|
Okies, some further discussion.
Norm, I didn't use the adjectives I did to offend but to DESCRIBE how this reader felt upon certain passages. If I said 'messy', it means exactly that; I felt the line's delivery was all over the place hence, MESSY. Why this should bother anyone is beyond me. I'm describing the road I traveled and yes, tis my choice. I don't want you to think otherwise and feel it's a fact that doesn't even need commenting on.
Archaism; when I note this, it is from the THIS standpoint (I like some archaism, some reverse snytax--I even use it on occasion, but believe it should be consistent.); in this piece, there was not enough consistency to give me the overall old world flavor. I think there needs to be more for what you've done to be seen as consistent. That said, I wouldn't have liked the constructions for what they were; this piece lacks flow and I like to read pieces which are not 'tortured'--again, a descriptive to tell you how I felt the construction was done, NOT to say you are a torturer. I'm telling you that I did not think this piece was smooth sailing at all. Is that better per descriptive? Doesn't say as much, imo, as 'tortured', but potato potahto. I'll use the negatives on positives if it means more to you (et al). Torture describes a painful advent, something which has sharps and flats, something which has lulls between the 'torture', hence, the reason I used it. Saying 'this lacked flow and was not smooth' will not give you the same idea, but as I said, we'll do it your way.
Further specific comments, below;
It's always debatable and I could spend hours posting examples of both sides of this,. I write my sonnets BOTH ways. Let's be clear -- I appreciate your point of view and respect your right to post it in my thread. But --- "archaic" is NOT a dirty word -- no more than "liberal" is. If at times I wish to write with caps in the front of every line, I am in quite good company like Shakespeare and Milton. Those guys weren't too shabby and the reader has only him/herself to blame if they stumble from line to line simply because of an upper case letter in from of each line---enjambment or not. I think that argument won't really hold up. Regarding the, "we live in modern times so let's use modern language and methods" ... balderdash! The sonnet itself is "old" or archaic. It is quite reasonable to use the "flavor" of the art form as it was originally scripted by those who "invented" it and popularized it. Surely, I write my sonnets in both styles -- let's not say one is "right" and one is "wrong" please. And BTW, such 20th century poets (and there must be 50 others) like Thomas Hardy, John Masefield, Edna St. Vincent Millay ALL wrote sonnets with all lines capped. Even those who "broke the sonnet rules" for meter (Shelley's famous Ozymandias), or number of lines even (Yeats' Leda and the Swan) STILL used front wend caps on every line! IMO it is a bad argument ... a debate that goes nowhere ... and strictly the opinion of the poet or the critter. You certainly are entitled to feel more comfortable with what you might call the "modern" way (without caps) but it is NOT the only or the "righteous new way. You may think k my poem would be better suited for no caps... I don't.
>>>It is my contention that more readers will eschew this type delivery than the 'modern' language, so I crit from this angle. Already said; I like some archaism, personally. I don't think 'modern language' means the same to me and you; I look at it as current grammar and language usage, NOT as plain, conversational tenor. So, this sonnet doesn't work as well, imo, because you are using the archaic approach--which is not bad/wrong but in my belief, less accessible to the readership. I write in layers--also less accessible--and that is MY choice. This can be yours but since my layer-writing doesn't stop critters from claiming I'm obtuse (within their crit), your archaic penchant should not stop me from noting said same.
Ahhh now we should discuss the TONE of critique -- "delivery is a mess" is offensive, brutal and non-productive. It smacks of a self-righteous demeaning tenor towards the person you are supposedly trying to help! It is rude! Now it does NOT offend yours truly because I could care less --- but that kind of language just has no place in a critique. Yes this is the Firebox -- but there is still the rule of courtesy. Try and soften your approach -- this is not the Carl Rove forum. Be firm but kind. What would be so wrong with saying, "Your delivery, Norm, was hard for me to follow and maybe there are better ways to get your points across." You try that -- you won't find me saying in thread, "Your critique sucks, either" --- which it DOESN'T, BTW. You make too many good points to the writer so why spend your time bashing with words like "a mess."
>>>already addrressed this one, above; delivery was the opposite of smooth and easy, the opposite of 'all in order'. That more palatable? I'm looking at WORDS, people, not PEOPLE! Thin skin won't ever make a better writer and if you take the critter's words as personal, you're not looking at the reasons the words were given in the first place. Messy is exact, torturous is exact; the words needed to convey these ideas are less exact and more time consuming, imo. Not trying to lose 'ears' here, but am noting that not everything has to be PC; there's a lil saying I've heard that's fashionable right now--you can kill someone, but there's Hell to pay if you disrespect them. Jeeez...
