»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
Transparent
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
Transparent |
|
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor 
|
Transparent Weasels won't wallow in pity And cattle don't cry when alone. Chipmunks aren't mean chumps that sling nuts, To harry the neighbor's new home. Meerkats aren't making malicious and Mynas don't mean to malign. Raccoons aren't racked with resentment Toward cheeky rooster's incline. The dally of doves is willfull, They dawdle desiring to dine On crumbs prying pigeons might miss, Or morsels that monkeys may shine. The stinky striped skunks are loners, Their odorous ends lend offense. But scents aren't a message of menace And not an intended pretense. Antelope don't have agendas, They graze with resourceful resign. The pandas don't pilfer the forests, They ponder the shoots not the pine. Clues from our animal kingdom Can come in delightful surmise. Sometimes we gain in perspective A vision not seen with the eyes. Turtle [This message has been edited by turtle (01-29-2009 12:33 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2009 turtle - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, turtle, as an exercize in consonance and assonance, this is a brilliant piece of work. Unfortunately the rhythm and meter is so erratic that it overshadows the brilliance if the lines. In your first lines of each stanzas 1,2,5and 6 are dactylic, while stanzas 3 and 4 are iambic. Yes, you maintain the syllable count in each line but the meter suffers from the changes.. Stanza 1...WEA-sels won't Wal-low in PI-ty.............dactyl - dactyl - trochee Stanza 2...MEER-kats aren't MAK-ing mal-IC-ious.........dactyl - dactyl - trochee Stanza 3...the DAL-ly of DOVES is WILL-full.................iamb - anapest - iamb - foot Stanza 4...the STIN-ky striped SKUNKS are LON-ers....iamb - anapest - iamb - foot Stanza 5...ANT-el-ope DON'T have a-GENDas.............. dactyl - dactyl - trochee Stanza 6...CLUES from our AN-i-mal KING-dom........... dacty; - dactyl - trochee The second lines of each stanza are perfect to the letter...iamb - anapest - anapest The third lines are a problem.. 1 - CHIP-munks aren't MEAN CHUMPS that sling NUTS...dactyl - spondee - anapest 2 - rac-cOONS aren't RACKED with re-SENTment............iamb - iamb - anapest - foot 3 - on CRUMBS PRY-ing PIG-eons may MISS.................iamb - trochee - trochee - iamb 4 - but SCENTS aren't a MES-sage of MEN-ace...............iamb - anapest - anapest - foot 5 - the PAN-das don't PIL-fer the FOR-ests......................iamb - anapest - anapest - foot 6 - SOME-times we GAIN in per-SPECT-ive.....................dactyl - dactyl - trochee Fourth lines are all good. It wouldn't take much revision to make this a truly excellent piece of work  |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
Trutle. I like this one. It didn’t bother me at all, but from the first stanza I get from 6 to 9 syllables per line. If Balladeer is right ( And he probably is ) , I will forget about using this dictionary. |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Thank you both for commenting I posted this in response to chopstick's statement that not all rhyme has to scan. This is a rhythmic poem not based on meter, but losely based on 3 beats per line. It is meant to be read aloud. Balladeer, you do a good job of scanning this poem with perhaps the exception of S1L3 CHIP-munks aren't MEAN CHUMPS that sling NUTS, which is intended as: CHIP-munks aren't MEAN chumps that SLING nuts. [This message has been edited by turtle (01-29-2009 12:51 PM).] |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
“ I posted this in response to chopstick's statement that not all rhyme has to scan.” Trutle I didn’t say that. All poems will scan ? What I said was that, a poem could logically have more than one form of a metrical foot . |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you where saying that all rhymed verse does not have to scan. Which is when rhythmic verse came to mind. In ALL cases the presentation of a poem is up to the author, but if we are talking about rules, there are few instances where a rhymed poem does not follow scansion. A villanella and rhythmic verse are the only two exceptions that come to mind. turtle |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
CHIP-munks aren't MEAN chumps that SLING nuts. That is always an interesting challenge for any poet..to try to decipher how the poem will be read and, for the top-o-the-line poets (like Poe) to MAKE the reader read the poem in the way the author wants it read. In the above example, how will the reader read it? Since chumps hadn't been mentioned before, for me it would carry the accent as a new entity, with "mean" simply a preceding adjective, especially in light of the fact that chumps are the poetic compliment to -munks. If you were to say "sailors are bold whalers", would you put the accent on bold with whalers being unstressed. I think not. As far as the rest of the sentence, I cannot see where you could make "nuts" unaccented. I could see where you could make sling and nuts both accented but not in any case where you would accent sling only. (unless, of course, nuts had been mentioned before and you are making some previous comparison, such as Bill eats nuts and Jerry SLINGS nuts) Anyway, it's a point where no one is wrong. You wrote it to be that way and I read it to be my way. That's why that is quite possibly the toughest obstacle for a writer to conquer...to make the reader read it in the right way. There are several techinques used to get that result....but that's another story p.s. I just went back and reread your reply and see where you say the poem is meant to be read aloud, in which case negates my above statement. I do a lot of readings to audiences and I also have poems that would sound differently if they were read by others instead of being listened to so I fully understand what you mean there. Oral presentations give us a lot more leeway in our creativity because we can MAKE the listener hear it the way we want it presented. Had I known that point when you first posted the poem for a critique, I would have