04-28-2015, 11:46 PM
I would think the title "Impressions" is one of the most generic titles there is. It can be applied to almost anything, yet tell us nothing about a piece. Are these impressions? Of course, but they are also writings. Would the writer also use the title "writings"? Roman numerals. Unless the poem is long enough that the reader will get lost as to where he is in the reading, there is really no need for such a division, anymore than a short story needs chapters. Any other use is just affectation, but especially as we are dealing with only five sentences: in light of that it is simply absurd.
[Impressions]
I
A melody implied
by the rustling of leaves:
the hem of your dress
sweeps across the forest floor.
I do like the image here, but I must agree with Tom (tectak), it is an image in isolation. So no matter how beautiful it might be, there is no way for the reader to connect to it emotionally at this point, and thus no reason to care, so the response is, "Oh, that's nice." The reader must be able to have some kind of investment in the character and as the character is barely acknowledged here, that is impossible.
II
No, we'll walk with the mist
at our backs. I don't trust you
not to disappear.
Still no connection. We have simply moved from the unknown "you" (her), to the unknown "we" (Narr. and her). For the reader to care about what is happening (distrust, fear of loss), the reader must first care about the narrator (as he has become the primary actor at this point), but the reader knows nothing about him, or his love (assumed) interest.
III
In that cool, pulsating darkness,
every random passerby
bears your face.
But your eyes are yours alone.
And once again, there is little to connect to. Only if I were able to be the narrator could I form a emotional connection. To use an analogy, it is like a scientist detailing the characteristics of a butterfly. Everything describe is factual to a fault, yet those things that humans are most concerned with wonder, awe, and beauty are not covered because they cannot be broken down into their constituent parts, and so as Wordsworth said, you have "murder(ed) to dissect". One of your reviewers (Anne I think) said you had the bare bones. Not to be argumentative, but to look at it from a different perspective, I would say what you have is the embellishment and it is the bare-bones you lack. Give me the context to place these events in so that I care.
Of course this is a difficult endeavor as love poetry along with religious poetry is the most difficult poetry to write. Generally I recommend that if a person has not been actively writing poetry for 5 to 10 years they should not even attempt to write love poetry (of course I expect to be ignored and thus another ill conceived drop in the ocean of bad love poetry is dump on us all). Of course any poet worth the title knows never to attempt love poetry when in love, unless he just likes being humiliated. Then there is the 125 words to never use in love poetry: love, heart, ache... you get the picture.
Anyway, good luck on the re-write look forward to seeing it (it is a part of the condition of posting in this forum you know
).
Dale
[Impressions]
I
A melody implied
by the rustling of leaves:
the hem of your dress
sweeps across the forest floor.
I do like the image here, but I must agree with Tom (tectak), it is an image in isolation. So no matter how beautiful it might be, there is no way for the reader to connect to it emotionally at this point, and thus no reason to care, so the response is, "Oh, that's nice." The reader must be able to have some kind of investment in the character and as the character is barely acknowledged here, that is impossible.
II
No, we'll walk with the mist
at our backs. I don't trust you
not to disappear.
Still no connection. We have simply moved from the unknown "you" (her), to the unknown "we" (Narr. and her). For the reader to care about what is happening (distrust, fear of loss), the reader must first care about the narrator (as he has become the primary actor at this point), but the reader knows nothing about him, or his love (assumed) interest.
III
In that cool, pulsating darkness,
every random passerby
bears your face.
But your eyes are yours alone.
And once again, there is little to connect to. Only if I were able to be the narrator could I form a emotional connection. To use an analogy, it is like a scientist detailing the characteristics of a butterfly. Everything describe is factual to a fault, yet those things that humans are most concerned with wonder, awe, and beauty are not covered because they cannot be broken down into their constituent parts, and so as Wordsworth said, you have "murder(ed) to dissect". One of your reviewers (Anne I think) said you had the bare bones. Not to be argumentative, but to look at it from a different perspective, I would say what you have is the embellishment and it is the bare-bones you lack. Give me the context to place these events in so that I care.
Of course this is a difficult endeavor as love poetry along with religious poetry is the most difficult poetry to write. Generally I recommend that if a person has not been actively writing poetry for 5 to 10 years they should not even attempt to write love poetry (of course I expect to be ignored and thus another ill conceived drop in the ocean of bad love poetry is dump on us all). Of course any poet worth the title knows never to attempt love poetry when in love, unless he just likes being humiliated. Then there is the 125 words to never use in love poetry: love, heart, ache... you get the picture.
Anyway, good luck on the re-write look forward to seeing it (it is a part of the condition of posting in this forum you know
). 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.