Spaceopath

[dontwantusername]

The strangest meloncholy of space.
thy flickering soul, lighting my face.
Divinely warm, and chosen to be
describes only coldness, in a wind I can't see.
insanity, shuffled my spirit -
and for the wrong reasons I was lit.
mercy, the realization of it,
the sharpness of dark,
and the ubiquity of light.
Both of those fit.

When exhuming truth is an undergrowth of transfer,
Apathy is a warming and deceiving spur.
When mental exhaustion, is a hell left to wither,
A flower does not know how to shiver.

[rowens]

Are all those mistakes part of the poem?

Maybe the lines are shuffled, and there are more.

[dontwantusername]

Hi, thanks for the comment.
Well the poem isn't a commentary on poetry writing, so I guess the answer to the question you asked is: no.
However, I did feel that it worked.

I think it's interesting how my intuition led me to writing the lines:
"the sharpness of dark,
and the ubiquity of light.
Both of those fit."

I can imagine actually that those lines might be out of place. But I can't see it with the rest of the poem, unless you're referring to the last verse. Yeah, it is actually different to the rest of the poem.

Thanks again.

[TomeWalker]

The strangest meloncholy of space.
thy flickering soul, lighting my face.
Divinely warm, and chosen to be
describes only coldness, in a wind I can't see.
insanity, shuffled my spirit -
and for the wrong reasons I was lit.
mercy, the realization of it,
the sharpness of dark,
and the ubiquity of light.
Both of those fit.

When exhuming truth is an undergrowth of transfer,
Apathy is a warming and deceiving spur.
When mental exhaustion, is a hell left to wither,
A flower does not know how to shiver.

What's with all the abstracts like insanity, dark/light, divinity, mercy, apathy, and truth? You should be giving us more imagery instead of these meaningless words. Readers think in images, not nonexistent concepts.

Also, it's either very incoherent or I don't understand anything about this poem. Example:
"When mental exhaustion is a hell left to wither. (fragment) A flower does not know how to shiver. (senseless, even if it was attached to the previous lines)". If you can explain the poem, please do. I'd be happy to listen.

[dontwantusername]

Hey, I am surprised by your response! I actually didn't expect that. Thanks!
I never considered that those concepts were too abstract. Of course.. a concept being too abstract.. isn't really a concept, because there's no exclusivity to how abstract a concept can be, unless of course the individual then wants to understand it. Which is interesting because actually, the concepts are instantly abstract on a level with most people, in that most people are familiar with those words, which leaves the problem being that I didn't associate the proper imagery with the concepts?

However, I was hoping that the poem would stir up feelings of remoteness, isolation, and the feeling that sometimes there are some unusual revelations in simple connections found by grasping in different spaces, some trustworthy, some not.

What I think I did with the two lines, that you have described as senseless, is I have connected the two. It is said that good poets try and confuse the readers by removing words, changing words around, etc (poetry must be choosy) and so I redefined (or I feel I created the definition) of a connection between a flower, the wind, the cold, the distance to a certain point of understanding, the exhaustion of the mind and how one thing seems to join the other in quick succession.

The very odd thing about this, is that you've helped me explain some aspects of this poem, and what it means to me. I create poems for myself, because they're introspective. I often find that there are psychologists who might be interested in this kind of thing, which leads me to the question: is it only a matter of interest? Do we write poems for poets, or for anyone? I mean, talking of nonexistence - things that are 'relevant' to one professional, are not relevant to another. So can we assume that there are perfect concepts or descriptions that everyone can understand?.. yet, the goal of poetry is, from what people have said, to show, not to tell.

Interesting thoughts, thanks for helping me out.
I am concerned that this poem is becoming a poem that provokes questions about poetry though. haha, oh dear.
Oh well.

I also look forward to hearing from Rowens again, too.

By the way, are you sure it's a fragment -- because there's a comma at the end of the line ??

Finally, I was thinking possibly that the style this could be spoken in, would be like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ciZcb9Tc4

[milo]

Hey, I am surprised by your response! I actually didn't expect that. Thanks!
I never considered that those concepts were too abstract. Of course.. a concept being too abstract.. isn't really a concept, because there's no exclusivity to how abstract a concept can be, unless of course the individual then wants to understand it. Which is interesting because actually, the concepts are instantly abstract on a level with most people, in that most people are familiar with those words, which leaves the problem being that I didn't associate the proper imagery with the concepts?

However, I was hoping that the poem would stir up feelings of remoteness, isolation, and the feeling that sometimes there are some unusual revelations in simple connections found by grasping in different spaces, some trustworthy, some not.

