You should try a bit more enjambement, David, it might help to make your writing a little less cliché-ridden. Clichés are fatal. And the first thing you should do on beginning to craft a poem is to strike out all the clichés, and then, having done that, replace them with your own original observations, no matter how outlandish the result. Then you are actually beginning to write poetry. Rather than merely play-acting the part. Admittedly I'm in a bad mood. But, as Dana Gioia says, it's better to be honest.
This is actually a very early poem, I think from 2013.
It’s a simple exploration of a theme with a refrain. I thought of maybe retooling it but then it seemed to work fine as a simple ditty.
Admittedly the rhymes and language could be more sophisticated or original, but even then I don’t know that it would have added much in this particular case.
Never feel guilty for such things. This is supposed to be a place where people can actually share in an honest and critical manner. As Dana reminded us in the latest discussion, the problem with a lot of modern criticism was that poetry became an industry and critics, ironically enough, were reticent to critique their colleagues.
I'm currently trying to touch up a crazy ballad of mine, "The Lament of Tros," which tries to capture Ganymede's fate in trimeter, with at least some measure of originality. It's told from the standpoint of a grieving father, and not so jolly as other renditions.
I'm on guard against any and all clichés with this one.
I have to admit that I was going to comment in a similar vein to the ones already left here, but I didn’t because I started feeling bad about it. I suspected that this poem was one of your early ones, and I am glad that I surmised correctly. I guess I just feel that there are so many poems of yours that you posted years ago on Age of Muses and the original Chained Muse website that are much better (at least in my own opinion) than this one and really deserve another day in the sun—poems like “What if I Told You?”, “Song: They Toil Not, Neither Do They Spin”, “Lay Down Your Armor”, “Darkened Mazes”, “Deep Dreams”, “Endless Dreams”, “ Sonnet on a Shore”, “The Sea”, etc. I personally think the poems I just mentioned are far better representations of your own unique style than this one, but that is merely one person’s opinion. With that being said, I look forward to reading “The Lament of Tros” if you decide to publish it once you’ve finished touching it up.
Disregarding snytactic troubles, I see one life as more than enough, not to say much too much. I see it more as heinously immoral, than as immortal. But if it is immortal, one can only hope the next act is nothing like the first. Youth for the most part is always starry-eyed, not quite cognizant of the minefield it must navigate. I wish you continuing joy, in case you think you have any.
I listened to part of your Gioia podcast. Unfortunately it went by in a blur, due to the speech speed, which prevented me from following it, from making out what either of you was saying. Most all of it got washed out in a torrent of sounds. For the sake of audience comprehension, it would be better to speak in a more deliberate manner. I might've stuck with the performance if the script had come through clearly.
Tom, I think you would like Schiller. He makes the distinction between the genuine idealist and the “Schwärmer,” the starry-eyed idealist.
A man without ideals becomes barely distinguishable from a talking animal. On the other hand, a man with ideals who rejects all practical reality is no better. Schiller actually discusses the psychological profiles of both in his piece “On Naive and Sentimental Poetry.” The realist is much narrower in his thinking and more confined in his sphere of activity; the idealist has all sorts of expansive visions, but for just this reason the realist is much less likely to drift too far off or get himself into all sorts of trouble. On the other hand, because the idealist’s conceptions are not bound by the immediate reality of the world he inhabits, he’s also likely forget his limitations and spiral as the facts dawn on him. Schiller’s notion of aesthetic education is very much informed by the need to resolve these philosophical imbalances and spiritual pitfalls, which is what they are. A proper appreciation of art, its marriage of opposites and balancing of apparent contradictions through aeathetic “play”, Schiller sees as key.
I should probably write something on that. It’s a timely subject.
As for the sound, I’ve checked with others and there were no complaints. I listened to it over again as well and thought it was fine. There was just one or two hiccups over a nearly two-hour conversation, because of the connection, but that can happen no matter how well organized one is.
Try raising your volume. Otherwise, if you’d like to become a Renaissance Patron and sponsor a fancy new microphone for prime time, I won’t stop you haha. But for all I know, I’ll purchase a new $500.00-$1000.00 mic/sound equipment and you’ll still say there’s a problem with the sound.
First step: try raising your volume to max. Dana had a lot of great things to say. Hope you get a chance to listen.
I did raise the sound, wondering if that would help. I have good hearing I should add, so that's not the problem. In any event, glad others were somehow able to make out the words.
Aren't all men "talking animals?" I know what my ideals are. They are based on all the evidence at hand.
