Critique my Poetry please.

[Draemr]

Okay, so I'm somewhat of an amateur poet (Run away!). I wrote a poem yesterday that I'd like some feedback on. Usually, I'd ask friends or family but because this poem deals with very personal issues, I thought I'd post it here.

So, come one, come all, please read it. If you like it, tell me why. If you don't, tell me why. Above all, tell me how I can improve it. If its too soppy, too clichéd, or (horror! :smalleek:) too emo then please say. Thank You.


EDIT: Please check post 19 for latest draft.

[Zephra]

It's an interesting topic. I don't care much for poetry that doesn't rhyme [I]or scan; this is why: Poetry is different from prose, in that it sounds nice, and conveys a meaning. This has plenty of meaning, even though it's a little bit too obvious (I like it to be more subtle.) Even a few cliches can really hurt a piece of poetry. I'd change the "burn with passion" line, as it's so overused in poetry in general. I really like the last part--it sums up, and caps the entire poem; kind of reminds me of the couplet at the end of a sonnet.

[d'Bwobsling]

I'm not very good at analizing poems (everything I learned in my literature class last year has completly gone out of my head), but I think that the last four lines shouldn't be in it, simply because they tell the meaning directly

[Draemr]

.

Not sure how to go about that but if any Mods wish to do so, thats grand with me.


I don't care much for poetry that doesn't rhyme [I]or scan;

I find that the quality of my content sometimes suffers when I try to get the whole piece to rhyme and I don't like the singsong feel it sometimes lends.


I think that the last four lines shouldn't be in it, simply because they tell the meaning directly

Good point, I sometimes use a rhyme at the end of a poem to conclude it and give the end a sense of finality.

Also, the burn with passion line was origionally about "love unrequited" which I thought was (ironically) too much of a cliché.

[PhoeKun]

Well, to be brutally frank, this is the sort of poem that might have been considered acceptable a hundred years ago or longer. I don't share most people's automatic dislike of cliches, because I still think there are good ways to use them, but in this case it's dragging down the poem - too much here is too old.

No lines really leap out at me to convey your emotion, because you've intellectualized the pain you tell me you're feeling. I think that's largely a symptom of your language, though. It's very archaic.

Now, not to sound too harsh, but what I would do if I were you is take some time to consider your feelings, and then write them down again without worrying as much about language or sounding poetic, which is what I think you wound up doing here. Once you have the words down in a more readable, digestible format, you can take another look at it from a more critical standpoint, and then start cementing the form.

[Draemr]

No lines really leap out at me to convey your emotion, because you've intellectualized the pain you tell me you're feeling. I think that's largely a symptom of your language, though. It's very archaic.

I'm always terrified, when writing poetry about intense emotions, of falling into the trap of the emo-poet. That is, bombarding the reader with pure raw emotion, which I don't consider good poetry.
There is also the trap of heading in the other direction and rationalising emotion until there is none left though.

I think you're right about the emotion, but I'm not really feeling pain as such, more frustration than anything. But my emotional confusion may have led to the lack of clarity in the poem. The final four lines are a reference to "The love that dare not speak its name" which may give you an insight to my emotional state when I wrote this

About the language, people have accused me of trying to sound archaic intentionally to make my poetry "poety" :smallamused:. But its not really intentional, I love language and my poetry is an expression of that, I love the romantic style too and its a large influence on me.

[Khoray]

Putting a period after the title of the poem is pretty unusual, but I thought it was a good decision. It gave a feeling of finality to an emotion normally considered to be ongoing; unrequited love may some time be requited in the future, however, the period shows that this is not the case, which sets off the mournful tone.

The archaic wording is a large concern for me, as well, from the start of the poem. Put quite simply, this is most certainly not the natural rythm of your speech, which makes the poem feel as though you are "trying too hard" to be poetic by sounding like someone who died a century or more before you were born. Which, from reading your comment, I know not to be the case, however, not everyone who reads the poem gets the benefit of seeing the comment. There's not thing wrong with an influence from the romantics, of course, it's just that the word order seems awkward. I originally thought you were changing the lines around to rhyme, at first, until I realized there was no rhyme, which simply made it seem awkward (I used the word twice in two lines! Shame on me!) and almost randon.