Here we go again -- this is an old fashion love poem -- using the most popular 16th century poetic form -- I take a liberty to us such language. When you say "one should say" you again make the assumption that you are the author of the Harbrace Writing Course. "In this museum his love does reside" may not be comfortable or "right" to you, but it accomplishes a lot for me. I want the "archaic"--I want the assonance of does and love -- and if you listened to the audio, it flows just fine IMHO. I am trying not to be defensive -- I take objective criticism quite well -- but you are dead-set against a "style" and not really offering me a clear reason why this line suffers.
>>>discussed this a bit, too--above. I think the archaic manner in which you wrote this is not conducive to future re-reads. That's about as clear as I can be and this 'theory' is not invented by myself but something I've been taught as well as seen through experience; more readers like poetry NOT in Shakespeare's style. If this was your intended goal, from that perspective (which btw, you did NOT make clear; I assume nothing when I start to crit; if I see a lot of archaisms, I can think you're going for this, but esp in this piece, that was not something I felt you were specifically aiming for but that this delivery is just something you're fond of (might be the case, too)), you have half succeeded. For that to be your goal, this needs MORE archaism to fall fully in Willy's realm, imo.
>>>then, because the next line is capped, I'm confirmed of this until I read further and realize, that line is also corrupted,
UGH!! We're are so hung up on caps, aren't we?? ASnd now nest to "mess" we have "corrupt" -- think about that -- the current administration is "corrupt" -- a line of poetry is NOT "corrupt" -- and certainly NOT because it begins with an upper case letter.
so I went back to L1 and read over the cap and lo and behold, some sense.
"some sense" --- I feel much better now.
>>>imo, when the grammar doesn't shake out, it means the line is corrupted. I'll use softer words next time. The lines as delivered, were stilted, non smooth, reverse-syntaxed, contained passages which forced me to re-read to figure out what you were saying. The style did not lend it self to me ever wanting to read this again. That's the best I can do, Norm.
True -- the poem is not thine but mine. "Reversed syntax" is not a sin-tax. It may just be that poems written in this style are not your cup of tea. I assume you have read the classic sonnets...did THEY trouble you with reverse syntax?
>>>should be said as; His naked model looks where he hides. NO it should NOT -- I think the critiquer should say, "In my opinion, if I were writing this, I would say .......etc, etc. You seem to always take the tact that your way is the only way and history tells me you are wrong about that dictate.
>>>sorry, I'm sure this is true for all critters, though. Still, I'm not meaning to come across as THE authority but I've seen enough from experience to figure out what the experts are talking about and in counseling posters, even though I may not like 'telly', if the experience is showing that this IS what the readership wants, THAT'S how I have to come at my crit. This is what I do, this is what you got. IF your aim is NOT to reach the majority of audiences, I think you should state up front that you're reaching for those few who like the way Shakespeare wrote and you're working in that genre. Would sure save me a lot of time; I'd not bother to note reverse syntax (because yes, I'm well aware it was used a lot in them there old days--told you, I like it for the most part but this is less about what I like and more about what is supposed to be the best delivery for your piece to maximize your 15 minutes) and would look to augment the archaism (or lack thereof) dependent on your aim. I think the vast majority of writers, Norm, do NOT write in this style, so since I'm not a mind reader, I have to go with what the 'vast majority' want and crit towards that end.
Behind that curtain viewing her so still.
>>>more line caps, more missing punct; should be 'behind the curtain, viewing her. no comment -- we are beating a dead HORSE -- in caps!
>>>sorry, but I did this crit before I knew you favored this style; doesn't demean the intent of the crit, thoug; the front-end caps ARE deterrrents to most readers, and that again is not something I made up but have observed as well as was taught by my oft quoted '30 + year veteren' of the college professorial corps. I have to look at the responses I've seen and read the advice given through my tenure to make some decisions as to who best understands poetry and the reception it receives. So far, your opinion of writing this way is not mainstream and except for you (now that I know your goals are not so middle of the road), I'll continue to tell others that caps mean you start a new sentence. It has been this way for a long time now, Norm; I can't imagine how it will be when you and I are the only ones still capping 'i' whilst the rest of the world has degraded (yeah, my term, offensive as it might be but truthful by my eyes, all the same) to using lowercase. I see comments by other critters that eschew this lazy habit (lowercase 'i's) and the thought here is that the language is not being honored. When a poster misspells and forgets punct, et al, there is a perception of 'don't care enough to honor the language'; I subscribe to this, Norm. For me, as noted in another thread somewhere, when I see a note/post/crit/whatever that has such 'degradations' as lowercase 'i's, my respect for that person goes down a notch. I don't think it is proper and feel a lack of respect is indeed happening. So, I make a choice---I've MADE a choice; I'll not do that knowingly and will dismiss much of the communication inherent to a piece of written work like that, simply because I DO believe the originator has lazy habits. There is less reason for me to pay attention to this type of written work.
