Technicalities

[Ganman]

I'd like to know where to start revising, if I have a moment to look over this. Positive, negative feedback is appreciated- preferably also holding that you can pinpoint what you like or dislike so I can work on it. Thanks for reading!

We are at a park –
what park is irrelevant –
it is a park,
with benches
and lampposts
like little, portable
fires, hell incandescent.

It is late –
you do not need to know when –
late enough
that the world has
paused itself,
and you are probably
in bed, dreaming of eggs.

I am not alone –
you know from my use of “we” –
and my friend removes
the crust from his egg sandwich,
as I debate him,
lacking a podium
and an obedient audience.

“There’s a subtle difference,
I think,
between hell and a hand basket,”
I declare, and he watches,
contemplating.
“One you carry eggs in, and
the other you’re flayed alive in.”

He nods, not in agreement,
out of politeness,
the yoke dribbling
from his beard.
“Yes,” he agrees, “but they
are both words, and I exist,
you won’t deny that.”

I tell him that argument
doesn’t hold, that it’s unfair,
like comparing someone to Hitler,
but an eavesdropping lawyer
intervenes, stepping into our picnic,
and tells me I played well,
but that my friend has won,

and we all look out at the parking lot,
sick, eyes protruding, as we wonder
who set
our
cars
on
fire.

[tectak]

I'd like to know where to start revising, if I have a moment to look over this. Positive, negative feedback is appreciated- preferably also holding that you can pinpoint what you like or dislike so I can work on it. Thanks for reading!

We are at a park –
what park is irrelevant – Which park....and you are right. So are the dashes
it is a park,You repeat yourself. Even as a device it comes across as pseudo-stylistic.
with benches
and lampposts
like little, portable
fires, hell incandescent. I once went to a park. Hell, it was the SAME one! Is all this going somewhere? You are falling over with the weight of simplistic imagery. Let your reader in. "Hell incandescent" has a use descriptively but it is a little like saying a sparkler is like a thermic lance. Oratorial overkill or pupil dilation...not sure which. Pupil as in eye.

It is late –
you do not need to know when – ditto. You are a style-slave
late enough
that the world has
paused itself,This disconnects from line two. Are you aware that I don't need to know this? So why tell me ANYTHING about it? Be careful of disconnects like this.[/b]
and you are probablyWho you? I am not in bed. Who in bed?
in bed, dreaming of eggs.Why do I like this? Oh oh. Am I a pigeon?

I am not alone –
you know from my use of “we” – Oh come on now. This is not worthy. Drop this silly device. It has no merit...in fact, it patronises in not a good way. I think you have an idea but you are pushing it too much without telling us why we should buy it.
and my friend removes
the crust from his egg sandwich,
as I debate him,
lacking a podium
and an obedient audience.As a genre, this kind of doldrum delivery is bound to become tedious to read because the (interest) X (passion) product is so low. If something is hugly interesting you can get away with doldrum delivery. If something is only of a modicum of interest you can get away with it by igniting the text and putting some fire in to the delivery. Here, you are giving me useless information in a boring way. Maybe I am a pigeon.

“There’s a subtle difference, I am looking forward to this subtlety
I think, I was going to say that that is because you are...but I am not so sure Unworthy comment from me on an unworthy comment from you. Quits
between hell and a hand basket,”
I declare, and he watches,Listens may be a better word. He is, after all, removing the crust from a sandwich containing, as we later discover, a very runny egg. He needs his eyes to carry out this difficult operation...but he can listen
contemplating.What? Pensively may be a better word. There are many better words. Your poem.
“One you carry eggs in, and
the other you’re flayed alive in.”Now, if that is subtle difference then this, put subtly, is shite. It is going no where and may even be coming back.This is another disconnect. You have forgotten what you wrote earlier. Read your work. Hmmm. You know, there is a kind of fascination in this which is like watching a fine thespian play a part which is beneath him....yet he manages to pull the audience along just because we like his voice. Again, though, I can tell we are going all philosophical. The muse can do that when she is bored. I am getting sleepy.

He nods, not in agreement,
out of politeness,
the yoke dribbling
from his beard.
“Yes,” he agrees, “but they
are both words, and I exist, A hand basket? Welcome to Handbasket World! Please tell me that this is not what you meant. If it is then I am way out of my depth. This is just too profound. Better yet...tell me what you DO mean. And if it is existentialism or any other old chestnut just forget it. It has been roasted before.
you won’t deny that.”

