05-22-2016, 02:00 AM
Ascheuler and Achebe, thank you for your feedback.
I've had this poem critiqued by a few people before, and one of the reasons I posted it here was to see if people would fully understand it (I don't usually hide my meaning away, but this one is slightly obscure). I'm hoping that more people will add comments, so I won't respond to what you said now -- except to say that there is no fragment in the third stanza, but there is an inversion of subject and verb.
Regarding "tiger", I agree it is too much of a cliche. Sometimes a cliche'd word becomes embedded in the language so thoroughly that it becomes a proper word in its own right, but that hasn't happened in this case. I've settled on "tom".
I've had this poem critiqued by a few people before, and one of the reasons I posted it here was to see if people would fully understand it (I don't usually hide my meaning away, but this one is slightly obscure). I'm hoping that more people will add comments, so I won't respond to what you said now -- except to say that there is no fragment in the third stanza, but there is an inversion of subject and verb.
Regarding "tiger", I agree it is too much of a cliche. Sometimes a cliche'd word becomes embedded in the language so thoroughly that it becomes a proper word in its own right, but that hasn't happened in this case. I've settled on "tom".