Teijal -- Of course, any poet is pleased when their original intent is grasped and appreciated as they intended it. But such a marriage between Intent and Comprehension is a very risky criterion for success of the poem. Milton announces famously in the encomium to Paradise Lost : h

What in me is dark
Illumin, what is low raise and support;
That to the highth of this great Argument
I may assert Eternal Providence, [25]
And justifie the wayes of God to men.

He then goes on, magnificently, for 12,000 lines to FAIL, magnificently, to "justify the ways of God to men." Just one particularly grand example of the gulf that often exists between a poet's intent and his readers' comprehension. Shakespeare wrote plays to be performed for money. The revenue put butter and bacon on the family table. His jaw would hit that table in utter astonishment if he could see the thousands of articles and books written about his plays, many of them written from wildly different perspectives than he ever intended. A psychoanalytic reading of Hamlet? I can hear him (mis)quoting himself: "Oh Brave new world, that hath such [critics] in it!" If we had a clear 'understanding' of Hamlet, an understanding rooted somehow in what Shakespeare intended us to understand, WHY would the play be produced? Why would it be read? Surely it is the mystery, the attempt of every director and reader to bring his unique take, or interpretation, of events and characters, that keeps the play vital and alive.

The audience becomes the missing component in the work of art.