had no problem with that line. |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Balladeer I actually agree with every point you make and quite skillfully I might add. Except, when I said:It is meant to be read aloud. I meant by the author. You do make a excellent point though. I'll have to work on it. Thank you. turtle My greastest wish is to not offend any one....Screw it! I'll apologize in advance. [This message has been edited by turtle (01-29-2009 07:48 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, turtle. Yes, I took your "to be read aloud" to mean the author reading the work, thus my comments on the leeway and freedom it gives us in our presentations. Do you do public readings, by chance? |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Ha! I used to years ago when I lived in the real world, but in this little postage stamp town that doesn't even have its own zip code I'd probably be beat to death with somebodies walker if I tried. lol turtle |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Turtle -- your argument kind of ignores Ogden Nash. Chops: Re: "a poem could logically have more than one form of a metrical foot." I'm not quite sure how you mean this. Francis Thompsons "The Hound of Heaven," for example, uses, all sorts of metrical feet, varying line lengths, and a highly erratic rhyme scheme. Yet, it is immediately recognizeable as a powerful piece of sophisticated poety, not the doodlings of an amatuer. Pete and Deer would probably go batty over a piece like this. Thompson not only rattles the teeth of meter and rhyme from their sockets, he makes up some of his own words as he goes along. So, of what use are rules? To master a form, a sonnet, for example, enables one to get a sense of meter, music, rhyme and structure. This is useful. Merrill Moore, who died in 1957, wrote something like 60,000, no lie, sonnets. He figured out the rules, and they flowed from him as freely as water from a spigot. To which, some fifty years later, one can only say, "so what?" This was not useful. Moore was long on mechanics, the rules, but not a memorable poet. (To his more lasting credit, he was an acclaimed and innovative neurologist.) What Moore, and most poets, could not do, was break the rules in a meaningful way after mastering them. Shakespeare, who did not invent the Shakespearean Sonnet and was but one (the best) of contemporary practioners, broke "the rules" all the time, as he did in the "blank verse" of his plays: "O, that this too too solid flesh would melt Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!" Ya flat can't force that into iambic pentameter, and yet they are among English literature's most memorable lines. Possibly be around a lot longer than anything by Poe. I don't think that Pete's or Deer's appreciation of mechanics is irrelevant, but I can see a point to getting the basics down and then moving on from there. I know, I'm rambling. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Hi Jimbeaux, Quote: So, of what use are rules? To master a form, a sonnet, for example, enables one to geta sense of meter, music, rhyme and structure. I don't know. I think it is all a matter of perspective. What you see as rules, I see as tools. If you want to do any job skillfully you need to use the correct tool. Further, if you intend to use a tool then you need to learn and understand that tool. You don't want to enjamb when you need a stanza break. Tools help writers and readers alike. If you ask your reader for a pair of pliers and he hands you a screwdriver---Strike him with a metaphor! As far as the rest of this argument, skill, talent and recognition are three seperate things and one certainly has no bearing on the others. Turtle |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good thoughts, Jimbeaux. True, a poem can be mechanically perfect but still be a lousy poem..the mechanics will never take the place of talent and imagination. Having said that, and regarding poets like Ogden Nash (one of my favorites), if you look closely, you may find that, in their frivolance, there is still a standard method to their madness. A bit of talcum Is always walcum. .......perfect iambic Some primal termite knocked on wood And tasted it, and found it good! And that is why your Cousin May Fell through the parlor floor today. ...perefect iambic You will normally find a method to their madness. Consistent madness is the key...and the great ones practice it (even when they are making up their own words) Btw, none of this applies to "blank verse". There is little method to a "blank" mind |
||
|
chopsticks Senior Member
since 2007-10-02
Posts 888The US, |
“Chops: Re: "a poem could logically have more than one form of a metrical foot." I'm not quite sure how you mean this. “ Ocean, I mean it as exactly like you say it in the next paragraph. So dip it up. Francis Thompsons "The Hound of Heaven," for example, uses, all sorts of metrical feet, varying line lengths, and a highly erratic rhyme scheme. Yet, it is immediately recognizeable as a powerful piece of sophisticated poety, not the doodlings of an amatuer A coastal trader was drifting off the coast of South America out of sight of land. When a Yankee Clipper approached and the captain of the coastal trader signal that he was out of fresh water. The captain of the clipper ship signaled back “dip it up” At that point the Amazon river dumps fresh water into the Atlantic ocean for fifty miles. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Deer -- Yeah, I like Nash too, and the two good compact references. He gets a little mosre complicated in execution later. This is the beginning of "Very Like a Whale" "One thing that literature would be greatly the better for Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor. Authors of all races, be they Greeks, Romans, Teutons or Celts, Can't seem just to say that anything is the thing it is but have to go out of their way to say that it is like something else." That one might be fun to scan. Certainly, there is a method to Nash's madness. Nash's method. And my imitation: "There would be very little to debate if Poets weren't creative." Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