The bit about Fate, satire, and wool was a little trouble, too; satire is a strange word to choose, as well, since I doubt fate is lampooning your tropes. Perhaps Chagrin to triple the alliteration from earlier?

I would not outright say that you may now join the ranks of poets. It seems arrogant as something to appoint upon yourself, and it takes some of the thunder away from the good lines that follow it. With the exception of "or a dam" which isn't connected to our weaving metaphor and doesn't seem relevant to mention, actually get to the main point of the poem; does heartbreak make or break your poetry? Which is a pretty good question; it drove Nietzsche so mad he couldn't write, but it produced the greatest works of Fitzgerald's and Hemmingway.

The rhyme in the last four, and only the last four lines serves to set them apart and make them stand out, and I don't believe they do "directly say the meaning" as someone else stated. I, personally, would keep them. However, I wouldn't refer to the object of the poem as your "lover," since I believe it's rather the point that he or she is not your lover.

All in al, it's pretty good, but the style seems somewhat unnatural and forced. However, the idea of writing a poem about being heartbroken that isn't about being heartbroken, but about poetry, is pretty cool.

[PhoeKun]

I'm always terrified, when writing poetry about intense emotions, of falling into the trap of the emo-poet. That is, bombarding the reader with pure raw emotion, which I don't consider good poetry.
There is also the trap of heading in the other direction and rationalising emotion until there is none left though.

I think you're right about the emotion, but I'm not really feeling pain as such, more frustration than anything. But my emotional confusion may have led to the lack of clarity in the poem. The final four lines are a reference to "The love that dare not speak its name" which may give you an insight to my emotional state when I wrote this

About the language, people have accused me of trying to sound archaic intentionally to make my poetry "poety" :smallamused:. But its not really intentional, I love language and my poetry is an expression of that, I love the romantic style too and its a large influence on me.

There are really two pillars to writing poetry - avoiding cliches, and maintaining accessibility. I say that, and immediately hate myself for it. :smalltongue:

When you get right down to it, a poem written for you doesn't really have a right or wrong way to be written. But if you're going to open it up to critique from the general public... well, there are only a few points of common ground from which to suggest things.

Which is to say that improving a poem, as objectively as anyone can say something like that, sometimes involves putting aside your personal preferences. You're preferred style, for example, is failing to convey the message you want it to. So why not give something else a try? As far as "emo poetry" is concerned? It's certainly not as big a trap as getting too comfortable with a single style (again, :smalltongue: ).

[Khoray]

The real thing that takes the "tional" off emotional poetry is the repetition of images and did-somebody-order-a-ham?! melodrama to them. If it doesn't involve black hearts bleeding black blood while you drink your own tears so that you never lose anything she gave you, you're probably okay.

[Draemr]

The bit about Fate, satire, and wool was a little trouble, too; satire is a strange word to choose, as well, since I doubt fate is lampooning your tropes. Perhaps Chagrin to triple the alliteration from earlier?

I would not outright say that you may now join the ranks of poets. It seems arrogant as something to appoint upon yourself, and it takes some of the thunder away from the good lines that follow it.

I wasn't happy with the wool metaphor myself but I couldn't think of a better substitute, all I knew was I wanted a craft.
By joining the ranks of poets, I meant poets such as Dante and Catullus who also wrote about unrequited love but I couldn't say that explicitly without it becoming unwieldy. Then again, it appears that that has already happened.


However, I wouldn't refer to the object of the poem as your "lover," since I believe it's rather the point that he or she is not your lover.

My love, not my lover... I wish :smallwink:


As far as "emo poetry" is concerned? It's certainly not as big a trap as getting too comfortable with a single style (again,:smalltongue: )

Ouch :smallbiggrin: point taken.


If it doesn't involve black hearts bleeding black blood while you drink your own tears so that you never lose anything she gave you, you're probably okay

Quoted for sheer hilarity.

[Draemr]

The bit about Fate, satire, and wool was a little trouble, too; satire is a strange word to choose, as well, since I doubt fate is lampooning your tropes. Perhaps Chagrin to triple the alliteration from earlier?

