Villanelle Variation

Wow deep and slightly ambiguous. I don't really get the true meaning after one reading but it almost doesn't matter. I love the repitition of "my eyes are two objects" which almost seems to plead" i'm only human". Great metaphor at opening about the earth and great link between the injecting and the surgeon at the end it ties the whole thing together like an ending should! I wouldn't change a thing about it. Keep writing, to me (and admittedly i'm no expert) this is really good!

My eyes are just two objects-
Earths without a species and dirt without the life,
The light of consciousness injects.

if I were going to rewrite this stanza, I'd tell yo what I'd do, here's how I would change it, down to the caps: (also, before I get too far, I understand you're using a specific form. But I'm ignoring that.)

My eyes are two objects-
earths without species and dirt without life
the light consciousness injects.

took out the just and unnecessary articles in the second line, and took out the of in the last line. Uncapitalized the first letters of each line (you don't gotta do that) and took out the comma, I think the line break is enough of a pause. I know it changes the meaning a little when you take out the 'of' but I liked this better. Sorry, rewriting is sort of a aggressive technique of critiquing but some of the issues the stanza had were pretty straightforward.

What would I do if at the nightly disconnects,
They stayed staring at the curtain- I’d curse rebellious strife!
My eyes are just two objects.

This stanza has some of the same problems: unnecessary words. Also, content wise, this poem makes little sense to me. The metaphors there are are just mentioned once and never extended any further. I'd like some congruency, some unity, some cohesion.

Can a blind man dream? No, a mind can’t form if he rejects,
The bond of eye and owner- A dead man rejoined with wife.
No false consciousness infects.

I don't think the question you pose here works. Questions CAN work, but imho this one doesn't. I like the bond of eye and owner. i like false consciousness. That's potent, I want more of that.

By dawn my decayed eyes will make experts out of defects,
Oh, the smells, the taste, the morning music shrill as a playful fife!
My eyes are just two objects.

as a reader, this stanza sorta made me mad because you say, "oh the smells, the taste" but there is absolutely no hint as to what those could be. All we've got is dawn and decay which is sorta nasty, but that's in the last line so I'm not sure if that's what I'm supposed to be tasting. There's this sensory vacuum that I don't like.

Which all of me expects,
To guide me as a surgeon guides a knife.
My eyes are just two objects,
The light of consciousness injects.

okay and we come around full circle. Not a bad plan, but it's still a little weak.

remember to read.

best,

My eyes are just two objects-
Earths without a species and dirt without life,
The light of (my? not sure if this would fit)consciousness injects.

What would I do if the nightly disconnects
Stayed staring at the curtain- I’d curse rebellious strife!
My eyes are just two objects.

Can a blind man dream?
No.
A mind can’t form if he rejects
The bond of eye and owner- a dead man rejoined with his wife.
No false consciousness infects.

By dawn my decayed eyes will make experts from defects,
Oh, the smells, the tastes, the morning music shrills as a playful fife!
My eyes are just two objects.

Which (while?) all of me expects,
To guide me as a surgeon guides a knife.
My eyes are just two objects,
The light of consciousness injects.

Hey ryanke07, I'm Luna and I'll be reviewing your poem. It might seem like I tore it apart, but I only made grammatical suggestions throughout to help the flow and rhythm of the poem. Hopefully, it expresses what you want in the poem (PM me if you need anything). I'm not really sure what the overall message of the poem was, but with poetry each reader gathers their own reflection and sees their own piece of the poem. The imagery and cynical flair of the poem intrigued me, as well as the title. I look foward to more poetry from you, happy writing!

hmmm... it was very deep and got me lost... Very nicely written:) enjoyed it a lot!!!

My eyes are just two objects-
Earths without a species and dirt without the life,
The light of consciousness injects.

if I were going to rewrite this stanza, I'd tell yo what I'd do, here's how I would change it, down to the caps: (also, before I get too far, I understand you're using a specific form. But I'm ignoring that.)

