cummings to grip

cummings to grip

she says to me (more often than I care for)
nothing is what it seems and it
is more than that for the text is (a) riddle
d with things that you can’t see unless
you look hard enough for them

that old man (and the sea) he’s jesus
because those nails bloody his hands
and gatsby too with his sacrifice
for all (the good) of mankind for he
was better than that damn bunch

beowulf with his crushing grip slaying
grendel represents a hero’s strength
they don’t waste words these authors
jesus is everywhere you just can’t see him
no the poem isn’t gibberish (you idiot)
look at all this hidden meaning with theme
symbols irony allusion metonymy

Screw you.

You have the arrogance to take a work and dissect it like an animal?

This means this, that means that?

How the hell do you know?

What gives you the authority to decide these things?

those things i want to say but i don’t
because i want that a (who doesn’t) and
to receive a respectable college education
so now i’m on the lookout for jesus

This just seems like novelty, and what wasn't novelty sounded like ranting. The 'sentence' (I don't know what I can call it for a poem XD)structure was interesting at times, but I don't know if you intended it to be that way or not:

those things i want to say but i don’t
because i want that a (who doesn’t) and
to receive a respectable college education
so now i’m on the lookout for jesus

But at some points (stanza two, especially) the structure seems to overwhelm the poem, and doesn't make much sense to me anymore.

It begins with "she said to me", but that idea of narrative doesn't progress anywhere, just seems to float away. Which could be interesting, if I weren't so confused.

So I get your frustration at bad critics, and aside from your pretty heavy grave robbing of ee cummings, that's what this work seems to me, a tirade against criticism. This is not uncommon to the modernists and post modernists, indeed, they were quite brutal to the other agencies of the readers and critics. James Joyce, enough said. But your tone is just dripping with conceit and contempt:
"no the poem isn’t gibberish (you idiot)",
well, in a way it is, gibberish, as your metaphors and allusions aren't constructed for anything greater than intellectual wankery, to try and seem superior. With an iota of finesse that would have worked but the rage clouds the clout of it.

"look at all this hidden meaning with theme
symbols irony allusion metonymy "

You want irony, you're pointing out how to interpret the work, and really that goes against this whole modernist/postmodernist thing of attacking the reader, they attacked the reader because their visions were pure, they didn't want to corrupt them by talking down to anyone. You're talking down to your reader while insulting them, and you have no vision in this, it's an ego trip, and what art you show here is little to brag about.

" dissect it like an animal?"

That's an ineffectively arcane metaphor, you want to rip the guts out you better mean it, make us squirm, give us specifics.

"What gives you the authority to decide these things? "

The writer does, by exposing their work. If you're going to streak, you better be prepared for people mocking your genitals.

This criticises critics quite weakly, it don't show my reason of their incompetency or bias, it just defaults to puerile profanities and teenage tantrums. Your concept of eviscerating them with verse is a good one, it's something that you can do a lot with, and your style is not without merit, but approach this with a cooler head that you may be crueller and the more acute, perhaps satire and a sardonic undertone would give this greater literary weight.

**laughs** I knew I'd like you. I am sorry, I'm provocative and contrary by nature, and I only attack those who can take it, an opinion that melts when challenged is an opinion not worth having. When I first met Brad, for example, endless, endless arguments, and he's one of the writers I respect most here. So, no personal slight, gentle sir. When I give you a good review, then is the time for offence.

I'm sorry, does it say anywhere in that description that I, the author, represent the voice in this poem? Nope. I'm glad you assumed it was me, though. Also, the "graverobbing" of ee cummings was intentional – hence the title? More on that bellow, though.

You're going to get into the paradigms of persona with me? Yes, I slipped phrase, but a nuance and subtlety of perspective are the more vital to a constructed persona. Of course you were grave robbing ee cummings on purpose, you couldn't have been more blatant about that, but you'll note the phrase "grave robbing" not "appropriating", inflecting you were using him too heavily. Though incidentally, and on a positive note, you do appropriate Charles Bukowski in an intriguing way, esp as Bukowski is robbed of pretence , putting his tone within the context of literary caprice is an interesting subversion.

