Three poems to serenade Monday

[virtuoso]

When I try to think of end rhyming words. I do not choose any word that does not have a functional purpose, or fit into the thematic scheme as a whole. I actually try and make sure that most of the end rhyming words have more, not less, appeal and descriptiveness than the other words in the lines.

[DieterM]

First of all, I'd like to thank you for having commented on one of my own poems. I prefer to do that in this thread as the poem in question has had its share of readers and comments and I wouldn't want to bump it up to the Pole position again—I hope you understand.

I guess you have misunderstood what I was trying to explain to you re. your poetical input. The question is not whether I like rhymes or not (actually, I do). The question is not whether you should rhyme glow with window. I never said you shouldn't—you, by any means, shall write the way you want to, and I love this Forum for exactly that reason—because I know I will be able to read other writers' literary production and find work so absultely different from mine and different from one another. What I did say is that I wouldn't rhyme these two words. I know the rules for rhymes, and I know they are very "liberal" in English. Much more than in French (the country I'm living in) and German (which is my native language). I know that glow and window can be considered a "rhyming pair". You are mistaken though when you say that the "-ow"-syllable is long; window consists of two short syllables. If "-dow" were long, you would pronounce it with a stress in the "-ow" (window), as in "bestow" (and even there, I'm not sure you could say it's a long diphtong—try to say the word in an exaggerated manner, then do the same with glow or moon, where indeed the syllable is long, and you'll hear the difference).

But these are technical quibbles anyway. Rhyme is a form-thing. And it has to serve one purpose: it has to serve the content. Now in former times, people thought, spoke and therefore wrote differently. A poet could get away with a line like "Frosty beams on pine needles glow". But today, the structure not only sounds tortured—it is. "Frosty beams glow on pine needles" is the natural way to think, say and write the content. Of course you would loose the end rhyme, and the rythm would not satisfy me ("beams glow" makes two stressed syllables in a row where I'd rather have stressed-unstressed-stressed; the same is true for "pine needles"; and again, I'm talking about me personnally), so I'd try out several other words, I'd play with glimmer or shimmer etc. But the end rhyme would be gone no matter what. So you see what I and hillwalker wanted to say? Tortured structure is okay, rhyme is okay, if it serves the content, if it serves the poem. "Frosty beams on pine needles glow" does not—it serves the sole purpose to have a word at the end that rhymes. The flow of the content has been twisted for rhyme's sake.

You seem to put much energy and time into your poems, but much too much of it goes into the artificial search of end rhymes. I went into this length because, if it wasn't clear from the start (which I'd regret), nothing of this is personal. I don't mislike you, I don't mislike rhymes. But when the form gets the upper hand, I don't have the feeling to read poetry anymore but rather get the impression that someone is self-indulgently trying to impress me. You reinforced that feeling by telling me not to read your poems anymore, and you suggested to hillwalker that he should not comment on your poetry too. Which leaves me wondering—do you post your poetry on here because you want us to satisfy your vanity (meaning you want us to tell you how wonderful a poet you are), or do you expect genuine, honest feedback in order to improve? I don't have your answer (you must answer that one yourself, and not even necessarily in this thread but to yourself, too), but I have mine. I post here because I want to write better. Sometimes, critiques are positive (and flatter me no end and make my day, if truth be told), sometimes they are harsh and feel like a sting. Yet I'm glad to have both. And I always invite everyone who likes or hates my poetry to comment.

[virtuoso]

Dieter you have made some very good points. I agree that you might stress the 'win' on window. I have no.problem with you reading my poems. I wish you could ignore the end rhymes and give me some feedback and critical analysis of the content. Thanks for your professional response.

[AuntShecky]

Don't sacrifice meaning for the sake of rhyme.

Rhyming is a useful tool from the writer's toolbox, but only when it's used appropriately or effectively. You wouldn't use a hammer for a job that calls for a screwdriver, would you?

Cf. My response to your "Abrasive Hawk" post.

PS--Dieter, I absolutely love your response(s) in this thread, but for the record I don't think "glow" and "window" work as English rhymes. "Glow" is stressed, but window is pronounced
"WINdow." It would be like saying that "Egret" (the aquatic bird, with the stress on the initial "E") rhymes with "reGRET."

[Adolescent09]

Where are the forced rhymes in the poems? The words absolutely fit within their respective lines. You call it forced, because you do not like end rhyme or monorhyme. If you do not like it, then I am alright with that. You have your own preferences. My end rhymes are not jingly or nursery-rhymish. The end rhyme words have meaning and are as functional as the other words in the lines.

