Abrasive Hawk

[virtuoso]

What gallant form from vaunted perch does alight
Leaving tailwind that unassuming gawkers affright,
Whose tawny shadow the sun's rays does blight;
Swarthy silhouette shading glint so erudite
Whose tan-welted oars the azure seas does smite;
With swift strokes the ethereal waves does unrequite
Whose beige shield occludes satin ramparts line of sight;
O'er silted folds his opaque image does highlight
What spindling machine does wind's, billowy currents spite,
With each sweeping motion a cylinder does ignite
What grainy visage doth earth's footstool beknight,
With majestic crown his diminutive subjects delight
What predator drone spreads its cerebral kite;
Soaring fowl, creeping ermine safe sanctuary to slight
Whose steely eyes sky's tenants doth frivolously indict;
His insatiable, rapacious appetite to expedite

[Delta40]

Alright...

[hillwalker]

How to kill a poem's spirit with ineffectual rhyme Lesson #1 - use the same end-rhyme 16 times in one poem.

H

[cafolini]

How to kill a poem's spirit with ineffectual rhyme Lesson #1 - use the same end-rhyme 16 times in one poem.

H

Well...He said it was abrasive. LOL

[virtuoso]

End rhyme is sublime! End rhyme that is sing-songy or flows like a nursery rhyme is shallow, indeed. This rhyme scheme has a diverse vocabulary cadre. End rhyme is, indeed, a simple form, but the quality of accents and words can make it quiet effective and enjoyable. This was not a simple write, my friend. I dare say most could not have submitted a similar poem. Do not mix the simplicity of the form with a lack of syntactical prowess or deep expressive thoughts or ideals. This was a deeply reflective poem!

[hillwalker]

Unusual for the OP to critique his own piece - it's great that you enjoyed it.

As for the amount of effort it took you to write - you're obviously winding us up.

quiet (?) effective and enjoyable - not from where I'm sitting

quality of accents and words - again, look no further than 'the sun's rays does blight' - grammatically wrong and forced syntax

If you continue to maintain that your readers have failed to see the obvious skill it took to write this piece you are displaying a degree of delusion.

H

[Silas Thorne]

I think you've walked one path so much you've trapped yourself in a deep trench, virtuoso. As an experiment to see if you can write a number of lines with the same end rhyme it is interesting, but it really does make the poem irritating and destroy all interest someone might have in the content.

[virtuoso]

Whose tawny shadow the suns rays does blight is grammatically correct. Shadow (singular) does blight. Rays is the direct object. End rhyme merely makes the poem flow smoother. It does not detract from the content. If the rhyme scheme stops you from thinking about the content, then you must be pretty shallow. I have read your poems, and I think you could utilize rhyme a little more.

[hillwalker]

Hilarious.

The subject of your sentence is the sun's rays - they are blighting the tawny shadow. That's how most people would read it the way it's written here.

If you meant that the tawny shadow is blighting the sun's rays then it should be something along the lines of 'whose tawny shadow does blight the sun's rays'.

As for your comment on my shallow interpretation of poetry, and my own poetry's lack of rhyme - your astute analysis of my reading and writing skills is much appreciated.

H

[virtuoso]

It is a noun phrase describing the subject in the previous line. I have added a comma in the previous line to keep it from reading like a question. It is not a question. It is a descriptive phrase describing the subject in the previous line. With the comma, it should read properly.

[hillwalker]

It is a noun phrase describing the subject in the previous line. I have added a comma in the previous line to keep it from reading like a question. It is not a question. It is a descriptive phrase describing the subject in the previous line. With the comma, it should read properly.

That makes it clear as mud.

The possibility of it being misread as a question was never an issue.
Who's and Whose are two totally different words as I'm sure you already know.

H

[blank|verse]

I’m wary about getting dragged into this discussion but I write from a position of wanting to help you wean yourself off the addiction of archaic poetry; to help take away the crutches so you can stand on your own two feet. I’m sure there’s some real poetry in there somewhere. How much contemporary poetry do you read?

While you’re clearly an intelligent writer, virtuoso, the archaic diction and inverted syntax have no place in modern poetry because they have no place in modern language.* It feels like your poetry is written more for the pleasure and benefit of yourself rather than anyone else. They’re decent pastiches, but you can’t expect anyone to take your poetry seriously today. If you don’t believe me, send them off to a quality poetry magazine and see what reaction you get.

(* I’ll admit they have a very limited place in contemporary poetry, usually for comic effect.)

Your poems betray a prescriptive belief that ‘proper’ poetry can only be written in this style; it’s a form of artistic cowardice to hide behind the language of a different era. This isn’t an authentic voice. And ok, all poets adopt different personas (personae if you prefer) but only in order to engage with the reader in some way, to move them emotionally, or make them empathise, or look at something in a new way that’s relevant to them. Frankly, this is showy, conceited and irrelevant… worse, in fact, but I don’t want to be too uncharitable as you’ve only started posting recently.

And it’s just disappointing, really. I feel like saying something like ‘you’re old enough to know better’. Using the same end-rhyme becomes distracting to the point of ridiculousness. (Look at me! Aren’t I clever?! screams every thuddingly predictable line.) There’s no heart or soul or real intelligence, just a superficial cleverness that feels it should be applauded merely for being able to tie its own shoelaces.

But anyway, as I said, I do have your best intentions at heart, and I believe that you have more to offer the modern world if you harness your powers of language in a way that is more true to yourself. And as we know, truth is beauty.

[blank|verse]

And in addition to my previous post, the following advice is taken from a contemporary British publisher to beginner-level poets and is worth reading (full page ref. here):

If you don't read contemporary poetry, then it is also unlikely that your work is going to be of interest to this editor—it shows, believe me. If you think verse is what is on the inside of Hallmark cards, then you're definitely approaching the wrong outlet. If the last poem you read was by Wordsworth in an EngLit class at the age of 14, it is quite possible that you are still trying to recreate Wordsworth in your own work. Don't do it, please: he was wonderful, and positively radical in his day, but he did not try to copy Spenser, from the 1500s. He was in tune with his time, and actually somewhat ahead of his time.

Please remember that sincerity of expression does not necessarily make for good poetry. It's how you say it, not necessarily what you say, that gets the poem across, although it obviously helps if you have something interesting to say as well.

Think about why you are writing in the first place. If it is for purely personal therapeutic reasons, this is unlikely to constitute meaningful communication with the other inhabitants of the planet, and is equally unlikely to be of interest to this editor. Emotions need to be distilled and filtered through the power of language in order to gain impact in artistic terms. All art forms should be about communication, even if many readers are not going to understand the end-product. It succeeds if even one reader gets something out of it. Likewise, if your reason for writing is simply to be published (&/or to see your name on a page, as a kind of validation of your sense of self-worth), I would suggest that the motivation behind it is ill-placed.

[virtuoso]

Blank verse, I have, indeed, read the truncated verses of many so-called, scholarly poets. Most of their poems are vague and vapid. I will grant to you that this style predominates in contemporary literary circles today. I have read all of the poet laureates of our day, and get practically nothing out of their poetry. If you like their choppy, tortured verses, then more power to you. I think rhyme is sublime, and never goes out of style. Your scholarly, educated readers might prefer that meaningless drivel, but the common reader does not. I post on many poetry sites, and the readers seem to like my rhyming poetry.

[hillwalker]

Ok - I give in. Rhyme is sublime. I wish you all the best on those other sites where your skills are better appreciated.

I'll not waste my time reading or commenting on any more of your poetry. You have your tastes and I have mine - and I'm pleased to say they're a world apart.

H