Soliloquy

[porcelain bones]

Soliloquy

I am   
drawing smart this string slipped
    loop-ways ‘round my index finger
        watching all that    delicious    colour   
                                                              hurry
                                                                          out of it,
                                                                                                                               solipsism.
filling up the    vacancy    with    yum—
 
suddenly
I’ve lost grasp of it and it                     falls
between my hungry fingertips,
falling     with a supple flourish of aerial panache,
it     falls     out of hand and into the hole,    fallen
 
—if only it was so crude as a god
     standing over, rug in hand, smirk slapped
                     sardonically across face—
 
           falling/it’s fallen/to fall/it’s falling/it falls/
                                         when did it                     fall  ?
the string will   
                      fall        
                                 forever,    I think

[dukealien]

Soliloquy

I am   
drawing smart this string slipped
    loop-ways ‘round my index finger
        watching all that    delicious    colour   
                                                              hurry
                                                                          out of it,
                                                                                                                               solipsism.
filling up the    vacancy    with    yum—
 
suddenly
I’ve lost grasp of it and it                     falls
between my hungry fingertips,
falling     with a supple flourish of aerial panache,
it     falls     out of hand and into the hole,    fallen
 
—if only it was so crude as a god
     standing over, rug in hand, smirk slapped
                     sardonically across face—
 
           falling/it’s fallen/to fall/it’s falling/it falls/
                                         when did it                     fall  ?
the string will   
                      fall        
                                 forever,    I think

I confess myself somewhat defeated in advance here since I don't really get what's going on in the poem; if I did, the various devices used might make more sense, or seem justified.  On that basis, though, serious workshopping was requested, so here is my best shot at it.

First, given that the meaning or intent may not be clear to all readers, suggest you use the title to give a broader and more detailed hint.

Second, the typography is interesting but also initimidating:  the reader gains the impression he's supposed to be getting some added meaning from it, but (unlike words, punctuation, or even ordinary line breaks and indentation) its meaning is not established in advance.  If the poem is enhanced by the unusual typography, it should still make (the same) sense without it.  Suggest that you try to produce the same desired reading (aloud) with normal punctuation and line breaks, then work in extra spacing only where it adds something to that reading.  You  may find that, while expressive, it isn't actually necessarry - and it would be really hard to maintain in print when you find a publisher.

Like the typography, there are some inventions which (I say provisionally, since I didn't really get the story) don't seem to work.  For example, "loop-ways."  I could see "loop-wise," in the manner of a loop, but once you have a loop it's singular:  "loop-ways" looks plural.  Perhaps just "looped" unless you need two syllables there?

"[S]mirk slapped/sardonically across face" is chock-full of alliteration, but (IMHO) doesn't quite makes sense.  Who slapped?  The slap resulted in a sardonic grin.  Did the god slap this expression onto his own face?  It seems more likely, being a god, that the rictus sardonicus is an attribute of the god, requiring no such action.

"[f]alling/...falls/" seems to express that the motion of the string (right?  or is it a severed finger?) is somewhat confused in time:  has it happened already, is happening now, or is it happening everlastingly?  Could be better expressed with a well-crafted phrase which says what you mean, even labeling it mysterious or mystical if required.

"[S]olipsism" is a pretty well defined concept which we find here way out in right field.  Is it the key to the poem?  I vaguely recall a rule that any conclusion which can be reached equally well through solipsism is not worth reaching, or something to that effect.  What conclusion beyond solipsism does your poem intend?

Finally, I have high regard for the word "panache" and would apply it, at the very least, to a butterfly in a high wind rather than a falling loop of string (or severed finger).  For a string to do much of anything in falling it would have to be no heavier than fine thread or yarn (of amputated body parts, the less said the better).  A breath of wind, or the heat that makes sparks fly upward (there's panache!) seems to be wanted here.

So, my overall suggestion would be to left-justify, edit until the words sparkle without special spacing, then slowly re-introduce special typography if it adds something.  Hope this helps!

[Leanne]

I apologise in advance for taking a couple of liberties with your poem.  Firstly, I changed the title of the thread because typos annoy me (after trying very hard to work out if it was a deliberate misspelling, some kind of pun, because those are the thoughts that consume me).  Secondly, I've removed your formatting so that I can do a line-by-line critique.  While I appreciate creative use of white space, I must comment that I found this excessive and more gimmicky than poetically relevant.  Every element of a poem should serve a purpose -- there isn't that much space to play with and it's a shame to waste it.  This is a stylistic decision, but be aware that because of the white space, a reader will not necessarily follow the left-to-right, top-to-bottom conventions and if you want your words to be read in the order you choose for them, throwing them all over the page is not helpful.  White space can disempower words as much as, or more than, it empowers silence. 

