Hey, comin' 'round for a review. I apologize beforehand for going into something of a rant about traditional vs. contemporary poetry. Just thought it to be important to explain my feelings behind the topic, so as to reveal my reasoning behind the single criticism I have for your work.
While the topic is interesting, and I can see that your view was clear and remained so for the entirety of your work, there are a few things I can't say I personally enjoy.
It's the same old story, really, of me critiquing the lack of poetic form. Yes, of course, free verse is a perfectly valid form of poetry (though woefully overused and misused throughout the last century and a half), but it's not without flaws, and those flaws should be pointed out.
This work is a better example of well-used free verse than most of the 'free verse' seen out and about, roaming this poetic limbo, but it still gives me the impression of prose broken up into lines at times. Simply put, I am taken out of the flow. And that shouldn't really be happening.
From what I was taught by the school system, poetry is meant to be rather lyrical, to possess a certain meter and (optionally) rhyme scheme, to make it more memorable, since many poets recited their poems by heart. And even though free verse is, by definition, without rhyme or meter, it should still be lyrical - it should still focus more on ideas and thoughts, if not feelings, rather than a clear cut description of one's surroundings. I can happily say that you achieved that rather well.
Most great poets I can think of, including Shakespeare or, say, Puškin, stuck to at least some rules, whether it be a given meter, a rhyme scheme, a type of poem, or any other consistent guideline. Though it is true that Shakespeare enjoyed blank verse the most.
Of course, there is really no need for end-rhyme at all. It can be nice, it can be forced, it can be necessary and quite the opposite as well. Rhyme is just a bonus. What's important is form. Solid, consistent form. Then again, I'm a formalist, so I'll always be biased towards rigorous poetry showing the poet's great discipline in sticking to said consistent form.
Call me boring, that's just what I was taught. Of course poetry can be about literally anything in the universe or beyond it, but despite the 'progress' of the 20th century, I staunchly believe that poetry must conform to certain rules, just like prose does, lest it become a muddled mess of prose disturbingly crossbred with verse.
So that's really my only gripe. The lack of rhyme or meter. Unfortunately, it's not an objective critique. Very subjective. Hell, most people don't seem to care about meter or rhyme nowadays, or any rules, when it comes to poetry, so my advice is probably best left ignored, all things considered. It's just that for me personally, the poem hits a lot harder if it follows said rules.
That, and it shows that the poet gave his work a great amount of time and effort.
So in the end, I see poetry like I see art - it must follow rules in order to be truly good. Sure, the scribblings of a mad man or paint randomly thrown at a wall technically qualify as 'art' (why, I do not know), but is it necessarily good art? Now, don't get me wrong. Following rules doesn't make a poem good either, not inherently so. Hell, look at my poetry. It follows both a rhyme scheme and a strict meter (usually the iambic tetrameter in some shape of form), and my poems are mostly quite dull and stale.
Other than that, the ideas themselves behind your work were quite intriguing, deep, and I did enjoy reading through it, despite this gripe I had with it. So full steam ahead! Like I said, most people will disagree with me, so feel free to let go of my critique entirely.
Thanks for sharing, keep on pushing through! Poetry drives a person insane sooner or later, damned 'word-things'...
Kind regards,
Herr Schweinehund
Points: 1689
Reviews: 52
Donate