04-01-2015, 05:08 AM
A person is round (debatable, in what way? as a sphere or a circle, or just as well rounded?)
(there is no word for mud) (evidently there is as it is written here)
“God is round”
(whitewash my eyes, the poor ones) (how many eyes do you have?)
it piles up
a layer after
a layer (eyes, whitewash, God, mud, person, or roundness?)
whiteness (Oh, I see, it is whiteness that piles up)
and it gets clean (wouldn't Whiteness by definition be clean already. Seems like dirtiness would be indicated by discoloration)
___________________________________________________________________________
The first line says that "a" person is round. Since the indirect article is used, one must assume there are other persons that are possibly not round and maybe even something like square or oblong.
There are many words on the page that convey little. Here are the things we know.
We know a person is round.
We know God is round.
We have no clue what this might signify if it signifies anything at all, or if the two statements are even connected.
We now that the poem asserts that there is no name for "mud."
We know that "it" piles up, but generally no idea what it is, unless it is whiteness.
That this makes little sense even in the most generous treatment of it has already been established by your other reviewers. Something like this generally arises from three sources:
the writer thinks he is expressing himself more clearly than he is; this is a common occurrence for the novice.
the writer has read widely praised poetry which appeared inscrutable to him do to his misunderstanding of it and so
he tries to be imitative, but only gets the superficial level and that is what he attempts to convey
it is an instance of who flung doo poetry. Where the writer throws up anything and hope that it sticks, mainly hoping to overwhelm readers with his bullshit so they will think it is great and say so (so as not to look stupid). This could also be called the "Emperor's New Clothes" poetry.
In a way this type of poetry is beyond criticism as there is nothing there to critique and the writer can defend himself by simply saying, well, you just don't understand. Implying, or not that the person is somehow lacking in the intelligence necessary to understand. This is not to condemn, it is simply to point out the defense mechanism that most often occurs in such situations. On occasion I still mutter this to myself, it is just I can no longer believe it.
The best I can offer is to try and see beyond your reaction of anger and feeling slighted and see if you can at least take on some of this to help you improve.
Best,
Dale
(there is no word for mud) (evidently there is as it is written here)
“God is round”
(whitewash my eyes, the poor ones) (how many eyes do you have?)
it piles up
a layer after
a layer (eyes, whitewash, God, mud, person, or roundness?)
whiteness (Oh, I see, it is whiteness that piles up)
and it gets clean (wouldn't Whiteness by definition be clean already. Seems like dirtiness would be indicated by discoloration)
___________________________________________________________________________
The first line says that "a" person is round. Since the indirect article is used, one must assume there are other persons that are possibly not round and maybe even something like square or oblong.
There are many words on the page that convey little. Here are the things we know.
We know a person is round.
We know God is round.
We have no clue what this might signify if it signifies anything at all, or if the two statements are even connected.
We now that the poem asserts that there is no name for "mud."
We know that "it" piles up, but generally no idea what it is, unless it is whiteness.
That this makes little sense even in the most generous treatment of it has already been established by your other reviewers. Something like this generally arises from three sources:
the writer thinks he is expressing himself more clearly than he is; this is a common occurrence for the novice.
the writer has read widely praised poetry which appeared inscrutable to him do to his misunderstanding of it and so
he tries to be imitative, but only gets the superficial level and that is what he attempts to convey
it is an instance of who flung doo poetry. Where the writer throws up anything and hope that it sticks, mainly hoping to overwhelm readers with his bullshit so they will think it is great and say so (so as not to look stupid). This could also be called the "Emperor's New Clothes" poetry.
In a way this type of poetry is beyond criticism as there is nothing there to critique and the writer can defend himself by simply saying, well, you just don't understand. Implying, or not that the person is somehow lacking in the intelligence necessary to understand. This is not to condemn, it is simply to point out the defense mechanism that most often occurs in such situations. On occasion I still mutter this to myself, it is just I can no longer believe it.
The best I can offer is to try and see beyond your reaction of anger and feeling slighted and see if you can at least take on some of this to help you improve.
Best,
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.