Revision of my work is ongoing. However the 'work' I will do on Small Red Flower will not be anything like what you have suggested. You have offered an opinion. I thank you for it. Knowing my efforts do not conform to what you believe is required may help me grow as a poet - perhaps not.

"Knowing my efforts do not conform to what you believe is required may help me grow as a poet - perhaps not."

Hopefully they can, but the process requires something more than continuous praise. If you're never challenged, how do you grow? Reflect on your approach in the face of such criticism, and I can almost guarantee that you will develop on some level.

You seem convinced I need help. I have enjoyed publication (in periodicals, anthologies, and countless other print venues) as well as requests to feature at many gatherings on the east coast. The audience I appeal to differs from what you believe is my potential station; less than what I may be capable of. The 'level' I have attained and the works enjoyed by others which have elevated me to my current status suit me. I am where I want to be. On this site, at the many open mics, in publications, I am invited to read material you consider below your standard; 'Your' standard, in the face of praise, be it a constant flow or broken by a negative critique takes on the image of an individual lacking in the area of the aesthete; able to appreciate only that which follows form dictated by convention and/or accepted opinion. Pity, I have not the pleasure of comparing - my works with that of your own.

This is why I do not post or try to critique in high crit.
Louise



Last edited by Louisa on Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
One who does not read is no beter off than one who can not read.

"takes on the image of an individual lacking in the area of the aesthete; able to appreciate only that which follows form dictated by convention and/or accepted opinion. Pity, I have not the pleasure of comparing - my works with that of your own."

Craft does not embody aesthetics - correct. But understanding aesthetics necessarily involves more than mixing generational dialects decades apart without the slightest understanding of phrasal structure and aesthetically pleasing constructs of those eras. Linguistically speaking, you try to mimic 19th century phrasal structures mixed with a 20th century minimalist approach to grammatical systems, which leads to clashes in style. For example:

"Barren garden rows and faded white pickets seem
silent spotters, waiting to witness the falling's end."

A misuse of the minimalist approach to words leads you to lay the weight of these lines on "seem", which is a copular verb, not a regular lexical verb. Although "to be" functions sometimes as a copula, it can also function as a regular lexical verb to create adverbials. "seem" cannot do that. Grammatically and linguistically speaking, you have tried to force the copular verb "seem" to function as a regular lexical verb, which sounds awkward (and hence, unpoetic, unless done well). The following examples illustrate this problem:

Copulas create subject complements:

Mrs. Walters was excited to see me.
Mrs. Walters seemed excited to see me.

Regular lexical verbs create adverbials:

Mrs. Walters was in the bathtub.
*Mrs. Walters seemed in the bathtub.

Essentially, what you have done is create a nonsensical sentence. "Barren garden rows and faded white pickets" can "seem [to be] silent spotters, waiting to witness the falling's end." However, they cannot "seem silent spotters, waiting to witness the falling's end." You have accidentally applied minimalist poetic principles in a manner that creates awkwardness instead of intentionally doing so to deepen the meaning and aesthetic appeal of the text.

Poetically speaking you also exaggerate the awkwardness of the copula acting as a regular lexical verb by placing it at the end of a line. Your enjambment magnifies the issue.

In addition to this magnification, your 19th century mimicry ladens this verb with extra weight. Modifiers can be so wonderful and poetic, but when weak, misused verbs support them, they often sound awkward.

Unfortunately, this "begets" stylistically confused poetry and prose; you have a feel for certain stereotypes, but you don't understand the substance, which is fundamentally an aesthetic flaw.

Analysis is not art and is not supposed to be. But not understanding the medium you use to voice your aesthetic interests is ignorance, not "poetic genius". True poetic genius has intuition that pierces the substance of the medium, and you do not show that capacity. This does not mean you should stop writing. This means you should work hard to better understand the aesthetic medium, so that you can improve your aesthetic expression.

"able to appreciate only that which follows form dictated by convention and/or accepted opinion."

I have supported my position with illustrations. If you need, I could provide a syllogistic analysis of both our arguments for the sake of explicit comparison. However, so far you have yet to do anything but name call (although your first response was fine). I don't care if you're frustrated with me. I'm not here to baby you - I'm here to challenge you. This is a public forum entitled "High Criticism", just as Louise has observed. If anything, such a forum should welcome academic rigour.

"I am where I want to be."

I don't know of a passionate genius who has ever settled for what is satisfactory. Pascal? Nope. Bach? Not even for his weekly compositions.

You claim to have found a legitimate poetry audience. You support it on the ground that any sort of academic approach necessarily restrains the medium. I am challenging both these claims, though I think your first claim has some merit. Poetry is certainly for all who can listen or read. But when there is no clear articulation of what constitutes excellence apart from continuous praise for anything written on a page, I question the legitimacy of this claim. What makes your audience worthwhile participants in your aesthetic philosophy? What do they offer you other than predetermined elevation to excellence? That's a challenge you need to struggle with. I think you can support it, but I am not going to do the work for you.

Good luck.[/u]

Little Skittle,
Please... let it rest. You made your point(s) a couple of posts previous. I do not aspire to become whomever it is you wish me to be. For the effort in my behalf, thank you. Poetry has replaced my religion; faith in my fellow man (poets) has replaced all other aspirations. I laugh at myself; I laugh at certain individuals organized beliefs. The rigid, English language rules and regulations which dictate how we, poets, should tow the mark...well, it all began with simple sounds and than printer's marks became 'punctuation' and after a time came T.S. Eliot...(insert a hearty chuckle) his work begs a parody.

Post Script
My 'audience' offers an honest evaluation of the poem. All, save none, have come forth with opinions, pro or con, whenever asked. I respect their opinions. Each is a peer.

Louise,
Please do not refrain from posting in this thread. I would, without hesitation, withdraw from the site if it would allow your complete participation. The current exchange (between Little Skittle and I) is nothing more than a very healthy exchange of views (and opinions). Each of us - all of us - should enjoy such an exchange.

I understand. I like to argue, but my poetry is not worth arguing about. I am not trying to improve. I am writing for fun. When it quits being fun, I will quit writing. You two go on enjoying yourselves and I'll stay where I feel that I belong.
Louise


_________________
One who does not read is no beter off than one who can not read.

Louise,
I could not have said it better!

Peace
Bud

"You made your point(s) a couple of posts previous. I do not aspire to become whomever it is you wish me to be."

I know. That's part of what makes it interesting.

"Poetry has replaced my religion; faith in my fellow man (poets) has replaced all other aspirations."

That's too bad. Good luck with that.