Wafting

[bluepressure]

Wafting slowly, falling tightly,          
the drops glide on the perfect sky.   
Their silence talks of darker days,     
ugly mornings, a star, an eye.      

Past faces, we stare at their lips               
and exclaim innocence is grim.
They fall desperately to our hands,             
blind to the stones beneath them.             

With disgrace, they tumble through our fingers,      
so we tell them they are loved.                               
While our faces are hidden in dirt,                       
our violent fingers, a stub.     
                                 
Resurrected and snuffed,                                  
seized from the stench of their peace.           
We worship their skin.                                        
Caress their throats. Hallow our grief.

[Lizzie]

I'm having a hard time finding anything solid to grab on to here. Even in poems that are more abstract or surreal, there should be some kind of internal cohesion or key that gives the reader some kind of sense of what's going on. Maybe I'm just dense, but I can't find it here.

Not that I'm great with titles, but Wafting is just.....sleepy. I think you'd do well to re-imagine that and heading off your first line with it. While it is a beautiful word, it doesn't give me the sense that anything is going to happen in the poem and reduces my incentive to keep reading.

Hopefully others with more expertise can chime in some more more comprehensive crit.

I'll look forward to seeing how you revise it.

lizziep

[bluepressure]

What I'm putting forth is just for you to understand my intentions, not to debunk nor disacknowledge anything offered.

I am probably one of the more unconventional people to writing this, and I'm sure there are many rules broken. That said, it was probably why it took me a long time to post something here, psyching myself to submit it. I was hesitant, as I only write abstractly, and have had trouble in the past with people deciphering what I want to say. My intention with the work is for the reader to project themselves into it, populate the work, and not see what the author interprets for them. I guess you can say that's my take on what poetry should be, something you digest and interpret like art, not something described to you artfully. No pun intended.

As for the title, I've never liked titles. Could never think of one that suits or satisfies me. Has been for as long as I've been writing. The poems come to me, the titles don't. Wafting, just happens to be the one that the word processor auto-fills from the first word in the poem. As is true for every other poem I've ever done. So, I'm sorry you were confused. The post required a title, so I just put in my default title as well.

My abnormal way of writing has held me back a bit, I guess. Reception has been mixed about it. At the same time, I probably won't ever change my style. I'm glad you took your time to try and understand what I wrote, a few just tell me it sounds pretty. I was hesitant to submit something as nonconformist as this, but all in all, I wanted to see how something this different would survive here with my bias.

[Wjames]

What I'm putting forth is just for you to understand my intentions, not to debunk nor disacknowledge anything offered.

I am probably one of the more unconventional people to writing this, and I'm sure there are many rules broken. That said, it was probably why it took me a long time to post something here, psyching myself to submit it. I was hesitant, as I only write abstractly, and have had trouble in the past with people deciphering what I want to say. My intention with the work is for the reader to project themselves into it, populate the work, and not see what the author interprets for them. I guess you can say that's my take on what poetry should be, something you digest and interpret like art, not something described to you artfully. No pun intended.

As for the title, I've never liked titles. Could never think of one that suits or satisfies me. Has been for as long as I've been writing. The poems come to me, the titles don't. Wafting, just happens to be the one that the word processor auto-fills from the first word in the poem. As is true for every other poem I've ever done. So, I'm sorry you were confused. The post required a title, so I just put in my default title as well.

My abnormal way of writing has held me back a bit, I guess. Reception has been mixed about it. At the same time, I probably won't ever change my style. I'm glad you took your time to try and understand what I wrote, a few just tell me it sounds pretty. I was hesitant to submit something as nonconformist as this, but all in all, I wanted to see how something this different would survive here with my bias.

Poetry has no rules (unless you're writing in certain metrical forms), and I certainly understand your desire for the reader to project themselves into your poetry and find their own meaning - I don't think that's unconventional at all.

