Agreed! With whole heart and entire soul! While it can sometimes be fitting, the use of a single word in poetry -- or prose, for that matter -- as a stand alone requires either a form that demands it specifically or, more usually, a weight of symbolism and depth of force that is built up before or after it, to give it meaning and depth beyond the conventional; otherwise it becomes an exercise that leaves the reader bereft of usefulness for the poem, and that, beyond all else, is a crime. What good is a poem whose value exists only for the writer? (A far sight less than the already low value placed on them already!) To share verse requires that the writer remember not merely their own experience, but that that effort they put so greatly into their craft has a value to others beyond their experience, and that they are the vessels of interpretation. While there is nothing wrong with writing poetry just for yourself, there are far too many "would be's" who's work is unreadable because they fail to understand their craft wholly, and what it is to be a poet. Which may be why I write so little shared poetry. But then, I have always looked on the craft of writing as something which is meant to be shared, and if it cannot be, then it is merely exercise of the mind (a noble endeavor on its own, but not necessarily one to inflict on an world filled with those most vile of creatures: the uneducated critic). Conjure, evoke, explain, and confer, but do it in a manner that gives the reader an accurate image. A single word can have far too many connotations in it within English for it to truly be of value without weight equal at least to a number of words equal to its length in letters. Hee hee. Don't ya just love arbitrary rules?

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)