My eyes are two objects-
earths without species and dirt without life
the light consciousness injects.

took out the just and unnecessary articles in the second line, and took out the of in the last line. Uncapitalized the first letters of each line (you don't gotta do that) and took out the comma, I think the line break is enough of a pause. I know it changes the meaning a little when you take out the 'of' but I liked this better. Sorry, rewriting is sort of a aggressive technique of critiquing but some of the issues the stanza had were pretty straightforward.

They were not straightforward. By removing those "unnecessary articles" (with the exception of "a" and "the" in second line), you've destroyed the meaning of the stanza. "Just" is essential in emphasizing the uselessness of objects in and of themselves which is one major theme of the poem. It also lends a certain casualness which provides internal contradiction. Also, sleep is a recurrent image in this poem and light/dawn/morning contrasts with it at the end ("congruent" enough for you?). Because of that, light is an attribute of consciousness, not something consciousness acts upon. The light is acting upon "the life" in the line before it. Read more carefully.

To me, 'just' is a cop out because you can't find a better word to 'emphasize the uselessness of objects,' and 'lend a casualness.' I thought the line was more concise without the 'just.' I understood that taking out the 'of' in the third line changed the meaning a little bit. I thought it was better without the 'of.' I should have expressed that this is my opinion, and you are in no way obligated to believe me. Also, I do read pretty carefully, there's no need to condescend to me.


What would I do if at the nightly disconnects,
They stayed staring at the curtain- I’d curse rebellious strife!
My eyes are just two objects.

This stanza has some of the same problems: unnecessary words. Also, content wise, this poem makes little sense to me. The metaphors there are are just mentioned once and never extended any further. I'd like some congruency, some unity, some cohesion.

Congruency and cohesion are the last things I want in a poem which discusses the hazy period between falling asleep and waking up amongst other mind-body ruminations. It was a conscious decision to avoid them. Content gives function which is followed by form (and is the reason the villanelle form is "broken" here). Read Baudelaire ("Les Fleurs du Mal"). Read Beckett and Ionesco. Content-wise, the subject matter is obscure but not impenetrable. Keep in mind that impressions of meaning can often be more enlightening than literal meaning.

oh come on! The poem is not 'consistently' hazy, for me it didn't walk the line between waking and sleeping, maybe haziness and nonsense is more accurate. When I read this, I feel like the subject matter is not obscure, and it IS impenetrable. You can't assume all your readers are as well-read and as intelligent as you. I feel fairly locked out of this poem, and I'm fairly sure it is not for a lack of brain-power or sloppy reading, as you seem to suggest.

Also I'm more of a follower of contemporary poets, although I've read old stuff, okay? I just don't emulate it, or anything for that matter.

Can a blind man dream? No, a mind can’t form if he rejects,
The bond of eye and owner- A dead man rejoined with wife.
No false consciousness infects.

I don't think the question you pose here works. Questions CAN work, but imho this one doesn't. I like the bond of eye and owner. i like false consciousness. That's potent, I want more of that. (You mean like the stuff you'd fine in the other stanzas in the poem?)

It works fine if you've followed the rest of the poem. The narrator is clinging to his sight- his reference point. If that fails him, he is afraid and he asks a question which in reality is false but makes sense in the context presented here. His "blind man" is rejecting a dream (false consciousness) which you can think of as an image viewed through a window. The window is the narrator's eyes which have not followed him into his dream world. Existentialist philosophers believed the body was all important and the mind couldn't overcome it- this is a riff on that idea.

I feel like you're taking my critique a bit personally, and that is causing you to condescend to me. You do not need to explain your poem to me. If it is necessary for you to explain, then you've proved my point. You failed to convey what you seem to think is obvious.

