03-12-2015, 03:17 PM
Sorry Billy, this is not a "cleave poem." A cleave poem has the left portion, the right portion and the poem entire. This poem has three columns that appear to be meant to be read straight down, except for the last line, which seems meant to be read left to right as the last line of the poem when read as a whole from left to right. I do find it humorous that someone is claiming they invented the "cleave poem." I wrote a number of poems in that style/form as far back as 1982 and I doubt I was the first one to do so as it seems like a natural form of poetic experimentation. But I guess now everyone can feel relieved that it has a name. I wonder if someone has given this type of poem a name and claimed credit for inventing it.
Rude screen = Harsh to the eyes
"you drenched in sunlit" --> you (were) drenched in sunlite (?)
"sunlite" beyond the fact it is spelled incorrectly (sunlight), it is still a cliche (Billy has already mentioned two others).
When the speaker says "joshua's well" I am assuming the writer means "Jacob's Well." I assume this is a reference to Jesus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well where Jesus offers the woman the water of eternal life? It is probably the most famous occurrence related to this well, although it has quite the history of traditional stories so that point remains vague and although I understand the reference (if it is the correct reference), I fail to understand how it fits into the poem.
There seem to be two problematic areas with this poem that keep it from succeeding. The content appears to be subservient to the form, causing there to be cryptic and somewhat nonsensical phrases made to satisfy the demands of the form. The other seems to be the sum appears to be lesser than the parts regardless of how one might read it. This includes reading columns 1 and 3 left to right while skipping over 2, as well as 1 and 2 and 2 and 3: not to mention the ways one might expect. This may very well make sense to the writer, but I suspect it is because the writer has additional information he did not share with the reader. Certainly the reader could try and guess at what this is suppose to mean, if anything. However a failure to communicate must always be placed at the feet of the writer. It should never be for the reader to guess at the writer's intent. As I said, I feel sure there must be a cogent idea here which would surely be reveled were enough of the necessary information available.
I would like to offer better critique, but as I have no idea what the poem is trying to accomplish, or what meaning it is intended to convey it makes that impossible.
Dale
Rude screen = Harsh to the eyes
"you drenched in sunlit" --> you (were) drenched in sunlite (?)
"sunlite" beyond the fact it is spelled incorrectly (sunlight), it is still a cliche (Billy has already mentioned two others).
When the speaker says "joshua's well" I am assuming the writer means "Jacob's Well." I assume this is a reference to Jesus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well where Jesus offers the woman the water of eternal life? It is probably the most famous occurrence related to this well, although it has quite the history of traditional stories so that point remains vague and although I understand the reference (if it is the correct reference), I fail to understand how it fits into the poem.
There seem to be two problematic areas with this poem that keep it from succeeding. The content appears to be subservient to the form, causing there to be cryptic and somewhat nonsensical phrases made to satisfy the demands of the form. The other seems to be the sum appears to be lesser than the parts regardless of how one might read it. This includes reading columns 1 and 3 left to right while skipping over 2, as well as 1 and 2 and 2 and 3: not to mention the ways one might expect. This may very well make sense to the writer, but I suspect it is because the writer has additional information he did not share with the reader. Certainly the reader could try and guess at what this is suppose to mean, if anything. However a failure to communicate must always be placed at the feet of the writer. It should never be for the reader to guess at the writer's intent. As I said, I feel sure there must be a cogent idea here which would surely be reveled were enough of the necessary information available.
I would like to offer better critique, but as I have no idea what the poem is trying to accomplish, or what meaning it is intended to convey it makes that impossible.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.