02-08-2017, 12:22 AM
trying to be a poem? do or do not, there is no try. it seems it isn't, by your read, but then you classify it as a dramatic monologue, necessarily i think a poetic form*, so that statement is sorta confusing. also, why must a piece subvert itself to work? i think voltas have the freedom to subvert more than the poems they are in ----
that said, i'd thought its play on the idea of a "more symbolic death", plus its particularly abrasive tone (i must note that the speaker never says that he himself hates fags -- he says "Yes, God hates fags", with the kicker being that, a few paragraphs before, he comments on the paradoxical nature of God both loving and hating sinners) and the fact that the muse was admitted to be purely conceptual was twist enough. may be the more symbolic death got somehow lost in the parade of actual suicides, or may be the abrasive tone does make it read too "edgy" (i hate the word), but i do wonder if any writings have been made regarding a speaker obsessing over a muse that is admitted to be purely conceptual, perhaps a speaker obsessing over the mere concept of a muse.
it could also be that the problem is the repetition, with that and the abrasive tone drowning out the core elements of the piece, elements you seem to have missed, particularly in the speaker's morals and in the speaker's references to Plath**. but then i find this abrasive, alienating rhythm to be part of the piece's identity, insomuch as the speaker "wants to kill himself", but neither in a literal, social, or even spiritual way, and thus kills himself by breaking the piece, by "killing" his credibility and such in the reader's mind. but that is my interpretation, and of course i am the author ---- perhaps i overdid it.
or perhaps i am justifying it after the fact ---- although that is less me being the author, more me being another critic. really, i actually agree with what you say about the poem, though in fact, i believe that good poetry has to be perfectly consistent with itself, with what is at its center and what thought or emotion it intends to deliver, with the contradictions within itself being transformed into the illuminating mysteries of revelation (or dialectic or whatever else that thing is called). and with that in mind, the real problem i think is whether my use of abrasive, repetitive, alienating rhythms actually says anything, or whether its only use is to reveal the somewhat drunken state i was in when i wrote this.
but that isn't to say that i won't edit. for the purposes of this inquiry (and for lizziep's feedback, which is welcome), i definitely will, although the edit itself might come after a while. i really didn't expect this to get any comments at this point (and it is in misc, so i really wouldn't have minded), so Massive, Massive, Massive thanks!
* - or at least when transplanted from the actual play. the difficulty of drama, at least from how i've understood the genre.
** - i don't think this is derivative of Plath at all -- it uses Plath, but it heads in different directions. this i think partly because the speaker's voice is too prosaic, nowhere near using the same vivid sounds and imagery Plath uses to emphasize her issues, and on the other hand because Plath's Ariel poems were for the most part far more positive, or at least they met a climax, while the speaker here is just wallowing, alienating even his audience
that said, i'd thought its play on the idea of a "more symbolic death", plus its particularly abrasive tone (i must note that the speaker never says that he himself hates fags -- he says "Yes, God hates fags", with the kicker being that, a few paragraphs before, he comments on the paradoxical nature of God both loving and hating sinners) and the fact that the muse was admitted to be purely conceptual was twist enough. may be the more symbolic death got somehow lost in the parade of actual suicides, or may be the abrasive tone does make it read too "edgy" (i hate the word), but i do wonder if any writings have been made regarding a speaker obsessing over a muse that is admitted to be purely conceptual, perhaps a speaker obsessing over the mere concept of a muse.
it could also be that the problem is the repetition, with that and the abrasive tone drowning out the core elements of the piece, elements you seem to have missed, particularly in the speaker's morals and in the speaker's references to Plath**. but then i find this abrasive, alienating rhythm to be part of the piece's identity, insomuch as the speaker "wants to kill himself", but neither in a literal, social, or even spiritual way, and thus kills himself by breaking the piece, by "killing" his credibility and such in the reader's mind. but that is my interpretation, and of course i am the author ---- perhaps i overdid it.
or perhaps i am justifying it after the fact ---- although that is less me being the author, more me being another critic. really, i actually agree with what you say about the poem, though in fact, i believe that good poetry has to be perfectly consistent with itself, with what is at its center and what thought or emotion it intends to deliver, with the contradictions within itself being transformed into the illuminating mysteries of revelation (or dialectic or whatever else that thing is called). and with that in mind, the real problem i think is whether my use of abrasive, repetitive, alienating rhythms actually says anything, or whether its only use is to reveal the somewhat drunken state i was in when i wrote this.
but that isn't to say that i won't edit. for the purposes of this inquiry (and for lizziep's feedback, which is welcome), i definitely will, although the edit itself might come after a while. i really didn't expect this to get any comments at this point (and it is in misc, so i really wouldn't have minded), so Massive, Massive, Massive thanks!
* - or at least when transplanted from the actual play. the difficulty of drama, at least from how i've understood the genre.
** - i don't think this is derivative of Plath at all -- it uses Plath, but it heads in different directions. this i think partly because the speaker's voice is too prosaic, nowhere near using the same vivid sounds and imagery Plath uses to emphasize her issues, and on the other hand because Plath's Ariel poems were for the most part far more positive, or at least they met a climax, while the speaker here is just wallowing, alienating even his audience