OK, not to harp, but that poem just hurts. It starts off with so much promise. It's like somebody with an idea of what he wanted and where he was going started it.
(Quoted from the above link, a part of carusoism.com, for review purpose only)
She whispered words like breezes
While staring silver moonbeams
And wrapped her love with lust
That bit: it's evocative; it cries of impure love, a moonbeam stare, and the lies whispered on the wind; it evokes an image of doomed affection. If there were just three lines in the beginnig of the first verse of The Divorcee, it wouldn't be so bad, but no. He had to go the extra mile-and-a-half.
Because her dreams had rust
D'oh! And the the Caruso Charm (tm) kicks in. Rhyme scheme? Well sure there is. It goes
ABCC
D(D)E(E)
FGHG
I(I)JK
(D: half rhyme)
(E: repeated word)
(I: half rhyme)
OK, sure, maybe it's just a complex form. It strikes me, though, that he uses alliteration in the first three lines and nowhere else, and the rythmic pattern, such as it is, establishes itself in the first three lines, the falls apart immediately. It's like he took three lines from some better poet, and slapped the poem onto it. It's like a clapboard shack stuck on top of pier-and-beam. I read it again, this time dropping the last line of each stanza. The third verse is a little obtuse, but I think the poem is much improved. Maybe that's all. Maybe this should have been a poem with three-line stanzas.
So you're thinking: But Mister! Poetry is about the content, not the form.
That's all well and good, but I'd argue that the form in this case detracts so from the content that it's hard to determine what the heck he's talking about. OK, we know it's about a divorcee, and we know it's about a woman. We know she's sad, and I surmise, probably, that she's having sex without loving her partner, based on the poet's use of the phrases "wrapped her love with lust" in the first, and "all a sexy cloak" (whatever the heck that actually means) in the last stanza. Oblique language? Why sure. It would't be poetry without it. Masking your emotions in clumsy bullshit? Same thing. Wordplay that draws a comparison between two meaningless constructs? Ditto.
And then there's the puzzling allusion of the morning rain wetting (or not) her pillow. I don't know to what it alludes. Maybe that would help. I went to look it up and found nothing. If you know, feel free to berate my ignorance of culture and literature. It seems like it must be a reference to a folk song, but maybe I made that up.
So now you're probably thinking: But Mister! Why are you picking on this poem?
I dunno why. I picked it, and it really was what I'm finding wrong with his poetry, and with quite a lot of neuveaux poetry I've read. He's just the latest piece of sand in the oyster. I have nothing actually against him, personally.
1 comment:
I need to clarify something I said in my post here: I understood the line about tears on her pillow. What I was suggesting was that I swear I have heard that idea before, but I can't remember where. It's not a bad thing. I wanted to suggest that it alluded to another literary idea, an older and established one that, by referencing, you call to mind. Allusion is a tried and true literary tradition, as you are no doubt aware. It is a basis of much of western literature; as such, I assumed you were using this necessary shorthand, especially as these poems are in a short form. This is what I meant when I referenced my not grasping your allusion, and that it might come from a source I could not call to mind. My plea of ignorance was legitimate.
What I meant to imply in the post is that I could not call immediately to mind the reference, not that I had no idea of her denial.
I do, however, appreciate your clarification of the phrase "like a sexy cloak." It is still my personal opinion that that line feels kind of clunky.
My opinion means little or nothing, but this is the forum for it. I don't expect you to change the poem, and I'd be taken aback if you did. I don't expect you to value my opinion over your own. This is, however, the forum for said opinion, and my opinion is that your poetry is of a type that I don't enjoy. Poetry with a bent toward freeverse is fine and good, but is not, you can't deny, for everyone.
In your previous remark, you mention that you do this as praise for God. For this, I must congratulate you. Expression of joy in the discovery of salvation is laudable, even if it isn't pleasing to me personally. In fact, more so for failing to please me. God says to "Make a Joyful Noise." This is, without a doubt, joyful, and in that I believe you have done right.
This brings back the question of how my belief could possibly change your faith: it can't, it never has, it never will, and I'd be offended if it did.
I was out of line in criticizing your Joyful Noise to God, but I was unaware of its nature at the time I wrote the review. I assumed this was poetry which was posted for the world to see, as it is in a forum which is public and universally shared. This mistake is easy to make. If an apology will help, I'll gladly tender one, but I feel it would not. My language was unforgivably harsh. I can write it off as simply my being in a bad mood that day, which is very probably true, but it won't mend your feelings.
I wish you the best of luck with future poetry, and I will refrain from comment, negative or positive, upon it.
That my language was injurous, I can't deny. I am sorry that it was abusive, and I am sorry that I offended you. Upon re-reading it, I realize that it was completely inappropriate. It's just so easy to write meanness. I don't have a better way to say it.
Post a Comment