Who was Walt Whitman before Walt Whitman was Walt Whitman?

[rhymeguy]

If for a moment we
forgot all we know
about Whitman, Frost,
Tennyson and Poe,

McCartney, Lennon,
Dylan and Simon,
Eyeda, Saul Williams
and Andre 3000.

If our heroes showed up
as poets unknown
and offered us seeds
as yet unsown;

How would we critique?
What would we say?
Would we suggest
a better way?

Would we realize
the way it would go?
When we first read them
would we know?

Around us each day
in these  threads  we entwine
are destinies poets
awaiting their time.

We have the dream,
though obscure it may be.
Perhaps it is you.
Perhaps it is me.

 

[Lizzie]

If for a moment we
forgot all we know
about Whitman, Frost,
Tennyson and Poe,

McCartney, Lennon,
Dylan and Simon,
Eyeda, Saul Williams
and Andre 3000.

If our heroes showed up
as poets unknown
and offered us seeds
as yet unsown; -- I don't think this is a complete sentence, so you might want to lose the semi-colon and link it with the next line.

How would we critique? -- shouldn't be capitalized coming off of a semi-colon
What would we say?
Would we suggest
a better way?

Would we realize
the way it would go?
When we first read them
would we know?

Around us each day
in these  threads  we entwine
are destinies poets -- destiny's
awaiting their time.

We have the dream,
though obscure it may be. -- It seems like you're forcing the rhyme here. Obscure doesn't seem like quite the right word to describe improbability.
Perhaps it is you.
Perhaps it is me.

 

I wonder about this sometimes, if I would be able to recognize someone's genius; their work would probably just seem odd at first.

Thanks for the encouragement, too! I needed to hear the message that dreams are not out of reach.

Thanks for sharing

lizziep

[rowens]

The message is fine, but the poem is counterintuitive. By counterintuitive, I mean obvious. The point is not to be simple with these things; every poet, except Rimbaud, was writing poems like this before they were Walt Whitman. Andre 3000 is still writing poems like this. By the point, I mean, the obvious. There's nothing wrong with the poem, it's not counterproductive, counterintuitive; if you published it people would wonder why you bothered compared with whatever else you published that was worth publishing. It's one of those kind of things.

The execution of the poem doesn't say much. The premise of the poem is too direct, the message is good, the sentiment is groovy. The idea is false. Some people still don't like the work of any of these people. Too simple, too abstract, too wild, too silly, too countersuggestive. Then: some people liked it from the start.
There 's nothing wrong with the poem, it's just in a league with a bar band quality. That's my critique.

[Achebe]

You have Lennon, Tennyson, and Dylan all as 'our heroes' of poetry. Speak for yourself. That's where the poem fails.

[rhymeguy]

This response may well get me kicked off the site. So be it. When we respond to the critique given we are supposed to be humble and thankful. Generally I am. I have learned so much here. However I feel as though I must respond to the above remarks.

I'm not a good poet. Nor am I a good judge of good poetry. I know that. I apologize for not including your particular poetic heroes. Frankly I am not a lover of Whitman or Dylan. The point was, if our heroes, whoever they are, were to show up today, what would we say . Sometimes we have to extrapolate. We have to see what is meant beyond what is said,

Forgive me for taking exception.

[Todd]

This response may well get me kicked off the site.  So be it. When we respond to the critique given we are supposed to be humble and thankful.  Generally I am. I have learned so much here. However I feel as though I must respond to the above remarks.

I'm not a good poet. Nor am I a good judge of good poetry. I  know that. I apologize for not including your particular poetic heroes. Frankly I am not a lover of Whitman or Dylan.  The point was, if our heroes, whoever they are,  were to show up today, what would we say . Sometimes we have to extrapolate. We have to see what is meant beyond what is said,

Forgive me for taking exception.

Let me clarify a point for you. It's ok to read a comment and think, "I don't agree with that at all." or "I don't like the tone in that." or "And how is that supposed to be helpful."

You are free to accept or blow off any critique in whole or in part. Even when you get a profoundly negative response, it is helpful to note that someone really didn't like your poem. General protocol would be just saying: "Thank you for the comments."

It helps you not come across as defensive and encourages others to comment on your work. What you did here doesn't irritate me, but you're inviting a sort of back and forth discussion that can stray from the poem. It's better to just thank them and move on even if you don't agree. It's a general rule to which there are of course always exceptions--but 99.999% of the time: Thank you is the best course.

