09-05-2015, 07:09 AM
(05-06-2014, 11:59 AM)ellajam Wrote: I understand Loretta's reluctance to give up her reversed syntax.Ha, on rereading this thread in response to Quix's question I found this post. Milo recently urged me to take another look at that poem and after my time spent here I was indeed able to improve it and make it work without the inversions. It's pretty much agreed that it's a smoother read now. Go know.
Here is one of mine where I loved the sound of those lines that folded in on themselves. My attempt to straighten out the syntax resulted in a lifeless blob. A better poet may have pulled it off, but I guess a better poet wouldn't have written the original. Still, it became worse, not better.
I've been learning IP lately and trying to keep a natural speech pattern. It's fun and interesting, but poetically I think it's the step backwards that hopefully will lead to two forward.
I agree with billy that it's important to recognize inversion in my work and if I want to use it i need to control it to the poem's advantage.
billy wrote:welcome to the site. make it your own, wear it like a well loved slipper and wear it out. ella pleads:please click forum titles for posting guidelines, important threads. New poet? Try Poetic DevicesandWard's Tips