Soliloquy

I am    -- the opening line leads me naturally to Descartes, and because you had solipsism out by itself in the middle of nowhere, my brain immediately goes to "does this poem want me to think of Descartes as a solipsist?" and straight away I'm distracted.  I assume this won't happen to everyone... but it was definitely an effort to return to the second line.  
drawing smart this string slipped -- this might be improved with "smartly"
loop-ways ‘round my index finger -- I think we've evolved enough to drop the apostrophe here 
watching all that delicious colour -- I find the assonant link between colour and hurry quite delicious 
hurry
out of it,
solipsism. -- this problematic beastie.  It deserves a colon after "it" if you're going to keep it -- but I genuinely don't see its necessity as I feel it falls into the telling, not showing category of writing.  It's also a bit heavy-handed given the title of the poem and its content, which is clearly internal and referencing only the self's experiences/consciousness.  

filling up the    vacancy    with    yum—  -- this is the most disturbing line for me.  It makes me all squirmy.  This is good poetry 
suddenly
I’ve lost grasp of it and it -- what is wrong with just "I lose"?                       
falls
between my hungry fingertips,
falling with a supple flourish of aerial panache, -- do you really need all the falls?  You could lose "falling" here and improve momentum.
it falls out of hand and into the hole, fallen -- again, "out of hand and into hole" would work fine without falls -- repetition should always serve a solid purpose and I can't see it in action here
 
—if only it was so crude as a god
standing over, rug in hand, smirk slapped -- a smirk is a sneaky thing and slapped sounds very abrupt -- what about "smirk smeared" to maintain your alliteration and make it a little ickier?
sardonically across face—
 
falling/it’s fallen/to fall/it’s falling/it falls/ -- the repetition works here...
when did it fall  ? -- but not here.  You could lose this line and it would take nothing from the poem
the string will fall        
forever, I think -- and we're back to Descartes, which makes a good set of bookends (but only without solipsism buggering it all up)

[porcelain bones]

I apologise in advance for taking a couple of liberties with your poem.  Firstly, I changed the title of the thread because typos annoy me (after trying very hard to work out if it was a deliberate misspelling, some kind of pun, because those are the thoughts that consume me).  Secondly, I've removed your formatting so that I can do a line-by-line critique.  While I appreciate creative use of white space, I must comment that I found this excessive and more gimmicky than poetically relevant.  Every element of a poem should serve a purpose -- there isn't that much space to play with and it's a shame to waste it.  This is a stylistic decision, but be aware that because of the white space, a reader will not necessarily follow the left-to-right, top-to-bottom conventions and if you want your words to be read in the order you choose for them, throwing them all over the page is not helpful.  White space can disempower words as much as, or more than, it empowers silence. 

Soliloquy

I am    -- the opening line leads me naturally to Descartes, and because you had solipsism out by itself in the middle of nowhere, my brain immediately goes to "does this poem want me to think of Descartes as a solipsist?" and straight away I'm distracted.  I assume this won't happen to everyone... but it was definitely an effort to return to the second line.  
drawing smart this string slipped -- this might be improved with "smartly"
loop-ways ‘round my index finger -- I think we've evolved enough to drop the apostrophe here 
watching all that delicious colour -- I find the assonant link between colour and hurry quite delicious 
hurry
out of it,
solipsism. -- this problematic beastie.  It deserves a colon after "it" if you're going to keep it -- but I genuinely don't see its necessity as I feel it falls into the telling, not showing category of writing.  It's also a bit heavy-handed given the title of the poem and its content, which is clearly internal and referencing only the self's experiences/consciousness.  

filling up the    vacancy    with    yum—  -- this is the most disturbing line for me.  It makes me all squirmy.  This is good poetry 
suddenly
I’ve lost grasp of it and it -- what is wrong with just "I lose"?                       
falls
between my hungry fingertips,
falling with a supple flourish of aerial panache, -- do you really need all the falls?  You could lose "falling" here and improve momentum.
it falls out of hand and into the hole, fallen -- again, "out of hand and into hole" would work fine without falls -- repetition should always serve a solid purpose and I can't see it in action here
 