What I think I did with the two lines, that you have described as senseless, is I have connected the two. It is said that good poets try and confuse the readers by removing words, changing words around, etc (poetry must be choosy) and so I redefined (or I feel I created the definition) of a connection between a flower, the wind, the cold, the distance to a certain point of understanding, the exhaustion of the mind and how one thing seems to join the other in quick succession.

The very odd thing about this, is that you've helped me explain some aspects of this poem, and what it means to me. I create poems for myself, because they're introspective. I often find that there are psychologists who might be interested in this kind of thing, which leads me to the question: is it only a matter of interest? Do we write poems for poets, or for anyone? I mean, talking of nonexistence - things that are 'relevant' to one professional, are not relevant to another. So can we assume that there are perfect concepts or descriptions that everyone can understand?.. yet, the goal of poetry is, from what people have said, to show, not to tell.

Interesting thoughts, thanks for helping me out.
I am concerned that this poem is becoming a poem that provokes questions about poetry though. haha, oh dear.
Oh well.

I also look forward to hearing from Rowens again, too.

By the way, are you sure it's a fragment -- because there's a comma at the end of the line ??

Finally, I was thinking possibly that the style this could be spoken in, would be like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ciZcb9Tc4

You seem to be confused about the term "abstract". Things are never /too/ abstract in English, they are either abstract or concrete. Look to your nouns - can you touch them, taste them, see them? These are concrete nouns and they are the building blocks of good poems. If your nouns are conceptual (space, soul, spirit, realisation, etc) then they are abstract and there is a good chance your poem sucks.

Hope that helps.

[tectak]

Hey, I am surprised by your response! I actually didn't expect that. Thanks!
I never considered that those concepts were too abstract. Of course.. a concept being too abstract.. isn't really a concept, because there's no exclusivity to how abstract a concept can be, unless of course the individual then wants to understand it. Which is interesting because actually, the concepts are instantly abstract on a level with most people, in that most people are familiar with those words, which leaves the problem being that I didn't associate the proper imagery with the concepts?

However, I was hoping that the poem would stir up feelings of remoteness, isolation, and the feeling that sometimes there are some unusual revelations in simple connections found by grasping in different spaces, some trustworthy, some not.

What I think I did with the two lines, that you have described as senseless, is I have connected the two. It is said that good poets try and confuse the readers by removing words, changing words around, etc (poetry must be choosy) and so I redefined (or I feel I created the definition) of a connection between a flower, the wind, the cold, the distance to a certain point of understanding, the exhaustion of the mind and how one thing seems to join the other in quick succession.

The very odd thing about this, is that you've helped me explain some aspects of this poem, and what it means to me. I create poems for myself, because they're introspective. I often find that there are psychologists who might be interested in this kind of thing, which leads me to the question: is it only a matter of interest? Do we write poems for poets, or for anyone? I mean, talking of nonexistence - things that are 'relevant' to one professional, are not relevant to another. So can we assume that there are perfect concepts or descriptions that everyone can understand?.. yet, the goal of poetry is, from what people have said, to show, not to tell.

Interesting thoughts, thanks for helping me out.
I am concerned that this poem is becoming a poem that provokes questions about poetry though. haha, oh dear.
Oh well.

I also look forward to hearing from Rowens again, too.

By the way, are you sure it's a fragment -- because there's a comma at the end of the line ??

Finally, I was thinking possibly that the style this could be spoken in, would be like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ciZcb9Tc4

Holy shit...you really talk like this? This is the first response to crit I have read that is more confusing than the piece posted. Congratulations.
The conceptual normalities of fragmented concepts predisposes me to isolate the factualities from the actualities in order to reach some compromise with the fundamental ethos inherent in the sub-text of the piece; particularly indicative of the validity of this approach is the idea of grasping in different spaces. I myself do it all the time and have not yet been arrested. Sheeeeesh!
Best,
tectak
Straighten up and fly right.

[Erthona]

Abstract does not mean unintelligible.

"an undergrowth of transfer"

You got to be kidding, right?
-------------------------------------------
"Divinely warm, and chosen to be
describes only coldness, in a wind I can't see."

Pure gibberish held together by a rhyme. You realize there is no subject in this sentence...don't you? Question, what wind can you see?
---------------------------------------------
"It is said that good poets try and confuse the readers by removing words, changing words around, etc"

Good poets do not try and confuse the reader, they try and make clear that which is difficult. Poetry is not a trick to be playe. Poetry lies in inspiration not manipulation.

Dale

[rowens]

If you want to have a discussion on the schizosystematic operations in poetry and the magical reconfiguration of the mindscape, you can start a discussion in one of the discussion sections.

There, everything can be taken into consideration, the misspelling in your first line and your use of punctuation.

I'm interested in exploding the Concept. Concepts in general, I mean. So there is a high risk for this dirty abstract business that no one likes.