By dawn my decayed eyes will make experts out of defects,
Oh, the smells, the taste, the morning music shrill as a playful fife!
My eyes are just two objects.

as a reader, this stanza sorta made me mad because you say, "oh the smells, the taste" but there is absolutely no hint as to what those could be. All we've got is dawn and decay which is sorta nasty, but that's in the last line so I'm not sure if that's what I'm supposed to be tasting. There's this sensory vacuum that I don't like.

As a writer, this stanza is less about what the smells, tastes, and sounds are and more about what the lack of sight means for the narrator. We know that the other senses will pick up the slack of any other sense that fails. Here, the eyes have not followed the narrator to his dream and have atrophied doing nothing all night. He wakes and has recourse in his other senses, which are nearly overwhelming. The "my eyes are just two objects" in this context gives the sense the narrator has overcome his challenge.

it is still a sensory vacuum, and I did not get that sense. If the narrator is experiencing sensory overload and is 'nearly overwhelmed, then that is completely lost. I maintain that specific details and strong verbs would strengthen this stanza. I AM INTERESTED in this sensory overload, but you only vaguely hint at it.

Which all of me expects,
To guide me as a surgeon guides a knife.
My eyes are just two objects,
The light of consciousness injects.


The other reviewer caught on to the surgeon/injection connection. Cool. The last two lines have a somewhat different meaning now though from the meaning they had throughout the poem. Now the poem is not just a criticism of the belief that the body will always rule over the mind. It's also a criticism of how people will worry about the issue too much- almost an internal self-criticism and a criticism of philosophical problems in general.

remember to read.

And you do the same. Seriously, I know many writers avoid reading for whatever reason, but reminding me to read after you've picked apart my poem with no notion of what it actually means is pretty insulting. I know you are only trying to help me out and I'm sounding pretty snotty here, but I feel the need to justify my work before I get more unintentionally useless reviews. That's not uncommon in the professional literary world, not that any of us are a part of that here. Is this poem perfect or probably even good? Hell no! But I feel like reviewers on this site always expect unambiguous, unchallenging poems so that they can take the easy way out and make mountains out of stylistic molehills.

I guess I wasn't really concerned with what it meant. I wasn't interested enough to want to try and penetrate its subtleties and mystique. So there you have it, the poem did not move me, I read it carefully believe it or not, for whatever reason I am not picking up what you're putting it down. Maybe its a difference in preference, in style, probably is, but it doesn't change the fact that this poem DID NOT MOVE ME. Maybe I'm a little jaded because I read so much poetry, but frankly what i see here is a lack of control with language, i'm sorry your meaning took a backseat to my critique. Next time, maybe?

best,

I'm sorry I just didn't like your piece! It's okay, not everyone is gonna like your stuff! You've made it clear you don't like mine either. Turns out, it doesn't matter much to me, I think NAPO is a fun exercise but that's all it is to me. Look, maybe your poem is brilliant. Fine, maybe it makes awesome connections to philosophy and literature that I am not grasping, cool. I concede that. I didn't say "i don't understand it." I do. Its a meditation on the phenomenology of consciousness and matter. Mind / body dualism, the whole bag, I get it. Maybe you felt a little condescended to with my comment: remember to read, but honestly, I say that to everyone, its sort of like... what i say. I think reading is really important, we seem to agree on that.

I really don't like TS Eliot, but that's another point entirely. Those poems also fail to move me.

Honestly, I haven't really read anything on YWS that moves me. So I guess it doesn't matter. Anyway, I'm tired of this back and forth.

EDIT: I thought of something. I sort of think of poetry in terms of what the courts say about pornography. I don't know what a good poem is, but I know it when I see it. Is that a cop out? Probably.

I mean, I had a general idea of what it was from the beginning. I think it could have been more clear, but I get that its a stylistic choice to keep it unclear because the discord is sort of a metaphor for the conscious state of the narrator. I don't think that's a good choice, but I get it.

Maybe it was a sloppy critique who knows.

Sorry this got out of hand