Locked Out

Whether by the sweltering sun

Or the oscillating moon,

For all intents and purposes

I’m locked out of my heart,

Obstructed from my soul,

And banished to my brain

Where I’m bombarded with questions

That drive me into madness.

Long have I drifted in the depths of sorrow,

Long have I languished in the lonely shadows,

My only solace in my Muses’ voices

Now the dreary static

Of a connection striving to hold the signal

Before dead silence.

I was a river.

I flowed with my feelings

Amidst the real and ethereal,

And it didn’t matter low or high,

Wet or dry,

Home was the ink in my current,

Home was the song at my core;

The blessing of knowing

I was born to run to the ocean.

I was a garden.

I conjured a myriad of flowers

And was green with vegetation,

Green with the vigour

Of Spring emerging from the dregs of Winter

By the pricking of my thumb!

I was wick as wonder,

Quick as thunder,

But now I’m under

The impression that ev’ry ripple

And petal of creation

From my coven of Muses

Is not as rich and pleasant

As when it all manifested.

Like my Muses don’t know what they want.

Like the listless existence

In stagnation

Instead sows the insane root

And flows the lethean liquor

That render synergy lethal

And myself simply green -

A shade of naïveté

Attempting to reclaim

The present tense of my nature

While outside a locked zone

With the key lost inside.

-EDP

Reviews

[W. Barrett Munn]

Wonderfully musical in its construction and a nice light touch in the play of the diction.

[emipoemi]

Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for reading.

[Aura]

"But now I’m under
The impression that ev’ry ripple
And petal of creation
From my coven of Muses
Is not as rich and pleasant
As when it all manifested." This stanza gave me the impression that you wrote about self doubt. You are locked out of your heart, banished to only your questioning brain, where you don't have all of the answers. You were a graceful river, you were a beautiful graden. But now, you have doubts that you weren't what you thought you were. You thought you were naïve, and you can't seem to make these unwelcomed thoughts go away. You must find the key to your soul, to your heart to remind yourself that you are what you believe you are... a beautiful thing, a beautiful garden, a graceful river. Something worth seeing! This, when read a couple of times, has a very deep meaning, that self doubt can perhaps do alot of damage and it takes alot of determination fo find the key to open a new... more positive... look on life! Thanks for sharing!

[emipoemi]

Thanks for reading! (and taking the time to analyze it properly). I appreciate your thoughts and comments and am very glad you got something out of it.

[Aura]

My pleasure :)

[Ranger Kessel]

Im not steeping into this one. I read it.

[emipoemi]

You definitely don't have to join the argument - I don't blame you (I'm surprised it has even gone this long) - but did you enjoy the poem?

[Ranger Kessel]

I did thank you

[JayG]

• Or the oscillating moon,

If you see the moon oscillating, you just may have overindulged. The moon MIGHT be said to circle the earth. But it does NOT oscillate.

• I’m locked out of my heart,

Damn…I didn’t even know the thing had a lock. I wonder who has my key? And the sun and the moon can do the things you say? Naa. You’re over the line and into purple-prose with this. And given that the first stanza the speaker ends with the speaker insane, that’s it, poem over because the protagonist is insane and can no longer function.

But over all, each stanza says the same thing with different words, and is extremely reminiscent of Lydia’s suicide note in the film, Beetlejuice: I am utterly… alone. You have sealed my fate with your betrayal. I can no longer stand to be used like a puppet between two deceitful worlds…
If you’ve not seen it, this is the mood you seem to be setting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y5Hilp4rFg

My point? You have intent for how the reader is to take the meaning, and hear the words, but no one else does. So this can only work for you, because the story that makes it meaningful is in your head and supplying context for what didn’t make it to the page.

In this, you’re transcribing yourself emoting, as if at a live performance. But no one can hear the emotion you’d place in your voice. And no one can see your expressions and body-language. Have your computer read this to you to hear how great the difference is between you performing the piece and the reader experiencing it as they read, with none of the knowledge that makes it work for you.

