Just wrote that, let me know what you think in the article comments
While I understand the comments that exposition would be helpful, I woudn't add too much, if any. The point is to get the new diver to ask, 'Why?', after reading the advice, and learn from the pursuit of the answer to that question, not for you to provide the detailed explanantion. The poem doesn't say. 'Don't write poetry because: 1) it is exhilirating, but 2) frustrating, 3) mind-expanding, but 4) futile, 5) poignant yet 6) pointless, 7) richly rewarding, yet 8) economically unviable, and 9) condemns the poet to a life of isolation, 10) provides notariety but 11) provokes public criticism and 12) ultimately drives one mad.' Instead, it allows the reader to infer the rewards of writing poetry, by comparison to the rewards of a variety of other pursuits, some rationale, some bizarre, some unusual, some mundane. If a new diver asks 'Why would someone say that?', and seeks out answers from other divers, from a LDS, from SB, from other resources, they will benefit greatly from the experience. Likewise, while I understand saspotato's comment, if a female diver is put off by the title, 'So what?' That is not a gender-biased comment. Rather, it appears that you are provding advice, for those who might care to consider it. If someone chooses not to consider it, so be it. If one of my daughters were to say, 'I won't read the poem because it is obviously intended only for men', I would conclude that, with that attitude, she wouldn't benefit from reading it anyway. And, if the title was changed to substitute 'women' for 'men', and my son made a similar comment, I would draw the same conclusion.
As an editor, I would suggest you continue to tweak the language, the words, the flow. Leave the exposition for others.