I agree with Kasper & Roger. Sound on its own isn't enough unless that is
true of the entire poem, in which case it really wouldn't matter what word
you used, so, oh, why not 'foam'? 'dank foam'? 'pink foam'? 'breasts of pink
foam'? <g> Spoils the poem completely, wouldn't you say?
'loam' would be perfect if it hadn't been so over-used.
I don't like the suggestion of 'soil' either. Makes me think of dirty
nappies. If it were my poem I would either be stubborn and stick with
'loam', or change that line completely.
Janet
On 01/01/2008, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> well, if you want, the sound may be the overriding consideration (see
> Swinburne) but that hasnt been the case for most poets for a while
> now, with sound and meaning being common parameters by which one fixes
> a petri dish of words. There are other parameters that one might want
> to tweak.
>
> Roger
>
> On Jan 1, 2008 12:06 AM, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I wish that were true, but it ain't
> >
> >
> > On 31/12/2007, Jon Corelis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > I dunno ... all that really matters is the sound ...
> > >
> >
>
>
--
Janet Jackson
[log in to unmask]
www.proximity.webhop.net
www.myspace.com/poetjj
|