Give. Me. A. Break. This is "young" writers soceity; no need to toot your own intelectual horn and write like a 50-year-old college profesor. This doesn't help me improve my poem at all.

What? I was comparing you to the modernists, that's a good thing, that's a complement. Also giving an author references to writers does aid their writing, it encourages them to read, and any author worth their salt knows you have to read twenty times what you write. Also, most ideas people write have been written before, so it doesn't hurt to know your literary kindred. Yes, this is a "young" writers society, not a "illiterate" writers society, many of the writers here could keep pace with any adult author you could name, Claudette could in several languages. The modernists are not unlike punk, they rip things apart and make them new, I think you may like them, if you haven't read them before. That's all a citation means. If you find my language too pretentious, get used to it, you want credibility as a writer, you'll have to brave much bushwa and big words for it in this world, kiddo.

The "poem" mentioned isn't my poem. It never references itself. And the aim wasn't "to sound supperior." More like the opposite, as addressed in the last stanza. The speaker hates bad iterpretations of literature, but does nothing about it. He sits back and takes his A Grade, not willing to voice his opinions for fear of negative repercussion – I'm more criticizing the speaker for his lack of backbone. As such, his true thoughts are shown in clear, properly punctuated italics; the rest uses a messy style ripped obviously from a famous poet.

Perhaps the thoughts of the persona are stated clearly, but your purpose was unclear in this. It criticizes the literary establishment, it criticised conformism within education, but the persona himself seems more in a state of despair, it's not that he can't be bothered challenging things it's that he can't, his life is pre-cut. This is what I got from it, if you intended differently, well, mine's just one perception, ask around. But that's one of the beautiful things of the written word, that it is fluid, it adapts to your world view.

And if the critiquer misreads and/or misinterprets the author's poem, she should also be prepared to recieve an angry response from the author on how she blundered.

I would have been highly disappointed if I hadn't received it. But you know, you can't truly misinterpret a poem, no matter how strong the poet's intentions are, if you can defend your view it's valid, no matter how obscure.

This critique serves it's purpose quite poorly; instead of offering the author useful advice to improve his poem, the critiquer instead uses the instance to fortify her own bumptious air by incorperating intricate speach in her review in and attempt to batter the author's ego. In the process, she misinterprets the work, selecting small parts of the poem and kicking them monotinously until they collapse from severe internal bleeding while at the same time entirely missing addtional points the author was attempting to address due to her mindset that the speaker of the poem and the author himself are both one and the same which, unfortunately, they were not.

Your poem was conceptually based, thus I criticised your concept, and the execution of it rather than your style, you didn't own your style through most of this, and you have too little of a body of work for me to get a grip of how it fits into it. I use intricate speech because writers of all the people in the world are supposed to have some sort of an etymological propensity. You are no stranger to the polysyllabic, yourself, so mind your manners. I took select quotes of your work, because that is what you do when you criticise them, and if you think I demolished them, you have little faith in them.

If you're not up to the challenge, then say so, I'll just write, "oh it was all good," or "oh, I'm not sure, I don't get it" and not actually read it, as many critics will, but I think you are a better poet than that, and that you deserve better.

I gave you some positive points in my critique, if you'll notice, and I actually spent the time to do it, which in this place is a complement of itself. You're a very passionate word smith, and I do look forward to your furture work. If only to twist the knife a little...

Did you just withdraw your post? I am amused.

**laughs** I knew I'd like you. I am sorry, I'm provocative and contrary by nature, and I only attack those who can take it, an opinion that melts when challenged is an opinion not worth having. When I first met Brad, for example, endless, endless arguments, and he's one of the writers I respect most here. So, no personal slight, gentle sir. When I give you a good review, then is the time for offence.

Interesting. I feel like an ass now for deleting my post. Fairly cowardly on my part; seems as I misunderstood your intentions. If you're looking for a good healthy argument, then I can provide.

You're going to get into the paradigms of persona with me? Yes, I slipped phrase, but a nuance and subtlety of perspective are the more vital to a constructed persona. Of course you were grave robbing ee cummings on purpose, you couldn't have been more blatant about that, but you'll note the phrase "grave robbing" not "appropriating", inflecting you were using him too heavily. Though incidentally, and on a positive note, you do appropriate Charles Bukowski in an intriguing way, esp as Bukowski is robbed of pretence , putting his tone within the context of literary caprice is an interesting subversion.

