Time (moved from Mild to Fun)

[Uncle Tony]

There's not much meat in the poem for the critic to digest and feed back. Suggest you employ a formal structure with a defined meter and rhyme scheme and repost it for more meaningful crit.

The poem was not meant to be "meaty," rather it was a short rhyme, whimsically written - not intended to take the reader to a "deep place," but simply to make him/her if not laugh out loud, at least smile.  No formal structure, schemes, or defined meters required when the desired response is no more than a grin. 

You posted it in 'Mild Critique', which implies that you're asking for feedback. The feedback that I'm giving you is that there's nothing to give feedback on. If your defence is that your poem isn't actually worth critiquing (I don't think it's worth reading as it stands, actually), then perhaps you should post it in a different forum.

No, my "defence" is not that my poem isn't actually worth critiquing.  Not sure where you came up with that because I wasn't "defending" my poem at all.  Again, I was offering clarification as to the poem's intent.  Imagine, if you will, Jim Carrey made a movie - Dumb and Dumber - doesn't matter.  Gene Shalit writes his critique complaining that "the plot didn't ring true."  I think you and I can both agree, that such a critique would not be useful to Jim (or moviegoers) because obviously Dumb and Dumber didn't concern itself with a realistic plot.  I posted here, for useful feedback.  If humor was lost on readers, fine, perhaps that's on me.  But feedback like "lacks meat," offers me nothing when in fact the poem was not intended to offer anything of substance at all.

btw, love the "I don't think it's worth reading as it stands" in parens.  good constructive feedback there!

---

This poem is not something I would normally read twice. It is currently clunky and needs a severe editing pass for meter, structure and control. As for the humour, it is a rather tired image and pretty predictable at that so I don't think it holds up.

"meter, structure and control," how could one smile without?

---

There's not much meat in the poem for the critic to digest and feed back. Suggest you employ a formal structure with a defined meter and rhyme scheme and repost it for more meaningful crit.

The poem was not meant to be "meaty," rather it was a short rhyme, whimsically written - not intended to take the reader to a "deep place," but simply to make him/her if not laugh out loud, at least smile.  No formal structure, schemes, or defined meters required when the desired response is no more than a grin. 

---

Deep or not, you chose to post it in a workshop asking for critique, that's what you got.

Because Mr. Clock is singular them or 'em seems off, unless you're throwing rocks at some inferred plural.

Yes, that's what I got; however, in reading the critique it was quite evident that the critic took my submission literally, when it was intended to be lighthearted. Thus my reply was merely offering clarification. Surely, there's nothing in the rules which would prohibit one from replying to a critique with a clarification, now is there?  

Well, actually, I have no control of how my poem is read once it's out in the world and I am not there to clarify anything that is not clear in the poem. The great gift of this site is to hear how readers take the piece, if they're giggling at what I meant seriously or not laughing at my joke I figure it's time to edit. If you'd rather not we can move this to the Fun Forum for you.

Is there such a thing?  If so, Fun Forum seems more apropos.