The Man Who Cares Not

[Volya]

A humble home; does the vagabond have
A box, a blanket, to shelter from the cold
And on the cruelest of nights,
When the wind bites deep
One wonders what the forgotten man thinks
As he tries to go to sleep

Is he filled with regret, of opportunities lost,
Or does he just sit their in silence, as the harsh wind blows on
But maybe, just maybe, he thinks to himself
Of the wonderful land that he has
Over mountains and meadows, he can wander at peace
Through forests and canyons, no man can make him cease

For what can one do, to the man who cares not
Any punishment you give him will soon be forgot
All you can do to ever make him rest
Is to simply wait, and eventually will come death.

[hillwalker]

I suppose the message is simply put - the lighter you travel the less you have to lose... though I'm not sure having death as some kind of reward at the end of it makes much sense.

As for the poem's structure - most of this is actually prose broken up into individual lines. If you rewrote each verse as a paragraph we wouldn't know different.

The first line is almost back-to-front unless the second half of it is meant as a question. I expect you think such an archaic style of writing is considered poetical. Well, it's not.
'The vagabond has a humble home' is clear enough to most readers without such fussy wording.

As for the rhyme, it's inconsistent so it's better to do away with it totally. You can't pick and choose when to rhyme and when not to in a poem - you have to be consistent. Also, the danger with rhyme is that one can end up with lines like

'Over mountains and meadows, he can wander at peace
Through forests and canyons, no man can make him cease'
- unless he's shot for trespassing,
or
'For what can one do, to the man who cares not
Any punishment you give him will soon be forgot.'
- One could presumably lock him up for the rest of his life. He'd not forget that.

What I'm trying to show you is that this is rather too simple. It's not based on anything remotely true to life so I'm left wondering what message you hoped to pass on to your readers. Anyone living on the streets would have a totally different outlook on life to the one you portray here.

My advice - read more poetry, forget about rhyme, and write about something that has some personal relevance to your own life.

H

[Volya]

I suppose the message is simply put - the lighter you travel the less you have to lose... though I'm not sure having death as some kind of reward at the end of it makes much sense.

As for the poem's structure - most of this is actually prose broken up into individual lines. If you rewrote each verse as a paragraph we wouldn't know different.

The first line is almost back-to-front unless the second half of it is meant as a question. I expect you think such an archaic style of writing is considered poetical. Well, it's not.
'The vagabond has a humble home' is clear enough to most readers without such fussy wording.

As for the rhyme, it's inconsistent so it's better to do away with it totally. You can't pick and choose when to rhyme and when not to in a poem - you have to be consistent. Also, the danger with rhyme is that one can end up with lines like

'Over mountains and meadows, he can wander at peace
Through forests and canyons, no man can make him cease'
- unless he's shot for trespassing,
or
'For what can one do, to the man who cares not
Any punishment you give him will soon be forgot.'
- One could presumably lock him up for the rest of his life. He'd not forget that.

What I'm trying to show you is that this is rather too simple. It's not based on anything remotely true to life so I'm left wondering what message you hoped to pass on to your readers. Anyone living on the streets would have a totally different outlook on life to the one you portray here.

My advice - read more poetry, forget about rhyme, and write about something that has some personal relevance to your own life.

H

I'm not sure why you'd think death was meant to be a reward here... It was just saying he will only stop when he dies. A lot of poetry is similar to prose, and vice versa in some cases. One can rhyme whenever he wants, I see no reason not to. 'Unless he's shot for trespassing' - yes, as was stated, only death will stop him. Lock him up for the rest of his life, sure, but he'll die in the end. Release him and he'll keep wandering. It's not meant to be particularly true to life, it's meant to portray a character who wanders forever.

But that aside, I genuinely am glad for response and helpful criticism, even If i don't show it sometimes xD Thank you for the advice :)

[hillwalker]

One can rhyme whenever he wants, I see no reason not to.

Unless it forces the writer to write lines that are either grammatically flawed or that make little if any sense.

For instance,

For what can one do, to the man who cares not
Any punishment you give him will soon be forgot

The correct expression is 'will soon be forgotten' but you presumably chose to write what you did here in order to keep the rhyme intact.

Also the verb 'cease' is a little archaic.

Most first-time writers of poetry assume it has to rhyme - that rhyme is what differentiates poetry from prose. Obviously that's not the case, which is why I advised you to read as much poetry as possible to get a better idea of what it's really about.

H

[Volya]

Are you sure 'forgot' isn't correct there? It seems fine to me. And 'cease' isn't really that archaic...

[Lykren]

I second Hillwalker's advice about reading more poetry. Ask if you need recommendations.

[Volya]

I second Hillwalker's advice about reading more poetry. Ask if you need recommendations.

