01-31-2015, 02:13 AM
RN
"Boiling milk on the skin of the seas
fluttering into a shower of tin"
These are nice lines except for the fact they have no meaning because there is nothing to tie them to a real world object. If one used an "X" to represent these two lines it would not take away any understanding of the next two lines.
X
as the flesh of the waters tear into the shore
bathe his wrinkled feet.
I have no idea what the "flesh" of waters is. How is this different from saying "water tears into the shore"? There is nothing that "flesh" refers to that is concrete, nothing to clue the reader what "flesh" in this context means.
The writer has only included half of the metaphor. For a metaphor to work it has to include both aspects of a metaphor. The image (what the writer is saying the object is the same as) and the object itself. Without both parts there is no meaning/sense about what the dependent clause means. Example:
Trees, the unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world. This of course is an overly simplified version of a metaphor, but it illustrates a point. If I take away "Trees" from the line, I am left with a dependent clause that has lost all meaning as it is no longer tied to trees ("tied to trees"
). If I create a stanza using the same principle, the following is something it could look like.
Unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world, (who are these "Unyielding stately guardians"?)
the nurturer of all things, (would it be beneficial to know I am referring to the earth in this line)
a little red ridding hood skipping through the forest unaware, (would it help to know even the writer doesn't know what this references? It does sound cool, doesn't it?))
the leaves fall down upon her head. (ah, yes they do, but not on little red ridding hood's head Sorry I neglected to tell the reader that bit of information. Oh well I'm sure they will figure it out.)
So here is my complete stanza without comments. Compare it to S1 in the poem "Peace".
Unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world,
the nurturer of all things,
a little red ridding hood skipping through the forest unaware,
the leaves fall down upon her head.
As one can see, by removing the noun (the object of the metaphor) that makes these dependent clauses a sentence, one takes away all meaning. I'm sure these things make sense to the writer because the mind supplies what is missing. Unfortunately the writer does not include this information in the poem.
As this is mild I'll stop here.
Oh yes, the double line spacing is not my idea. When I formatted it, it was normal spacing.
Dale
"Boiling milk on the skin of the seas
fluttering into a shower of tin"
These are nice lines except for the fact they have no meaning because there is nothing to tie them to a real world object. If one used an "X" to represent these two lines it would not take away any understanding of the next two lines.
X
as the flesh of the waters tear into the shore
bathe his wrinkled feet.
I have no idea what the "flesh" of waters is. How is this different from saying "water tears into the shore"? There is nothing that "flesh" refers to that is concrete, nothing to clue the reader what "flesh" in this context means.
The writer has only included half of the metaphor. For a metaphor to work it has to include both aspects of a metaphor. The image (what the writer is saying the object is the same as) and the object itself. Without both parts there is no meaning/sense about what the dependent clause means. Example:
Trees, the unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world. This of course is an overly simplified version of a metaphor, but it illustrates a point. If I take away "Trees" from the line, I am left with a dependent clause that has lost all meaning as it is no longer tied to trees ("tied to trees"
). If I create a stanza using the same principle, the following is something it could look like. Unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world, (who are these "Unyielding stately guardians"?)
the nurturer of all things, (would it be beneficial to know I am referring to the earth in this line)
a little red ridding hood skipping through the forest unaware, (would it help to know even the writer doesn't know what this references? It does sound cool, doesn't it?))
the leaves fall down upon her head. (ah, yes they do, but not on little red ridding hood's head Sorry I neglected to tell the reader that bit of information. Oh well I'm sure they will figure it out.)
So here is my complete stanza without comments. Compare it to S1 in the poem "Peace".
Unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world,
the nurturer of all things,
a little red ridding hood skipping through the forest unaware,
the leaves fall down upon her head.
As one can see, by removing the noun (the object of the metaphor) that makes these dependent clauses a sentence, one takes away all meaning. I'm sure these things make sense to the writer because the mind supplies what is missing. Unfortunately the writer does not include this information in the poem.
As this is mild I'll stop here.
Oh yes, the double line spacing is not my idea. When I formatted it, it was normal spacing.
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.