—if only it was so crude as a god
standing over, rug in hand, smirk slapped -- a smirk is a sneaky thing and slapped sounds very abrupt -- what about "smirk smeared" to maintain your alliteration and make it a little ickier?
sardonically across face—
 
falling/it’s fallen/to fall/it’s falling/it falls/ -- the repetition works here...
when did it fall  ? -- but not here.  You could lose this line and it would take nothing from the poem
the string will fall        
forever, I think -- and we're back to Descartes, which makes a good set of bookends (but only without solipsism buggering it all up)

Hey Leanne,
First of all, thanks for taking the time to read and critique my poem. 

To address your critiques: I guess my intention was to impress upon the reader the inevitable solipsism resulting from the removal of a god from Descartes' argument. The term solipsism, at least for me, turns my blood cold, and the abruptness of its placement felt quite emotive at the time of writing this. I would prefer to keep it, so do you think there's any way I can clarify so as not to steer the reader in the wrong direction immediately? 

The various tenses of falling was intended to signal the sudden realization of something that something has been happening for a while: "suddenly" but "I've" is the past tense. The repetition was intended to signal the narrator's obsession with its the loss and the tenses show the 'this will happen forever?' feeling the narrator has. I like the idea of explaining the narrator's unconscious mindset by showing their process and letting the reader derive it. Bearing this in mind, is this not working even with close reading? If not I will rework.

I will change "drawing smart" to "tightening", I figured it was a more interesting phrasing, but it doesn't sound right; I'll change "slapped" to "plastered", I'll switch "'round" to "around", I was trying to emphasize the circularity of the looped string, but it probably doesn't make much different either way. I'll also try putting it back into conventional form as both of you guys recommended, it felt really disparate when I was writing it and added to the emotiveness of solipsism. But 'gimmicky' raises the hairs on the back of my neck, so...

Thanks again.

[Leanne]

I love dialogues like this. I'm in my iPad at the moment and I hate typing on it so I'll wait until I'm back at the PC to sink my teeth into this. Knowing more about where you want this to go is very helpful, and I would still like to see some white space... let me ponder the solipsism argument for a while. It's nice to hear my own views echoed. Will return later.

[Leanne]

Descartes' principles sans an external creative force can indeed seem solipsistic, if one renders it down to its simplest cogito ergo sum -- however, this disregards the point that the obverse was never stated:  this does not think, therefore it is not.  Also, I can't help but think of solipsism itself as a conclusion rather than a way to arrive at a conclusion (that it's a flawed and somewhat ridiculous conclusion is probably neither here nor there at this stage -- it's sort of the Hitler-thread-ender argument of philosophy).  It may be that placing it in the middle (even off to the right of the middle) is not the best option.  I'm also not convinced that the word itself needs its own line, because that more or less turns it into a form of punctuation... maybe something like a very lazy, self-centred exclamation mark.  Can you work it into the rest of the poem more subtly?  Perhaps the finger could fall into a kind of solipsistic orbit around nothingness... I'm reaching here, can you tell?  

The fall line with the / separations works as it's like a flicker across tenses/time.  I feel it's weakened by giving it anchors elsewhere in the text -- after all, falling isn't something that you do with tethers.  This line would be a good place to play with your white space, but not in a waterfall kind of way (wouldn't want a gimmick, right?  ) -- just a little space can be quite powerful.

I like the plastered solution.  You maintain alliteration/consonance, it's still nicely sibilant and sinister, and it's a slower unfolding of the expression.  Do you know, I've looked over this again and again and I think it's the word "crude" that's bothering me.  I read it as something vulgar, but I think maybe you mean it as something simplistic.  This is a section that needs to be brought out more.  I will think on it.  

If it wasn't clear, I actually very much enjoyed reading this -- it is rare and incredibly pleasurable to find something I can really sink my teeth into, and even more enjoyable when the workshopping is an actual dialogue rather than some kind of false teacher-student dichotomy.

[Tracy Mitchell]

Hi,

Of course this is a soliloquy - there is no listener to hear the speaker/Narrator.  

Disregard my comments if I have this all wrong, but the poem reads like a snippet of existential musing, with more resignation than angst.

