INTRANSIT
on EXIT (this way) by imperfect_creation
16 Jan 2004, 6:50 AM
You're finding your ears. Repeating the sounds of vowels is called assonance. Repeating the sounds of consonants is called alliteration. There's no problem with taking a rap-style approach to poetry, I would still recommend studying (proper) poetry. It will help you say what you are intending to. Like I recommend to many others, get a copy of: Poetry for dummies. I have one. It's easy to understand and a great basic tool.
the backwards letters are pointless. fix the spelling.
Somehow I see the need for the length, yet feel it could lose alittle weight. I'm just not sure where.
You could Haiku the closer and eliminate the rest, saying the same thing. I do like it as is though.
Whatever you do, don't throw it out. There is a poem in there. put it on the "back burner" for a while.
This sounds like me waking up in the morning. I like it. Earthy, mysterious, a bit threatening and sinister. Amend spelling of 'grotesque' and it'll be there.
I'm being picky, but there's a bit of a mixed metaphor here - the fence and the door. Do fences have doors? Wouldn't a gate be better? You'd need a new rhyme - you could say 'I didn't want to be hurt again' and gor a for a para-rhyme. But anyway... So much for my wisdom.
Very very funny - a cunning tale! I don't know if Strunk & White's grammar is different from Fowler's, but "someones'" should be "someone's" and "murderers" should be "murderer's". But hey! Who cares? This made me laugh, and that's a great thing in a dismal world.
Is this a satirical rendering of what a self-obsessed poet would say about himself? I hope so. Otherwise, this is pompous and self-regarding and you should think about somebody else for a while.
'are gone with the people them for'? Do you mean 'they're'? One thought doesn't lead to another in this poem. How do you 'have' another person's dreams? Unless you're spookily in their head at the same time as them. Yipe. Gosh I'm grumpy today.
what is wrong with this... shit.
makes me think.... hurts... but i like it.
Don't be. You've got much better stuff here.
No, but I saw your pigs. Ran 'em into the sea. -Jesus
No, look, you old crone. I didn't ask for the meanings of the individual words. I asked what a "harsh, poignant talent" is, which you've failed to explain. You claim that a "harsh, poignant talent" is a talent for writing harsh, poignant stories. This is buncombe. The only way it could be right is if "X, Y talent" meant "a talent for writing X, Y stories", which it does not. Affix your shrivel'd eyes upon this proove: 1. Let P have an X, Y talent if and only if P has a talent for writing X, Y stories. 1. Let P have a talent for writing fictional, 2000-word stories. 2. Therefore P has a fictional, 2000-word talent. 3. This is buncombe. 4. Q.E.D. Or shall we take your principle further, and say that a man has a brown, German talent because he has a talent for making brown, German films? That you have a nasal, grating talent because you have a talent for producing that sort of sound?
From now on, I do not wish to hear you use the phrase "harsh, poignant" except when referring to "Ace Bandido Red" brand hot sauce.
A cracking good volley mate.
I like it, with one small exception - okay two, but the second is more general.
The first stanza - mixed metaphor, I think you can fix it with removing the last three lines (and still completely retain the meaning).
It may be my taste, but I kept feeling like strings of words could be removed here and there, maybe 2,3 words in a row - to make the remainder more rich.
You're the only one I can tolerate this kind of stuff from. Poetry, that is. Is it? bivalve and arthroscopic made me peanut butter and jelly my keyboard.
A triangular manhole cover with a relative thickness comparable to the circular manhole covers I have seen wouldn't fall in without a bit of chiselling.