When considering publication, it's very easy to select material that doesn't pass muster for other than purely reasons of fashion. But there are some simple principles that can be brought to bear to avoid this. So ignoring for the moment any distinction between 'inspired' poems and rhetoric (let's encapsulate them as 'works'), writings fall into three distinct categories based on who's likely to appreciate them.

The first category is the private work. It's born of some intense personal experience of the moment, and is likely to be sui generis and thus may not adhere to any established form or vocabulary. Its meaning will probably be obscure to anyone who didn't experience that moment, and it's not likely to be shared with anyone at all, except perhaps with a close alter ego. Such works are relatively rare, and would almost certainly draw blank looks or derision if shared more widely in their raw form.

The second and much larger category is of works derived from interaction with a wider circle of like-minded associates who have specific experiences or knowledge in common (for example ecologists, boiler makers or acrobats). Such works are much more likely to conform to recognised structures and vocabulary, but their meaning will depend for its effect on that shared experience or knowledge. If such works are shared beyond that circle, they may well be recognised as valid works in principle, but their meaning may be lost on the reader, or indeed misinterpreted.

The third (and certainly the largest) category is that of potentially public works dealing with common human experiences, and these works may potentially be be shared with anyone. It's to this category that the 'normal rules of poetry' – fashion, critical acclaim and so on – apply in familiar ways.

What ultimately matters is how these different categories of works should be handled by the author when considering publication, and it's here that the distinction between 'inspired' poetry and rhetoric cuts in. Put simply, the rhetorician has a much easier job than the poet. Whereas 'inspired' poetry can only be sorted (and maybe tuned very slightly without breaking it) after the fact when deciding its fate, rhetorical works can typically be adjusted substantially to suit differing readerships.

So when deciding on prospects for publication, works in the first category (private works) – which are very unlikely to emerge as rhetoric in any case – should probably stay private, as any adjustment to suit an external readership is likely to kill their effect entirely. So they're not for publication at all, except that in very rare instances they may trigger the creation of a new work expressing the core concept in a way suitable for categories two or three (a 'rewrite').

After review and potential polishing, works of the second category may be fit for release to the wider public if notes are provided to explain any narrowly circle-specific concepts or vocabulary – but please not in the manner adopted by Eliot in The Wasteland (by including yet more unexplained concepts or vocabulary in said notes).

Works of the third category, although apparently the simplest case, also need to be reviewed and polished for clarity and accuracy of detail, as there will always be some readers who can spot and will object to any clumsinesses or mistakes. But it's a major error to attempt to make such works 'accessible' by toning down otherwise expressive language or simplifying imagery. Among the wider public, each reader chooses among published works according to personal preference. This is impossible to predict as your public is unknown to you, so any attempt to tune your works to an expectation of it is both potentially patronising and futile. Be yourself and thereby appeal to those who will appreciate what you are.