Time (moved from Mild to Fun)

[Uncle Tony]

Tick tock says Mr. Clock
He ain't gonna stop for you or me
He gonna keep tickin - the way he like to be
Tick tock says Mr. Clock
Yesterday's gone, today is today
All cause the clock say that's the way
Tick tock says Mr. Clock
...Until I threw a rock at 'em

[billy]

hi uncle

sounds like a nursery rhyme which doesn't mean it's bad, the last line feels a bit shaky. em is usually a short version of them, i'd think it or 'im would read better.
as for the content. for me it's not the strongest of poems as it doesn't say much.

[Achebe]

There's not much meat in the poem for the critic to digest and feed back. Suggest you employ a formal structure with a defined meter and rhyme scheme and repost it for more meaningful crit.

[Uncle Tony]

hi uncle

sounds like a nursery rhyme which doesn't mean it's bad, the last line feels a bit shaky. em is usually a short version of them, i'd think it or 'im would read better.
as for the content. for me it's not the strongest of poems as it doesn't say much.

the last line was "a bit shaky," because it was intended to be humorous, i.e. tongue in cheek, not to be taken too seriously, etc., etc. Not sure how anyone could read this and come away with any other impression.  There were several give aways, e.g. "he gonna keep tickin' the way he like to be." That line alone should make it abundantly clear that nothing there was meant to be deep, or "say much."  Lastly, 'em is ok for him (see Mark Twain).

[ellajam]

hi uncle

sounds like a nursery rhyme which doesn't mean it's bad, the last line feels a bit shaky. em is usually a short version of them, i'd think it or 'im would read better.
as for the content. for me it's not the strongest of poems as it doesn't say much.

the last line was "a bit shaky," because it was intended to be humorous, i.e. tongue in cheek, not to be taken too seriously, etc., etc. Not sure how anyone could read this and come away with any other impression.  There were several give aways, e.g. "he gonna keep tickin' the way he like to be." That line alone should make it abundantly clear that nothing there was meant to be deep, or "say much."  Lastly, 'em is ok for them (see Mark Twain).

Deep or not, you chose to post it in a workshop asking for critique, that's what you got.

Because Mr. Clock is singular them or 'em seems off, unless you're throwing rocks at some inferred plural.

[Uncle Tony]

There's not much meat in the poem for the critic to digest and feed back. Suggest you employ a formal structure with a defined meter and rhyme scheme and repost it for more meaningful crit.

The poem was not meant to be "meaty," rather it was a short rhyme, whimsically written - not intended to take the reader to a "deep place," but simply to make him/her if not laugh out loud, at least smile.  No formal structure, schemes, or defined meters required when the desired response is no more than a grin. 

---

hi uncle

sounds like a nursery rhyme which doesn't mean it's bad, the last line feels a bit shaky. em is usually a short version of them, i'd think it or 'im would read better.
as for the content. for me it's not the strongest of poems as it doesn't say much.

the last line was "a bit shaky," because it was intended to be humorous, i.e. tongue in cheek, not to be taken too seriously, etc., etc. Not sure how anyone could read this and come away with any other impression.  There were several give aways, e.g. "he gonna keep tickin' the way he like to be." That line alone should make it abundantly clear that nothing there was meant to be deep, or "say much."  Lastly, 'em is ok for them (see Mark Twain).

Deep or not, you chose to post it in a workshop asking for critique, that's what you got.

Because Mr. Clock is singular them or 'em seems off, unless you're throwing rocks at some inferred plural.

Yes, that's what I got; however, in reading the critique it was quite evident that the critic took my submission literally, when it was intended to be lighthearted. Thus my reply was merely offering clarification. Surely, there's nothing in the rules which would prohibit one from replying to a critique with a clarification, now is there?  

[Achebe]

There's not much meat in the poem for the critic to digest and feed back. Suggest you employ a formal structure with a defined meter and rhyme scheme and repost it for more meaningful crit.

The poem was not meant to be "meaty," rather it was a short rhyme, whimsically written - not intended to take the reader to a "deep place," but simply to make him/her if not laugh out loud, at least smile.  No formal structure, schemes, or defined meters required when the desired response is no more than a grin. 

You posted it in 'Mild Critique', which implies that you're asking for feedback. The feedback that I'm giving you is that there's nothing to give feedback on. If your defence is that your poem isn't actually worth critiquing (I don't think it's worth reading as it stands, actually), then perhaps you should post it in a different forum.

[ellajam]

There's not much meat in the poem for the critic to digest and feed back. Suggest you employ a formal structure with a defined meter and rhyme scheme and repost it for more meaningful crit.

The poem was not meant to be "meaty," rather it was a short rhyme, whimsically written - not intended to take the reader to a "deep place," but simply to make him/her if not laugh out loud, at least smile.  No formal structure, schemes, or defined meters required when the desired response is no more than a grin. 