I tell him that argument
doesn’t hold, that it’s unfair,
like comparing someone to Hitler,
but an eavesdropping lawyer
intervenes, stepping into our picnic,
and tells me I played well,
but that my friend has won,but me no buts.

and we all look out at the parking lot,
sick, eyes protruding, as we wonder
who set
our
cars
on
fire.This
is the
best
line in
the piece
and so
I am not
surprised
you strung it
out.....but I am damned if I can see how this line breaking it helps.

You do not want crit. I know this. By your arrogant (sorry, but this is a comment on the STYLE of the piece.) expressed belief in your style you are limiting your own abilities. Many aspirants deny the disciplines of rhyme, rhythm and form but still manage to conceptualise and captivate by imagery, metaphor ( a park light is like incandescent hell is not what I mean) and by rich content. This piece seems totally reliant upon a misconception that listening to a very trite, terse and inconclusive debate between two neophytes in a nameless park is in any way earth shattering. There are only a few ways to shatter earth...this is not one of them.
Suggestions.
Stop posting stuff before the ink is dry. Read it, then read it again. You will like it because you wrote it...now, try to hate it a little. Knock it about, massage it, cut it, abuse it, make it squeal....because if you don't...others will.
You are rushing your work. Ideas are not like race cars. To overwork this metaphor, they are like a slow train..each connected to the next and compatible. The are made to connect. You DO disconnects too often.
Best,
tectak
You also want to be a good writer. In this I wish you well and suggest you read "Put it in Writing" by John Whale. It is like a bible. Don't believe anything if it doesn't work for you, but wonder that it is all in there.

[Ganman]

Harsh, dude. These are not works I'm putting together everyday. These are old works I'm posting to try to get new perspective on them. This is a revision of an old work. And I am listening to EVERYTHING you say, so please stop accusing me of "rushing it to the pen." I'm taking it to you to get perspective. You don't have to tear me a new one every time I post. And geez. You don't have to just blatantly tell me I'm a bad writer. I thought I was a good writer, and was working on improving, but I guess I'm just a terrible writer, and I'm inhibiting my progress and wasting your time. Sorry about that.

[Todd]

Hi Ganman, I enjoyed the tone of this one. The speaker was quirky enough to engage me. Comments below:

I'd like to know where to start revising, if I have a moment to look over this. Positive, negative feedback is appreciated- preferably also holding that you can pinpoint what you like or dislike so I can work on it. Thanks for reading!

We are at a park –
what park is irrelevant –--think which instead of what
it is a park,
with benches
and lampposts
like little, portable--I'd consider pulling fires up. I think it would make the break better
fires, hell incandescent.--I do happen to like the phrasing here

It is late –
you do not need to know when –
late enough
that the world has--again not a strong break in my opinion I'd be tempted to pull paused up and pull the "and you are probably" up to join itself
paused itself,
and you are probably
in bed, dreaming of eggs.

I am not alone –
you know from my use of “we” –--maybe add previous before "use"
and my friend removes
the crust from his egg sandwich,
as I debate him,
lacking a podium
and an obedient audience.

“There’s a subtle difference,
I think,
between hell and a hand basket,”
I declare, and he watches,
contemplating.
“One you carry eggs in, and--I don't like the break on "and" consider breaking after in or pulling the other up a line maybe
the other you’re flayed alive in.”

He nods, not in agreement,
out of politeness,--you could condense to "He nods, in politeness"
the yoke dribbling
from his beard.
“Yes,” he agrees, “but they
are both words, and I exist,
you won’t deny that.”

I tell him that argument
doesn’t hold, that it’s unfair,
like comparing someone to Hitler,--condense: I tell him that's like comparing...
but an eavesdropping lawyer
intervenes, stepping into our picnic,--I don't think you need intervenes. You could simply rephrase and have the action happen "steps into our picnic" There's a lot of hesitation in the narrative that doesn't have to be there
and tells me I played well,
but that my friend has won,

and we all look out at the parking lot,
sick, eyes protruding, as we wonder--I like eyes protruding
who set
our
cars
on
fire.--These breaks don't build suspense and the line would be quite strong and surprising done as one line. If you want hesitation maybe introduce a break after wonder and set this last line alone as its own strophe.

I hope some of that is helpful.

