Wafting

[Wjames]

What I'm putting forth is just for you to understand my intentions, not to debunk nor disacknowledge anything offered.

I am probably one of the more unconventional people to writing this, and I'm sure there are many rules broken. That said, it was probably why it took me a long time to post something here, psyching myself to submit it. I was hesitant, as I only write abstractly, and have had trouble in the past with people deciphering what I want to say. My intention with the work is for the reader to project themselves into it, populate the work, and not see what the author interprets for them. I guess you can say that's my take on what poetry should be, something you digest and interpret like art, not something described to you artfully. No pun intended.

As for the title, I've never liked titles. Could never think of one that suits or satisfies me. Has been for as long as I've been writing. The poems come to me, the titles don't. Wafting, just happens to be the one that the word processor auto-fills from the first word in the poem. As is true for every other poem I've ever done. So, I'm sorry you were confused. The post required a title, so I just put in my default title as well.

My abnormal way of writing has held me back a bit, I guess. Reception has been mixed about it. At the same time, I probably won't ever change my style. I'm glad you took your time to try and understand what I wrote, a few just tell me it sounds pretty. I was hesitant to submit something as nonconformist as this, but all in all, I wanted to see how something this different would survive here with my bias.

Poetry has no rules (unless you're writing in certain metrical forms), and I certainly understand your desire for the reader to project themselves into your poetry and find their own meaning - I don't think that's unconventional at all.

A great quote, by Elliott Smith, my favourite song writer, is (I'm paraphrasing): "If you take a picture of New York, one person who looks at it might think it's dark, frightening, depressing. Another person who looks at the same picture might think about all the fun things you can do in New York. I think songs are kind of like that." In my eyes, the same is true of poetry (and, in your eyes, as you say).

However, with your poem, there's not much to activate my senses to allow me to apply my own emotion or meaning. i.e the first stanza:

Wafting slowly, falling tightly,          
the drops glide on the perfect sky.   What is wafting slowly & falling tightly? Drops of what glide on the perfect sky?
Their silence talks of darker days,     Whose silence?
ugly mornings, a star, an eye. 

There isn't much to taste, touch, smell, see, or hear - activating the senses is, in my eyes, the key to poetry (there are other things that can add to poetry, though - sonics, word play, etc). The smell of fresh cut grass makes me think of high school gym class outside, and makes me smile. It might make someone else feel entirely differently - potentially for the same reason (i.e it might remind them of a high school gym class they hated). It's the same as the picture of New York idea. 

The poem doesn't make me use my senses enough to get me to feel strongly about it. That being said, I've read a lot worse poems than this this one. Of course, art is subjective as well, and just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's bad. Sorry if this is too harsh as well, I know this is in miscellaneous - I just felt compelled to respond to your post. 

Welcome to the site!