3 hours ago
I think you have a worthy subject and I honor the project's impulse. Unfortunately I am not convinced that this approach to the subject can achieve much.
This is a didactic poem, and personally I am generally a huge sourpuss about didactic poetry. So from a standpoint of aesthetic taste, I am kind of a hostile witness here. OK, grains salis disclaimer provided. Let's dive in.
The first stanza pretty much loses me immediately. "They said real men don't cry" announces a lot about the poem's intentions, and the announcement for me is a big turn-off. I feel immediately that I know everything that is about to happen, and the poem does not significantly subvert those expectations. So I find myself dissatisfied with the experience, as the most important thing for me in poetry is a sense of surprise. This poem did not surprise me once.
Poem presents as a litany of Vietnam war cliches. These cliches are presented straight-up, fully earnest, and not complicated or recontextualized to any appreciable degree. "Dulce Et Decorum Est" already exists, and does more or less exactly what this poem aims to do. You're running into some real giants of the canon, and this creates a significant obligation on the part of your poem to make a new contribution to the discourse. Instead what we get is a series of familiar images, rendered in familiar language, with familiar sentiments attached to them.
I would ask, why do we need this poem? We already know most of the sentiments it expresses. They aren't being expressed in a particularly new or subversive way. What does this poem offer us beyond, essentially, "Let's honor the hell that Vietnam vets went through, with which I trust we are all familiar?" At present, I'm afraid the answer is "not much."
"Men are told not to cry, but they still suffer on the inside" has not been a particularly striking cultural insight for at least 20-30 years now. But it feels like the poem thinks it is. To me, that is unmotivating.
I think you need a more ambitious project here than just "let's describe that war is bad and hurts the people involved." There's a kind of naievete to the poem that doesn't feel appropriate. The use of rhyme and singsong meter only amplifies this effect. Poem is not quite doggerel but ends up feeling doggerel-adjacent. Honestly my main advice would be don't try to write poetry like this.
This is a didactic poem, and personally I am generally a huge sourpuss about didactic poetry. So from a standpoint of aesthetic taste, I am kind of a hostile witness here. OK, grains salis disclaimer provided. Let's dive in.
The first stanza pretty much loses me immediately. "They said real men don't cry" announces a lot about the poem's intentions, and the announcement for me is a big turn-off. I feel immediately that I know everything that is about to happen, and the poem does not significantly subvert those expectations. So I find myself dissatisfied with the experience, as the most important thing for me in poetry is a sense of surprise. This poem did not surprise me once.
Poem presents as a litany of Vietnam war cliches. These cliches are presented straight-up, fully earnest, and not complicated or recontextualized to any appreciable degree. "Dulce Et Decorum Est" already exists, and does more or less exactly what this poem aims to do. You're running into some real giants of the canon, and this creates a significant obligation on the part of your poem to make a new contribution to the discourse. Instead what we get is a series of familiar images, rendered in familiar language, with familiar sentiments attached to them.
I would ask, why do we need this poem? We already know most of the sentiments it expresses. They aren't being expressed in a particularly new or subversive way. What does this poem offer us beyond, essentially, "Let's honor the hell that Vietnam vets went through, with which I trust we are all familiar?" At present, I'm afraid the answer is "not much."
"Men are told not to cry, but they still suffer on the inside" has not been a particularly striking cultural insight for at least 20-30 years now. But it feels like the poem thinks it is. To me, that is unmotivating.
I think you need a more ambitious project here than just "let's describe that war is bad and hurts the people involved." There's a kind of naievete to the poem that doesn't feel appropriate. The use of rhyme and singsong meter only amplifies this effect. Poem is not quite doggerel but ends up feeling doggerel-adjacent. Honestly my main advice would be don't try to write poetry like this.