Don't mind everybody, virtuoso. It might be hard to believe, but there was a time when people on this forum were actually very respectful. Obviously that time has long since passed. Last I checked, this is just a casual literature forum. Not a SINGLE person on this forum has a fan-base that could fill a large walkin closet and yet we all feel so great about ourselves when we attack a newcomer's poetry. It's alright virtuoso, we just need to cover our insecurities by pretending that someday we will be well known. We insatiably dine on arrogance, here. Welcome to LitNet!

[virtuoso]

Thanks for the hearty welcome, Adolescent! I agree that the critiquers could be more constructive with their criticism. I got a lot of good advice on my poem's structure, but almost no comments on the content of my poems. It tells me that they are impressed with the descriptiveness of my writing, but do not want to admit it. They deal exclusively with the form, style. Could it be that some of them cannot think, write with such sophistication? Anyway, I appreciate all of their comments. I wish they were a bit more balanced(form, subject matter).

[AuntShecky]

the critiquers could be more constructive with their criticism.

By your own definition, what is "constructive criticism?"

It's not the same as praise. The term doesn't merely mean pointing out the flaws of one's work, but showing why these flaws detract from the work.

I got a lot of good advice on my poem's structure, but almost no comments on the content of my poems.

Sometimes the structure of a person's effort is so dense that it is extremely difficult to see the content. In any event, this isn't how poetry works. A good poem is a marriage of form and content, the structure and the meaning are inextricably bound, with neither taking precedence over the other. If you want the subject matter to be more important than the form, then write it in prose.

It tells me that they are impressed with the descriptiveness of my writing, but do not want to admit it.

How do you know this?

Could it be that some of them cannot think, write with such sophistication?

Why not read more works of your fellow Litnutters and find out?

[virtuoso]

Aunt Shecky constructive criticism is evaluating a work thoroughly, and giving a balanced verdict. Nobody has evaluated the content of any of my poems. I saw members of this site fawn over a one line poem. Spare me the self righteous indignation. There are no scholars writing on this site, and of course that includes me as well.

[DieterM]

I'm quite awed by your self-esteem, dear v. I mean, I thought I loved myself but I must say I seem to have found my master ;-) Of course, with all the vanity that Adolescent09 has mentionned, I do like some of my poems (not even all of them), but I'm quite aware of their flaws and always thankful when other members of this forum thake the time to point them out to me. I have to say that amongst the most valuable comments are always those of hillwalker and AuntShecky. They do read a lot on here, and they do take the time to comment, give advice etc. One can be a bit taken aback by hill's answers which are so concise that some take them for rude. I rather take them for what they are—concise and oh how honest bits of feedback that we writers so sorely need. Otherwise we'd just bathe in the vain admiration of ourselves (btw loved that, Adolescent09—I just don't see where I lacked respect for virtuoso in my comments) and wouldn't understand why nobody wanted to read our work.

Anyway. I have been "fighting back" re. one or two words I've chosen with care and that other readers had quibbles with. But what I'm really astounded of is that you seem to fight for each and every single word of your poems. Again I wonder why you post them here if none of what others in this forum say seems to be heard. You go on saying that people in this forum don't like rhyme. Had I had feedback like you had, I would rather have asked myself if a) the readers didn't like MY rhymes and then b) if my poem was really as good as I thought it was in the beginning. Don't worry, this is not an attack of your work; again, I'm solely talking about me. I've posted some poems that didn't get a single comment, and when I reread them a bit later on, I realized they didn't deserve comments because they were crap.

Alright, I went over Winter Woddland again because you, uhm, boasted would be the word, wouldn't it? Well, you boasted about "the descriptiveness of [your] writing" and the "sophistication". I read the poem again, putting aside the quibbles I still have about the rhymes (it was like listening to music without taking notice of the notes, btw). I did have several interrogations. Are you sure you're ready for my questions? Well, here they are anyway:

"A menacing wind seeps through thatched window"
I miss the article for the window (a thatched window) and don’t really get the picture (“thatched” is normally related to a roof so why would you thatch a window?)

"Below, fibrous carpet cloaked with satin plateau"
Below what? The window presumably as it’s the subject of the previous sentence. "The fibrous carpet" (which misses an article as well) is another picture I don’t get, I’m afraid. And why would you cloak a carpet? And what is the plateau you’re talking of? A level? A highland? Is there a fibrous carpet covered by a level of something (the something being snow, I presume)?

