Mind's Eye

[Red-Headed]

Poetry is not science. Science, can be reproduced, but arts including poetry can not. There is little relationship between them.

I disagree, poetry may not be rocket science, but it has aesthetic harmonic & cultural rules, many of which are universal. Learning to read, write & understand these can be deemed a science. Of course, it all depends on how you define art & science. I don't think that the distinction is as large as some would like to believe.

It's true, I believe. From the replies posted on your this post seems you're very fond of form and structure., because of this most writers here raised their queries and tried to provide you some constructive suggestion.

Well, if quibbling about syllable counts & asking me to let it all hang loose are constructive suggestions maybe. I'm fond of vodka & pizza, form & structure are not my favourites. Although, it appears that it doesn't matter how much that I write about how I dislike Classical prosody, this is ignored because I have written a few haiku, some haiku type-chains & a Chaucerian roundel.

you are correct with that "The term free verse is essentially a misnomer "; but I wonder, as a game, if there are much more excitation and delight to play in a formed poetry than to play in a so-called free verse?

There is no such thing as free verse. Believe me.

[hallaig]

Madam, what you need to do is inject the same passion you display for defending yourself against critiicism into your poetry. I find your poems a bit flat, but your arguments why they aren't, wonderful.

[Delta40]

I am so glad you joined Lit-Net Red because I seldom interest myself in the technicalities of poems and construct and whether or not it is a science but you command interesting discussions on each of your threads that give me food for thought and I feel as if I could actually learn more.

Thanks from one redhead to another

[hillwalker]

I am so glad you joined Lit-Net Red because I seldom interest myself in the technicalities of poems and construct and whether or not it is a science but you command interesting discussions on each of your threads that give me food for thought and I feel as if I could actually learn more.

I'm guessing that puts you in a league of your own - Red-Heads-R-Us.

Perhaps the rest of us could start a thread on here for those who actually enjoy writing poetry and for those who enjoy reading it to provide constructive criticism in response to what they have read...

and another for those who, unable to lighten up, merely want to analyse and discuss the fine technicalities. That way they can wrangle to their hearts' content without hijacking someone's work.

The constant tirades are getting rather personal as well as tiresome - count me out as of now.

H

[Red-Headed]

Madam, what you need to do is inject the same passion you display for defending yourself against critiicism into your poetry. I find your poems a bit flat, but your arguments why they aren't, wonderful.

Well, you can't be replying to me.

[Red-Headed]

Madam, what you need to do is inject the same passion you display for defending yourself against critiicism into your poetry. I find your poems a bit flat, but your arguments why they aren't, wonderful.

Well, you can't be replying to me.

Whoever you are replying to, I find your poems a bit cliched, but I wouldn't say that out loud.

[Red-Headed]

Perhaps the rest of us could start a thread on here for those who actually enjoy writing poetry and for those who enjoy reading it to provide constructive criticism in response to what they have read...

Constructive criticism? Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what?

and another for those who, unable to lighten up, merely want to analyse and discuss the fine technicalities. That way they can wrangle to their hearts' content without hijacking someone's work.

Or maybe one for people to just make pointless snide comments maybe?

The constant tirades are getting rather personal as well as tiresome - count me out as of now.

Translation: I lost the argument.

[Red-Headed]

I am so glad you joined Lit-Net Red because I seldom interest myself in the technicalities of poems and construct and whether or not it is a science but you command interesting discussions on each of your threads that give me food for thought and I feel as if I could actually learn more.

Thanks from one redhead to another

OK, thanks. There is no harm in learning. I still am.

[Jack of Hearts]

As much as one hates to repeat feedback... between you, ShadowsCool and (formerly) Biggus, this reader is running out of honest responses to offer (blame it on his pedestrian intellect).

To virtually echo the reply to your first offering: This seems, to this reader, to fall just short of effective. There are lines that seem like they're going to propel the beauty off of the page but they're consistently followed by real sandbags that kill the momentum, figuratively speaking. It's knocking on the door but it can't come in.

... but, all the same, this reader thought your use of enlambment went well with the mint jelly.





J

[yuka]

I disagree, poetry may not be rocket science, but it has aesthetic harmonic & cultural rules, many of which are universal. Learning to read, write & understand these can be deemed a science. Of course, it all depends on how you define art & science. I don't think that the distinction is as large as some would like to believe..

Well, to debate this is definitely stupid. Either art or science, both are big and empty. Even their definitions can never be clearly defined. But still I hold my point, poetry is not science. Whatever you say.

There is no such thing as free verse. Believe me.

I believe, but not believe you, I believe free verse is essentially a misnomer. The reason just like what you stated previously.

[Red-Headed]

As much as one hates to repeat feedback... between you, ShadowsCool and (formerly) Biggus, this reader is running out of honest responses to offer (blame it on his pedestrian intellect).

To virtually echo the reply to your first offering: This seems, to this reader, to fall just short of effective. There are lines that seem like they're going to propel the beauty off of the page but they're consistently followed by real sandbags that kill the momentum, figuratively speaking. It's knocking on the door but it can't come in.

... but, all the same, this reader thought your use of enlambment went well with the mint jelly.

Thanks, originally these were all individual haiku, I just decided to string them together & end with a tanka. I think that this is the poems' essential fault.

[Red-Headed]

Well, to debate this is definitely stupid. Either art or science, both are big and empty. Even their definitions can never be clearly defined. But still I hold my point, poetry is not science. Whatever you say.

I know what you mean, obviously poetry is an art form, my point was that you cannot remove the 'science' of technique & linguistics from the actual process of writing.