You should try a bit more enjambement, David, it might help to make your writing a little less cliché-ridden. Clichés are fatal. And the first thing you should do on beginning to craft a poem is to strike out all the clichés, and then, having done that, replace them with your own original observations, no matter how outlandish the result. Then you are actually beginning to write poetry. Rather than merely play-acting the part. Admittedly I'm in a bad mood. But, as Dana Gioia says, it's better to be honest.
This is actually a very early poem, I think from 2013.
It’s a simple exploration of a theme with a refrain. I thought of maybe retooling it but then it seemed to work fine as a simple ditty.
Admittedly the rhymes and language could be more sophisticated or original, but even then I don’t know that it would have added much in this particular case.
Better to just write new poems.
I could be wrong.
Thank God for that. I was feeling rather guilty.
Haha.
Never feel guilty for such things. This is supposed to be a place where people can actually share in an honest and critical manner. As Dana reminded us in the latest discussion, the problem with a lot of modern criticism was that poetry became an industry and critics, ironically enough, were reticent to critique their colleagues.
I'm currently trying to touch up a crazy ballad of mine, "The Lament of Tros," which tries to capture Ganymede's fate in trimeter, with at least some measure of originality. It's told from the standpoint of a grieving father, and not so jolly as other renditions.
I'm on guard against any and all clichés with this one.
I have to admit that I was going to comment in a similar vein to the ones already left here, but I didn’t because I started feeling bad about it. I suspected that this poem was one of your early ones, and I am glad that I surmised correctly. I guess I just feel that there are so many poems of yours that you posted years ago on Age of Muses and the original Chained Muse website that are much better (at least in my own opinion) than this one and really deserve another day in the sun—poems like “What if I Told You?”, “Song: They Toil Not, Neither Do They Spin”, “Lay Down Your Armor”, “Darkened Mazes”, “Deep Dreams”, “Endless Dreams”, “ Sonnet on a Shore”, “The Sea”, etc. I personally think the poems I just mentioned are far better representations of your own unique style than this one, but that is merely one person’s opinion. With that being said, I look forward to reading “The Lament of Tros” if you decide to publish it once you’ve finished touching it up.
Disregarding snytactic troubles, I see one life as more than enough, not to say much too much. I see it more as heinously immoral, than as immortal. But if it is immortal, one can only hope the next act is nothing like the first. Youth for the most part is always starry-eyed, not quite cognizant of the minefield it must navigate. I wish you continuing joy, in case you think you have any.
I listened to part of your Gioia podcast. Unfortunately it went by in a blur, due to the speech speed, which prevented me from following it, from making out what either of you was saying. Most all of it got washed out in a torrent of sounds. For the sake of audience comprehension, it would be better to speak in a more deliberate manner. I might've stuck with the performance if the script had come through clearly.
Tom, I think you would like Schiller. He makes the distinction between the genuine idealist and the “Schwärmer,” the starry-eyed idealist.
A man without ideals becomes barely distinguishable from a talking animal. On the other hand, a man with ideals who rejects all practical reality is no better. Schiller actually discusses the psychological profiles of both in his piece “On Naive and Sentimental Poetry.” The realist is much narrower in his thinking and more confined in his sphere of activity; the idealist has all sorts of expansive visions, but for just this reason the realist is much less likely to drift too far off or get himself into all sorts of trouble. On the other hand, because the idealist’s conceptions are not bound by the immediate reality of the world he inhabits, he’s also likely forget his limitations and spiral as the facts dawn on him. Schiller’s notion of aesthetic education is very much informed by the need to resolve these philosophical imbalances and spiritual pitfalls, which is what they are. A proper appreciation of art, its marriage of opposites and balancing of apparent contradictions through aeathetic “play”, Schiller sees as key.
I should probably write something on that. It’s a timely subject.
As for the sound, I’ve checked with others and there were no complaints. I listened to it over again as well and thought it was fine. There was just one or two hiccups over a nearly two-hour conversation, because of the connection, but that can happen no matter how well organized one is.
Try raising your volume. Otherwise, if you’d like to become a Renaissance Patron and sponsor a fancy new microphone for prime time, I won’t stop you haha. But for all I know, I’ll purchase a new $500.00-$1000.00 mic/sound equipment and you’ll still say there’s a problem with the sound.
First step: try raising your volume to max. Dana had a lot of great things to say. Hope you get a chance to listen.
I did raise the sound, wondering if that would help. I have good hearing I should add, so that's not the problem. In any event, glad others were somehow able to make out the words.
Aren't all men "talking animals?" I know what my ideals are. They are based on all the evidence at hand.