.

Oh, to touch her hand again.
To see her smile.
To kiss her gray head.
Simple things I felt I’d always have
Though I knew better
And when the better got the best of me
Shattering hearts, there’s no stopping the tears.

The fourth line isn't working. Instead, put a comma after 'have', and put something like 'but even' in front of 'though'. Next put some sort of puctuation after the first 'better', and take out the 'and' in the next line.

Half a decade short of a century
A life lived so full, so real
So true, so warm.
Wrinkled hands, smile ever ready,
Eyes twinkling with affection,
“You eat half, I eat half,”
Her half was always suspiciously smaller.

I like this stanza .

I sat on her couch that night
And held a can of her soda
And soul-blood on my face
I wondered where she was
Where she went
Her heart, where, please
Please, open your eyes for me
One last time . . .

Don't use ellipses in writing [dot dot dots]. I don't see why it can't work with either a period or an exclamation mark.

Love is the seed of sorrow,
Life is a trail of tears,
Tracing the lines from smile to grimace,
There are no words to say what I need to say
No voice to speak this precious pain.
I said goodbye.
But I will never say goodbye.

I like this too.

We hold you tight as we let you go.
And the less we have you
The more we know
We’ll always have you
Inescapable clichés,
But not they or any cute phrase
Can ever really say
Who you are or what you were.

This stanza has little flow. It's hard to read this out loud without stumbling on the words. Also, the fifth line starts a new idea - maybe you could make it a new stanza, but create something else before it to introduce it.

You were Ma.
You were GRANDMA.
You were gramma downstairs.
Goodbye, but never goodbye.

Take out the capitals on Grandma. The rest is good.

Overall, I did like this piece. It was heartfelt; I really felt like this could've been my own grandma, I felt your pain. However, it does need some editing to perfect your ideas.

TheEccentricScribe -


This is a pretty standard, ineffective poor-poor-me rhapsody against an easy target. Poems like this always strike me as though the poet doesn't actually want improvement, but, rather, condolences for the narrator's/poet's loss. I'm not saying this is what you're doing (it wouldn't work even if it were, since this is terrible writing), but my general reaction to these kinds of poems.

The repetition of what you no doubt consider profound phrases isn't helping the piece, either.

If you're going to post this kind of material, try to infuse it with a little more imagination and a little more focus.


All the best,
Brad


PS: green_river, sorry for the confusion.

*Is confused*

I didn't write this, I just critiqued it.

I realize this is a serious place for writing and all, but you know, my grandmother did just die Wednesday, so it's not like my top priority is astounding poetics (I've never held myself as much of a poet anyway). I'm rather surprised at the insensitivity, but I suppose I shouldn't be.

Anyway, generalized statements like "this is terrible writing" are stupid and really don't help anybody to become better poets, or better anything. I actually think you should look at green_river's critique's, Mr. House person, because hers was the kind of review that was helpful. I don't care about your feelings towards my poetry, or any of my work: I just want to know how I can be a better writer. Therefore, less feelings, more thoughts.

And you know, everyone is entitled to a little "poor me" once in a while.

Dear TheEccentricScribe -


You want to write a poem that speaks to you. Your readers want to read a poem that speaks to them, one that opens the possibility of their participation in the theme. This simply fails on more accounts than it's worth to take the time to revise.

The fact is: this is very weak stuff - a pedestrian description of a loss with nothing to generate anything deeper than surface recoginition. That it is "actually about" your grandmother is irrelevant.

re: "generalized statements like 'this is terrible writing' are stupid "

You're partially right. You shouldn't care about us as individuals, but you should care about our poetic interests. You are presenting work to an audience, presumably to get feedback and suggestions on how you can improve your work for our enjoyment and (one hopes) for your own satisfaction as well. You have said as much.

But in the same breath, you're obviously not writing for the audience at the YWS, who are you writing for? Your response indicates yourself. If you are dismissive of our poetic interests, why would you value the suggestions you receive here?

When somebody posts work here, they are requesting that strangers take time and apply their experience in reading and writing poetry in order to provide reaction and/or suggestions that improve the posted work as a poem. You should thank everybody who takes the few seconds out of their lives to read this and respond to it, regardless of whether their reaction stings: it's a reaction they did not have to take the time to formulate and post.

My sincere advice is to throw this away or put it back in your journal. Everyone is of course allowed a "poor me" every once in a while, but that is what journals and blogs are for--not poetry forums.


Take care,
Brad

Awww brad..... thats so harsh.
I wrote crap poetry about my grandparents when I lost them... (i'm not saying this is crap)
But leave off her a bit ok?
Anyway,
I actually liked this. I don't have time to go through it right now but I will..... lexy xx

These aren't pat-on-the-back forums, lexy, and our job isn't to 'leave off'. If people don't want an honest opinion, they should stick to posting on myspace.

Personally I'm afraid I'd have to agree with the majority of comments: this needs a lot of work if it's to be of a decent standard.

