»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
possible
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
possible |
|
|
synthetic Member
since 2006-06-10
Posts 70ontario, canada |
Is it possible to know in your heart What your mind can't feel. To step back and watch the future roll by Waiving the past out the window. So she came back carrying my thoughts The ones from days ago about tomorrow. So she came back telling me I was right, The ones around us agreed. It go so damn tight I nearly choked to death. Took in my breath and exhaled what was left. My lungs flinched and then collapsed She touched my leg and I relaxed --- I was back. Back when these months hadn't passed When I was young without the past. Back where making a mistake was just that When we could actually move on. So now I ask if it's possible to know in your heart What your hands can't feel. Is it possible to step into a world that's not real Waiving hope out the window. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 luc - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The use of 'waive' here is interesting. I wonder if a overt court metaphor would be more appropriate here. |
||
|
synthetic Member
since 2006-06-10
Posts 70ontario, canada |
I'm glad you enjoyed the use of "waive". As for your suggestion, it would definitely of made a difference in the piece, very possibly for the better. Unfortunately for me, and those that comment looking to see a change in a piece... I never do that. However, I always take into account readers' comment/suggestions/advice and bring it along with me to my next piece. I'll be posting a few more pieces over the next little while. A more matured style I believe, slightly different than this. I can only hope it'll be more interesting, and of higher quality in your eyes. Thanks |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
If you don't want improvements on your work so you can change it why do you post in CA? Not meaning to sound harsh but curious cause that really is the purpose of CA, I don't mean to offend you in anyway . |
||
|
synthetic Member
since 2006-06-10
Posts 70ontario, canada |
No worries Rhia, we're all just trying to help each other out here. When I say that I won't change anything in work, it's because I feel that it is done. But the advice and criticism that I receive whether constructive or not I carry over to my next piece. There are many writers on this forum that have much more knowledge than I do, and I recognize that. And so I use the help they give me to improve. I'm at the stage where I'm trying to improve my work so I write properly for myself, and that I don't simply fix what is pointed out to me. However, if I intend on writing in any type of serious/professional publication, I won't shy away from drafting my work at all. Thanks for your advice on Passionate Pairs by the way. |
||
|
ChristianSpeaks Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396Iowa, USA |
Snythetic- I would never label somthing that I've written as "done." I think that you are short changing the evolution of creativity. I would encourage you to justify that reasoning. Why not revise things that may or may not be published? Why not revise to improve something already written? You cannot be assured that the criticism that was given you in one piece will transfer or be useful in another. I'm not saying that you have to justify it to me or this forum, but I would encourage you to justify it to yourself. It took me a while to understand the usefulness of revision partly because it's time consuming, and partly because it's hard. Just a very kind suggestion, nice to see your work. CS |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, Rhia, that's not the purpose of CA. I know I'm fighting a losing battle here, but the purpose of CA is not to improve someone's poetry. If that were true, let's be honest, we ain't doin' such a great job, are we?  No, the purpose of CA is to talk to each other about poetry. What works for you, what works for me and, of course, why. I suppose a byproduct of this might be better stuff but I don't really see it. Or rather, if you want to improve your poetry, don't listen to me or anybody else, read and comment on other people's poetry, start reading 'the giants' and figure out what you want to do. If there is a way to get better, I guess, it's not listening to other people so much as reading and thinking about other people's poetry.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Amen, Brother. |
||
|
synthetic Member
since 2006-06-10
Posts 70ontario, canada |
I would have to agree Ron. I think it's important to read other pieces, I believe that it enhances your knowledge of the art --- and if you truly care about it, then that's a great thing. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
