Red

[Leanne]

Nice "Gumby legs" is great, nearly as wobbly as the Jello.

(Small nitpick, should be "shining")

It certainly sounds like fun, so you've picked the right place to put it. It's great to see you posting.

[Erthona]

As far as I am concerned it would have been better to end with

"as her white lace dress turns to red."

but I suppose you thought you needed a denouement to bask in the afterglow with jello.

I agree with Leanne, about the "Gumby legs", you aptly identify that sort of encounter,

although it seems it should be

"she strikes at him with big hazel eyes."

The way you have it now is a bit ambiguous. Now if you wanted to change "strikes" to "inflames" him. The first is to attack, the second is to engender.

Still, I red it and it red well!

Dale

[billy]

great to see you posting Serah.
the last stanza makes me hungry, but the prelude makes me hungrier
you gotta love spiked heels. :angel:

[Wildcard]

Hi Serah,

I like it! It was cute and straight-forward and right up my alley. Thanks for sharing.

Oh, one little thing: 'Taller then the Eiffel tower' should read 'Taller than the Eiffel tower'

Welcome

[Erthona]

"She strikes his heart with her big hazel eyes...get it? "

Yes, I get it. You left that part out!

[Leanne]

Not trying to step on anyone's perceptions, Serah, but the line makes perfect sense to me as it is... then again, I don't always make perfect sense to anyone either

[Erthona]

A common phrase is "strike a pose" which is based on the idea of striking a match, that is, "to assume almost instantaneously". It is obviously used figuratively, and is based on a prior usage. It would make no sense if it were literal. There is also the common usage of strike as in "she struck at him with biting words over a cup of tea". The "at" indicates that it is figurative usage and not a literal one, and overlays playful connotation to the word "strike", which is not only a violent description, but is also onomatopoetic. As there is no prior common usage to build upon, Deb's usage without the "at" creates as unnecessary and easily resolvable ambiguity. An ambiguity that causes a slight pause in the reading and for no describable gain (even if on an unconscious level). Such disruptions will devalue the poem in the readers mind even if they are unaware of the disruption. Thus, even though one can fairly quickly come to a conclusion about how strike is being used, it is an unnecessary delay. As enough of these mini-delays in the reading can seriously undermine the quality of the poem, I think it is an acceptable area for critique.

Dale

[Leanne]

Dale, of course it's an acceptable area for critique (even though we're in the Fun forum right now) -- my point is simply that I would say it as Serah says it, without the "at". For example, I would say, "she strikes him with a brick" if that, and not those lovely hazel eyes, were the weapon of choice. It's clearly a difference of semantics, nothing more.

[Erthona]

See, I still read that as I would, that line strikes me as odd. In that way you are describing how he received what she did, not what she did.

Leanne,

I don't think it is semantics, but rather the detrimental effect uncommon word usage. I can understand what she is trying to say, as I believe most people would. What I am saying is that it takes the mind more time to parse through an unfamiliar usage or application of a word causing a slight disruption in the consciousness of the reader. So this is about the disruption it will cause in the reading, not about the ultimate interpretation failing. You can see it easily enough in dance although most people would not be able to determine the cause, when two people are doing the exact same moves and yet one is "graceful" and the other is not. The graceful comes form the attention to the generally unconscious things in a poem that still effect the reading. Fred Astaire was a master of this. However there are obvious things one can say about him, such as his balance is always perfect, which can be seen in his posture. It is this attention to detail in any art form that is the difference between a master and a journeyman. If you remember we went over this aspect on David's poem, and how he was portraying the candle. Several people agree that it was somehow off, but we couldn't figure out how. The problem was actually in an article used in relation to candle I believe. It was either the problem of using a direct article when an indirect was needed or vice versa.

Dale

[billy]

what do i know of spiked heels

and i giggle

i used to worship them
many years ago when i were
but a young lad
them and a seamed stockinged leg
mmmmm (female of course)

[Erthona]

Oh dear, oh deer,
I hear, eye here
he likes to ram them
from the rear!