I need recommendations :)

[hillwalker]

'forgot' is the past tense of forget
- as in 'I often forget my way home - but yesterday I even forgot my name'

'forgotten' is the past participle of forget
- a participle usually suggests a completed state - so you can 'be forgotten' (your state = no one remembers you) but you cannot be forgot

Of course, in certain American films where English is spoken as if it's a foreign langiage they might say 'I was forgot' or 'When I leave I'll be forgot' but it's still grammatically incorrect. If you think it sounds right then you're watching too many dumb movies.

The word 'cease' ?
- when was the last time you said 'Cease messing about?' or 'Cease being a prat'?

I can give you a recommendation - make sure you know what you're talking about before questioning well-meant advice. ;)

H

[Volya]

'forgot' is the past tense of forget
- as in 'I often forget my way home - but yesterday I even forgot my name'

'forgotten' is the past participle of forget - a participle suggests a completed state - so you can 'be forgotten' (your state = no one remembers you) but you cannot be forgot

Hmm, it may not follow the exact grammatical rules, but i have heard plenty of people use it in the way I have. e.g, the guy fawke rhyme 'i see no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot'

[hillwalker]

Which is a tongue-in-cheek rhyme to match 'gunpowder, treason and plot' in what is a humorous poem written in vernacular language.

I'm not talking about exact grammatical rules, I'm talking about straightforward, standard English. Of course, if you still think it's correct English then I'd be wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise.

H

[Volya]

Which is a tongue-in-cheek rhyme to match 'gunpowder, treason and plot' in what is a humorous poem written in vernacular language.

I'm not talking about exact grammatical rules, I'm talking about straightforward, standard English. Of course, if you still think it's correct English then I'd be wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise.

H

I reckon it's correct english. Soz.

[Lykren]

I need recommendations :)

William Carlos Williams, WH Auden, Walt Whitman, WB Yeats, John Donne, Richard Wilbur, Wallace Stevens, Kenneth Rexroth's Japanese translations, William Blake, Wyszlawa Szymborska. That should get you started.

[Volya]

William Carlos Williams, WH Auden, Walt Whitman, WB Yeats, John Donne, Richard Wilbur, Wallace Stevens, Kenneth Rexroth's Japanese translations, William Blake, Wyszlawa Szymborska. That should get you started.

Off to the library I go :)

[hillwalker]

I reckon it's correct english. Soz.

That's ok then. You know best.
Good luck with your career as a writer. You'll need it with such an arrogant and blinkered attitude. Generally I encourage young writers on here but you're beyond the pale.

H

[Volya]

That's ok then. You know best.
Good luck with your career as a writer. You'll need it with such an arrogant and blinkered attitude. Generally I encourage young writers on here but you're beyond the pale.

H

That seems like a bit of an overreaction, considering all I said was I think I CAN use 'forgot' like that.

[hillwalker]

It's not really an overreaction when someone dismisses one's responses on here in such a manner. You posted your poem presumably in order to gain feedback. I made 4 valid points:

1) It reads more like prose than poetry - you replied that 'A lot of poetry is similar to prose, and vice versa in some cases.' which suggests you don't read much poetry or understand the difference

2) Inconsistent and forced rhyme doesn't work - you responded by saying you see no reason not to rhyme

3) Some of the language and expressions seemed outdated and out of place in a contemporary poem - you disagreed and pointed out that the word 'cease' isn't particularly archaic

4) We came to the dreaded 'be forgot' phrase - you 'reckon' it's correct English despite evidence to the contrary. You say it 'seems fine' to you even though it's grammatically incorrect. Without belabouring the fact, one can certainly use 'be forgot' if you're writing in a particular dialect - like in the Scots poem 'Auld Lang Syne' - but that's not what you were doing here. Mixing and matching archaic, contemporary and vernacular language in the same poem surely can't have been intentional.

I'm all for writers standing up to criticism when it's unwarranted - or for choosing to write in a particular way even when it bucks the accepted trend. But all you have done is defend your style of writing in a manner which suggests you think it can't be improved upon. For someone who's looking for advice and guidance on here, your attitude does little to encourage anyone to give either.

H

[Volya]

It's not really an overreaction when someone dismisses one's responses on here in such a manner. You posted your poem presumably in order to gain feedback. I made 4 valid points:

1) It reads more like prose than poetry - you replied that 'A lot of poetry is similar to prose, and vice versa in some cases.' which suggests you don't read much poetry or understand the difference

2) Inconsistent and forced rhyme doesn't work - you responded by saying you see no reason not to rhyme

3) Some of the language and expressions seemed outdated and out of place in a contemporary poem - you disagreed and pointed out that the word 'cease' isn't particularly archaic

4) We came to the dreaded 'be forgot' phrase - you 'reckon' it's correct English despite evidence to the contrary. You say it 'seems fine' to you even though it's grammatically incorrect. Without belabouring the fact, one can certainly use 'be forgot' if you're writing in a particular dialect - like in the Scots poem 'Auld Lang Syne' - but that's not what you were doing here. Mixing and matching archaic, contemporary and vernacular language in the same poem surely can't have been intentional.

