02-14-2012, 01:30 PM
That's because it isn't clear 
Tense problems. Need to stay in the past tense. Why no punctuation? How does it make the poem better to not have it?
Unclear offense:
as if it mattered now...
The mortified little bunny watched
as a nervous predator
lost her mind in the bedroom.*
Behind the dark oak door,
and dulled brass hinges
a tiny plea melted
to a wracking soundtrack
of ignorant throbs:
my back against the door,
weeping for mother
and me.
*Really no way to make that work the way you are saying it is. "Lose her mind" does not equal "ran". You can run into the bedroom, but you cannot "lose your mind into the bedroom". You can "lose your mind and run into the bedroom". You can, run into the bedroom and lose your mind".
I don't think anyone will ever make sense out of "losing your mind into the bedroom" Does it make sense if I say, "she flew her lollipop into red." The action of losing ones mind is not a physical action, it does not move anything from one place to another in a physical way. You can even say things like, "My thoughts run amok". But you can't say "My thoughts run amok down the street to the 7-11 store to buy a coke." You are asking something that has no physicality to do something that only something with physicality can do. You can say your anger did many things, but you can't say your anger went to the bank, pulled out a gun and shot the teller. That will make no sense to the reader. Out side of personification, which this does not cover, the only way to give things attributes they do not have is to create a world in which that is possible. I think it is in "Skinny Legs and All" Tom Robbins shows the action through the "eyes" of spoon, a can of pork-n-beans, a dirty sock, but he creates a reality where that is acceptable.
Next, I want to know why it is necessary to keep the reader in the dark about who does what? There seem to be characters here. The bunny? The mother, and you. Who does the following apply to?
"Behind the dark oak door,
and dulled brass hinges
a tiny plea melted
to a wracking soundtrack
of ignorant throbs:"
As far as I know it could be any of the three, especially as there is no punctuation to indicate where one thing starts and another stops. By the end I think it refers to you, but I am still unsure. Is there some valid reason to obscure who is doing what? Why not,
"I stand behind a dark oak door,
with dulled brass hinges.
A tiny plea escapes and melts
into a wracking soundtrack
of ignorant throbs:"
Does this somehow devalue the quality of what you are trying to convey?
Please, and I mean this seriously, to Mark or anyone else, give me a valid rationale for not using punctuation as a way of writing. I don't mean in one instance, but doing so in everything you write. How does what you write benefit? How does it make the poetry better?
And Mark, I am not saying you are being purposefully unclear, but when you leave off punctuation and grammar that is still the effect.
I think this has the core of a good poem, and clarity will enhance it.
Dale
Tense problems. Need to stay in the past tense. Why no punctuation? How does it make the poem better to not have it?
Unclear offense:
as if it mattered now...
The mortified little bunny watched
as a nervous predator
lost her mind in the bedroom.*
Behind the dark oak door,
and dulled brass hinges
a tiny plea melted
to a wracking soundtrack
of ignorant throbs:
my back against the door,
weeping for mother
and me.
*Really no way to make that work the way you are saying it is. "Lose her mind" does not equal "ran". You can run into the bedroom, but you cannot "lose your mind into the bedroom". You can "lose your mind and run into the bedroom". You can, run into the bedroom and lose your mind".
I don't think anyone will ever make sense out of "losing your mind into the bedroom" Does it make sense if I say, "she flew her lollipop into red." The action of losing ones mind is not a physical action, it does not move anything from one place to another in a physical way. You can even say things like, "My thoughts run amok". But you can't say "My thoughts run amok down the street to the 7-11 store to buy a coke." You are asking something that has no physicality to do something that only something with physicality can do. You can say your anger did many things, but you can't say your anger went to the bank, pulled out a gun and shot the teller. That will make no sense to the reader. Out side of personification, which this does not cover, the only way to give things attributes they do not have is to create a world in which that is possible. I think it is in "Skinny Legs and All" Tom Robbins shows the action through the "eyes" of spoon, a can of pork-n-beans, a dirty sock, but he creates a reality where that is acceptable.
Next, I want to know why it is necessary to keep the reader in the dark about who does what? There seem to be characters here. The bunny? The mother, and you. Who does the following apply to?
"Behind the dark oak door,
and dulled brass hinges
a tiny plea melted
to a wracking soundtrack
of ignorant throbs:"
As far as I know it could be any of the three, especially as there is no punctuation to indicate where one thing starts and another stops. By the end I think it refers to you, but I am still unsure. Is there some valid reason to obscure who is doing what? Why not,
"I stand behind a dark oak door,
with dulled brass hinges.
A tiny plea escapes and melts
into a wracking soundtrack
of ignorant throbs:"
Does this somehow devalue the quality of what you are trying to convey?
Please, and I mean this seriously, to Mark or anyone else, give me a valid rationale for not using punctuation as a way of writing. I don't mean in one instance, but doing so in everything you write. How does what you write benefit? How does it make the poetry better?
And Mark, I am not saying you are being purposefully unclear, but when you leave off punctuation and grammar that is still the effect.
I think this has the core of a good poem, and clarity will enhance it.
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.