Origionally it was Irony because I find it ironic that I, who always made fun of the melodramatic soap-opera relationships my friends plunged themselves into would end up in one myself. (If you can call it a relationship but whatever) I realised that Irony would rhyme with Poetry in the first line and I was trying to avoid rhyme in the main body of the poem to form a contrast with the final four lines. Therefore I chose Satire because I felt the meaning in this context was still there.

Also:
Shall it become for me
as for some, the very
root and source of my eloquence
-or a dam?-

Source, to me meant the source of a spring, hence a dam being the alternative.
It appears my major problem in this poem is lack of clarity. I'll need to do some considerable reworking.

(Incidently the final piece originally was a rhyming couplet. I can't actually remember why I changed it. :smallconfused: )

[Zephra]

I find that the quality of my content sometimes suffers when I try to get the whole piece to rhyme and I don't like the singsong feel it sometimes lends.
Good point. We don't want a limerick here. That's the key to good poetry, is making the language beautiful without being singsong. But there's got to be a line between poetry and prose. I'd say that it's so easy to write prose-poetry that it almost sounds lazy. So maybe try to put a little rhythm in it, and skip the rhymes. I think that could help it a lot. Also, so long as you can keep away from cliches, get emotional about it. It rang a little dry for me, like it's not as important to you as you'd like it to be--I know that's not the case, so be a little more "gushy" about it... :smallsmile:

[Mc. Lovin']

I like how the last stanza of the poem has an ABAB rhyme scheme, I think that helps emphasize how important that port of the poem is to you

[Khoray]

I wasn't happy with the wool metaphor myself but I couldn't think of a better substitute, all I knew was I wanted a craft.
Words are actually usually connected with cloth ("spinning a web of words") or metal (Aureliano Buendia, who's both a poet and silversmith in 100 Years of Solitude) since both involve making something beuaitful from something rather plain, or even ugly (silk robes from a spider or beautiful metal fishes from rocks)


By joining the ranks of poets, I meant poets such as Dante and Catullus who also wrote about unrequited love but I couldn't say that explicitly without it becoming unwieldy.
I think the way it was was a little too explicit, but if you took out the first line, it would sort of show. Plus, if we're going for the romantic feel, name-dropping is never bad in poetry; saying the name of a poet would contrast with the inability to say your love's name, showing that poetry is there when love is not, maybe? Since the tone of the poem is questioning, as well, indefinite as to whether the situation will be a source or a dam, you could ask it as a questioning way. The "I can be a poet now," phrasing is what gets in the way for me, not the concept, I think.





Looks like I was imagining a letter "r" on there, my apologies!

[QUOTE=Draemr;4074407]Origionally it was Irony because I find it ironic that I, who always made fun of the melodramatic soap-opera relationships my friends plunged themselves into would end up in one myself. (If you can call it a relationship but whatever) I realised that Irony would rhyme with Poetry in the first line and I was trying to avoid rhyme in the main body of the poem to form a contrast with the final four lines. Therefore I chose Satire because I felt the meaning in this context was still there.
Satire actually fits perfectly, then. A reader who doesn't know you might not get it, but then again, a reader who would identify with the situation would probably get it whether they knew you or a not. I'd keep it as-is, after hearing the explanation.
To avoid accidental psuedo-rhymes like poetry/irony, "occur" and "weaver" are kinda close, though probably not close enough to worry about.


Also:
Shall it become for me
as for some, the very
root and source of my eloquence
-or a dam?-

Source, to me meant the source of a spring, hence a dam being the alternative.
Ah, I haven't really heard source used that way before, so that could be my bad for missing some common usages of English, where I grew up in a non-English-speaking community. Wellspring or something might be more clear, but native speakers will probably catch on to the metaphor better than I.
Still don't know if I'd mention the alternative (I think it's sort of implied, but if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm more into subtlety than most people.)

As for prose poetry, that's very different from free-verse poetry, and I would consider it more a specific style of writing prose with very poetic language. Line breaks brevity differentiate poetry from prose, and even without rythm, line breaks can say a lot. Additionally, this simply wouldn't stand up as prose, it would be a small paragraph far too vague to be a story. Adding rythm or such things can get in the way of a poem meaning exactly what one wants it to with the words one wants it to. Poetry doesn't have rules any more, and I think that was a good switch. Every word is important, in poetry, and "compromising" on a single decision so it's in iambic pentameter can be disasterous. Not that there's anything wrong with poetry in a form, just a form should not be used if the poem sacrifices something to fit it.

