01-31-2015, 04:12 AM
Brenkin,
Let's get technical errors out of the way. We quit capping the start of every line in the 1950's because we learned that doing so is confusing to the reader and besides that it is purely affectation, as there is no sensible reason to do so. I suspect it had to do with printing, and so how capping the start of every line made it easier on the type setter. Regardless, there is no reason to do so today.
"How would you go about fixing the punctuation?" As there is none to fix, because there is none, I would suggest using punctuation. You know periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, and so forth, that is when the situation calls for such according to the general usage rules of punctuation.
Punctuation is always a valuable thing as it makes what you are saying more clear. It was stupid enough when Cummings didn't use it, but at the beginning I suppose there was some rationale (breaking conventions, swallowing the ego, etc.). I suspect that he reached a certain point that continuing to not use punctuation was not appropriate for what he was writing, but he continued to do so because it is what he was known for and he knew a good deal when he saw it. However in today's world and not the former new Bohemian one, unless someone has an exceptional rationale for abandoning punctuation, then it is probably best to use it along with all the other standard writing conventions. Making it look like poetry is not a sufficient rationale, although it is true that many people do not understand this distinction.
OK, on the the poem. The form seems a mixture of accentual verse and iambic that is trying approximate the metrical distinction found in ballad meter or common meter, without the rhyme. The accentual lines seem to be trying to mimic a 4 foot line (even though there are generally not four distinct feet), with the iambic line there are only 3 feet per line, or iambic trimeter. I suspect the writer wrote this more or less by ear and without knowledge of the one line of iambic tetrameter followed by one line of iambic trimeter as is in ballad meter or common meter. It is quite reasonable that a person with a decent awareness to recognize metrical patterns would be able to imitate these simple metrical forms and although not be completely correct in their imitation because they lack the necessary knowledge of metrical patterns.
There are two usages that seem to stand out in a negative way, and are disruptive to the poem. The first is in the line:
"And visualize your visage"
Although "visage" is a synonym for "face", it is connotatively different to the extent that it is often associated with a stern, chiseled, noble or masculine face, and seems rarely applied to a woman unless she is nobility and being describe with masculine characteristics.
The second usage is in the following passage:
"Your touch it still remains"
The use of "it" is an archaic usage and does not fit well with the rest of the poem as there are no other occurrences of the same type of figure of speech, nor is the poem set in the age where talking this way might make sense. It is like using a "thee" or a "thou" one time in a poem that is talking about rappers. There is nothing technically wrong with it, it is simply out of place and thus disruptive to the poem.
Over all this poem is a little less trite than most love poems, but it still remains in that category.
As this is "Novice Poet and Critic" I shall stop here.
Dale
Let's get technical errors out of the way. We quit capping the start of every line in the 1950's because we learned that doing so is confusing to the reader and besides that it is purely affectation, as there is no sensible reason to do so. I suspect it had to do with printing, and so how capping the start of every line made it easier on the type setter. Regardless, there is no reason to do so today.
"How would you go about fixing the punctuation?" As there is none to fix, because there is none, I would suggest using punctuation. You know periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, and so forth, that is when the situation calls for such according to the general usage rules of punctuation.
Punctuation is always a valuable thing as it makes what you are saying more clear. It was stupid enough when Cummings didn't use it, but at the beginning I suppose there was some rationale (breaking conventions, swallowing the ego, etc.). I suspect that he reached a certain point that continuing to not use punctuation was not appropriate for what he was writing, but he continued to do so because it is what he was known for and he knew a good deal when he saw it. However in today's world and not the former new Bohemian one, unless someone has an exceptional rationale for abandoning punctuation, then it is probably best to use it along with all the other standard writing conventions. Making it look like poetry is not a sufficient rationale, although it is true that many people do not understand this distinction.
OK, on the the poem. The form seems a mixture of accentual verse and iambic that is trying approximate the metrical distinction found in ballad meter or common meter, without the rhyme. The accentual lines seem to be trying to mimic a 4 foot line (even though there are generally not four distinct feet), with the iambic line there are only 3 feet per line, or iambic trimeter. I suspect the writer wrote this more or less by ear and without knowledge of the one line of iambic tetrameter followed by one line of iambic trimeter as is in ballad meter or common meter. It is quite reasonable that a person with a decent awareness to recognize metrical patterns would be able to imitate these simple metrical forms and although not be completely correct in their imitation because they lack the necessary knowledge of metrical patterns.
There are two usages that seem to stand out in a negative way, and are disruptive to the poem. The first is in the line:
"And visualize your visage"
Although "visage" is a synonym for "face", it is connotatively different to the extent that it is often associated with a stern, chiseled, noble or masculine face, and seems rarely applied to a woman unless she is nobility and being describe with masculine characteristics.
The second usage is in the following passage:
"Your touch it still remains"
The use of "it" is an archaic usage and does not fit well with the rest of the poem as there are no other occurrences of the same type of figure of speech, nor is the poem set in the age where talking this way might make sense. It is like using a "thee" or a "thou" one time in a poem that is talking about rappers. There is nothing technically wrong with it, it is simply out of place and thus disruptive to the poem.
Over all this poem is a little less trite than most love poems, but it still remains in that category.
As this is "Novice Poet and Critic" I shall stop here.
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.