Well, I couldn't disagree more with your concept of a writer so let me share with you the story of the Old Sea Captain:
A lovely young couple in 18th-century America wanted to travel to Europe to visit their families. Two ships were available for the potentially dangerous late Fall Atlantic crossing. The first one was captained by a very handsome man who had studied at the greatest maritime colleges, was an expert at celestial navigation, and set a very nice table for his special guests. However, although he had some "coastal passages" to his resume, he had never crossed the North Atlantic . . . especially in Fall with the prospect of severe Autumnal gales. The second captain was a salty curmudgeon who was a hard drinker, swore frequently at his crew and passengers but had crossed the North Atlantic in Autumn over 200 times. He was credited with saving his ship on many occasions in offshore gales with his superb seamanship and always brought his passengers to their destinations safe and sound. Who would you choose to make the passage?
Obviously you choose the person with experience, but poetry is not experience; it's language and form used in order to evoke experience, which may or may not be those of the actual poet. The actual art is in the rendering, not the source material that inspires it. I think if you started looking at any number of the best poems ever written you'd be hard pressed to say what experience the poet must've had in order to write that, or even to what extent the experience matters in what makes it a great poem. If we were to create a 1:1 with your captain analogy, then the first captain would be like a young student who hasn't spent much time writing poetry, but has spent much time reading poetry and studying poems/poets; while the latter captain would be someone who'd spent most of their life successfully writing poetry.
Are you saying that the writer's experience in life is not as important as his creativity . . ., especially in Poetry? You can't separate one from the other. It's a package deal. How can a writer's work have veracity if they are "disconnected" from the real-life experience and live in a shallow perception of the nature of being and human consciousness? The great writers over the last two millennia all shared one important thing: knowledge of their visceral world and their ontological connection to it. Creativity is not enough to make a complete package. To me, it smacks of a well-honed dilettante.
Absolutely I'm saying that, and the notion that you can't separate experience from the art/craft of poetry is absurd, and I'm guessing every single poet would tell you as much.
As for veracity, first of all it's only important to the extent that realism is a concern, and that is not the case in all poetry or literature in general. In fact, the "tyranny of realism" is mostly a 20th century invention thanks to the invention of the psychological novel. An author like Dickens had little concern for realism, and was no worse for it. Second, even if you do value veracity the notion that the only way you can achieve it is via experience is incredibly dubious. You can just as easily achieve it by having read other literature and copying the elements that you think lend veracity to the work. Often veracity requires nothing more than the invention of details. It's entirely possible to imagine things that do not exist, but describe them in such detail that someone would believe they did. There is a bias in human psychology that when someone provides more details we tend to believe them more.
I also don't know what makes you think that a lack of experience leads to a "shallow perception of the nature of being and human consciousness." Human consciousness is directly perceptible to anyone with a mind, and as long as we live with/around others (as Dickinson did) we will also always be able to observe how people are and behave. It seems to me what would make for a deep perception of either would be one's powers of observational awareness. Not just thinking, but being aware of thinking and how thought works; not just being with others, but being aware of how act/behave. When Dickinson writes:
"Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —"
that seems an incredibly perceptive aphorism about the nature of how people react to and best appreciate the truth. Now, of course Dickinson wasn't the first to state that. Shakespeare said it in Hamlet:
"Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
With windlasses and with assays of bias,
By indirections find directions out..."
"'Tis not enough, your counsel still be true;
Blunt truths more mischief than nice falsehoods do;
Men must be taught as if you taught them not;
And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
Without good breeding, truth is disapprov'd;
That only makes superior sense belov'd."
So it seems pretty clear to me that either this experience is so common that anyone can have it, or merely reading other poetry would be enough to make you realize it. Either way, Dickinson's rendering is just as good as Shakespeare's or Pope's, especially in the way she develops the light/lightning metaphor throughout.
Finally, liking or disliking an artist is a very personal thing. It sheds light on the reader as an affirmation of how they perceive Art and Reality in a most intimate way and how they perceive what is good in "Art.". At some level, there's really no positive or negative . . . just personal taste. So, I could never read Melville but I love Conrad. Dickinson was always unreadable but I love Eliot. Just two different ways to look at the creative process and the world.
I do agree with all this. I was never much of an Eliot guy myself. At least as far as the modernists go I'd take Stevens any day.