07-28-2016, 02:32 AM
I think my earlier feeling on this being better as a general critique was a little unfair -- certainly, a poem on that topic would be great, but this alone is already good, and on this new reading (not the new edition, which I think on this point remained the same) I no longer had any doubts as to what the poem referred to. But yes, photoshopped. Other points:
The that of the earlier crit, I'm still somewhat missing, but that's just me. Rhythmically, I realize it's much floatier without.
Again, that third stanza: Exactly! And I'm in the camp of keeping the repeated sides, as it enhances the feeling that, hey, this Jesus person, maybe he has two sides.....kind of like the first, "clean" side is the side of the picture, and the second is, well, plain ugly.
Still not too sure about the punctuation of the fifth (the "emphasis" on Mel Gibson is only a detraction to me), but my unease regarding the modernity of "Mel Gibson blue" has been swayed. Lovely choice.
Swayed too, on that seemingly unnecessary space -- I think I mischaracterized the speaker on that earlier read. Plus, it does make the eyes move as if it were moving up, which is a bonus.
But those last two line-by-lines still stand. The "show, show, show" thing is still too ugh, and the last comma is still unnecessary (in fact, I think the added fluidity in losing that comma enhances the ending's punch, as it's begun properly on "Maybe").
And as a general point, I wonder how that first crit would have been influenced if I was intro'd to the head immediately, rather than having to remember it and all that....That is, I wonder how posting the Head itself before even the title would influence things.
Thanks for the read, the response, the second read!
The that of the earlier crit, I'm still somewhat missing, but that's just me. Rhythmically, I realize it's much floatier without.
Again, that third stanza: Exactly! And I'm in the camp of keeping the repeated sides, as it enhances the feeling that, hey, this Jesus person, maybe he has two sides.....kind of like the first, "clean" side is the side of the picture, and the second is, well, plain ugly.
Still not too sure about the punctuation of the fifth (the "emphasis" on Mel Gibson is only a detraction to me), but my unease regarding the modernity of "Mel Gibson blue" has been swayed. Lovely choice.
Swayed too, on that seemingly unnecessary space -- I think I mischaracterized the speaker on that earlier read. Plus, it does make the eyes move as if it were moving up, which is a bonus.
But those last two line-by-lines still stand. The "show, show, show" thing is still too ugh, and the last comma is still unnecessary (in fact, I think the added fluidity in losing that comma enhances the ending's punch, as it's begun properly on "Maybe").
And as a general point, I wonder how that first crit would have been influenced if I was intro'd to the head immediately, rather than having to remember it and all that....That is, I wonder how posting the Head itself before even the title would influence things.
Thanks for the read, the response, the second read!