"Snowy wood with furry dander doth flow"
Now this is really nonsensical; if you write the sentence in the usual structure, it says “snowy wood flows with furry dander”; I understand that you probably mean “overflows with furry dander”, but here it reads as if logs were forming a river

"Mule deer nestle with fatty reserves in tow"
What, pray tell, is a mule deer? I know of mules, I know of deer, but I do not know mule deer; and I confess I’m not very keen of the expression “fatty reserves in tow”

"Wild boars root 'neath the milky tallow"
I had to look up “tallow” (English is NOT my native language) and learned that it was “hard animal fat that is used for making candles and soap”, which left me wondering no end—what do you mean here? Is there another meaning my dictionary hid from me?

"Red foxes scavenge for prey along the hedgerow*"
Oh, yes, your poems seem to be full of unexplained “*”; why is that so?

"Pensive hares prat through the silken meadow"
Pensive hares? I never thought of a hare as pensive, I must say… and then they do what? They prat? As in yak? They are pensive yet they go yadda-yadda-yadda? I don’t get it…

"Black bears take shelter in sleepy hollow"
Article missing for the hollow

"Spotted owls reconnoiter each frozen crevice, sealed burrow"
"Reconnoiter" is such an odd word choice for owls, isn't it?

"Orange-breasted sparrows their winter anthem bellow"
I never heard a sparrow bellow, I must confess

I fear that again, you'll defend each and every single word, even the missing articles. That's your right. And no, I'm no scholar (btw did you know Rimbaud was no scholar when he wrote his famous poem "Le Bateau Ivre"? he was only seventeen!). I'm just an avid reader. And you know what? I'm a reader who doesn't give a damn about flaws when the result is good. For instance, I love a good Fantasy Story and have read all of the "Harry Potter"-books (nothing to be ashamed of). Afterwards, people told me Rowling was such a bad writer and that she didn't know any other word than "say" when writing dialogues. And you know what? I really didn't notice because I was drawn in by her story! When the whole is good, the flaws of the bits don't show.

[virtuoso]

Thanks for evaluating the content of my poetry. Articles are often ommitted to shorten lines in English poetry. Articles can be implied. On "thatched window", traditional cottages sometimes have thatched windows. Remember this is a rudimentary dwelling in the woodland. The wind blows down from above, also, the window is a raised appendage. Below any window is the ground or driveway. Not a stretch at all. The ground is oft compared to a green carpet in poetry. The silken snow is a plateau above the ground. The furry dander obviously refers to the hair from the thick, winter coats of the woodland animals. Mule deer are a prominent species of deer in North America. Milky tallow refers to the melting or melted snow. Tallow is, indeed, a white animal fat used in candles. Obviously it is melted. Hares are definitely pensive, nervous, jittery animals. Have you ever watched one? I do need to change the word "prat". Reconnoiter simply means to scout, inspect, survey. Predatory birds scan, scout their territories. Song sparrows have a distinct, audible song. I did not defend every word. You were right on the word "prat". I will change it. I do appreciate informed, constructive criticism. I hope you will continue to analyze my poems. Thanks for stopping by!

[AuntShecky]

There are no scholars writing on this site

,

Then quite of few of us have quite a windfall coming in the form of a refund of our college tuition money.

Again, if you're looking for praise, look elsewhere. If you truly wanted constructive criticism, we would have expected to see a little more gratitude and a lot less bitterness. Yours fooly only has a limited amount of time to devote to reading and commenting upon the works of other LitNutters. In the future, therefore, I'll be tossing my swine-swill in front of more-appreciative pearls.

[virtuoso]

Aunt Shecky, as Adolescent said in his comments, there was no welcoming me to the site. He was the only one courteous enough to do so. The rest of you, like a pack of wolves, descended on my poetry. There was only destructive criticism given to me. Show me one truly good thing you, or anyone else in your pack, said about one of my poems. You smugly think that your poetry is a cut above the rest. I would take the descriptive quality of any of my poems over you or anyone else on this site. I like to read your poems, and my other detractors poems, but I will not put you on a pedestal, or allow you to belittle my writing without a strong defense. Drool on, Aunt Drooly. Right another vapid, meaningless poem for me! I will waste my time and read it.