A great quote, by Elliott Smith, my favourite song writer, is (I'm paraphrasing): "If you take a picture of New York, one person who looks at it might think it's dark, frightening, depressing. Another person who looks at the same picture might think about all the fun things you can do in New York. I think songs are kind of like that." In my eyes, the same is true of poetry (and, in your eyes, as you say).

However, with your poem, there's not much to activate my senses to allow me to apply my own emotion or meaning. i.e the first stanza:

Wafting slowly, falling tightly,          
the drops glide on the perfect sky.   What is wafting slowly & falling tightly? Drops of what glide on the perfect sky?
Their silence talks of darker days,     Whose silence?
ugly mornings, a star, an eye. 

There isn't much to taste, touch, smell, see, or hear - activating the senses is, in my eyes, the key to poetry (there are other things that can add to poetry, though - sonics, word play, etc). The smell of fresh cut grass makes me think of high school gym class outside, and makes me smile. It might make someone else feel entirely differently - potentially for the same reason (i.e it might remind them of a high school gym class they hated). It's the same as the picture of New York idea. 

The poem doesn't make me use my senses enough to get me to feel strongly about it. That being said, I've read a lot worse poems than this this one. Of course, art is subjective as well, and just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's bad. Sorry if this is too harsh as well, I know this is in miscellaneous - I just felt compelled to respond to your post. 

Welcome to the site!

[Erthona]

If I had to make some kind of interpretation I'd say the narrator is the earth/dirt, taking into itself/themselves dead bodies. However most of the lines are simply confusing due to poor construction.

"Past faces, we stare at their lips and exclaim innocence is grim."

Past faces: does this mean looking past faces, or does it mean faces seen in the past? As the present tense is used for what follows " we stare" one must assume "past faces" means to "look past faces", but if one is looking past the face how can one see lips which is of course on the face. Even dropping the faces part and reading it only as

" we stare at their lips and exclaim innocence is grim."

carries little to no meaning.

I do not know if what you are doing is purposeful or not, that is to say, you think poetry should be obscure, or whether you are a victim (as we all are, especially in the beginning) of assuming the reader knows what writer knows and as a result the writer leaves important parts out. Either way, both are problematic and should not be encouraged.

Best,

dale

[Achebe]

I was hesitant to submit something as nonconformist as this, but all in all, I wanted to see how something this different would survive here with my bias.

Hi blue - I don't mean to belittle or discourage you, but just to dispel you of the illusion that what you have posted here is 'nonconformist' and 'different'. The truth is that it's pretty easy to write something like this, and if most people don't do it it's for the same reason that most people wouldn't bother running a marathon over 2 days - there's just no point.
Since you're pretty clear that you won't 'change your style', the above remains my only feedback.

[bluepressure]

Probably true. Thank you guys for the critical comments. I do enjoy writing something this easy, (the off-rhymes, descriptions, pacing, syllables aside). But that's probably what discourages me most when I submit such a thing. I'll correct it with more concrete, relatable, solid words that will engage the reader. Or at the very least, write about something in the real world. I'll keep the helpful comments in mind if I ever submit more in the future.

[Lizzie]

Probably true. Thank you guys for the critical comments. I do enjoy writing something this easy, (the off-rhymes, descriptions, pacing, syllables aside). But that's probably what discourages me most when I submit such a thing. I'll correct it with more concrete, relatable, solid words that will engage the reader. Or at the very least, write about something in the real world. I'll keep the helpful comments in mind if I ever submit more in the future.

I'd try to revise before giving up altogether. If surrealism and writing things that don't make exact literal sense is more your style there's still more than enough room in the poetic world for that. I agree with Wjames that it's a matter of appealing to the senses to allow the person to project themselves inside. By no means do I think that you have to change your style, just to learn to do it better to achieve the effect that you say you're going for.

I also agree that this is by far not the roughest start we've seen for a new writer, so try not to lose heart. Even the experienced writers here get tough crit.

I would look at the work of Keith, also. He's a writer here who does lovely things with surrealism.

Hope this helps,

lizziep