[shemthepenman]

hello,

i have seen this in the 'recent' sidebar and haven't clicked on it till now, and so my first suggestion (possibly my only suggestion, i am writing this 'live', as it were) would be to change the title. firstly it is just boring and implies a stodgy old poem (which it isn't - it is light and whimsical), and secondly, it kind of says too much; or, alternatively, it says just enough to make the poem itself redundant.

as for the content, i find this question fascinating, ie. would we recognize genius if it hadn't already been determined as such by this or that critic (or worse, the general public)? my thought is, it is too cynical. it implies that we are influenced by the majority opinion, which i optimistically, don't think is the case. for example, i actually do think Dylan is great, but the first time i heard one of his songs was, well, the first time i had heard one of his songs. the fact that he is regarded by many as great is only really relevant if i want to give some kind of retrospective validity to my opinion. you see, when we hear something or read something by someone, it is the first time, and it is at that time we make a judgment. i have never heard anyone say "oh, i have heard Dylan's stuff's great, therefore it is great." the line "if our heroes showed up / as poets unknown. . . etc." sums this up, because the answer to this question is, they do show up unknown. i remember hearing 'shelter from the storm' for the first time at a house party and thinking 'that's the best thing i've ever heard. . . who's it by?' (the next day i bought the first 4 Dylan albums).
i also think, again maybe optimistically, that art is objective (but this is contentious, even to me, so i'll leave it there.
anyway, your poem asks a very interesting question but in a simple easily digestible way. it begins a conversation, which is something. is the question original? no. but it poses it in a relatively charming little way.

oh, i read another comment up there, and must agree that the names you have chosen may rub some people up the wrong way (the more pop names - for example i think mccartney is the most overrated hack, and must admit that when i saw you had included his name i rolled my eyes), and detract from the general question. you would imagine people (especially poets) would understand allusion, but. . . well, quite frankly a lot of them don't, so *

oh, and you use a lot of inversion and forced rhyme. you should sort that out.



*not the people on this site, of course, just in general.

If for a moment we
forgot all we know
about Whitman, Frost,
Tennyson and Poe,

McCartney, Lennon,
Dylan and Simon,
Eyeda, Saul Williams
and Andre 3000.

If our heroes showed up
as poets unknown
and offered us seeds
as yet unsown;

How would we critique?
What would we say?
Would we suggest
a better way?

Would we realize
the way it would go?
When we first read them
would we know?

Around us each day
in these  threads  we entwine
are destinies poets
awaiting their time.

We have the dream,
though obscure it may be.
Perhaps it is you.
Perhaps it is me.

 

[rowens]

The names you use are examples. They're just lines. There is nothing wrong with the idea, that there's nothing special in the poem is the problem. It could pass as a poem, but passing doesn't get you anywhere. It's all good, but you have to push further to get further. If you expect more than passing decent of yourself. I wrote and tried to post a more detailed message, but. Well, I don't see it. Must have not went through.

---

The point comes through, but so does roses are red and violets are blue. Sure, lots of people will get a poem like this, and if that's what you want you've got it. But to impress the poetry junkies you have to go further.

[bluepressure]

I mostly agree about the forced rhyming, but I don't think it hurts to have some in as well. Even though the poem asks a serious question, I don't think it necessarily needs to be written that specific way. I'm really bad with names, so half of the authors you mentioned don't really mean anything to me. That would probably be the only disconnect I have with the poem, where this fault is largely on my ignorance. Unless it would really kill the sentence, I would like to see less-common rhymes though.

If for a moment we
forgot all we know
about Whitman, Frost,
Tennyson and Poe,

McCartney, Lennon,
Dylan and Simon,
Eyeda, Saul Williams
and Andre 3000.

If our heroes showed up
as poets unknown
and offered us seeds
as yet unsown; Think a period would work better than a semicolon.

How would we critique?
What would we say?
Would we suggest
a better way? A lot of questions. Are you able to word them differently, perhaps as not questions?

Would we realize
the way it would go?
When we first read them
would we know?

Around us each day
in these  threads  we entwine
are destinies poets Typo already mentioned in previous comments.
awaiting their time.

We have the dream,
though obscure it may be.
Perhaps it is you.
Perhaps it is me. Maybe Or could it be me?