Best,

Todd

[tectak]

Harsh, dude. These are not works I'm putting together everyday. These are old works I'm posting to try to get new perspective on them. This is a revision of an old work. And I am listening to EVERYTHING you say, so please stop accusing me of "rushing it to the pen." I'm taking it to you to get perspective. You don't have to tear me a new one every time I post. And geez. You don't have to just blatantly tell me I'm a bad writer. I thought I was a good writer, and was working on improving, but I guess I'm just a terrible writer, and I'm inhibiting my progress and wasting your time. Sorry about that.

I said you ALSO want to be good WRITER...to distinguish between authoring a story and writing poetry. You DO write like an novelist in denial. That is all.
Please observe forum rules regarding posting on serious. There is a section at the opening page of the forums.
Keep posting,
Best,
tectak
...and remember, ALL is opinion!

[tectak]

Harsh, dude. These are not works I'm putting together everyday. These are old works I'm posting to try to get new perspective on them. This is a revision of an old work. And I am listening to EVERYTHING you say, so please stop accusing me of "rushing it to the pen." I'm taking it to you to get perspective. You don't have to tear me a new one every time I post. And geez. You don't have to just blatantly tell me I'm a bad writer. I thought I was a good writer, and was working on improving, but I guess I'm just a terrible writer, and I'm inhibiting my progress and wasting your time. Sorry about that.

...and I would refer you back to your excellent previous piece and my comments on it. Hardly the arsole creating department. If, however, you only want nice things said or nothing at all then please advise and I will concur.
Best,
tectak

[tectak]

Harsh, dude. These are not works I'm putting together everyday. These are old works I'm posting to try to get new perspective on them. This is a revision of an old work. And I am listening to EVERYTHING you say, so please stop accusing me of "rushing it to the pen." I'm taking it to you to get perspective. You don't have to tear me a new one every time I post. And geez. You don't have to just blatantly tell me I'm a bad writer. I thought I was a good writer, and was working on improving, but I guess I'm just a terrible writer, and I'm inhibiting my progress and wasting your time. Sorry about that.

Relax, he's a harsh crit but he means well, and does have a couple salient points, the rest is mindless ranting, besides, none of us take him seriously anyway.

That's put a bandage on it,true I only hope I can take the ignominy of faint praise without my ego bursting! You are kinder than you know....but it won't save you
Best both,
tectak

[Ganman]

The poem is not all bad, and it's certainly salvageable, there is some good stuff here.
A good start would be to..
Try to make the narrative more interesting, and less patronizing.

Interesting...

Well, the goal was kind of to be patronizing. I was trying to satirize philosophy and academia. The debate is intentionally irrelevant to the larger context... that is, while they're debating semantics, somebody is setting their cars on fire.
I'm not going to into pretentious "my poem's good. You just don't get me" mode. Instead, I'm wondering how I can make my purpose here a little clearer. I'm trying to be pretentiously philosophical (the goal is absurdism, actually) while also criticizing pretentious philosophy.
Do you have any advice for how I might better cast this, make the pretentiousness a little clearer, but elucidated as satire?

And sorry, Tect. You're right. I'd forgotten that you liked my first poem. I probably took you out of context, but I've been having a row with an ex who decided to break up with me on my birthday AND our anniversary (same day), so I might have exercised my anger accidentally.

[Todd]

I generally liked the bones of the poem just had issues with some line breaks. It can be developed. The tone of it was what I enjoyed, but I've already given my comments.

[milo]

I'd like to know where to start revising, if I have a moment to look over this. Positive, negative feedback is appreciated- preferably also holding that you can pinpoint what you like or dislike so I can work on it. Thanks for reading!

We are at a park – I would trim the first 2 lines
what park is irrelevant –
it is a park,
with benches
and lampposts
like little, portable and the comma
fires, hell incandescent. I know you want "hell" for your discourse later but the line is so much better without it
It is late –
you do not need to know when – I would trim the first 2 lines again
late enough
that the world has
paused itself,
and you are probably
in bed, dreaming of eggs. this section is fine, maybe snip "probably"

I am not alone – snip the first 2 lines again
you know from my use of “we” –
and my friend removes
the crust from his egg sandwich,
as I debate him, "as we debate"
lacking a podium
and an obedient audience.

