Who'll Drain the River for You?

Who'll Drain the River for You?

(EDITED):

In trying to skip in the river from one rock to the next,
her skirt caught, as always, with a current ready to sweep her away. But
a poem should be like when she looked upstream to him--
like when he dammed the river back there
just so that
she could promenade down the cobblestone street,
skipping over every pebble.


(ORIGINAL):

As always, when she stepped into the river,
her dress caught in the current, ready to sweep her away. But
a poem should be like
when she looked back at him--
when, of course, then, he dammed the river back there
so that now
she can promenade down the cobblestone street
skipping over every pebble.



**
Written for Kit's Ars Poetica contest

You know what? We really do have entirely different styles. That having been said, be prepared to take everything I type here with a grain of salt:

Overall, I felt it was terribly disjointed. It took a few reads to make some sense out of it, though still, I am not entirely sure what to make of its message. You jump from around from one image to the next -- from river imagery to the word poem to this very vague idea of "him," back to the river -- sporadically, and without precedent.

I will try to break it down into parts to illustrate more clearly what I mean:

As always, when she stepped into the river,
her dress caught in the current, ready to sweep her away. But
a poem should be like

like WHAT?

when she looked back at him--

Please, finish this thought, or give some indication of who he is, what he could possibly mean. Right now, it's random, and it's almost damming the poem itself -- or could this be what you mean?

When (the word "when" is getting repetitive), of course, he dammed the river back there
just so that
she could promenade down the cobblestone street,
skipping over every pebble.

The final lines of this are very good, I like them immensely. But they mean absolutely nothing without a cohesive beginning and middle. If you respond to my critique with answers (or defense), then maybe we could work out revisions from there, but for now it is reading a bit nonsensical.

Good luck, my friend,
Lyndsey

It read nicely, but overall this wasn't too good. It seemed too confused and, well, blankish regarding the emotion or meaning behind the words. The title didn't fit and the rhythm was okay.

As always, when she stepped into the river, (as always? Why is that? And maybe you should use another verb for "step"--make it more metaphorical, maybe.)
her dress caught in the current, ready to sweep her away. But (How can a dress get caught in a current? And what do you mean "sweep away"--is she walking next to the river, or on the river, or what?)
a poem should be like (bad line break here. And the "poem" is very surprising.)
when she looked back at him-- (Who's him? And why look back? And how IS it like a poem?)
When, of course, he dammed the river back there
just so that (bad line breaks)
she could promenade down the cobblestone street, (What? This part completely confuses me. Does this mean that he damns the river because if she wasn't swept away she would still be alive to "promenade down the cobblestone street"? And the cobblestone part is too random.)
skipping over every pebble.

PM me is you have some questions about my critique.

I don't know what I think...

I think you have a lot of asides, and that "back there" is too vague, and that I'm not sure what to make of this. I can see its relation to poetry... fleetingly. Perhaps I just don't understand it properly. I do not think I understand it. I also don't like how we haven't a clue who "he" is; how is he related to she?

Random points:

- The "But a poem should be..." establishes that what was before was not a poem, and how that could be remedied.

- It doesn't matter who he andshe are, just that they exist in relation to one another. With this point, I must argue, gadi, that the title does fit the poem.

I changed a line. Maybe it's a little clearer now? Thanks all for commenting!

Amelia, your edit didn't change too much for me...

I think now the main mistake is clearer: you have too many images, and they're mixed in a way that separates them and makes them interwined, and through these images you try to incorporate a message that doesn't really fit. The rhythm was much better this time, though.

Trying to skip in the river from one rock to the next, (maybe you mean stream? River is too strong to skip in. This is image number one of a woman skipping)
her skirt caught, as always, in a current ready to sweep her away. But (This is another image of a dress getting caught...in a current? I still don't get this. Maybe you should rewords this.)
a poem should be like when she looked back to him-- (can you explain this to me? I still think it's a little random. It's also a different image,)
like when he dammed the river upstream (the repetition of "like" makes it awkward.)
just so that
she could promenade down the cobblestone street,
skipping over every pebble. (this is the most random image yet. What does it mean, too?)

The chief way to fix this is to center on one image leading to another--maybe the girl skipping and looking back, without the cobblestone part? And then you should make the "like a poem" part more subtle, because right now it's blunt and awkward. Don't say the word poem at all--use a synonym. Also, make sure you describe more and use better verbs and nouns--the ones you're using are way too un-specific.

Hope I helped! PM me if you don't understand anything more or want me to add some more. I still think this poem has a LOT of potential.

Trying to skip in the river from one rock to the next, (maybe you mean stream? River is too strong to skip in.

Exactly.

So I read it again now, after I just saw your entry, and it all works, other than the last image (cobblestone). Now what does that mean? That poetry should say that life is perfect?

EDIT;
Okay, I got it--but still, on first/second/third/tenth read, it's impossible to get what it means. I think you should lay us a hint, or maybe even a red herring. Otherwise it's as abstract as without the explanation.

unlike the others, i really liked this piece.
both original and the new editied one.

Who's saying they didn't like it? Well, you, I guess... They're distinguished critters, they hardly ever don't comment on something.

...as I do, usually, but I can't find much to correct.

gadi> Well, I got it on the third read...

If it were just the original, I'd have things to correct, but the edited is pretty much polished up.

It's lovely. I preferred the second draft. I'd change "promenade" to "walk" or "stroll", or something similar, as I think that "promenade" is too much. Other than that, it's great. I love the idea, and, as always, you expressed yourself beautifully.

I love the edit. It is so much more precise, and exact, and I can actually understand it now! And the theme stands out more. Correct me if I'm wrong: poetry helps us through life, and "dams"/stops the challenges, or gives us strength to step over them when then poetry (he) is not there. Although, poetry is all personal interpretation, and so, I have made my interpretation. ^_^

It's good, but if you want to make it better (and I know you can! You are a talented poet.) I would suggest adding more imagery, describing the water more, the way it catches her dress.I want to see colors, and lights, and hear noises, you know? Build more around this. This is like...the wood from which you build the ship. Give us a ship! ^_^ Of course, you are building with the best wood one has on earth; it can only get better from here.

I felt this piece terribly disjointed and, dare I say, random. The flow, well, there was no flow other than the river you were talking about (heck I don't even know if you were talking about a river it was that disjointed). I read the original and the new and I almost like the original better. At least it wasn't as terribly choppy as the new one. The original I could understand.

You did say that "But a poem should be..." meant something, but personally I feel you should have left it out. It was too confusing and the normal audience would not understand it unless you told them, which takes away from the magic of the poem (God that was a run on sentence.)

Overrall, it was an okay piece.

Well, honestly there is not much of a difference between the two... Merely a change in how you arranged the sentances. I have to say it left me asking a few questions... which means it might have puzzled other readers as well. Other than that you had a good topic choice and I never took my eyes off of the screen.

I didn't really understand either version. At first it seemed to be about rock-hopping in the river - a metaphor for innocence, if you know what I mean. but then you added

a poem should be like

leading off in a whole new direction. But then you didn't really follow through with that idea, you added something about 'him', and then something about

a cobblestone street

which also had nothing to do with the main idea.

I think the problem was neither versions writers knew what point they were trying to make, what main idea they were writing about. I don't like poetry that seems to just be a jumble of words slapped together in an attempt to look 'creative'.

Sorry to be harsh But hey, come be as harsh as you like to my work!