---

the last line was "a bit shaky," because it was intended to be humorous, i.e. tongue in cheek, not to be taken too seriously, etc., etc. Not sure how anyone could read this and come away with any other impression.  There were several give aways, e.g. "he gonna keep tickin' the way he like to be." That line alone should make it abundantly clear that nothing there was meant to be deep, or "say much."  Lastly, 'em is ok for them (see Mark Twain).

Deep or not, you chose to post it in a workshop asking for critique, that's what you got.

Because Mr. Clock is singular them or 'em seems off, unless you're throwing rocks at some inferred plural.

Yes, that's what I got; however, in reading the critique it was quite evident that the critic took my submission literally, when it was intended to be lighthearted. Thus my reply was merely offering clarification. Surely, there's nothing in the rules which would prohibit one from replying to a critique with a clarification, now is there?  

Well, actually, I have no control of how my poem is read once it's out in the world and I am not there to clarify anything that is not clear in the poem. The great gift of this site is to hear how readers take the piece, if they're giggling at what I meant seriously or not laughing at my joke I figure it's time to edit. If you'd rather not we can move this to the Fun Forum for you.

[milo]

This poem is not something I would normally read twice. It is currently clunky and needs a severe editing pass for meter, structure and control. As for the humour, it is a rather tired image and pretty predictable at that so I don't think it holds up.

[Uncle Tony]

There's not much meat in the poem for the critic to digest and feed back. Suggest you employ a formal structure with a defined meter and rhyme scheme and repost it for more meaningful crit.

The poem was not meant to be "meaty," rather it was a short rhyme, whimsically written - not intended to take the reader to a "deep place," but simply to make him/her if not laugh out loud, at least smile.  No formal structure, schemes, or defined meters required when the desired response is no more than a grin. 

You posted it in 'Mild Critique', which implies that you're asking for feedback. The feedback that I'm giving you is that there's nothing to give feedback on. If your defence is that your poem isn't actually worth critiquing (I don't think it's worth reading as it stands, actually), then perhaps you should post it in a different forum.

No, my "defence" is not that my poem isn't actually worth critiquing.  Not sure where you came up with that because I wasn't "defending" my poem at all.  Again, I was offering clarification as to the poem's intent.  Imagine, if you will, Jim Carrey made a movie - Dumb and Dumber - doesn't matter.  Gene Shalit writes his critique complaining that "the plot didn't ring true."  I think you and I can both agree, that such a critique would not be useful to Jim (or moviegoers) because obviously Dumb and Dumber didn't concern itself with a realistic plot.  I posted here, for useful feedback.  If humor was lost on readers, fine, perhaps that's on me.  But feedback like "lacks meat," offers me nothing when in fact the poem was not intended to offer anything of substance at all.

btw, love the "I don't think it's worth reading as it stands" in parens.  good constructive feedback there!

---

This poem is not something I would normally read twice. It is currently clunky and needs a severe editing pass for meter, structure and control. As for the humour, it is a rather tired image and pretty predictable at that so I don't think it holds up.

"meter, structure and control," how could one smile without?

---

There's not much meat in the poem for the critic to digest and feed back. Suggest you employ a formal structure with a defined meter and rhyme scheme and repost it for more meaningful crit.

The poem was not meant to be "meaty," rather it was a short rhyme, whimsically written - not intended to take the reader to a "deep place," but simply to make him/her if not laugh out loud, at least smile.  No formal structure, schemes, or defined meters required when the desired response is no more than a grin. 

---

Deep or not, you chose to post it in a workshop asking for critique, that's what you got.

Because Mr. Clock is singular them or 'em seems off, unless you're throwing rocks at some inferred plural.

Yes, that's what I got; however, in reading the critique it was quite evident that the critic took my submission literally, when it was intended to be lighthearted. Thus my reply was merely offering clarification. Surely, there's nothing in the rules which would prohibit one from replying to a critique with a clarification, now is there?  

Well, actually, I have no control of how my poem is read once it's out in the world and I am not there to clarify anything that is not clear in the poem. The great gift of this site is to hear how readers take the piece, if they're giggling at what I meant seriously or not laughing at my joke I figure it's time to edit. If you'd rather not we can move this to the Fun Forum for you.

Is there such a thing?  If so, Fun Forum seems more apropos.

[Weeded]

Uncle Tony,
Ay man, I hope you dont feel like ur gettin ganged up on, but at least people are responding.

We're all here to help each other.

One of the things I learned here is that if you have to explain the poems intent, its probably not working and needs a rewrite.

You said your intent was humor, I did not get a smile after reading this.

If I was gonna be completely honest, I read this, rolled my eyes and moved on with no intent of commenting until I saw the interaction here.

I written plenty of shitty poems man, the first step in getting better is admitting it and making a conscious effort to improve.

Refusing crit is fine too, but it generally doesnt make you a better poet, and that's what we're all here for, right?

mike

[milo]

I think for light verse to work it has to mechanically almost perfect so the mechanics don't distract from the humour. The best practitioner on this site is easily leanne, not a bad idea to read a few of hers, especially ones posted in the arse. Careful though, once you go you may realize you prefer it in the arse.