Alizarin_Crimson
on some deleted poem
14 May 2005, 5:36 PM
Although I am a little confused as to whose voice this is, I like this poem a lot. Big fan of the "o my god," its funny.
THis is a sweet, sentimental, evocative narrative. I especially like the first two strophes. L4-5 of S1, and the mention of the limp were especially strong. The conclusion has one foot over the line into triteness. Overall very good, but would think about the last strophe. Really you don't need it IMHO.
This is quite good. I think it has more punctuation than needed. I'd change the first ; to "and" and omit the second one, and omit all the commas, using line breaks instead.
What I don't like about this poem is that it intentionally has me guessing as to what happens. If you don't want to tell us what happens, don't write a poem about it. REVEAL the truth, don't mask it.
Love "How far down the rabbit hole do I want to go?" that is a great line.
It may be best for you, but you haven't made it compelling.
A bit long and rambling for a poem, but it's a unique style, and not badly told. "amount of swimming pools" should be "number of swimming pools."
Too many words. It would be stronger with half as many.
A haiku goes 5-7-5 and is an observation of nature, a theme you altogether loose in the last stanza. No problem with me, but call it a free haiku then, or something like that.
The erection at the end you call an ocean...
I get the picture, but perhaps you should put a blank line between 6 and 7 the prevent the reader from running off the stage...
It slides downhill from the good first verse, as you no doubt intend. Get some rest!
Discovery and National Geographic outclassed Nature & Science poetry...
Nice imagines.
Indeed, a stiff breeze must be hell for the little ones.
The Night has been poemed to death - wat isn't - but this one has been caught in beautiful thoughts. The neat rhyme is another plus. Some of your other poems are gbbldgk to me.
This is absurd. You're either talking without properly thinking again or you should build yourself a cardboard box and tape yourself inside.
You're going to say, I expected you to say that. Guess what? I expected you to say that.
You're going to get me wrong, I'm sure, so listen: I'm ALL ABOUT writing about women existing without men, believe me. In 99% of the cases I can imagine, it'd be absurd and fascist to read something that gives men no influence and say, hey where're the men? But seriously, the construct in this poem is beyond belief.
That said, yes, of course, the virgin is most likely sealed in her egg/pupal-thingy/honeycomb-cell by a woman, her mother; the metaphor carries through. And okay, the being wakened by sisters' wings is a little Showtimey/Amazonian, but I can dig.
After that it just gets nuts. The thing she fears to leave the honeycomb/cell for (in the bee-image AND the metaphor for people) is the sexual encounter. With a man. Seriously. Even if she's a gay bee, leaving-the-nest fear is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS at its root man-centered. The whole show, the mothers sealing their girls in the egg and everything, is made by and for the benefit of men. Yes, you could be saying that; but if you are, you're doing it in about the fruitest and least-useful way imaginable.
Same with the "duty" she has to do. On both the nature AND human levels, the duty is to become impregnated and return home to rear children, probably by a sexual encounter that will be anything but pleasurable to her. Incidentally, that means the wind you're talking about that draws her from her course is exactly her duty, so what ARE you talking about?
Now, let's backtrack a little. Maybe she's a particularly enlightened bee and the duty she's leaving the hive for is, I don't know, to become an executive, or travel the world seeking wisdom and well-being. Then she gets blown off course and runs smack into a manbee's ready cock and it's all over. Right?
Do you think either of those are particularly enlightened ideas to write poems about? Yeah, if you live in the 19th century. In either event, you have a woman fearing (and by extension centering her existence around) sexual encounter with a man. Sure, that's a reality for the majority of women, but why write a poem about so uselessly euphemistic about it?
And here's the kicker: she can return to the honeycomb when she wants. Hey, great! No, wait. That's EXACTLY what the fucking manbee wants when he's done with her, biologically and metaphorically. Again, yes it's true. But WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY write about it like this? Do you condone the whole scenario? No? It sounds like it. How about this one instead? Woman bee smacks into manbee's cock; copulation ensues; maybe it's not great for her; the SHE FLIES ON ABOUT HER BUSINESS. Wouldn't that be nice?
PS-Scientifical accuracy alert.
PPS-
re: "leaving-the-nest fear is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS at its root man-centered." Also, "[her] duty is to become impregnated and return home to rear children."
It's going to be the easiest thing in the world for you to say something like, yeah you like to think so you mancentric pig.
Let's make sure we're on the same page: No, of course I don't like to think so. It sucks. But I don't see any harm in keeping it as ONE way of looking at MOST human and animal interactions (as long as it's understood I mean "biologically or originally, as with bees and cavepeople, and only in a vestigial way with modern people, her duty is to..."). And I do see a lot of harm in avoiding it simply because it sounds kind of distasteful.
Also, I'm not pulling this out of my ass. These are standard things held to be true by most feminist scholars, irrespective of gender. No, that doesn't mean you have to take their (or my) word for it. But where's your clearly-articulated and well-supported worldview, then? Why don't you try writing it down? I'm in the market for a new one.
I wrote this poem when I was in 8th or 9th grade. It's one of my favorites.
Europe, from the POV of an American, has changed from the quaint provincial self it used to be. Hey, you're a European aren't you? What's going on? Maybe the title needs another look.
zodiac, Iâm responding to your several comments about relationship. I disagree that âtwo important aspects of the relationship are some common understanding of the nature, formed early on, and, yes, sexual compatibility.â Thatâs such a male thing to say and ignores a womanâs view altogether. Yes, women want good sex, and yes, we want some cerebral understanding of why we are in the relationship, but these are secondary. When you say, âI don't agree that emotional support is the most important aspect of relationshipping,â you have killed the most important thing to us and replaced it with your own needs and desires. As a woman who has loved a man, I had no desire to deny his needs and desires; I wanted to meet them because I favored his happiness equal with my own. So we worked together at compromises and gratification of each other. By the way, if what you want most is good sex, and I donât believe it is, then itâs going to be much better when she is emotionally thinking that you care a great deal about her emotions.