I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps I did incorperate cummings's style a little too heavily, and that's a fine observation, but it doesn't disapoint me that you noticed. It was meant to be a complete rip-off – I did everything in power to emulate his style. As I stated earlier, the "grave robbing" does serve a purpose.

What? I was comparing you to the modernists, that's a good thing, that's a complement. Also giving an author references to writers does aid their writing, it encourages them to read, and any author worth their salt knows you have to read twenty times what you write. Also, most ideas people write have been written before, so it doesn't hurt to know your literary kindred. Yes, this is a "young" writers society, not a "illiterate" writers society, many of the writers here could keep pace with any adult author you could name, Claudette could in several languages. The modernists are not unlike punk, they rip things apart and make them new, I think you may like them, if you haven't read them before. That's all a citation means. If you find my language too pretentious, get used to it, you want credibility as a writer, you'll have to brave much bushwa and big words for it in this world, kiddo.

Fair enough on the refrencing, though I do prefer a more direct criticism as opposed to someone saying "well, go read this stuff, it may help." And I agree with you about the importance of reading. The issues I had with your dictionary.com word choice is not that I can't handle the language; it just appeared to me that you were inflating your critique for no purpose other than to sound smart. To me, when dealing with criticism, the clearer, the better. In such a situation it seems to me that fancy diction hinders more than it helps.

Lastly, being just a single year my senior, you're in no position to call me "kiddo." =P

Perhaps the thoughts of the persona are stated clearly, but your purpose was unclear in this. It criticizes the literary establishment, it criticised conformism within education, but the persona himself seems more in a state of despair, it's not that he can't be bothered challenging things it's that he can't, his life is pre-cut. This is what I got from it, if you intended differently, well, mine's just one perception, ask around. But that's one of the beautiful things of the written word, that it is fluid, it adapts to your world view.

It's difficult to argue perception, so there's no reason for me to get into that, but I wouldn't say our speaker is dispairing; he's just a little miffed. I wouldn't characterize his thoughts as something significant in his life, like a turning point or whatever. It's more like a thought process that would occur after a particularly annoying day of his advanced english course. I can't see many high school kids dispairing over bad symbolism, but hey. As you said, it's up to you to interpret however you want.

I would have been highly disappointed if I hadn't received it. But you know, you can't truly misinterpret a poem, no matter how strong the poet's intentions are, if you can defend your view it's valid, no matter how obscure.

True enough. I find it makes English a particularly easy subject to BS, though.

Your poem was conceptually based, thus I criticised your concept, and the execution of it rather than your style, you didn't own your style through most of this, and you have too little of a body of work for me to get a grip of how it fits into it. I use intricate speech because writers of all the people in the world are supposed to have some sort of an etymological propensity. You are no stranger to the polysyllabic, yourself, so mind your manners. I took select quotes of your work, because that is what you do when you criticise them, and if you think I demolished them, you have little faith in them.

You'll have to excuse me; I found the language in your final paragraph so disgustingly orante that I couldn't help but respond with my own paragraph parodying the style (Honestly, though – that last sentence of your original critique is a monster). The rest of the post was more significant. This was just me being irate.

If you're not up to the challenge, then say so, I'll just write, "oh it was all good," or "oh, I'm not sure, I don't get it" and not actually read it, as many critics will, but I think you are a better poet than that, and that you deserve better.

I'm not the type to ignore criticism – epsecially proper constructive criticism. If from my heated response you were under the impression that I took nothing you suggested to heart, I urge you to think otherwise. We both understand that the example responses you offered do nothing.

And not for one second do I believe you would ever feed me such a useless response even I asked you.

I gave you some positive points in my critique, if you'll notice, and I actually spent the time to do it, which in this place is a complement of itself. You're a very passionate word smith, and I do look forward to your furture work. If only to twist the knife a little...

Believe it or not, I do appreciate it. More than you think. I regret taking my intitial response down. May I never try and hijack our exchanges (I'm sure there will be more) again.