yeah, so, i just finished reading your entire longer poetry piece. i have to say, it is really refreshing to find someone who is far along enough developed to not completely bore me with the constitution of your metaphors etc.
i like seeing you word an interesting paradox in a distinctly new way that somewhat smells of the old formulaic way of seeing/saying it, but also makes use of the streaming reticence required to express the constitution of something seeing itself seeing itself seeing itself... etc.
however, a piece of negative criticism of your style is that often it becomes so obsessively focused on the dialectics of the formulaic phrasings that it becomes something that is too oblique. that is dismissing of a conscious intent to follow the logic train (despite the curious circles it may seem to be running.) It seems as if you carelessly dismiss that infact you are leaving not just an exegesis but a proprietary emblem of things in a subservient nature. as a writer, dissection of brevity is necessary, but i feel like there should be more that constitutes a "home base" between the orator and the listener. you should work harder and spend more time to come to agreements. for instance: 'warm bread smells delicious.' this phrase is something most can connect with. when you use a line like: "redemption arrests zygotes without incident." it is literally capable of being taken a hundred different ways. however, a sentence like: "the omlette lay in the pan." is not easily taken to mean many different things. it's fairly concrete. so i don't suggest you stick with concrete sayings in lieu of abstract ones. but i don't think it's a good idea to be entirely concrete OR abstract. I see you as being too dependent on the abstract. the argument could be made that your subject is the abstract itself, in which case, you're kind of making an inside-out diagram of an undiagramable nether. however, there still needs to be a sense and goal of confirmation between parties. when one party (not just you as author but the inside as oppose to the outside worlds) attempts to discredit entirely the other, the result is a failure to reach agreement. the goal of agreement is necessary for the flourishment of each unique representation of the world. (a goal of writing)
to see the world entirely composed of its exteriors and to even see the interior realms as simply facets of the external world's constituency is to fail to see either world as being primary but instead an effort to reduce the ineffable reality to a definable point. Likewise it is as undermining to do the same injustice to the outside world in a rationalized effort to champion the rhythmic patterns, intelligent operation techniques and chaotic experience as being chief and the only justifiable landmark of existence being an occuring instance of mind.
i am as happy as anything that your language is as advanced and pristine as some i've ever seen, but i feel the effects are lost because of a apparent lack of concern for the logical course of reticence to compute the surfacing images and ideas.
Thank you for your review, I will go change it to the reality instead of just reality :-)
I appreciate it very much that you told me this, I really like to be corrected with my errors, as I wish so much to learn English as fluently as possible
Offline
Share This
RSS Feed
Send Message
Add to Friends
Subscribe
Block Writer
Flag Writer
![[send message]](https://www.writerscafe.org/images/mail.png){kind=small}
