hard to say

[Mojtaba-Iraqi]

I want to know ur impressions as critics. thanx


The life is destined to die
The day is destined to set
The peace is fated to fight
Eternity to get bored

The poet is punished to lie
Politicians are gifted to hate
Satan is delayed to gift
Humans are alive to encode

My heart is destined to love
My love is hated to cry
My cry is thirsty for a look,
and your look is chained to tears

[Delta40]

Mmm. I rather like the first stanza. By the time we get to the second, there are some sweeping statements that don't resound with quite the same wisdom. I notice in the third stanza you line the last word of each line with the next - a change in the structure of the poem.

To be honest, I think the first stanza can stand alone, although consider replacing one destined with another word (doomed?)

[Mojtaba-Iraqi]

but I aimed to follow the strategy of sequence. the first stanza is about nonhuman objects which deal with universality. then, in the second, i tried to classified different persons, and then in the 3rd, my personal feelings.
pessemism is the major theme, in which the end of everything is ill, but love.
the only opptimistic thing in life is love.
anyhow, this is a respectable idea, and I do appreciate it.

[everyadventure]

I'm sorry, I feel there are a lot of awkward word selections that just don't make much sense in the context they were used: "is punished to lie," "hated to cry," "delayed to gift." I'm unsure what you were trying to get across in this poem. Sorry :sad:

[Mojtaba-Iraqi]

thank u darling for commenting, but as long as I know, the reader should not expect to find everything ready in the text. the reader should put many possibilities in each line and more than one explanation for each thought.
A poem must semantically, pragmatically, and psychologically analyzed.
but, thank u for being honest.

[Delta40]

you're right that the reader should put as many possibilities in each line etc. The onus is on the poet to make that possibility available, since poems range from the specific to the absolute obscure.

I think the theme of the poem contains the elements of passion and on second reading I see how you start with life and narrow it down to an individuals tears. If you're following that stratagem then Eternity is certainly misplaced. Perhaps eternity should be the starting point, followed by life?

[MorpheusSandman]

If I'm being honest, I really don't like it. I think it's an example of parison (A rhetorical term for parallel grammatical structure) run amok, and towards the end it just stops making sense, as everyadventure mentioned.

[Mojtaba-Iraqi]

thank u delta for focusing on this weak point. u'r right.

thank u morpheus for commenting, but I think the critics dont judge subjectively. would u plz justify ur point clearly, not just a reflection of personal impression? thank u anyway.

[PrinceMyshkin]

thank u delta for focusing on this weak point. u'r right.

thank u morpheus for commenting, but I think the critics dont judge subjectively. would u plz justify ur point clearly, not just a reflection of personal impression? thank u anyway.


Much indeed most of this is not idiomatic English. There are many forced constructions and others that are simply obscure or presented without the evidence to back them up. Like most of us, you regard your poem as if it were one of your children and like all of us, you want your children to be admired and loved. You're not going to get the benefit of these responses until and unless you stand back and try to understand rather than refuting them.

[MorpheusSandman]

but I think the critics dont judge subjectively. would u plz justify ur point clearly, not just a reflection of personal impression? thank u anyway.All critics judge subjectively. Objective criticism is either analysis-sans-judgment or an attempt to establish subjective opinions as axiomatic standards. I don't think there's a tremendous amount in your piece to analyze. It's an example of parison, which is the repetition of a grammatical structure, such as "the X is Y to Z" which is what you engage in here. Such rhetorical devices can be effective if used sparingly but I think basing an entire piece around them is a bit difficult unless you have a thorough command of the language and themes. Here, there are some obvious awknwardnesses, such as your use of "destined" three times.

The first two lines are cliches. Of course life is destined to die and day to set. stating such obvious things can be useful for setting up something in contrast, like, say, writing some lines about things that AREN'T destined, but you really don't do this. Line three starts with the nonsense. "The peace is fated to fight" --- WHAT? How is peace, an abstract concept, "fated" to do anything active and physical like fight? Peace doesn't fight, but people can fight for or against peace. Really, none of the lines in the second stanzas make much sense. Why are poets punished to lie? Who punished them? What are they lying about? Politicians are gifted to hate, by whom? Naturally? All politicians are hateful? Satan is delayed to gift is just bizarre because of the use of gift as a verb, but the delayed part is just as obscure.

I could pretty much extent this to ever subsequent line. The poem just doesn't make sense, which is really highlighted by the rhetorical repetition. Of course, not all poetry has to make sense, but it at least has to provoke the reader to make sense out of it, and to provide an illusion, an intuitive sense that there is sense to be made out of it. This piece doesn't do that, primarily because the clarity of the rhetoric clashes against the unnatural and nonsensical grammar.

[Mojtaba-Iraqi]

Much indeed most of this is not idiomatic English. There are many forced constructions and others that are simply obscure or presented without the evidence to back them up. Like most of us, you regard your poem as if it were one of your children and like all of us, you want your children to be admired and loved. You're not going to get the benefit of these responses until and unless you stand back and try to understand rather than refuting them.

I think u misunderstood me in this case. if u make another review, u will observe that the replies are NOT refuting as u mentioned, but they are simple clarifications. I've heard once that someone should knows, who and what he is, and I think I didnt claim that Im the 2nd version of shakespear in an Iraqi shape, and even how dare I to claim that Im better than the others in here or equal to them.
but I think there is a universal concept which is called "defending", and I hope there is a clear difference between it and the word "refute or attack" in ur own dictionary. and I think I have the right to explain things.
Finally, I hope u have obsereved the part in which I admitted delta's comment. Im here to learn and know, not to equalize myself with u.
I hope I havent bothered u and I wish u to keep commenting on my participations. thank u

Morpheus, that was brilliant. for sure, Ill try to apply each point in my coming texts. that was amazing.... thank u