Lots has been said, so I'll just make some general points:
- firstly, sort your rhythm out; it's all over the place. You need to get your line lengths a bit more standardised so that things flow better.
- secondly, there are numerous cliches dotted throughout your piece. Lines like "Please, open your eyes for me / One last time" or "Life is a trail of tears" just aren't going to cut it - lines just like that have been used way too many times to inspire any kind of impression or emotion. Read through and replace all like them.

Finally, you've got to understand that we're not here to be a fanclub - don't submit something if you're not serious about it, because that's insulting to the majority of people who actually care about writing the best pieces they can, and helping others do the same. You can call it insensitive if you want to, but

it's not like my top priority is astounding poetics

that kind of attitude just isn't acceptable under any circumstances; it deserves any kind of 'insensitivity' it gets.

Yes, I agree with everyone's comments on the poem. Let me reiterate what I told Incandescence in a PM: My comment about not caring about replies and suggestions for my poetry was more the product of emotions than scholarly thought. I agree, it is poor poetry, and really has achieved nothing, for myself as a writer or for anyone else.

However, I will say this about cliches (and this is not a defense for my poem, just an observation). Everyone seems to be really afraid of them, and decry them as some sort of evil. But cliches are cliche because they are true. For example, when my grandmother was on my deathbed, my father begged my grandmother to open her eyes . . . Which is why I put it in the poem. This poem is a terrible example of using cliches, but a bit of writerly advice to everyone: Good writers aren't original. Originality is a lie. There are very few stories in this world to be told; they have various nuances, but they are the same stories, the same thoughts. What makes them good is not originality, but creativity, and there is a disparity between the two. Creativity is using what's there to make something beautiful: Only in mastering cliches, knowing when and how to use them, can you create something that approaches true originality.

I apologize if I was a little defensive or whiney or whatever about the poem; it was not appropriate of me.

However, I will say this about cliches (and this is not a defense for my poem, just an observation). Everyone seems to be really afraid of them,

Not at all!

and decry them as some sort of evil.

Yeah, that's much more the truth of it.

But cliches are cliche because they are true. For example, when my grandmother was on my deathbed, my father begged my grandmother to open her eyes . . . Which is why I put it in the poem.

The problem is, you're confusing "true" with "good". 'True' poetry is often the very worst of the tons of junk I've seen hanging around the Intarweb over the years - a person can write as many stories about their life as they want, but the simple truth is that people's factual lives are usually incredibly boring and unsuited for poetic inspiration. Even the big events in their lives (birth, death, love, hate, etc.) are the same, because they're generally exactly the same experiences everyone else has - nobody benefits from multiple poems all saying exactly the same thing.

At its heart, poetry is the search for truth through well-constructed lies; really, that applies to most art. Obviousness will earn you no points in this business, and all that a cliche is is an obvious statement that has been reused too many times. The way you will distinguish your poetry is by forcing people to see something, see some truth in a new way.

So yes, cliches are an evil, or at the least a waste of time, because they are just continual repetitions of things we already have heard and understand. Why bother? A poet who truly believes in the value of their work will always try to stretch the bounderies of understanding, not tamely repeat the ideas of those who have gone before them.

This poem is a terrible example of using cliches, but a bit of writerly advice to everyone: Good writers aren't original. Originality is a lie. There are very few stories in this world to be told; they have various nuances, but they are the same stories, the same thoughts. What makes them good is not originality, but creativity, and there is a disparity between the two. Creativity is using what's there to make something beautiful: Only in mastering cliches, knowing when and how to use them, can you create something that approaches true originality.

Meh. I've heard "art is dead" used as an excuse for shoddy and unoriginal work too many times to be overly swayed.

As I've said, originality and expansion of understanding is the wellspring of good poetry. Yes, creativity and originality are different, but they merge more often than not: originality is the understanding or comprehension of something new, and creativity is how that is expressed. In a good poem, the two go hand in hand: a poem with originality but no creativity is just a chaotic mess, and doesn't impart any of its potentially brilliant concepts, while a poem with creativity but no originality is just a soulless and swaggering exercise in literary masturbation.
Your poem, for example, is bad because it lacks both the originality of a new take on death and the creativity to express such a concept.

Don't get fooled into thinking cliche is good in any way - there is a reason that all good and established poets avoid it like the plague (hehe... get it?), and that's the simple fact that it makes for crap poetry. No-one wants to hear the same poetic broken record playing over and over again, they want both originality and creativity; the first is something to be sought and won, the second is something to be worked at, but both are necessary to write good poetry.

I think if you had read my prior post a little more carefully, you wouldn't have said anything, simply because you were only reiterating exactly what I had been saying, when I pointed out the difference between originality and creativity. I was not using "art is dead" as any sort of excuse, and was in no way defending the poem.

Good writers aren't original. Originality is a lie.

Or perhaps I would have said:

originality ... is the wellspring of good poetry.

a poem ... with no originality is just a soulless and swaggering exercise in literary masturbation.

No-one wants to hear the same poetic broken record playing over and over again, they want both originality and creativity ... both are necessary to write good poetry.

something different, like that.

Boys--


While this conversation is worth maintaining in terms of content, this is not the place to do it. I suggest taking your quibble to Poetry Discussion.


Thanks,
Brad

No thanks. I think the point is made, lol. We're beating a dead horse at this point.