09-28-2014, 09:21 AM
cjchaffin,
I also disagree with the "each line can stand on its own". No idea can be contained by a single syllable except as it refers to the words around it, the simplest of sentences must have at a minimum two syllables, "Dog ran." If you want to say that each strophe needs to stand on it's own I would agree with that. In terms of how each strophe relates to the others, it seems thematically, such as the first strophe is about a young child, then teenager, then adult, et al. In your poem the first strophe is solid. I find the use of "and" to carry the second to the third disruptive. One could say it is enjambment. However the use of it here makes the last two strophes a single entity as the and" connects them together. To me it seems more like the idea of "forced rhyme" in formal poetry, that is using an inferior word that is unnatural to the poem, instead of working until one finds a word that does not seem out of place. In this vein the first strophe seems spot on., the second less so. The initial image (of the second strophe) makes little sense, (one must assume "he" is rolling pearls between his hands), and even if this is symbolic, or referent to an idea like pearls=wisdom, it simply does not work. There is nothing within the image that really points to something other than what the lines say on the concrete level. Also the first two strophes seem more connected by the idea of hands than pearls. The third strophe cannot stand on its own, because it introduces a new character but without grounding. Which brings one back to the idea of enjambment, as the "and" connects the two strophes syntactically more than thematically, leading to confusion and many unanswerable question. The first strophe is good because it introduces the idea of both "pearls" and "hands", and tells the reader who "she" is. She is a mother". The idea of "mother" carries with it numerous connotations, and so one does not really require a more elaborate to understand who she is. This is not the case with "he" in the second, as "he" simply defines a human male. The same goes for she in the third part. When a reader cannot identity with the character, then there is no possibility of emotional connection, and thus no reason to care about the poem.
Dale
I also disagree with the "each line can stand on its own". No idea can be contained by a single syllable except as it refers to the words around it, the simplest of sentences must have at a minimum two syllables, "Dog ran." If you want to say that each strophe needs to stand on it's own I would agree with that. In terms of how each strophe relates to the others, it seems thematically, such as the first strophe is about a young child, then teenager, then adult, et al. In your poem the first strophe is solid. I find the use of "and" to carry the second to the third disruptive. One could say it is enjambment. However the use of it here makes the last two strophes a single entity as the and" connects them together. To me it seems more like the idea of "forced rhyme" in formal poetry, that is using an inferior word that is unnatural to the poem, instead of working until one finds a word that does not seem out of place. In this vein the first strophe seems spot on., the second less so. The initial image (of the second strophe) makes little sense, (one must assume "he" is rolling pearls between his hands), and even if this is symbolic, or referent to an idea like pearls=wisdom, it simply does not work. There is nothing within the image that really points to something other than what the lines say on the concrete level. Also the first two strophes seem more connected by the idea of hands than pearls. The third strophe cannot stand on its own, because it introduces a new character but without grounding. Which brings one back to the idea of enjambment, as the "and" connects the two strophes syntactically more than thematically, leading to confusion and many unanswerable question. The first strophe is good because it introduces the idea of both "pearls" and "hands", and tells the reader who "she" is. She is a mother". The idea of "mother" carries with it numerous connotations, and so one does not really require a more elaborate to understand who she is. This is not the case with "he" in the second, as "he" simply defines a human male. The same goes for she in the third part. When a reader cannot identity with the character, then there is no possibility of emotional connection, and thus no reason to care about the poem.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.