4th Edit - Silicon Valley Palettes

[amaril]

I'll be focusing more on image and meaning than on meter in this critique.  Anyways:

Silicon Valley Palettes
 
A cloud-wisped sky of celestial-to-tiffany,
thistle and foothills of sienna-to-coyote,
the shimmering Bay of viridian-to-sea,
            surround a grassy myrtle-to-moss isle,
            brimming with a colony of aquatic pelicans−
            each one achromatic white:
            indistinct, impartial, colorless,
            as pulsing stars, sunlight, clear night.

This poem's biggest problem is that it is not concise.  By that I mean that there are a lot of synonyms used in proximity, and a number of words or lines that take up space (and perhaps fulfill a rhythmic function) without substantially developing the imagery.  What does "of celestial-to-tiffany" add to "a cloud-wisped sky?"  Does "viridian-to-sea" enhance the image of "a shimmering bay?"  I feel like this poem is trying too hard to fulfill the expectation set up by its title--most of the descriptions are descriptions of color, rather than specific images drawn from these places.  The first four lines are the poetic equivalent of painting a landscape based on a Google Earth screenshot.

The pelicans offer a nice contrast to the preceding lines, and to me they are the 'reallest' image in the poem.  However, the subsequent descriptions of the birds are repetitive.  "Achromatic" "white" "indistinct" "impartial" and "colorless" all mean the exact same thing in this context, and while that does feel intentional it is not the sort of decision that gives the image depth or a sense of reality.  A reader is not rewarded for rereading this or closely examining the choice of words.  The final line makes no sense at all, and even if it did it would not add anything interesting to the image it applies to.

Giant swirly l@llipops,
clownish cruiser bicycles,
M&M-top umbrellas−
blue, green, red, yellow−
bound glaringly off squat
specular architecture over a
sprawling synthetic archipelago,
raining warm rainbows on
kaleidoscopic kids−each one a
fractal of chromatic intensity:
singular, contrastive, vivid,
as a perspective, desire, fantasy.

This version is better than the version above because the typographic experimentation does not contribute anything to the depth of the poem.  Like the repeated 'white-words' of the previous stanza it serves to reinforce an idea by repeating it, rather than substantiating upon it.  I dislike the @ for the same reason.  In both of the stanzas there is an issue with perspective, and that is very apparent here.  "Giant swirly l@llipops,/ clownish cruiser bicycles" are both strong images, and they place the speaker at street-level, possibly looking through a window at the lollipops.  However, "M&M top umbrellas" and "squat/ specular architecture over a/ sprawling synthetic archipelago" suggest that the speaker has a bird's-eye view of the scene.  Again, this seems like it might be intentional, but it is too detached (not in the basho way) from experience/observation to be emotionally resonant.

This stanza also has an issue with redundant word choice, this time in the form of words which mean 'colorful.'  These words are particularly jarring because they are unrealistic.  Light passing through colored fabric does not create such vivid color, and I have a tough time imagining such striking reflections as are described, even in windows and on the rain-drenched street.  I guess the 'point' of the poem is to contrast the imaginative minds of children with the bleak and repetitive pelicans, who perhaps represent adulthood or society?  Regardless, I think that the 'kids are rainbows' image is drawn from cliche more than observation.

In hindsight, this critique is harsh, but I think I would otherwise be doing this poem a disservice.