or closing) is laying out. In many ways I shudder to think at what a lot of people find interesting, as evidenced by where they turn their conversation when it's free to range - e.g., what was on TV, who is/isn't hot, which expensive handbag looks better with which expensive skirt. (Juvenal, where are you?)
All this isn't to knock Kent's poetry - I quite like his haiku, and they're probably more readable (which I think is a good thing) then my own way of approaching the subject. They also provide that blogging/thinking spark. Hence the title of my post.