11-21-2013, 08:56 AM
i'll reply to your post (reply) in a nice way because it's obvious you genuinely want to improve.
the whole poem in general is. most, or some people think syntax is just about inverted text, while your syntax may not be inverted. it is bad syntax in that it doesn't follow good sentence structure. (i have taken enjambment into account and not include it as part of the syntax)
Then he, a child, would at once further press
daily to make use of this newly learned
word; just to taste for his buds to caress.
Loved them all, words, and the way that he heard
Then he, a child, would at once further press daily to make use of this newly learned word; just to taste for his buds to caress. Loved them all, words, and the way that he heard
the rearrangement makes it easier to see a few of the syntactical problems. it has nothing to do with punctuation, though punctuation does play a grammatical part of a sentence. the main problem is the word placement and choices. [once further press daily] is bad syntax. would press daily would be more true to good syntax. the problem is [just to taste for his buds to caress.] good syntax would state; for his taste buds to caress
then you begin the next sentence with [Loved them all, words, and the way that he heard] he loved all the words he heard
in poetry we're able to embellish words, thoughts and ideas through poetic device, ie, simile, metaphor and a host of other flowery shit. while we're also allowed to butcher the english language, (in poetry) we should only do it if it works. sticking to a meter should play no part in excusing bad syntax.
tom has no groin to thrust, his hobby is mushrooms but if he did have one he'd be allowed to thrust it the way everyone can thrust it if they're trying to help by giving feedback.
(11-20-2013, 08:03 PM)SirBrendan Wrote: Syntax refers to the placement of words to form proper sentence structure in the English language. There are however varied but equally acceptable sentence structures, such as inverted vs standard. An example would be, " Mourn them do not. Miss them do not...I'd a Mother who loved [I'd] means i did. but that's not really a syntax problem;
the whole poem in general is. most, or some people think syntax is just about inverted text, while your syntax may not be inverted. it is bad syntax in that it doesn't follow good sentence structure. (i have taken enjambment into account and not include it as part of the syntax)
Then he, a child, would at once further press
daily to make use of this newly learned
word; just to taste for his buds to caress.
Loved them all, words, and the way that he heard
Then he, a child, would at once further press daily to make use of this newly learned word; just to taste for his buds to caress. Loved them all, words, and the way that he heard
the rearrangement makes it easier to see a few of the syntactical problems. it has nothing to do with punctuation, though punctuation does play a grammatical part of a sentence. the main problem is the word placement and choices. [once further press daily] is bad syntax. would press daily would be more true to good syntax. the problem is [just to taste for his buds to caress.] good syntax would state; for his taste buds to caress
then you begin the next sentence with [Loved them all, words, and the way that he heard] he loved all the words he heard
in poetry we're able to embellish words, thoughts and ideas through poetic device, ie, simile, metaphor and a host of other flowery shit. while we're also allowed to butcher the english language, (in poetry) we should only do it if it works. sticking to a meter should play no part in excusing bad syntax.
Quote:The shadow of greed, that is.” If there is a legitimate syntax error (rather than simply not using standard) then highlight it or explain it. That's the entire point of the forum, which you seem to have missed.the point of the forum is to help poets become better poets. saying. I think the poem is full of bad syntax and that you should really be more competent before posting in the serious forum is valid. it's why we have three forums. it's a give in workshops that only poetry that need a final polish be posted here (the thing is, many of us do the same as you and often get told the same thing)
Quote:I have worked very hard to learn how to compose a serious poem with all the new things I've learned, which is why I politely acknowledged your 'critique' and moved on rather than have my piece derailed by nonsense.what you're doing is comparing your POV with someone elses POV. what you see isn't what the reader sees.
Quote: I believe it's a solid piece that would benefit from serious oversight and guidance, which is why I posted it here. I have no issue being told that pieces of the poem don't work, or that it doesn't effectively communicate a message or theme. [/quotesmugs okay if it's honest and truthful without the intent of nasty. to this i say, do what all poets must do, grow a pair. take feedback on the chin and use it to become a better poet, even smug feedback if it's true.
]my POV isn't that it's a solid piece, though it would benefit from serious oversight, i think Tom's feedback was a serious bit of oversight (oversight i'd be thankful for and have been many time with my own poetry)
[quote]That's not what you did. What you did was be a smug twat. Nothing retracted. This is SERIOUS WORKSHOPPING, not big boy at the sandbox thrusts his groin.
tom has no groin to thrust, his hobby is mushrooms but if he did have one he'd be allowed to thrust it the way everyone can thrust it if they're trying to help by giving feedback.