I'm sure he was chuckling to himself when writing "crickets" down. But a lot of the criticism here seem to think he is somehow cheating the reader with these m

I'm sure he was chuckling to himself when writing "crickets" down. But a lot of the criticism here seem to think he is somehow cheating the reader with these minimalist word-games. As if he is pretending there is a deeper meaning than there really is and therefore deceiving the reader. If someone enjoys the poetry it must surely be because they have been tricked! The unstated assumption is that poetry is supposed to be serious, difficult to write, and having many layers of complex meaning, requiring hard work to decipher, and above all, not allowed to be fun. Another streak is people getting angry at what they think other people might hypothetically think about them if they don't enjoy the poetry. Where does this come from? I don't know. Possibly bad high-school English teachers. But I can't see how Saroyan is to blame for thees weird notions. Poetry have always been a vehicle for jokes and memes and koans and absurdist humor. Printed poetry opened the possibly of having fun with the visual presentation of the text. But it is amazing to me that anyone can look at "cricket" and get offended. "There is a joke in the poetry! I have been cheated! I demand my money back!"