The opening line triggers Descartes for me as well, but I took it as the existential assertion I exist, followed by the why - the Narrator’s obvious delight in his/her own (seeming) physical existence as ‘proven/demonstrated’ by ‘delicious colour’.  I exist because my body does this / because I can do this to my body.  

Then, as suddenly and irrevocably as a mind can lose hold of a thread of thought, the N. loses grip of the metaphorical string. It swoops with a ‘supple flourish of aerial panache’ – like a leaf in bright fall breeze, for example, dancing toward its infinite oblivion.  The effect for the N. is the paradox of timelessly watching his non-existence flit through reality - the hair standing up, forever, on the back of Schrodinger’s cat.  

The juicy irony of the last line is the supposition not so much of non-existence as of the loss of evidence of existence.  This may well be an allegory for the last step of the dying process.  Or rather, the last (and fading) conscious step of the dying process.  Or, I suppose, that last moment before passing out on bad tequila.   This is just my take, and could be completely out in left field.

As to the elements of the poem, I find the formatting to be a generous addition to the text.  I like the way the text curves and fluffs down to an arguably curved and fluffy conclusion (in a good way).  I removed all of the formatting additions to see what the poem looks like without, then tried to add them back in to gauge what if any benefit there may be.  It was immediately apparent that right formatting choices were made in the writing and editing.

I thought the use of the forms of ‘fall’, while numerous, were functional and entirely appropriate.  The word whose use I found most distracting was “it”, which appeared six times.  My opinion is that the poem would benefit from each time it can be massaged out of the text.

Lastly – ‘solipsism’.   It kind of hangs on the horizon, like the evening star.  While both unique and alluring, I would suggest you consider deleting it altogether for three reasons.  First, it doesn’t fit grammatically or geographically.  Second, if I read the poem right, it already constitutes the unspoken psychological backdrop for the narrative.  Third, when you publish this poem in ebook form, Kindles around the world will definitely screw it up.  

JMHO.

T

[Achebe]

It's a lovely poem that doesn't need so many white spaces, the following being quite unnecessary: i ) and  it..... falls ii)  it ...... falls.... out .... of.... hand iii hole.....fallen iii) when did it.....fall 
it's more readable if you left align the sentences, and have only colour...hurry...out in S1 and fall....forever...I...think, written out in the way that you have. Otherwise, it's too hard on the eye and the reader will give up.

I'm not sure about 'subtle flourish of aerial panache'. Two adjectives in that line, and 'subtle flourish' looks like you're just being oxymoronic for the heck of it.
Likewise, 'smiling sardonically' does nothing for me. And what god has a rug in hand? 

I'm also not too clear how any of what you describe is solipsist, but that's a minor point. The poem is otherwise quite pretty.

[porcelain bones]

Hi,

Of course this is a soliloquy - there is no listener to hear the speaker/Narrator.  

Disregard my comments if I have this all wrong, but the poem reads like a snippet of existential musing, with more resignation than angst.

The opening line triggers Descartes for me as well, but I took it as the existential assertion I exist, followed by the why - the Narrator’s obvious delight in his/her own (seeming) physical existence as ‘proven/demonstrated’ by ‘delicious colour’.  I exist because my body does this / because I can do this to my body.  

Then, as suddenly and irrevocably as a mind can lose hold of a thread of thought, the N. loses grip of the metaphorical string. It swoops with a ‘supple flourish of aerial panache’ – like a leaf in bright fall breeze, for example, dancing toward its infinite oblivion.  The effect for the N. is the paradox of timelessly watching his non-existence flit through reality - the hair standing up, forever, on the back of Schrodinger’s cat.  

The juicy irony of the last line is the supposition not so much of non-existence as of the loss of evidence of existence.  This may well be an allegory for the last step of the dying process.  Or rather, the last (and fading) conscious step of the dying process.  Or, I suppose, that last moment before passing out on bad tequila.   This is just my take, and could be completely out in left field.

As to the elements of the poem, I find the formatting to be a generous addition to the text.  I like the way the text curves and fluffs down to an arguably curved and fluffy conclusion (in a good way).  I removed all of the formatting additions to see what the poem looks like without, then tried to add them back in to gauge what if any benefit there may be.  It was immediately apparent that right formatting choices were made in the writing and editing.

I thought the use of the forms of ‘fall’, while numerous, were functional and entirely appropriate.  The word whose use I found most distracting was “it”, which appeared six times.  My opinion is that the poem would benefit from each time it can be massaged out of the text.

