What is a true poet?
The poet is the least poetic person, as the distinguished English poet John Keats once said. This phrase means, in my opinion, that the poet is a poet only when he is inside his poem, that is, when he writes it. When the words abandon him and settle definitively within the poem, then the poet remains a common person. And, like thousands of his fellow human beings, he is subject to the same daily wear and tear, the same spiritual exhaustion, and the same, inevitably, secularization of his metaphysical fears.

Externally, he may appear as the most insignificant of all.
But what happens internally?
Why and when does the poet enter the poem to become a poet? Before, however, we answer this question, we can rely on it and give the definition of the poet, one of the many definitions that can be proposed.

Therefore, a poet is a person who, having no other better possibility of action, behaves with poetic speech or through poetic speech or as poetic speech. A poet, that is, (now we reverse the proposition and oversimplify it) is the one who - inexplicably magnetized - takes on the burden of the poem, having nothing more suitable to do.

The poet's urge to enter the process of the poem is caused by a potentially vague concern that he carries with him. This concern arises either from positive response to the good things of the external world (admiration, enthusiasm, satisfaction, glory), or from negative response to the bad things (displeasure, sadness, mourning, indignation). This positive or negative response leads the poet to the desire for intervention through expression.

A more radical view would be the following: There is no question of response. The poet is a poet anyway, without explanation. However, the poet and poetry attempt an intervention.

It is an intervention that concerns the restoration of the true conditions of reality.

An intervention that aims to establish truth as the poet envisions it and embraces it as the only fitting quality of being and becoming.