04-16-2016, 07:07 AM
I can't get past the first sentence. It is comprised of three seemingly unrelated elements.
"I long for the moments of union,
My solitude was my friend in the past,
Even now,
The cloak of night is the keeper of my secrets."
1. Longing for moments of union (which one cannot do alone)
2. Solitude, i.e., being alone is the speakers friend.
3. The "cloak of night" (whatever that is) keeps the speakers secrets.
The first stanza sets up the poem, which in this case happens to be this sentence. The first two parts contradict each other, while the third line uses a misnomer, or malapropism if you will, "cloak of night" that renders the line completely nonsensical. Originally the term was "clock of darkness" as in, "We will commit this robbery under the cloak of darkness where no on will see us. Later being interchanged with night as night means darkness also, but there is no object called the "cloak of night". Using this cliche this way conjures up no usable image. It may initially sound good, but it makes no sense.
The rest of the poem seems much of the same, but as this is mild, I'll not critique the whole poem in depth. Hopefully you can extrapolate this to the rest of the poem to improve it's weaknesses.
Welcome to the site,
Best,
dale
"I long for the moments of union,
My solitude was my friend in the past,
Even now,
The cloak of night is the keeper of my secrets."
1. Longing for moments of union (which one cannot do alone)
2. Solitude, i.e., being alone is the speakers friend.
3. The "cloak of night" (whatever that is) keeps the speakers secrets.
The first stanza sets up the poem, which in this case happens to be this sentence. The first two parts contradict each other, while the third line uses a misnomer, or malapropism if you will, "cloak of night" that renders the line completely nonsensical. Originally the term was "clock of darkness" as in, "We will commit this robbery under the cloak of darkness where no on will see us. Later being interchanged with night as night means darkness also, but there is no object called the "cloak of night". Using this cliche this way conjures up no usable image. It may initially sound good, but it makes no sense.
The rest of the poem seems much of the same, but as this is mild, I'll not critique the whole poem in depth. Hopefully you can extrapolate this to the rest of the poem to improve it's weaknesses.
Welcome to the site,
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.