Hello again Mike! It never pays to be defensive. I myself have disagreed
with reasoning presented about my poems but have always found that the
point where the critter paused for comment did indeed have a problem,
either at that point or in the set-up intended to inform that point. In
general, if people revised their poems with half the energy they expend
defending them, they'd make more rapid progress.
> IŽd like to take one more example, then IŽll finish. This time from
> your poem; the `antiseptic airŽ. ... Nothing in the poem justifies
> this explanation. Does this not mean that you are breaking your own
> rule that assertions must be justified by what goes earlier?
That term may be weak, and I will certainly take into consideration that
you and Sue both find it so.
> And how do we define a statement in a poem which functions not at a
> literal level but at a metaphorical one? Is it showing or telling?
> Does it need to refer to something earlier or does it justify itself?
Where a critter pauses for comment, the writer should take a closer look,
irrespective of any reasoning offered. Many successful writers do tender
statements that are not developed in the same manner as the rest of the
poem. Akhmatova is a master of telling without being telly. I think you
are not. Lines like "Later he called it confidence, / finally a form of
trust." are examples of rampant telliness. It isn't even an interesting
adjective: it's just a pair of vague, imageless words, thrust out for
the reader to accept.
> By the way, have you come up with any of those references to
> stream-as-desire that you mentioned? IŽd like to read some.
What I really meant to say was that the stream is not well connected to
what happens in the poem, and that natural metaphors that don't work
coherently is a commonplace in novice poetry. You can defend your poem
all you like, and you can push me away from one particular statement and
towards another, but in the end, I know I saw a problem in your poem,
and I was nice enough to tell you about it.
Hello Gary! Thanks for offering some comments. Your thoughts about the
line breaks and sparseness will figure in my revision. I will probably
wait about a year to revise this one. Want to get a few more ice storms
under my belt. Hah! Many thanks!
Hi Sue! "Antiseptic" might be bad, indeed. My reasoning for it was:
extreme cold, recent precipitation, both result in very clean air:
antiseptic involves cleanliness. Now add an odd sap smell.
Hello Ryfkah! Thanks for your thoughts. I guess a 'tree poem' is a rite
of passage for anyone who likes to write poetry. An interesting
comparison I once saw someone write: trees as calligraphy instruments.
Very nice!
Carl
|