Basically, you’re reacting to unknown events with visually referenced statements that cannot work in a medium that has neither vision nor sound. Sure, when YOU read it, every line points to images, memories, and more, all stored in your mind. So it works. But for the reader? Every line points to images, memories, and more, all stored in *YOUR* mind. But with you not there to explain…

I’d suggest a look Mary Oliver’s, A Poetry Handbook. Lots of people view it as mandatory reading. It’s free to download here: https://yes-pdf.com/book/1596

[emipoemi]

I have always wondered when you'd be gracing me with one of your critical essays, because now I get the opportunity to tell you how much you know your s**t but at the same time are full of s**t. You read too much into realistic concepts of literature, that you forget that some aspects of literature aren't supposed to be REAL. Poetry most of all. And if you actually read the Mary Oliver manifesto, you would know there's more to poetry than meets the eye. If you don't want to sit down and think about the craft of the piece, then I'm sorry, sir, you have no business lecturing me about how poetry works. I've seen you make your comments on others' work, and I very well have found myself agreeing with some of your points. Your "oscillating" comment, for instance, is your strongest point here, but not totally convincing, given by your tendencies to flow on strictly realistic wavelengths, you haven't proven ever to have understood the written work in full. And by that, you should step back and have a think, ruminate a bit before you comment (make sure you have analyzed every aspect of the piece to form the true picture in your head before establishing your critique). You would see a lot more if you opened your eyes.

I'm sorry my poem wasn't to your standards but I will not be taking your comments to heart as of yet given your underscored OSCILLATION between intelligence and ignorance. Good day.

[JayG]

• And if you actually read the Mary Oliver manifesto, you would know there's more to poetry than meets the eye.

I have. It's one of the more than 50 books on writing in my writing library. I like Stephen Fry's, The Ode Less Traveled better.

• you have no business lecturing me about how poetry works.

Hmm... in the past twelve months I've posted four poems, which received a total of 62 comments. In that time you've posted 9, with a total of 21. The most comments you got on any piece was 5. The least I received was 8. I don't call myself a poet, and have posted more fiction than poetry, but still, before you denigrate my knowledge and skill you might just look in the mirror at your most avid admirer and ask him why, if I know so little, you don't do better.

But forget that, because what I said was a critique of this piece as it stands on this day. But you took that as a personal attack, not a comment on the poem,

It's not my fault that you forgot to post a, "praise only," notice.

Had I praised the work you'd have accepted it as your right, never questioning is it was accurate or not.

The fact that you can't accept criticism in exactly the same fashion says it all.

[emipoemi]

I take criticism very well, sir, and yours was more a screed than anything remotely close to constructive criticism. You may have read the Oliver manifesto, but did you understand it? Did you understand the Fry one? Or were you taking tidbits and skewing them to suit your conception of what writing is? And the fact that you went to compare our output and reception simply proves your pretentious nature, and I don't see how anyone should take you seriously. Just because you couldn't figure out some of my imagery or metaphors doesn't mean they should change. Part of constructive criticism includes the pros, but you're only providing the cons, and in ways that make me wonder whether you even read the piece in depth and figured how it flows and functions. If you can provide textual evidence to your case then I might be interested, but since you just deliver statements which you might understand to be reality, reality rarely applies to the fullest extent to poetry (particularly poetry!). So, yeah, boast all you want about your comments, I don't care. I'm sure you have flaws in yours, just no one has had the knowledge or courage to mention any. And I'm not saying mine are 100% perfect, but I only listen to critics who can provide evidence in the text for their cases and who have also fathomed the integrity of the piece itself. If you can do that, then you have my attention, but if not, then you can sit down, be humble.

[JayG]

• You may have read the Oliver manifesto, but did you understand it

Better then you, based on the commens. Your point?

• Part of constructive criticism includes the pros, but you're only providing the cons, and in ways that make me wonder whether you even read the piece in depth and figured how it flows and functions.

Horseshit. You're talking to someone who has been writing for over 40 years, has sold in nonfiction, fiction (long and short form), and poetry. I've taught at workshops and owned a manuscript critique service. And I don't hide behind a screen name.

You are expected to write brilliantly. A critique focuses on what isn't. What you want is a praise sandwich: A few minor comments on the work between meaningless accolades. But that's not how it works. And had there been something worth praising I would have. Take my word for it, I was being kind.

You're making vast decisions based on half-vast data. That's always a mistake.

And now, I have to pack my gear for the camparee, so feel free to spew indignation.

