»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #1
»
Mary (Villanelle)
| Critical Analysis #1 |
|
Mary (Villanelle) |
|
|
Lighthousebob Member Elite
since 2000-06-14
Posts 4725California |
| |||
| © Copyright 2001 Robert E. Michaud Jr. - All Rights Reserved | ||||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
This is too gothic. I mean, it doesn't offend me or anything, it just bores me. Rotting bones and the flesh decay are very overused and really convey no message anyway other than a desire to offend or disgust, only it doesn't work anymore... Edgar Allen Poe had his reign. Did you know that in 18th century New England innoculations were considered the Devil's tool? They aren't nearly as offensive nowadays. On a technical note, a villanelle (as well as pantoums or any other form that replies on repitition) work best when the repeated lines can be used in different senses. In the pantoum, a line should be able to end or begin a statement... in a villanelle, there need to be different interpretations based on the previous line to make it interesting. One of the reasons 'Do not go gently into that good night' is SO good, in my opinion, is that the core statement can be used not only as an action for the line before, but also as an imperitive statement that stands alone. The repeated line should be strong and solid- it should be bold. Your repeating lines do niether. The first one is just a description of a place, and a pretty weak one at that. To me, it's the same as "Over the river and through the woods". I expected "to the grim Reaper's house we go" to be somewhere in there... lol. Sorry... seriously though, a setting description like that is not bold enough to be a core line in a villanelle. Your second repeating line leaves even more to be desired. 'the source arose who Mary came to pray.' Huh? I really hate it when I don't understand a line of a poem... this is about as cryptic as it gets. It's unclear whether your Mary is the biblical Mary or just any Mary. That ambiguity might work (overlooking the fact that it is SO overdone) if the rest of the line amde any sense... but it doesn't. What source? Who prays to a source? What does that mean? This is as far away from bold as one can possibly get... this is cryptic, passively phrased, and nonsensical. My advice to you- it's good to focus on imagery and the way things sound... but don't let that become more important that the poem even making sense! Your lines are confusing, and the whole thing goes nowhere that gives the reader (this reader, at least) any sense of progression. I would try a looser form... get that down before attempting to control rhyme, meter, and line numbers and structure... it's really easy to let it get control over your words. Don't let it. I eat only sleep and air -Nicole Blackman |
|||
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
I agree with Hush on many counts, except that it was "too gothic." I liked the dark imagery you used, it was a nice contrast to the religious theme in this poem. I'd like to take this apart piece by piece if I may... just so that I don't go all over the place. "Beyond the catacombs where bodies lay with broken bones of rotting pearly white, the source arose who Mary came to pray." The first line simply bad iambic meter. It's an alright way to start a poem (describing the setting) but I'm not so sure it's a great way to begin a villanelle. This condemns you to repitition of the setting at the end of every other tercet following this one. One thing to be very careful of when writing villanelles is that you pick the right lines to repeat. The second line of this stanza is good, I liked it. Rotting pearly white is a great description, very two-sided. The last line, and one of your repeated lines, I agree doesn't make any sense at all to me. Meter sometimes makes it tough for our lines to make sense. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it could be "the source arose as mary came to pray," couldn't it? That might be a good adjustment. "Found in the sepulcher with lost dismay, her candle’s flame has flickered into night beyond the catacombs where bodies lay." Sepulcher has always been pronounced "se/PUL/cher" (at least, for me) , where your villanelle has it pronounced "SE/pul/CHER." Meter shouldn't do this - don't make us pronounce words unusually. If I were you I'd brush up my overall iambic meter skills... this poem's meter leaves a lot to be desired. The rest of that stanza is okay, no critique on it. "Dismissing pungency of flesh decay as angels were appointed to her sight, the source arose who Mary came to pray." You did the same thing for pungency as you did for sepulcher... so I won't repeat myself entirely. The second line is nice, one of my favourite in the poem. It's an interesting concept, angels being appointed to her sight. One could interperet that several ways. I've already critiqued line three. I'll skip to the last two stanzas, for lack of anything to say about the next one. "Mary, the only word He had to say as in her soul a lamp is shining bright, the source arose who Mary came to pray. As Jesus stood before her clear as day, her spirit from this world has taken