11-08-2014, 12:31 PM
Ray,
This starts out appearing as something written in accentual verse with two beats per line for the first section, except for one line.
If the sentences are written out in one line you can see room for improvement and clarity. First We'd can be several contractions so it is better to do away with the confusion and simply write "We had".
"We had a semi-detached with not much of a garden, only so many places you could bury a bone."
Evidently "a semi-detached" refers to some sort of housing structure, however as I have never heard the term before I can either guess or go to the dictionary. I guess any British person would know what you are talking about but I am not British, and so are a lot of English speakers. If you added "house" after "semi-detached" it would avoid frustration for your non-British readers. Just because it is poetry does not mean it is not under the same restrictions that normal writing is. Thus:
" only so many places you could bury a bone." -->" so few places to bury a bone."
This line:
"One evening was yawning when she made a suggestion - "
Is her name "one evening"? There is nothing here that separates the "One Evening" from the "she" who made a suggestion.
-----------------------------------------
"we’d wager our freedom."
In the above line you again use the "we'd" contraction, but instead of meaning "we had" as the last time it was used, now it is meant to mean we would. Contraction can be used in poetry to good effect in terms of meter, or dialect, however neither are presence here, thus obviating any reason for their usage other than affection. The confusion of using them cannot be justified.
-----------------------------------------
"The loser would serve and winner be master, commander, dictator for a time we’d determine."
Do you have something against articles? Do you think removing them somehow makes the poem better, or more poemy? The truth is it does not and it also causes a slight pause in the reading as the reader is anticipating the "the" between "and" and "winner". Many people may not even notice it, but it still effects the poem. I am all for terseness, but not at the sake of clarity.
"The loser would serve and the winner be master, commander, dictator for a time we’d determine."
The word "would" inserted between "winner" and "master" would also bring up the clarity but it makes the sentence less elegant. The contraction "winner'd" seems clumsy. So, your choice, your poem. Also a colon after master. Thus:
"The loser would serve and the winner (would) be master: commander, dictator for a time we’d determine." For the sake of the cadence of the line I would leave in the contraction as it serves a function.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's all I feel up to at the moment, but the rest needs as much work, if not more. However, just a question about something in the second section. When you say "... height of her thighs", are you meaning top of her thighs.
"the band of white flesh
at the height of her thighs"
Either way that would be a person's hips. A lot of what you are trying to describing is difficult to understand, due to poor word choice, unnecessary terseness, syntactical abnormalities, or simply not describing enough for the reader to visualize what you are trying to describe. As I said about one of your other poems, this seems like a lot to wade through to get to the punch line.
Evening yawn, bena has been keeping me up all night, asking me if I could see through her eyelids. So I'm really tired and I going to stop here. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
Dale
This starts out appearing as something written in accentual verse with two beats per line for the first section, except for one line.
If the sentences are written out in one line you can see room for improvement and clarity. First We'd can be several contractions so it is better to do away with the confusion and simply write "We had".
"We had a semi-detached with not much of a garden, only so many places you could bury a bone."
Evidently "a semi-detached" refers to some sort of housing structure, however as I have never heard the term before I can either guess or go to the dictionary. I guess any British person would know what you are talking about but I am not British, and so are a lot of English speakers. If you added "house" after "semi-detached" it would avoid frustration for your non-British readers. Just because it is poetry does not mean it is not under the same restrictions that normal writing is. Thus:
" only so many places you could bury a bone." -->" so few places to bury a bone."
This line:
"One evening was yawning when she made a suggestion - "
Is her name "one evening"? There is nothing here that separates the "One Evening" from the "she" who made a suggestion.
-----------------------------------------
"we’d wager our freedom."
In the above line you again use the "we'd" contraction, but instead of meaning "we had" as the last time it was used, now it is meant to mean we would. Contraction can be used in poetry to good effect in terms of meter, or dialect, however neither are presence here, thus obviating any reason for their usage other than affection. The confusion of using them cannot be justified.
-----------------------------------------
"The loser would serve and winner be master, commander, dictator for a time we’d determine."
Do you have something against articles? Do you think removing them somehow makes the poem better, or more poemy? The truth is it does not and it also causes a slight pause in the reading as the reader is anticipating the "the" between "and" and "winner". Many people may not even notice it, but it still effects the poem. I am all for terseness, but not at the sake of clarity.
"The loser would serve and the winner be master, commander, dictator for a time we’d determine."
The word "would" inserted between "winner" and "master" would also bring up the clarity but it makes the sentence less elegant. The contraction "winner'd" seems clumsy. So, your choice, your poem. Also a colon after master. Thus:
"The loser would serve and the winner (would) be master: commander, dictator for a time we’d determine." For the sake of the cadence of the line I would leave in the contraction as it serves a function.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's all I feel up to at the moment, but the rest needs as much work, if not more. However, just a question about something in the second section. When you say "... height of her thighs", are you meaning top of her thighs.
"the band of white flesh
at the height of her thighs"
Either way that would be a person's hips. A lot of what you are trying to describing is difficult to understand, due to poor word choice, unnecessary terseness, syntactical abnormalities, or simply not describing enough for the reader to visualize what you are trying to describe. As I said about one of your other poems, this seems like a lot to wade through to get to the punch line.
Evening yawn, bena has been keeping me up all night, asking me if I could see through her eyelids. So I'm really tired and I going to stop here. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
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.