Untitled one-word poem

That is indeed "what I was going for". And what's wrong with an interpretation that requires you read a poem twice? The way I see it, any poem that gives you a complete interpretation on your first read is not worth reading in the first place.

I saw the 'e(nor)mous' on the second read as well and really liked the contradiction within such a small space

Thanks! This entire poem was written basically all at once on a whim, so I can't really ascribe absolute intentionality to what I've done here; but the way I see it, the separation of the "e" was necessary to allow the reader to see more easily that two words (enormous and Mouse) were being spelled by the same letters in the same space. If I moved it up to the first line, I think people would have a much harder time finding "enormous" because they'd have "mouse" right there in front of them. Also, I feel like it has kind of an imitative, sensory quality as well. The e is separated from the larger word, just as a mouse is separated from the larger world. The lone "e" also kind of sounds like the squeak of a mouse, at least to me. I think, all things considered, it helps imbue the poem with that diminutive, empathetic, and "cute" quality you mentioned.

Glad you liked it.

Thanks so much for this feedback. You've noticed some details that I'd really even barely considered myself, and your interpretation is really cool. On the one hand, this poem is kind of just "cute" and gimmicky in that it's playful and involves the sort of subject matter you'd normally expect from kids' books ("enormous" is such a great hyperbolic word, and "mouse" is just aggressively cute--especially when you think about the anthropomorphized mice of children's lit and fairytales).
But in the sense you've described, the poem is something that's been wrenched apart; an intense, almost violent space in which opposing dialectical elements attempt to force themselves into a completed whole by forcing themselves upon one another. This poem originally didn't have a title when I first wrote it, but after I posted it with the title it has, the irony was not lost on me.
A fun fact about this poem that might be of some interest to you: I originally thought of this piece as a way of inverting the stress pattern of the word "enormous"--we pronounce it as eNORmous, but what if it was EnorMOUS? How might that change the meaning of the word? I wondered how you might concretize a reversal in the stress pattern, and this poem was my solution. The offsetting of the "e" into its own space helps you think about it as its own discrete part of the word, thereby emphasizing it. The capitalization of "M" stresses the syllable, and the way that syllable extends into "Mouse" recontextualizes the weak "uss" sound, mutating it into a strong "OWSS". The way "nor" is enclosed in parentheses quiets the formerly strong syllable into a whisper.
Also I'm a little surprised that nobody's commented on the presence of the third word of this poem: "nor". In a poem that deals so heavily with dialectics, and is itself a dialectic, an explicit negator like "nor" is surely of some significance.