[emipoemi]

The fact that you're primarily arguing points in defence of your ego simply proves how pretentious you are. I gave you the opportunity to demonstrate your 40-years of knowledge and skill by analyzing the poem in depth (because you clearly don't understand the main points), but you chose instead to act like you're above me just because you have seniority in the field. What does that really say about you, sir? Hmm? You may have been kind enough to write a review on the poem, for which I'm grateful, but you sure as hell weren't kind in your wording. It's possible to write constructive criticism without discourtesy and pretension, but you should also dissect the work properly before you go about it. For just because something may not work to you doesn't mean it doesn't for the poem. Saying "the moon doesn't oscillate" means s**t! Anyone can look at one of your pieces, for instance, and say a certain word doesn't work because it can't be used that way, but maybe if they read the work and understand its purpose they would see why the word was used in such a way. Again, I gave you the floor to present your full case on the matter and you didn't, which tells me that you didn't do the work to merit the critique that you gave. Poetry bends language through metaphors, pal, and every writer has their own voice. So when you extrapolate that voice, you critique accordingly. However, by how you've been handling this debate, you critique under the pretence that what you don't like or understand is plain wrong, and who are you to say that? Imply that, even? Just because someone doesn't write like you doesn't mean they're wrong. You as a critic have to adapt to what the work is trying to say, not what you assume is going on. So if you don't want to delve into the abstract of metaphors; if you want to stay in your comfort zone of realism, that's fine, you do you, just don't heavily criticize what you don't fully understand.

[JayG]

• It's possible to write constructive criticism without discourtesy and pretension, but you should also dissect the work properly before you go about it.

Have you missed the fact that not one person commented on this but me? You want better critiques? Post better poetry. It’s that simple.

• For just because something may not work to you doesn't mean it doesn't for the poem.

You’re trying to couch this in terms of personal preference. But no one likes purple prose. And this is WAY over the line. “Long have I languished in the lonely shadows?” An “oscillating moon?” “Home was the ink in my current?” “I was wick as wonder?” Seriously?

• Anyone can look at one of your pieces, for instance, and say a certain word doesn't work

Were that the case, you’d have done it. And in any case, it’s a specious argument. I’ve never claimed to be either a poet or that my works are in any way special. My words to you were on this piece as it stands on this day. No more. You’ve chosen to take it as a personal attack because it wasn’t complementary.

Had I praised the work you would have accepted it as your due, without a second thought. Your not accepting a critique that points out problems in exactly the same spirit is hypocritical.

• Poetry bends language through metaphors, pal, and every writer has their own voice.

In other words anything you say is sacrosanct because it’s in your “voice.” Okay. Prove me wrong. Sell it.

• So when you extrapolate that voice, you critique accordingly.

I critique structure and errors in technique. And you have many.

1. In S1 you tell the reader, unequivocally, that the protagonist is mad. Obviously then, by your assertion, all that follows is the raving of a madman. But it’s not presented as such, and later, you speak of “the insane ROOT.” Consistency matters.

2. The character is “locked out of their heart; drifts; languishes; is a river that’s both wet and dry; is a garden; is a wick (whatever that is); conjures flowers; sows the insane root; and, flows the lethean liquor.

This thing veers in a drunkard's walk.

3. You tell the reader that the character is “banished to my brain Where I’m bombarded with questions”

But...you give no hint of why. So, this unknown person is whining, stanza after stanza, for no-known reason. You’ve put effect before cause, and then left out the cause. E. L. Doctorow put it well when he said, “Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation in the reader. Not the fact that it’s raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.”

But in this you talk TO the reader, never give them a reason to care, and, never involve them. You talk of your emotions but do nothing to stir thode of the reader. What can that say, but "Uhh...okay."?

As I said, structure and errors in technique. I told you I was being kind, remember?

My suggestion, since you’re so upset, is to punch the little X that’s at the top of every message. My posts will disappear, and you can go back to being the brilliant poet you know you are.