THank you, sorry that actually makes more sense then what I said. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: That's like saying just because we are used to drinking mudpuddle-water, we should not try to have cleaner and fresher water, but we should just sit around the mudpuddle and talk about it and continue drinking the muddy draughts. I think we all deserve better than that. And I certainly think studying and following the masterpieces of the past is one of the most important steps toward having it. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Essorant, Isn't that what I said? Look, the danger here isn't whether people will continue to drink muddy water, it's that they'll be under the illusion that the clear, pristine water in one well or fountain or spring will be necessarily better than that of another. The danger is that you shut people off from the sheer variety of greatness that fills the poetic grail. And they'll start telling others that this is bad or this is good, not because they read it and disliked it, but because they saw that it didn't follow the rules. And sure enough as the water will eventually turn muddy, they are sure enough to continue claiming the muddy over the pristine because it didn't follow the rules. I think that would be a shame for us and a shame for them. |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
Bravo, Brad. You have my deepest respect. Everytime you post you are right on the money. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Calling them "rules" seems another way of mistreating poetic traditions. But so be it. I may loosely accept the word "rules". They work a lot better than no "rules". Liking ideas is not dependant on the "rules" a poem has or doesn't have. A love-affair as a theme may be either liked or disliked. But how it is expressed thro the poem IS dependant on the structure, because the structure is the means with and thro which the theme or idea is expressed and communicated to the reader. Therefore whether one likes the idea or not, is one thing, and whether that idea has a strong foundation and expression thro structure is another. One like or dislike isn't dependant on the other. I love interesting ideas too even in badly written poems, but that doesn't make me love the bad writing, mispellings, faulty grammar, broken and incomplete sentences, etc. Simply put, good poems not only have good ideas, but they have good structure, and the "rules" are what help and support both. |
||
|
ChristianSpeaks Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396Iowa, USA |
My question is this: If "it" lacks structure can "it" never be great? Qualifications and addendums attached to your answer are heartily accepted. I understand that you can't lay a blanket answer on such a general question. CS |
||
|
synthetic Member
since 2006-06-10
Posts 70ontario, canada |
I'm happy to see that this thread has spawned such a colourful discussion. I believe that our scheme of opinions and beliefs are what make poetry so well done. Because these "rules" we're talking about at one point weren't "rules" someone was breaking the common code. In that light Brad is correct because loosely put, it is difficult to cast judgement on work such as ours. Essorant, I definitely see your point. Most great pieces might be different rule-breaking; however, the writer obtained a level skill that is of such high quality by learning and mastering the basics i.e. the "rules" first. I think that in essence, we should try and do what Essorant is trying to explain, but we should keep Brad's words in our hearts because that's where the inspiration comes from. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: It depends on how much structure it lacks. People need be able at least to read the poem to some extent. And people like to be able to find more than just plain reading, but something strong in grace and ideas. The less structural strengths and supports your poem has to hold it up strongly and gracefully, the less the content and expressions shall be held up strongly and gracefully and expressed strongly and gracefully, and therefore the less likely it shall stand well at anything. But obviously it is possible to exclude or take some structural parts away, without the building falling down. But the more you take away, the less strongly the building stands up. |
||
|
synthetic Member
since 2006-06-10
Posts 70ontario, canada |
Very good point Essorant. |
||
|
sampo Member
since 2007-02-25
Posts 54oz |
hi, synthetic. in this piece, i would cut the first and last strophes, these statements i consider to be 'tell'. personally, i prefer the story and the imagry to convey the theme, like your middle strophes which are 'show.' She came back carrying my thoughts The ones from days ago about tomorrow. this line reads awkward. She came back telling me I was right, The ones around us agreed. the ones? a little vague. friends? strangers? give them a face. It go so damn tight I nearly choked to death. how did it get - so damn tight? the transition is abrupt. perhaps, you could share some of the dialogue with us readers. is it that she is pregnant? Took in my breath and exhaled what was left. My lungs flinched and then collapsed She touched my leg and I relaxed --- I was back. When I was young without the past. Back whe(n) making a mistake was just that was just that? vague, at least give us a similie, anything. When we could actually move on. hope something here helps. regards, sampo. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