“There’s a subtle difference, someone mentioned the linebreaks already, so I won't beat this horse
I think,
between hell and a hand basket,”
I declare, and he watches,
contemplating.
“One you carry eggs in, and
the other you’re flayed alive in.” this line is weak

He nods, not in agreement, you use commas instead of correct grammar throughout and all the commas are starting to annoy
out of politeness,
the yoke dribbling
from his beard.
“Yes,” he agrees, “but they you definitely don't want he agrees here
are both words, and I exist,
you won’t deny that.” "you won't" or "you can't"?
I tell him that argument
doesn’t hold, that it’s unfair,
like comparing someone to Hitler,
but an eavesdropping lawyer
intervenes, stepping into our picnic,
and tells me I played well,
but that my friend has won,

and we all look out at the parking lot,
sick, eyes protruding, as we wonder "eyes protruding"? are you insects?
who set
our
cars
on
fire.

it is a park,
with benches
and lampposts
like little, portable fires,
incandescent.

late enough
that the world
has paused
and you are in bed
dreaming of eggs.

my friend removes
the crust from his egg sandwich,
as we debate
lacking a podium
and an obedient audience.

“There’s a subtle difference,
between hell and a hand basket,”
I declare and he watches,
contemplating.
“One you carry eggs in, and
the other you’re flayed alive in.”

He nods, not in agreement,
out of politeness,
the yoke dribbling
from his beard.
“Yes,” he agrees,
“but they are both words,
and I exist,you (can't) deny that.”

I tell him that argument
doesn’t hold, that it’s unfair,
like comparing someone to Hitler,
but an eavesdropping lawyer
intervenes, stepping into our picnic,
and tells me I played well,
but that my friend has won,

and we all look out at the parking lot,
wondering
who set our cars on fire.

I would start revising here

milo

---

Harsh, dude. These are not works I'm putting together everyday. These are old works I'm posting to try to get new perspective on them. This is a revision of an old work. And I am listening to EVERYTHING you say, so please stop accusing me of "rushing it to the pen." I'm taking it to you to get perspective. You don't have to tear me a new one every time I post. And geez. You don't have to just blatantly tell me I'm a bad writer. I thought I was a good writer, and was working on improving, but I guess I'm just a terrible writer, and I'm inhibiting my progress and wasting your time. Sorry about that.

Never worry about being a "bad writer", I have written more crap and certainly crappier than this, you need to learn to separate yourself emotionally from what you have written once you post it to "serious". If you still feel emotionally attached or if you feel it isn't up to your usual standard, just post in "mild". I post some stuff in mild as well as some stuff in "for fun".

milo

[tectak]

The poem is not all bad, and it's certainly salvageable, there is some good stuff here.
A good start would be to..
Try to make the narrative more interesting, and less patronizing.

Interesting...

Well, the goal was kind of to be patronizing. I was trying to satirize philosophy and academia. The debate is intentionally irrelevant to the larger context... that is, while they're debating semantics, somebody is setting their cars on fire.
I'm not going to into pretentious "my poem's good. You just don't get me" mode. Instead, I'm wondering how I can make my purpose here a little clearer. I'm trying to be pretentiously philosophical (the goal is absurdism, actually) while also criticizing pretentious philosophy.
Do you have any advice for how I might better cast this, make the pretentiousness a little clearer, but elucidated as satire?

And sorry, Tect. You're right. I'd forgotten that you liked my first poem. I probably took you out of context, but I've been having a row with an ex who decided to break up with me on my birthday AND our anniversary (same day), so I might have exercised my anger accidentally.

Hey, that's fine Punch me!
Best,
tectak

[tectak]

Interesting...

Well, the goal was kind of to be patronizing. I was trying to satirize philosophy and academia. The debate is intentionally irrelevant to the larger context... that is, while they're debating semantics, somebody is setting their cars on fire.
I'm not going to into pretentious "my poem's good. You just don't get me" mode. Instead, I'm wondering how I can make my purpose here a little clearer. I'm trying to be pretentiously philosophical (the goal is absurdism, actually) while also criticizing pretentious philosophy.
Do you have any advice for how I might better cast this, make the pretentiousness a little clearer, but elucidated as satire?

And sorry, Tect. You're right. I'd forgotten that you liked my first poem. I probably took you out of context, but I've been having a row with an ex who decided to break up with me on my birthday AND our anniversary (same day), so I might have exercised my anger accidentally.

Hey, that's fine Punch me!
Best,
tectak

It's so fitting that tectak turns out to be a masochist.

OK. so don't punch me! Ouch.Pick the bones outa that, bloody sadist!

[Leanne]

Don't make me bring out the red pen, folks... let's get back to the poem shall we?