Bottom line; front end caps stop the flow (my belief as described above) and I have no problem accepting the fact you want to do it this way. You can accept the fact I will probably not give such poems you write like this as much attention, including crit. Doesn't make it wrong, Norm, it makes it different. If what I've seen is true (ah, I've seen it, so, has to be, yes?) and if I believe Howard (the prof I mention) is correct, then to advise someone to use front end caps, to BE archaic, is counter productive to mainstream poetry and critique. This becomes your choice and anyone else can figure out if they want more readers or a select few. That's the result of such choices, Norm, as is my desire to write in layers. I KNOW I'm making my readership smaller; I don't deny what I see.
>>>this 'still' is nebulous as you have written it; who's so still? her or him? I can read this either way. More forced rhyme, syntax. In all, this couplet too, should be written as; Michael, Michael -- THAT duality is exactly the point of the poem and involves point of view -- methinks (archaic form) thou dost not get the gist.
>>>Oh, I get the duality--hell, I LOVE duality and counsel to use it though few really want to try this approach, but the duality was not smooth, that is; the surface AND the under-layer should both be attainable; here, I got only the one and felt the hint of the second to be 'nebulous'.
>>>you don't even need the reference to her nor the awkward insert of the parenthetical.
I think the water is getting too deep -- now you hit the poor writer with "torture" as a means of helping see the error of his ways. Sorry .. there is purpose in the parentheses -- it causes a more pronounced pause, it implies "between the cover of a book" it intones included but not really included, belonging yet not really belonging, and it has a sexual implication.
>>>already commented on 'toruturous', above.
>>>I note your explanation and tis fine; I think then that using the parantheticals was not worth the trouble and I'd rethink delivery/conveyance of this idea sans the parantheticals. If you think it worked, more power to you; I didn't.
Now we are close to agreeing -- I pondered over that for some time myself and I think you are correct. It confuses rather than illuminates. I saw picturing the painter behind the curtains thinking, saying, to himself, "To be exposed" but is far too vague -- thanks -- you have confirmed it is awkward
Again, reconstruction gives;
torn to be exposed, he's transfixed. not so sure I like your alternative but I will re-work this line.
>>>I felt a lot of this was too vague and mainly because of delivery, not because you were painting with your eyes closed...
>>>should I note the telly nature of the whole piece so far? Not many seem to care, so twill just be another concept that is laid by the wayside.
It is always a thin line between "telly" and "narrating" -- but love poems just have to do that. Read all of Shakespeare's sonnets and they tell and they offer philosophy and/or morals. I don't see a way around it.
>>>aye, some poems seem to be more challenging to do than others; that's the writer's challenge, imo--to find ways. I don't mind the occasional telly diatribe, the poem which makes me think at an intellecutal level, but once again, will I recall your words tomorrow? This is where it always leads to, Norm. In this piece, I felt you had a great image to work with, could have used words to describe exactly what you were aiming for and so, there's the inherent failure for me. I've been challenged in the past to 'find another way to show what I was telling' and though I harumphed, I still tried and found if I stopped looking at my theme in the same way but found another view, it IS possible. So when I hear you say; you can't find a way around it, well, tis more time you need to spend working it out, imo. If the purpose of finding ways to show and not tell are important to you, that is. It always goes back to finding that 16th minute, imo. Doesn't mean you don't have a good poem, but it probably could be better and that's my aim when critting.
With idealistic beauty 'neath her skin
>>>I'm pretty sure you know that the 'masters' considered contractions for their forms verboten, so using it here sure seems like a way to make meter. You've already twisted the meter, so just swap in the 'be' and make it between. nope --- I think I can point out at least 100 such contractions in Shakespeare's sonnets alone. I just went to ONE page: try reading LV, LVIII, LX, >>> and just to quote someone more modern, Bob Dylan wrote, "Now Ophelia, she's 'neath the window ."
