Arthur and Rose

having read your posts now, I think I can understand your necklace analogy a little better. I see that you are writing bound verse, while many poets here on this site write "free form". I myself write quite a lot of free form, too, but am personally convinced that a good free form poem needs as much polishing and cutting as a good bound verse poem. If you are looking for bound verse, you can skip every poem that is written in free form, and simply comment on those that are declared as "Western classic". There are quite a few poets here who write bound verse, too, like pugilist, who left a comment under one of your pieces, for example. One last thing: What is this reference to Ian Thomson? Is this your real name? Or have you copied this poem from another poet whose name is Ian Thomson? If the latter is the case, I will have to ask you to delete this poem, as plagiarism is not tolerated here on Neopoet. With poetic regards, Ink Dragon

Ian, Tam, Melvin, whoever. I am at a loss because your blog post appears to indicate some familiarity with poetry and structured verse yet your submissions to date argue strongly that you have only just begun writing, Were you to respond to this I would ask that you not list all of your awards, if any, your publications, if any, certifications, if any, or any other accoutrement you feel argues in place of your work. I honestly do not care about any of that, only what you present in this forum and, to date, the presentation has been lacking. In this piece and the others I have seen your style and rhythm wanders at the oddest times and I see wild divergence of plot for what appears to be little more purpose than hitting a rhyme. Additionally, even though the above, lightly followed, AABBB scheme can be effective, as most rhyme schemes can, the prior line should not tell us, with a high degree of certainty, the concluding word of the next line. I picked the following stanza at random: ---------------------------------------------------- The crab-waiters all scuttled with seaweed to serve Arthur said “there’s no meat; nothing sweet - I could starve!” Rose enjoyed herself eating a sea - lettuce snack While Arthur tried catching some crabs round the back Of the kitchen, he needed some shellfish to crack. ------------------------------------------------------ And have to point out that its actual structure is ABCCC, and the count is 12,12,12,11,12 - which is different from many of the others which are different from others, etc. I have to admit, you will not find a much more critical voice than mine against most of free-form poetry because, like most of all poetry, it sucks. What is worse, in my opinion, than bad free form poetry is sloppy attempts at structured poetry, bound verse as Nina indicates, because structured poetry has rules and if you cannot be bothered to follow them, you are not writing structured poetry, you are writing free form. And brother, railing against free-form while writing free-form is painful to watch. If you need a reminder, free form is the very thing against which you rail. I consider myself competent at structured poetry, if only because I can define and adhere to a structure and I can also write within the rules of existing structure. Readers will have to decide how well I succeed in creating poetry but I can, at least, follow the damn rules if I am going to criticize the attempts of others. I would propose you consider that approach as your current strategy does not appear to be destined for success. --Jonathan Annoying the world, one person at a time (Group discounts available)

I do not, as a rule, duplicate posts. This is necessary in my mind due to subsequent participants in these discussions. ------------------- Just a quick note. Ian and I had a misunderstanding. Ian made some bold points in a blog post and I misunderstood the thrust of his argument. I inaccurately connected his statements about poetry with an attitude that his own work was superior to the work of others. Words were exchanged, feelings got heated. Ian and I have come to an understanding. I was hasty in concluding Ian's blog post was a judgment of other work in relation to his. The fault was mine. As by way of explanation, not an excuse for the fault was mine, I have a short fuse when I perceive arrogant behaviour. My initial communication to Ian could have been more tempered, his response to me could have been so as well, but at the heart of the issue was my invalid conclusion as indicated above. On this piece. Yes, it could use some work. Perhaps Ian will take feedback on his other submissions and review this piece and modify it. One of the filters we need to apply here is the intended audience, which I understand is younger girls, specifically his granddaughters. --Jonathan Annoying the world, one person at a time (Group discounts available)