[Draemr]

Aaaaaarrrrrgh! Double Post!
[May as well use then.]


Ah, I haven't really heard source used that way before, so that could be my bad for missing some common usages of English, where I grew up in a non-English-speaking community.

Actually it's not very obvious there (once again my clarity of expression lets me down). I meant source as in the place where a stream or spring originates from but that usage is more archaic than modern.

[Draemr]

Right this is the original piece, reworked slightly. I like the craft metaphor (i.e. weaving) in general, but I'm unsatisfied with the implementation so far so I've highlighted it. (Sorry PhoeKun but at the mo I'm keeping the language style.)

Did I not aspire to poetry
would such as this occur?
Or does Fate carefully craft such satire
to throw in my path,
as wool for the weaver?
A new thread enters the tapestry
and I may take my place
among those love-weary poets
whose passion burns unrequited.
Shall it become for me
as for some, the very
source and spring of my eloquence
-or a dam?-
And by what oblique cipher
shall I record that name
whose true form I daren't inscribe
upon treacherous paper?

Shame upon me, shame
to be so weak,
that my own love's name
I dare not speak.

BTW: Thanks to everyone who replied to this thread, I really appreciate the criticism. :smallsmile:

[Brickwall]

Good point. We don't want a limerick here. That's the key to good poetry, is making the language beautiful without being singsong.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that lyrical rhythm was outside the realm of poetry. I shall call Shakespeare and let him know he's doing it all wrong.

Anyway, personally I think you're being somewhat...to borrow from Khoray, archaic with your poem. The language is cumbersome and serves more to obfuscate the meaning rather than illustrate it. Also, as you have noticed, your opening metaphor is rather clumsy. I suppose if you explain it to mean that the...stuff being woven is words...it sort of makes sense? Your verbs are rather confusing and nonsensical. "Did I not aspire to poetry, would such as this occur?" Do you mean, "Had I not aspired to poetry, would such as this have occured?" ? We have grammar for a reason, and it's so you make sense. It's alright if you make sense without grammar, but in this instance, you don't. And then there's the whole "throwing this satire as wool for the weaver" business. If you're going to go with a metaphor, first off, don't deviate. A weaver doesn't draw from a path, they draw from a pile, or a spool, or a few other things, none of them a path. Second, a weaver can weave many things, including thread, silk, cotton, etc. And he weaves them on a loom, which is what the [weaving material] would be for. "Thread for my loom" would work at least a little better.

Also, "treacherous paper" is the only thing that might push it into "emo" territory. Honestly, it's a bit silly.

Overall, it goes from bad to good, from beginning to end. But it starts off poorly. It seems you left a bad premise for a good one partway through.

"Oblique cipher" could be the title of the poem. It serves as one.

Err...okay, to end on a good note, it has good rhythm. It is, at least, poetic. I've seen really off verse, and it's good to know some amateurs have it down.

[Draemr]

"Did I not aspire to poetry, would such as this occur?" Do you mean, "Had I not aspired to poetry, would such as this have occured?"

Did I not= If I didn't. As in, If I didn't want to be a poet, would this have happened?


Also, "treacherous paper" is the only thing that might push it into "emo" territory. Honestly, it's a bit silly.

Treacherous paper. I don't want to reveal the name of the person this poem is about, it's okay to say it in my mind but were I to record it on paper someone might read it and find out. A bit of an exaggeration but hyperbole is a traditional device in poetry.

[Draemr]

Right, armed with a rhyming scheme I completely reworked the piece and I'm relatively happy now:

Unrequited.

Would ever such have happened to me
had I never aspired to poetry?
Perhaps fate crafts cruel happenstance
To rebuke me for this arrogance.

For now I know what ‘tis to be thrust
‘tween gentle love and raging lust
with no respite, adrift and helpless,
at the whim of teenaged Eros.

How can frail inspiration last
when caught in ardour’s frenzied grasp?
Does passion life to our dreams give
or smother them 'fore they may live?

Though this mere doggerel be uncouth
its crude verses conceal a truth
of which I yet fear to speak
to the one whose love I seek.