>>>then put more contractions and mix in more thees and thous as Willy did; it will enhance what I perceive is the aim of this piece, in your eyes.
Her intuition knows his feeling's mixed.
>>>gaaaah, what's going on with this piece? I'll take the high road -- if you don't get it, you don't get it. I must surely be missing something true -- you are missing something as you are the missing word; are. So, this line can say;
her intuition knows his feeling's mixed...ah what? what have his feelings mixed?
or
her intuition knows his feeling's ARE mixed.<<<in which case I have some sense to the line.
>>>for me, there is I think "are" is correct here but I could be wrong already too many paths to go down; the clarity for all its supposed surface lines, is muddled at best. muddled -- another left-handed adjective
>>>sorry; muddle best describes the passage to me. I can say; not very clear, Norm. Being PC sure means talking a lot more...you sure you want ME to talk MORE??? heh.
>>>and the line missing its 'are' feels awkward when I read it, hence, another bump for this reader. The line is not smooth.
He's touched and longs to read her with his brush,
>>>wait; where did we get the brush from? No where have you said he's an artist; you paint him as an onlooker, a voyeur. So, this 'brush' COULD be a hairbrush which is how I first took it; still with that hazy, ah, brush HELLO -- the guy is a painter --- she is his model -- he paints with brushes, no?
>>>and WHERE (up to this point) have you established this fact? I went with my first inclination, dumb as it might be, because you have NOT established that this 'man in the shadows' is a painter. You assume because you have 'draped model' that it is only painters here? Why not scultures, photographers, passer-bys, the art teacher in charge, the exhibit curator--this COULD have been a painting in a museum, Norm; do artists take their brushes there, with them? So, IF you establish this is a model working in front of painters, well of course I'd expect some brushes to show up...until then, you're making an assumption of your readers.
Though spatial and the temporal forbid;
>>>and now we go from archaic demeanor and tone to one that is high tech; geez, not liking this mixing at all, Norm; spatial and temporal are soooo techie; you don't have a single word that is commensurate yet in this piece. Surely you can keep the continuity and find subs. guess I can't. I agues neither could Shakespeare in Act I; Scene 1 of Henry V (note "temporal":
"It must be thought on. If it pass against us,
We lose the better half of our possession:
For all the temporal lands which men devout
By testament have given to the church
Would they strip from us; being valued thus:"
>>>Norm; I note your inference and tis fine--borrow vocab from less modern days and esp if your aim is to make this piece less 'modern' in that way. No problem. Because I did NOT see this as a piece Willy might ever read in his time, I placed it in the here and now, more or less. Doing so, ALL the other words you're using, except for the contraction, were not of similar tone/texture/elevation as 'temporal' and 'spatial'. These two terms have a more 'modern day' scientific feel, hence; techie. IF you'd used a lot more of these, no issue; you're being consistent, but you did not. I found these two terms were another 'tangent' re delivery and add to my original postulate of 'messy'. For me, there are other ways to describe that keep the 'tone' more commensurate. If you feel these words are exactly in the tonal realm of an archaic-type delivery, no problem; based on what I've seen/experienced re net poetry, this is not the case and I stated it as such.
>>>btw, I LIKE temporal (less so 'spatial' though it would work if the piece was more intellecually defined, imo), so don't think I'm not a fan of 'higher elevation' re words, but from what I've seen, tis far from the 'norm'. heh.
losing the archaism is not an option, sorry!
of front-end capping and a lot cleaner delivery re phrasing. also, NOT an option -- but thanks for "caring"
>>>and now that I understand that this type of delivery is your goal, not an issue. I don't like this type of delivery but you're welcome to do as you please, of course. My assertion that most audiences WON'T like it still applies. I'd really find more ways to increase the frequency of both cadence and vocab if you want to think Willy would have given this a read.
So, nice bantering with you and I'll see about using less accurate but more wordy descriptives when critting. The skin is a lot thinner than I guess I thought it was, so I'll tailor remarks with that in mind.
Can't hurt words, or so I was led to believe and nowhere in this crit or the last, have I indicated I don't luv ya, Norm! Hope this is clear and since I LIKE to delve more deeply, no doubt such instances are going to be more common.
Michael
|
Pages: 
Draped Model - REVISED 03-18 - Name Change Also (Read 475 times)