[Calidore]

Aunt Shecky, as Adolescent said in his comments, there was no welcoming me to the site. He was the only one courteous enough to do so. The rest of you, like a pack of wolves, descended on my poetry. There was only destructive criticism given to me. Show me one truly good thing you, or anyone else in your pack, said about one of my poems. You smugly think that your poetry is a cut above the rest. I would take the descriptive quality of any of my poems over you or anyone else on this site. I like to read your poems, and my other detractors poems, but I will not put you on a pedestal, or allow you to belittle my writing without a strong defense. Drool on, Aunt Drooly. Right another vapid, meaningless poem for me! I will waste my time and read it.

"Your pack"? "Only destructive criticism"? Smugness? You need to read this whole thread again. Everyone except Hillwalker (and it's out of character for him, but everyone has bad days) was specific about what they didn't care for, for the purpose of helping you improve. If what they didn't like was in fact deliberate styling on your part, there's nothing wrong with you defending it, or just saying so.

Your aggressively negative and occasionally delusional (you have twice invented motivations on the part of a poster that were neither stated or implied, once even contradicting what the poster had just told you) reaction to honest criticism only tells people that your writing will never improve and they're wasting their time reading it. And your behavior especially toward one of the more generous people on the site ("Drool on, Aunt Drooly") is uncalled for and childish in the extreme and will certainly mark you as someone to be avoided.

[virtuoso]

Calidore, are you defending Aunt Shecky? Really? She has been calling me, "fooly". My nickname, Drooly, was a pun on her disrespectful address of me. With respect to the constructive criticism of my poetry, I will once again reply in kind. Look at the critiques Aunt Shecky and others give to other members poems. They include, for the most part, positive and negative feedback. Look at their reviews of my poems. Do you see any positive feedback? Look at my critiques of their poems. You will see positive feedback always included. Look at my reviews of your poems. Are they constructive? Calidore don't led your blind loyalty to some members of this site obscure your objectivity. My strident defense came about, because I was backed into a corner.

[Calidore]

Calidore, are you defending Aunt Shecky? Really? She has been calling me, "fooly". My nickname, Drooly, was a pun on her disrespectful address of me.

Read it again.

Yours fooly only has a limited amount of time to devote to reading and commenting upon the works of other LitNutters. In the future, therefore, I'll be tossing my swine-swill in front of more-appreciative pearls.

"Yours fooly" is being used as a self-deprecating pun on "yours truly". She's referring to herself, not you. The only disrespect here was yours.

With respect to the constructive criticism of my poetry, I will once again reply in kind. Look at the critiques Aunt Shecky and others give to other members poems. They include, for the most part, positive and negative feedback. Look at their reviews of my poems. Do you see any positive feedback? Look at my critiques of their poems. You will see positive feedback always included. Look at my reviews of your poems. Are they constructive? Calidore don't led your blind loyalty to some members of this site obscure your objectivity. My strident defense came about, because I was backed into a corner.

Now you were "backed into a corner"? By that "pack of wolves" wielding "destructive criticism" like teeth, no doubt. You at least have a romantic poet's gift for overwrought melodrama.

Let's look at your feedback. A huge "pack" of three people directly commented on your poems: DieterM, Hillwalker, and Aunt Shecky. (I'm leaving out Cafolini, who simply said he agreed with DieterM without specifics, and kittypaws, who just commented on the quantity posted.) All three felt your rhymes seemed forced, and DieterM and Aunt Shecky felt the verbiage made it hard to get through to any meaning. That's it. That's the total of the "destructive criticism." Your response to all this? Invitations to DieterM and hillwalker not to read any more of your work (though you later rescinded the first), and outright insults to Aunt Shecky. Also, the assertion that anyone who didn't like your "good rhyming poetry" doesn't like rhymes in general (even when the opposite was stated); the WTF assertion that people complaining about the verbiage in fact were "impressed with the descriptiveness of my writing, but do not want to admit it" and possibly "cannot think, write with such sophistication"; and finally, saying "you smugly think that your poetry is a cut above the rest" to someone who neither said nor implied any such thing (nor ever has, to my knowledge).

So was that criticism really destructive? On the other hand, how about the responses?

You didn't think you got enough positive? How about asking? "Now I know what you didn't like; can you tell me if you did like anything?" "My main purpose was [x]; do you think I succeeded in that aspect?"

Maybe also something like "I disagree about the forced rhymes, and the verbiage is a deliberate style choice on my part, but thanks for taking the time to read and comment regardless."