I'm all for writers standing up to criticism when it's unwarranted - or for choosing to write in a particular way even when it bucks the accepted trend. But all you have done is defend your style of writing in a manner which suggests you think it can't be improved upon. For someone who's looking for advice and guidance on here, your attitude does little to encourage anyone to give either.

H

1. How exactly is it more like prose than poetry? I don't understand :(
2. This seems more like a difference in opinion/style.
3. ^More of less the same as above. Is there anything wrong with using words that may be older than usual vocabulary?
4. Ok, I'll admit that it isn't correct English. But I still liked the sound of it, and use it in that way when I am speaking sometimes.

And if it helps, the reason I objected to what you said, is because you called me arrogant, which I am certainly not.

[hillwalker]

1. How exactly is it more like prose than poetry? I don't understand.

If you say it's poetry then it's poetry, because you're the writer. But if you reformat the piece and insert the correct punctuation it could easily pass as prose:

A humble home; does the vagabond have a box, a blanket, to shelter from the cold? And on the cruellest of nights, when the wind bites deep one wonders what the forgotten man thinks as he tries to go to sleep.
Is he filled with regret, of opportunities lost, or does he just sit their in silence, as the harsh wind blows on? But maybe, just maybe, he thinks to himself of the wonderful land that he has. Over mountains and meadows, he can wander at peace through forests and canyons. No man can make him cease.
For what can one do, to the man who cares not? Any punishment you give him will soon be forgot. All you can do to ever make him rest is to simply wait, and eventually will come death.

Poetry and prose often overlap. But rhyme and meter are rarely found in prose - so yes, your poem has certain lines that rhyme. But is that enough to make it poetry? Well, since you can also have poems without rhymes or strict meter there must be more to it.
Generally both art forms try to express something in words. But poetry tries to do this in fewer words or phrases. Words are chosen with much greater care, not just for what they convey but for their inherent rhythm or aesthetic qualities.
Prose is usually much more straightforward writing like in a letter or regular speech. Poetry is more refined or structured.
You have tried to mimic a certain type of Classical poetry by some of the phrasing (lines 1 and 13 in particular) but that doesn't make this any more poetic than if you had written

Does the vagabond have a humble home?
or
For what can one do to the man who does not care?

I did like the lines 'on the cruellest of nights/when the wind bites deep' but there wasn't much else that sang out as poetry to me. If you read enough poetry you will hopefully realise there's more to it than just rhyming...

which brings me to

2) This seems more like a difference in opinion/style.

Not necessarily. A lot of writers get so hung up on rhyme that they end up writing tosh. If you go through some of the poems posted on here by certain aspiring poets over the last six months or so you will soon realise that the worst poems almost always have one thing in common. The writer chose rhyme over reason. The writer decided it was more important that the lines rhymed than that they made sense. They even twist the syntax (where the normal word order gets turned on its head) or churn out meaningless expressions just to maintain a rhyme.
My advice is learn to express yourself clearly and concisely first. Rhyme and meter can come later. Then there's alliteration and internal rhyme and metaphor - all poetical devices that differentiate poetry from prose.

3) Is there anything wrong with using words that may be older than usual vocabulary?

It depends. If the reason for the choice is important, or because you're trying to write in a rather antiquated, pastoral style - no. But if the reason is purely because the word rhymes (or more rarely because you want to make your stuff look 'poetical') - yes.

Remember, in a poem every word has to count and it should be chosen on merit. The fact that a word rhymes with another comes a long way down the scale of appropriateness.

Also, archaic language (that ends up sounding like the writer swallowed an edition of Keats) doesn't necessarily make the poem any better. Why should it? There's a lot of dreadful poetry on LitNet written by poets who think because they use 'hath' and 'thy' they must be writing proper poetry and so they ought to be taken seriously. Obviously, if it was that simple we would all be doing it.

I'm often guilty of writing poetry that contains words you'd never use in everyday speech - but I do so because the word has a particular sound quality beyond the simple fact that it rhymes.

4) Ok, I'll admit that it isn't correct English. But I still liked the sound of it, and use it in that way when I am speaking sometimes.

There's nothing wrong with writing poetry the way you speak. Again, I've written poetry that's more like rap... but the style of language in which you choose to write has to be consistent with the context of the poem. You can't have South London slang expressions in the middle of an elegy on the death of a Roman gladiator for instance.

I may come across as a grouchy old git but I'm only trying to help you improve as a writer. If I didn't think you were worth the time I wouldn't be responding to your work would I?

H