she is a girl who knows what it means to smile.
This whole poem is like this sentence. It names a random disjointed piece of your intuition and gives the readers none of the tools to comprehend, understand, feel it for what it means. It is empty. R.P Feynman, a Nobel prize physicist puts it perfectly when he says
R.P Feyman wrote:You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.
Therefor, you aren't explaining what it means to know the meaning to smile, you are naming it, and we will take whatever society inadvertently applied to the cliche in the first place.
It's all trying to resemble a poem, the way you speak, but it has no substance. Sometimes you are just running with arbitrary things like, the paradox (for lack of a better word) in the first stanza.
you say,
her cheeks grow weary from plastering the pleasure
for the world to see. for she is for the world
This actually makes no sense. 1. the first line just seems arbitrary to mean. 2. she's plastering pleasure for the world to see AND she is the world, so she's doing what exactly, plastering pleasure for herself to see?
There's more but honestly, most readers will probably read this poem trying to reach the end so fast that these details don't even matter to them. Which is exactly why substance-less poems are so.. uninteresting. Try writing less, and make it have some more substance. By the time the reader gets to the bottom, what exactly is left to think about? What is fun along the way? Why would this poem have any lasting worth while impression?
Points: 33
Reviews: 131
Donate