Lastly – ‘solipsism’.   It kind of hangs on the horizon, like the evening star.  While both unique and alluring, I would suggest you consider deleting it altogether for three reasons.  First, it doesn’t fit grammatically or geographically.  Second, if I read the poem right, it already constitutes the unspoken psychological backdrop for the narrative.  Third, when you publish this poem in ebook form, Kindles around the world will definitely screw it up.  

JMHO.

T

Hah, your analysis is dead on. I appreciate it, it feels good when someone really 'gets' it, you know? Thanks to everyone who has offered a critique, they've all been sent back to the laboratory and are being put towards a second revision. I am adding more to it in hopes of making it clearer and of fleshing it out a little more. The more spaced-out format has been back-pocketed for now to see if you all will find the the more traditional format more agreeable. Cheers

[ellajam]

Well, I, for one, enjoyed reading a piece using white space, for me there are places where it is successful and some spots not so much, but it is not in my toolbox and lately I have been trying to to attempt its use, so thank you for posting it here. Disclaimer: I remember nothing of Descartes and won't google until after I crit, so here goes, just an average reader. Oh, and welcome to the Pen.

Soliloquy

I am    good break
drawing smart this string slipped  I'm up in the air on "smart", a little over-alliterated, maybe.
    loop-ways ‘round my index finger
        watching all that    delicious    colour   
                                                              hurry
                                                                          out of it, Strong four lines.
                                                                                                                               solipsism. This was too far away for me, and in truth I don't think you need to say it.
filling up the    vacancy    with    yum— I think "vacancy" says what it means and doesn't need the white space.
 
suddenly
I’ve lost grasp of it and it                     falls I think I'd just prefer "falls" on its own line without the space.
between my hungry fingertips, I still get stopped on "hungry", huh?
falling     with a supple flourish of aerial panache, Love the white space here, I could lose supple.
it     falls     out of hand and into the hole,    fallen I'd lose the white space before "falls".
 
—if only it was so crude as a god
     standing over, rug in hand, smirk slapped
                     sardonically across face— I don't understand "rug in hand" but it didn't stop me from enjoying these three lines.
 
           falling/it’s fallen/to fall/it’s falling/it falls/
                                         when did it                     fall  ?
the string will   
                      fall        
                                 forever,    I think

So, that's what I've got, except for the advice to stick to your guns when you think it's best for the poem.

[tectak]

Descartes' principles sans an external creative force can indeed seem solipsistic, if one renders it down to its simplest cogito ergo sum -- however, this disregards the point that the obverse was never stated:  this does not think, therefore it is not.  Also, I can't help but think of solipsism itself as a conclusion rather than a way to arrive at a conclusion (that it's a flawed and somewhat ridiculous conclusion is probably neither here nor there at this stage -- it's sort of the Hitler-thread-ender argument of philosophy).  It may be that placing it in the middle (even off to the right of the middle) is not the best option.  I'm also not convinced that the word itself needs its own line, because that more or less turns it into a form of punctuation... maybe something like a very lazy, self-centred exclamation mark.  Can you work it into the rest of the poem more subtly?  Perhaps the finger could fall into a kind of solipsistic orbit around nothingness... I'm reaching here, can you tell?  

The fall line with the / separations works as it's like a flicker across tenses/time.  I feel it's weakened by giving it anchors elsewhere in the text -- after all, falling isn't something that you do with tethers.  This line would be a good place to play with your white space, but not in a waterfall kind of way (wouldn't want a gimmick, right?  ) -- just a little space can be quite powerful.

I like the plastered solution.  You maintain alliteration/consonance, it's still nicely sibilant and sinister, and it's a slower unfolding of the expression.  Do you know, I've looked over this again and again and I think it's the word "crude" that's bothering me.  I read it as something vulgar, but I think maybe you mean it as something simplistic.  This is a section that needs to be brought out more.  I will think on it.  

If it wasn't clear, I actually very much enjoyed reading this -- it is rare and incredibly pleasurable to find something I can really sink my teeth into, and even more enjoyable when the workshopping is an actual dialogue rather than some kind of false teacher-student dichotomy.

To leanne,
you omit that much loved and under-reported paradox. "You do not think and yet you are". Just saying. (Whatever that means. Trying to be trendy.(Whatever that means).)