[emipoemi]

You're getting the hang of it now. You prove that you know your s**t, which I had acknowledged in my first comment, but you still haven't exonerated yourself from being in the same breath so full of s**t. You still haven't proven by any means that you know the underlying message of this particular poem, as there are key detail that you haven't touched upon yet, and putting those pieces of the puzzle into the picture might help you figure out that there is a method to the madness - a purple prose, as you call it, that's not as purple as you think it is, and is sure as heck not prose. Now my lack of comments is not a testament to the quality of my work but rather my falling under everyone's radar when I log on. The majority of my connections on here have moved on with their lives so I'm trying to get noticed again. And the fact that you chose a poem that seems to be beyond your comprehension out of all the ones on my page is not my fault. I didn't lead you there. It was the third one down. So again, until you've proven you fully understand this poem in what it's trying to say, I cannot take you seriously in these critiques. And if you really want me to tackle on of yours, I'd be glad to. I haven't yet as I'm not as hotheaded and pretentious as you (re: going to compare our recent output and reception to prove a petty point without knowing the whole story as to why the results were the case).
Again, I'm not offended by the critique, I'm more annoyed that you worded it as a screed and the fact that you still prove to not have understood the piece as a whole. I have my moments of brilliance, and I know even the best can make errors. But an error is only an error if the critic fully understands the message of the poem.....not the scattered bits and pieces that seem out of whack from being interpreted as an entirely different picture. The ball is back in your court.

[JayG]

• but you still haven't exonerated yourself from being in the same breath so full of s**t.

I don't have to. The subject under discussion is this poem as it stands today. You spout lots of words, mostly wounded pride, but address the problems not at all. The piece still has the same problems it did.

• Now my lack of comments is not a testament to the quality of my work but rather my falling under everyone's radar when I log on.

100% Horseshit. Your work appears on the same pages as everyone elses. No one comes here and checks my home page to see if I posted anything today. In the past year I've posted only 4 pieces, a LOT less than you. Yet consistently, you get few or no comments.

This piece has had 92 views in 5 days, but no comments. So you're making excuses, not giving reasons.

What I said about the piece is not nearly as important as the fact that the words didn't do their job, which is to keep the reader too busy reading and reacting to make a comment. But in this it's you talking about you. And who's hoping for an update on that? How many people come here hoping to learn how everyone else's day went?

The problem is that you want to BE a poet without having to take the time to become one. Instead of learning how to make your work more accessable, you're blaming the reader for your lack of preparation for the job.

Read Aesop's, The Fox and the Grapes. You're the central character.

Someone you don''t know took time that he didn't have to give you, to help you become a better writer—and did that for no reason other than paying a Ben Franklin Debt forward. You could have ignored my words. You could have deleted them. You could have discussed the isues. But you chose to view it as an attack—something you'd not have done had my words not been on target.

The short version: You can't handle a critique.

[emipoemi]

Actually you do need to exonerate yourself, as your words are part of the subject, since I have given you more than ample opportunity to prove you fully understood the poem, but you just beat about the bush and continue accusing me of not knowing the score. You think I can't handle a critique? Well you can't handle the truth, pal! You can't handle the fact that your ego is being blistered by the next generation of writers who actually know more about the writing than you. You just use pretension to stake authority, but you really have no idea what the underlying messages are in the things you read, because you still haven't proven to me that you've fully grasped this poem. So, really, who's the fox? I think it's the fool who's too sour a grape to admit he's been smushed. You wanna keep coming back, I'll keep knocking you down like a rodeo clown, as this aint my first rodeo, pal! Until you prove that you understood every detail of the poem, and you link your critiques to the world of the poem rather than the reality outside it, your claim to know your s**t would simply be construed as full of s**t.

[JayG]

• You think I can't handle a critique?

Think you can't? You're busy demonstrating that you can't with every reply.

• Actually you do need to exonerate yourself

Exonerate. You use that word a lot. But I do not think it means what you think it does.

Funny thing... For all your bluster, there are STILL no comments on this, which means all the excuses you make are wasted.

In the past 30 days I've gotten 5 thank you comments from others here that I've helped.

• I'll keep knocking you down like a rodeo clown,

A legend in your own mind. Be very careful about going into a battle of wits unarmed.

You'll keep screaming about how perfect you are, and people will keep ignoring this for the reasons I listed.

I'll keep on getting more reviews, and, thank-you notes from the people I help. I can live with that...but you can't. The funny thing is that you could fix it. You could learn the skills of the profession. Ignorance is curable, and certainly no shame.

Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is hard to tell from stupidity.