flight. Beyond the catacombs where bodies lay, the source arose who Mary came to pray." Why make us say Mary that way? "ma/RY?" That's really awkward and wrecks this entire stanza. You repeated your whole something is shining, something is glowing theme in this stanza. I found THAT got a little tired. You could have described more aspects of the environment in different ways than how bright they are. Although I realize that the rhyme you chose restricts you to a lot of "light" based words. The tenses in the final quatrain are odd... You say "as" he did something, she has taken flight. That's pretty gramatically incorrect I'm sure... correct me if I'm wrong. You did use "as" quite frequently as a beginning word for many lines. In iambic meter, there are a deluge of great words to begin with. The, and, at, with, while, the one you seem fond of: as, and a thousand others. Try to mix it up a bit more. I agree that maybe this wasn't the best format choice for the poem. It appears to have restricted you far too much. Practice your skill in iambic meter and come back to the format later on. Just my opinion.  Thanks for sharing.Yours, ~Allan The children of the nobility are playing here. they look up at you with disgust as you come near. |
|||
|
Lighthousebob Member Elite
since 2000-06-14
Posts 4725California |
hush, I agree with most of what advice that you had to offer. Thank you. I really appreciate your direct advice on how to write Villanelles with the lines to be repeated having different interpretations rather than one which repeats a setting over and over again. After reviewing my peom, I can see how this is very boring to the reader... and yet you were so kind to help me, one boring writer, to become perhaps a little more exciting. Even though it is gothic, I think Allan's idea of a good line to repeat might be "with broken bones of rotting pearly white" or the line about the angels because these lines can be interpreted in so many different ways. The second line that's repeated that you hated because it did not make any sense to you or Allan was the whole concept of the poem which I tried to bring into understanding as the reader approaced the end of the poem... but failed. Jesus is the souce who Mary came to pray. In my attempt to create a feeling of enlightenment as the poem progressed instead created a state of confussion. I appreciate your response because this is important for me in developing good writing skills that will hopefully make my poetry less boring in the future. Your analysis offered some very valuable insight that I would not have understood from reading a book. Thanks again. -Bob |
|||
|
Lighthousebob Member Elite
since 2000-06-14
Posts 4725California |
Allan, Thanks for responding. There is much that I agree with you on the change of structure of my poem but there is some disagreement that I have regarding iambic meter. I will go through the poem as you have broken it down to try and explain. /be YOND//the CAT//a COMBS//where BOD//ies LAY/ This is not "bad" iambic meter to me. Could you explain? Perhaps you stress the first syllable instead of the second? But, this looks perfect to me. I agree with you and Hush regarding the structure of the poem that a setting is a bore for a reader to read over and over again. I just wanted the reader to be focused on where they were. I really wanted to get the contrast between Light and Darkness. Anyway, I agree that the second line would make a better line to repeat in revelation that the repeated line needs to represent different meanings throughout the poem. The last line in the first stanza and second repeated line was an attempt to bring enlightenment as the poem progressed.... but failed. I like your idea of.... /the SOURCE//a ROSE//as MAR//y CAME//to PRAY/ this is excellent, but I wanted to emphasize the source as a who. My own personal conviction I suppose. When I pray, I pray in the name of Jesus. Personal convictions are real tough to explain so I won’t go there. I disagree completely with your pronunciation of sepulcher and pungency. I read that it is pronounced (sep'ul-cher) and (pun' gen-cy) according to my Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary. So again, I feel the following lines are OK as far as meter is concerned. /found IN// the SEP//ul CHER//with LOST//dis MAY/ I think my weakness here as found in the first iamb as found IN. ( A little play on words.) /dis MISS//ing PUN//gen CY//of FLESH//de CAY/ (I think flows better) My oppinion is that both critiqued lines follow iambic meter. Now on to the last two stanzas.... /mar Y//the ON//ly WORD// he Had//to SAY Now, this one's got me stumped. I need to use the word Mary because that is the word that He said. I agree with you about Mary. let's see... /the ON//ly WORD//was MAR//y THAT// he’d SAY/ Maybe? I’ve got to keep working on this one....... The repeating of Light and Dark words again were used to convey the environment that I wanted to emphasize throughout this poem. That’s how I saw it. A Dark place filled suddenly with great Light. That is how I see GOD. The tenses from the third stanza on are intentionally odd because the experiences that Mary has are Supernatural in nature. Both the voice and image of Jesus are Supernatural. Again, hard to explain. I agree that I could use different words than as. As you can see, I agree with most of your analysis except the iambic meter. I don’t believe it is as "bad" as perhaps you first thought. Again, thank you for your input. -Bob |
