Description: This came to me listening to Tilly and the Wall last night. If they don't stop inspiring me, I'll have to start paying them royalties (if I ever sell anything). I'm a bit unsure of calling the other parts of speech supporting dancers, but I think it works. For the very young, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers used to dance together in movies in the 30's and 40's.
A Poem that Dances -------------------------------------------
I wish my words could dance
across the page
like a number from a musical.
A noun and a verb
gliding ballroom like Fred and Ginger
with all of the supporting dancers
Tapping and swinging
in a rhythm that'd move you to action
if only to hum or smile.
i absolute adore fred astaire! i met him once, way back in the 1970's on the Mike Douglas show! such a gracious man he was. i liked this poem for the dancing theme and how you portray the words in your poem as dancers across the page. i, for one, have been plenty moved that way by your poetry. that's where "blue of a sadness" came from. not many people can write such short verse with such depth as you can.
I've been away too long. How could everyone miss the point here? It's not about writing at all, its about people being too lethargic to be moved by your words. Sure, there is that melancholy cuddles flavour to it, but I'd say the poem was a resounding success. You moved these guys to more response than any of us had achieved before. An all time record??? Not bad poetry either.
In all fair terms, I don't think your comment was "balanced." I didn't imply you were a bad poet all the time. Stop stabbing yourself with illusional daggers. I hope you don't mind, because I need 2 more comments before I can take this to the private messages and we can sort out your problems.
Did you not hear me? You're a perfectly decent poet.
I like this poem very much cause it paints pictures in my mind. I don't think it's dull or emotionless, you just need to let loose yourself and be carried away by the great images. it makes me wanna dance.
I liked the two poems you sent me. They might have been published and I wouldn't think it odd at all. I only made one comment on one poem, and only about the poem. I will tell you now, out loud, and in caps because you seem to fail to read all my other words.
YOU ARE A GOOD POET.
Not great. With a ways to go, like myself, but definitely on the way to greatness. Since there are those better than me (in some ways, you) and you, and basically everyone but Shakespeare, we all have a path to take, and improvements to make.
Now go ahead, read my suicide poems, and tell me they didn't reply because there was nothing to say. I've never said they were good. But they're far from being commonplace.
ok does this person who hasmaybe read how much of your poetry gives you all this crap writing...excuse me...eternitylyre...but im serious im reading what youve been on this sight three days..anyways wonderful imaginative write...its a fun thought ...smiles ange
Okay. In light of the fact that I'm still short on comments to be able to tell you in PM, I figure this won't hurt you any, anyway. I agree with your friend about the originality of the word waltz (most definitely a term I'd have smiled to if you'd used it). While the image itself doesn't appeal to me (all I get is something like a mob of ants on paper), yes, no one else I've read has used it.
I didn't say you were an inept poet. Read carefully. I said it was a blurb that could use polish, which has nothing to do with your abilities. I've not read enough of your work to be able to tell you that, like I have on some poor 10-year olds on other sites. (Yes, I enjoy being the big bad wolf, so your vicious retort only brought a smile to my face.)
Uhh, in regard to your "being published." I'm sorry, but this poem wasn't published, right? And I know better people that are yet to be published once. Better, only in my opinion, and I have every right to my bias, but that's beside the point.
Now, about my having very few comments. I've been on this site for a total of 3 days now. Does that explain anything? And no one seems to dare to comment on suicide poems. Also, I write in free verse as well. I just think it's a heck a lot harder. I'll be porting over my free verse to the site later, as time constraints prevent moving my poems any faster. And I'll be nice and clear here. I define myself as "Your terminally typical despondent despot of words and all things literary. And I'm not very good, for that matter."
So there. I say I suck, but that doesn't mean I don't know when someone else is as bad as me.
I'd have to say that I disagree with eternity, I do like this. You knew I would as well, didn't you?! *tickles*
It does have a tone. It has cuddledumplin's tone, the one you always have, that sounds.. a bit wistful and breathless and hopeful. I think the "Glided ballroom" and "Fred and Ginger" could work better if they were seperate lines, and you lost the "like". Other than that I think it's quite pleasant.. it's an original concept, with unusual imagery. I do love the noun and verb waltz... (even though I don't know what a noun or a verb is), I see an apostrophe take up with a curvy semi-colon to spin a gorgeous inkblot trail across pristine paper... how could anyone say that's a bad image conveyed? Nu-uh, tis good :D
I recant. Nice and simple. If you don't think I qualify because I DO rhyme, well, I'll give you that ludicrous idea. You poem has the following merits:
It's...so subtle! (To the point no one sees any depth!) It's...very original! (Writing about writing! whoo!) It's...meaningful! ("I wish"!) It's...creative! (A noun and a verb! Whoo!) It's...smooth! (The knot on my tongue isn't your fault!) It's...smart! (Big, big words! Just like..uh, tapping?)
Seriously. I'll clearly state the good things about your poem, with fair value, now:
It has the abstract sensation that all modern free-verse poets have, in which the syntax and overall tone create this void of true emotion, just words. In that effect, it clears the mind and drives home the meaning in it. It's simplicity is a virtue. If this poem were any longer I daresay it might exceed the human limit, so your simple words make the understand distinct and clear as day. The idea, a sea of words, starring nouns and verbs, tapping and swinging across a page, is fresh. I'm not sure I have, or ever will, see anyone describing their words like that.
This poem may not deserve a 2, but I don't think it deserves much higher, on a basis of several problems: 1. Self-negation is a negative. The poem is all about your dreams. 2. Diction is either obscure or awkward--in this sense, I'm telling you that, first, you used dance too many times without putting a witty twist of some sort on the word and too much for mere emphasis, and second, the words appear mediocre in sensation and build no particular tone--dull, you know what I mean? 3. You have no rhythm, which doesn't detract from the poem, but doesn't exactly warrant a 5, either. 4. The "supporting dancers" phrase is altogether quite unpleasant. For one thing, "supporting" is too long a word for my own personal liking, and it seems to clash with the immediately following "dancers." Isn't their a word, or some elegant rephrasing you could use? 5. It's short, and has no meaning. Being short is no crime, but the superficial quality of it, coupled with lack of meaning and lack of artistic value, makes it of lower calibur than the standard of poetry. *shrug* I didn't give the vote, but this is definitely a blurb that could use polish before its posting.