Cyril Darkcloud Posted February 13, 2003 Report Posted February 13, 2003 For those who would like to read Blondemoon’s poem, it can be found here. Blondemoon, as I’ve noted in my initial response to this piece, I have really enjoyed reading your stuff. You have a real gift in being able to use simple and direct statements in a way that allows you to evoke an impressive range of feelings and meaning from a few words. A few observations about structure and flow: Stanza 1 - The poem begins strong with a short imperative sentence of 2 syllables. This is quickly followed in the next line by 2 more imperatives which reinforce the first. This is a fine example of what some call “synthetic parallelism” or the reinforcing of an idea by restating it in different words that highlight another dimension of the idea. This strong imperative is reinforced further in line 3 which explains it as “always” being done and line 4 which insists that teasing happens even when the person being spoken to does not intend it. In 4 short lines you engage the reader with the implied “You” of the imperative and at the same time give a real force to the words of the implied speaker of the piece. Stanza 2 - This also begins with a 2 syllable imperative that sharpens and reinforces what was said in the previous stanza – another good use of synthetic parallels. Again you move to a second imperative in line 2 – yet another parallelism. This stanza ends with an observation about the person “you” has become, possibly without realizing it. Stanza 3 - Again you use a 2 word/2 syllable statement to start, but this time you break the pattern by making a declarative statement about “I” the speaker of the words of the poem. This is very well done and it sets this stanza off as a sort of contrast to the previous statements in much the same way the “I” and the “You” of the conversation are in a sort of contrasted opposition. This is an example of “antithetic parallelism” and it is a very fine example at that. You follow this short declaration with the other lines of the stanza that continue it and explain it. The “I” of the poem is aware of what he/she is doing even if the “you” is not aware of the consequences of his/her actions. The contrast between “I” and “You” is sharpened by the statement about wished for meaning in lines 3 and for which picks up the note of misguided intentionality with which you close stanza 1 – that is a very nice touch! _________________________________ These first three stanzas are very well-written and, on a structural level, are the strongest part of the poem. I like the rest of the poem as well, but I’m stopping here for now simply because this has become a long post and I’d like to take a little more time to think about the other parts of the poem before composing any more comments. Again, thanks for a fun read and keep writing.
Blondemoon Posted February 14, 2003 Report Posted February 14, 2003 wow Thanks for the feedback (what you have so far) Cyril. I'm using literary devices (or would it be poetry devices ) that I didn't even know existed. (if I did...it was way back, in the dim dim past of high school honors english) Considering how long it actually took me to write that, I'm amazed at what you were able to find structurally. The only thing I was consciously thinking about when writing this one was after I wrote the first few lines (I don't have my notebook handy, so bear with me) was that I wanted to stick with the pattern that I had started out with. The first few flowed really easily, but there came a point when I got stuck. I think that might be where you cut off, Cyril. I'd have to look at my notebook to be sure, but I think that's where I started having difficulties, and the words weren't flowing as easily.
Cyril Darkcloud Posted February 18, 2003 Author Report Posted February 18, 2003 Blondemoon, it's often the case that we write without paying much explicit attention to the details of technique and structure which we only tend to notice upon reflection or when trying to rewrite a piece of poetry. Sometimes ideas themselves suggest patterns and structures that we are not conscious of choosing and so they emerge in our work and we find ourselves a bit mystified as to how they got there in the first place. I've found that stopping to take a look at things like that can be very helpful in figuring out what's going in those parts of a piece of writing that somehow seem off kilter or that do not quite work. It can also be very helpful in sharpening and clarifying the stronger features of given work as well. That being said, here are a few more thoughts on your poem: Stanza 4 - There is a definite shift here. The unit begins with the familiar 2 word opening line [although these 2 words now have a total 3 syllables]. This first line is also an ambiguous statement – the reader does not immediately know if it is a description or a quotation, for example. The second line clarifies the ambiguity, but introduces as second – is the ‘I’ the speaker of “so sorry” or the narrator of the poem? A suggestion - You might want to consider making use of quotation marks here to set of the remembered speech or try rearranging the words to eliminate some of the confusion here and to sharpen the statements. For example: You say, “I’m sorry that I couldn’t..... Beginning here with “You say” has 3 advantages, it eliminates confusion over who is saying what, it maintains the 2 word/2 syllable opening line pattern, and it forms a stronger connection with the next stanza by making a parallel with “I say” Since you have made such good use of parallelisms in the poem something like this would seem worth considering. There is a very nice touch in this unit – however it is framed, the words assigned to “You” are actually spoken by the narrator. This is an observed address rather than a direct statement from “You.” The “I” of this stanza is indirect, unlike that of the following. Stanza 5 - Once again a 2 word, 2 syllable beginning. Here, the “I say” forms an antithetic parallel with the previous stanza in that it is a direct statement rather than words attributed to the other. the following lines then, pick up on the antithetic character of the stanza by forming a type of rebuttal to the statement assigned to “You” in the previous unit. The contrast between “I” and “You” is now very firmly established. Stanza 6 - Again a 2 word beginning, and here the extra syllable in the line works very well to lend an emphatic note to the words – another reason to look at redoing stanza 4 a bit as it’s worth maximizing the impact of the slight breaking of form here. Once again you do a nice job of maintaining continuity between the stanzas and this extension of the idea of the previous stanza sets up the subsequent theme of tiredness very well. An interesting issue – In the poem as written, it is unclear where the narrator’s direct statement to ‘You’ ends – is the unit that begins with “Tired of” part of this statement or is it a return to the more descriptive character of the first 3 stanzas?
Recommended Posts