"I do wonder though if the pleasures of logopoeia aren't the pleasures of asceticism, of self-denial, of an almost masochistic suppression of one's desire or expectation of some kind of melo- and phanopoeia from poetry."

--Josh Corey.

Well yes and no. For me logopoeia is immediately pleasurable, it's not based on the renunciation of some other pleasure, and in fact often coincides with these other pleasures, as in Mullen, an intensely logopoeiac poet, though the charm can wear thin fast because of the obviousness of some of her devices.

On the other hand, most readers aren't that attuned to these purely logopoeiac pleasures in the first place. For most readers, word play is an acquired taste. On the other hand, the logopoeia based on flat surfaces (the apparent negation of logopoeia in WB [or Edson!]) can have a paradoxical sensuousness based on asceticism, the negation of easy pleasures, as Kasey has pointed out.

Wouldn't it be more ascetic to have a poetry devoid of logopeia? For me it would. That's why I can't read poetry in translation comfortably. Pound points out that translation emphasizes image (phanopeia). Melopeia, he says, is only translated by pure miracle, logopeia not at all (I am paraphrasing from "How To Read").