|||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Hey Bob, It's good to see you back. You haven't been around for a while. Well, you have picked a hard form for your return. I tried one of these things once and I can say for sure that it is darned to turn out a good one. I think you picked a worthy subject. I understand the villanelle is traditionally supposed to treat a serious subject. It should lead the reader's thinking to focus in on the final quatrain, which should be the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the poem. You have done this fairly well also. Now as for your meter, I think it is pretty good, for the most part. There are a couple of lines I might consider working on. "Found in the sepulcher with lost dismay," Although it is possible, I have a very hard time reading the first foot as iambic. The natural way of reading the line requires it to be trochaic. If jbouder were here he might have a technical description of why this substitution might be acceptable. I think an occasional metric variation can often hep the flow of a poem but I think you usually need a reason to make such a substitution. I don't see that here. Perhaps a minor rewording would be appropriate. Also, I agree with you on the pronunciation of sepulcher but it still causes you to substitute an unstressed syllable where a stress is appropriate. This is a minor transgression but combined with the other, the line now contains two, probably too much. The next line I notice is, "Pulled by the energy of evil sway," which has about the same problem with the first foot although I don't have quite the degeee of difficulty with it. In fact, I think the context might even justify a metric substitution here. Then finally, "Mary, the only word He had to say" This is an obvious trochaic first foot. But, I like it as is. I think it serves to emphasize Mary, which I think is exactly what you wanted to do. On a different subject though, the line "As Jesus stood before her clear as day," bothers me a little. "Clear as day" seems cliche here, probably because it looks like you just used it to make the rhyme fit. Maybe it just seems trite compared to the rest of the poem. Like the others, I don't care for "the source arose who Mary came to pray." It reads grammatically wrong to me. I think what you meant to say was, the source arose to whom Mary came to pray, but that obviously has meter problems. I would work on that line trying to correct the grammar while making it fit the meter. Unlike some others, it seems to me to be an appropriate ending line if that correction were made. Well, that's JMHO, of course. Pete |
|||
|
Lighthousebob Member Elite
since 2000-06-14
Posts 4725California |
Hey Pete, Nice to be back and thanks for your Welcome! I like your advice about writing a line to repeat throughout the Villanelle to make sense when the reader reaches the last stanza. That’s cool! I can do this! As a matter of fact, I bet ya that I can write a line and repeat it throughout the whole poem and even at the end, no one will know what the heck I’m trying to say??? Seriously, your comment is encouraging because perhaps I didn’t mess up as bad as I originally thought. Maybe. Anyway. Back to meter. My reason originally for posting here was to learn more about form and use of meter. I think that my goal has been overwhelmingly met. I have learned a tremendous amount about both already. Thank you Allan, Hush, and Pete! Now, in my opinion you have made some great analyses here. Especially, with the introduction of the Poe type meter of trochaic. (Here is where I’ll include a little line from the Raven for our good friend Hush.) /ONCE up//ON a//MID night//DREAR y//WHERE i//PON dered//WEAK and//WEAR y/ Now, I will not debate... /FOUND in//the SEP//ul CHER//with LOST//dis MAY/ and /PULLED by// the EN// er GY//of E//vil SWAY/ because this is just plain awful meter. Though, sep’ ul-cher is OK, I agree with everyone on the point of meter. Look how much I’ve learned. But, the next line in question is one that has become very intriguing to me and one that perhaps I will adopt as my own personal form of writing... that is if I can adopt a form of writing. /MAR y//the ON//ly Word//He had//to SAY/ I have thrown this around in my mind a bit and I’ve got to agree with you that I really like this line as is. I like the idea of bringing attention to Mary which by no certain coincidence is the title of my poem. To have a whole poem written in iambic meter except one word that would be written as trochaic meter and would happen to be the title of my peom sounds way cool to me. ...And that God awful cliché that I wrote to only make the poem rhyme is certainly as clear as day to me. Thanks Pete for your wonderful advice here. It truly has helped me to develop my writing skills as a poet. -Bob |
|||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
