Contend You Not

[Erthona]

Jeremy,

Yes, but that is one of my problems, I write accentual verse very easily. I like to try and keep my chops up on the major forms (even if I don't like them) just to strengthen my skills. I usually don't have quite this much trouble with a sonnet. It is in iambic pentameter, but a number of the phrases are awkward and/or confusing. It is also lacking in clarity. I could easily drop it into accentual verse, but that would defeat the purpose of the exercise. I could take the easy way out, but that would nor help me improve. Thanks again for your input, keep it coming, I have a thick skin, it does not bother me if you re-write the whole thing, sometimes that is the easiest way to make a point.

Thanks again,

Dale

[heslopian]

.

Contend you not then with the untrained mind, Bilbo refers to this kind of syntax as "Yoda-speak", and it's a handy metaphor, especially in this case. Having read the poem I can only suggest a complete overhaul of each line. There's meaning and beauty buried within it, but it's totally smothered by the style. Or, rather, the needless density and lack of imagery.
For instance, this first line could be simplified thus: "Do not contend with untrained minds and hearts". (I threw in "and hearts" to round out the meter, but you see what I mean, hopefully.)
Conspire it will the scalpel to evade, "It will evade any scalpel or blade"? Again, merely a suggestion. Please don't think that I'm suggesting these alternatives because I think they're perfect; I'm just trying to re-order the syntax while keeping the general idea.
It flees on fearful legs its thoughts to blind, Seeking to blind its thoughts it runs away"
Some semblance of false pride that it may save."Hoping to save some fragments of its pride"
Contend you not with those too eas’ly hurt, "Do not contend with those too quickly bruised"
Anemone, are they who thus do live,
Feelers at will, recall, when to its work,
Your reply, it has nothing there to give. I won't try to re-arrange these lines because I don't really know what they mean.
Contend not with those beyond all assail,
With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,
Your "You're" not invited to their carnival,
No worth "Not worthy"? to lean against the gate and bide.
The coin of proverbs can’t be give’ "gave" might fit better than an abbreviation. or spent,
Those who desire wisdom only to rent. "Those wishing to rent, not buy, your wisdom"? I might have bungled the meaning a bit there...

—Erthona

My meter's out of goose and the wording's not world-class, but I thought I'd re-order your lines simply to give you an idea of how they might be edited. I hope it worked Critique is JMHO. Thank you for the read

[Erthona]

Thanks for the critique.


"Your "You're" not invited to their carnival," Typo there, thanks for catching it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of what you say is accurate, "Yoda-speak" for sure. BTW, I think I was using that a long time before Bilbo Evidently weak minds think alike.

In rearranging the lines you have run into the same problems I have been having, while some make it more clear, it blows the rhyme out of the water. Nearly all of your suggestions make the meaning more clear, but most change the end word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to run this line by you, which you mentioned and give an explanation, so you can tell me if it does not carry the meaning I meant.

Your edit was "Not worthy"? to lean against the gate and bide."

Original was: "No worth to lean against the gate and bide."

My intent was to say that it is not worth ones time to stay waiting at the gate, because:

"You're" not invited to their carnival,"
and so of course no matter how long one waits, he will not be invited in.

This is a metaphor for someone who has a defense against any argument, no matter how rationale, or logical. Here is an example:

I ask the person why he got a DWI. His response is, "He had pulled through a burger place and got a burger, but as he was trying to eat it, it was so hot he wobbled in his lane, and the cop pulled him over because of this and gave him a DWI." When I suggest that the reason he got a DWI was because he was driving while intoxicated, he refutes that by continuing to say, if the burger was not too hot, he would not have wobbled the car, and the cop would not have given him a DWI. And regardless of how one approaches the question he always has an answer that does not involve being intoxicated while driving. Thus:

"Contend not with those beyond all assail,
With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,"

Let me know if that makes any sense to you, or if it still reads like a garbled mess. Of course if I have to explain it, it is obviously unclear, but that I already knew

Thanks for your time,

Dale

[jeremyyoung]

Erthona

I had to google what accentual meant, as I only know accents and dialects.

Anywho...

A friend of mine, a poet, who has a very broad Yorkshire accent, once told me "I have to say Four-wuk, to make it rhyme with Pour-wuk"

When I stopped laughing, I pointed out that fork rhymes with pork anyway.

Which in a sense might sound irrelevant, but in terms of your problem of finding the beat. If you say fork in a Yorkshire accent, you suddenly get two beats instead of one. Whereas if you were to use the god-awful accent that passes for Standard/posh English these days you barely get a single beat, with a strangulated poke and folk.

My sense is that if you were to use your own voice, your own accent (or an accent you were comfortable with) the meaning of what you want to say would come clear.

Which in turn would free you up to be more playful... which in turn would free you up to say what you want to say.

My feeling is that you are trying to be Lawrence Olivier, when you should be more Mark Twain....

[heslopian]

This is a metaphor for someone who has a defense against any argument, no matter how rationale, or logical. Here is an example:

I ask the person why he got a DWI. His response is, "He had pulled through a burger place and got a burger, but as he was trying to eat it, it was so hot he wobbled in his lane, and the cop pulled him over because of this and gave him a DWI." When I suggest that the reason he got a DWI was because he was driving while intoxicated, he refutes that by continuing to say, if the burger was not too hot, he would not have wobbled the car, and the cop would not have given him a DWI. And regardless of how one approaches the question he always has an answer that does not involve being intoxicated while driving. Thus:

"Contend not with those beyond all assail,
With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,"

Let me know if that makes any sense to you, or if it still reads like a garbled mess. Of course if I have to explain it, it is obviously unclear, but that I already knew

Thanks for your time,

Dale

That makes perfect sense, but only now you've explained it. I doubt that I would have got there by myself, no matter how many times I read it. The problem, I think, is "assailing" is too vague a word to make sense in that context. How exactly could the hypothetical people be assailed? Does it mean to get there attention, attack them, gain their services etc.?

[Erthona]

I think, is "assailing" is too vague a word to make sense in that context. How exactly could the hypothetical people be assailed? Does it mean to get there attention, attack them, gain their services etc.?

Assail their mental defenses or closed mindedness. But you re right, were I want to go, is not where it ends up.

Thanks again,

Dale