[emipoemi]

Ignorance? You're a haughty hothead hollering hokum from what he deems on high, and you call me for ignorance? If there was any truth to your critiques, I would have accepted them and expressed my sincere gratitude, but you still prove to only have done half the work with this poem so I cannot see why I should take you seriously. For your so-called "thank you notes" were probably from people just starting out and figured their work not as perfect, and you come along with a pretence of pretension, acting like you know s**t, and they didn't know any better. Now of course, you do know your s**t, but only to a point, as here you are again, defending your precious ego instead of proving that you fully and properly analyzed this poem to merit your screed of critiques. And I don't know how your café is set up, but my page doesn't pop up for everyone. The only activity that pops up on the home page is that of one's friends and oneself, and all provided everyone is online and takes note. So yeah, there is an element of people not wanting to check out new writers or perhaps they're busy doing other things on the site. You just have an ego! For if I'm such a lost cause, why do you keep coming back? hmm? Why do you keep trying to defend yourself? Because you're petty and you don't like when others lunge for your ego! Learn a bit of humility, eh? You might learn something. The poem is there.....finish the job. Maybe then you'd have my attention.

[JayG]

For three days you've been howling in outrage and attacking me for having dared point out the problems with a poem that not one person has complimented. Not one. Obviously, you can't separate your ego from your writing, and can't handle a critique, It's something you need to work on.

But that aside, you make the serious error of thinking I care what you think of me. Obviously, you can't control your emotions. You've sold not a word of your writing. You've done no serious study of the profession. Yet you see yourself as knowledgeable.

You left the comments window under this piece open, inviting comment. That I didn't praise it is YOUR fault. If you want praise, you need to post better poetry. It's that simple.
- - - - - - -

“A writer, shy or not, needs a tough skin, for no matter how advanced one’s experience and career, expert criticism cuts to the quick, and one learns to endure and to perfect, if for no other reason than to challenge the pain-maker.”
~ Sol Stein

“It is always hard for poets to believe that one says their poems are bad not because one is a fiend but because their poems are bad.”
~Randall Jarrell

“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.”
~Robert Frost

[emipoemi]

So, by coming back, you prove that you're petty; by still not giving me the full analysis of the poem, you prove that you're lazy, and by providing quotes that I have heard before in some way shape or form, you prove that you're pretentious. The fact that no one else has commented on this piece yet is still not a testament to its quality but rather the fact that either people don't know what to say or I'm not on their radar (it could also mean I'm far too deep for them) - there are various reasons. So you have yet to give me any grounds as to why I should take you seriously. You're also so adamant with your "reputed" advice to write better poetry if I want better critiques, but I don't think that would matter even if I "supposedly" did. For out of all my work this is the ONLY piece you've ever commented on, and you're making a horrendously fallacious generalization for the others; and furthermore I don't think you've ever left a comment of praise in your life! You probably stalk the café for pieces you could remorselessly tear apart with your twisted opinions on writing and that's a day's work for you. You think I'm losing my temper at being given critiques? You point a finger, pal, there are three pointing right back at you! Heard that one? For the seventh time: you want my attention, prove you've done the work, otherwise, get educated yourself, as there's more to writing and the writing world that you don't understand! Namely: publishers wouldn't know quality if it came out of their bums, so a lot of literature that has been published over the years has been s**t. And since you assert yourself to be "not that great a writer" you're in their number. So, sit down, be humble! You still got work to do.

[emipoemi]

I should also repeat: you are NOT the Lord of Literature! Just because a piece is not to your standards doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it's not to your standards. So move on!

[JayG]

• Just because a piece is not to your standards doesn't mean it's bad.

As always you get it wrong. They're not my standards, Any teacher of poetry would say the same.

And again: feel free to prove me wrong. Sell it. Or, get a few comments that give it the praise you feel it deserves.

You're behaving like a child, insisting on a gold star for effort, and demanding a better grade because you like it. I commented on precisely one poem. I said not a word about your abilities, only that this poem has serious problems. And the lack of comments supprts that view.

And of course, I'm one person, with the same right to my viewpoint as you have. But I didn't praise you, and you, obviously, can't handle that.

And I'll let you in on a secret. You're wasting your time. Demanding that I change my view because you're offended won't work. And I'm surprised that you haven't noticed that you're dancing to my tune.

That aside, we're judged by our readers, not ourselves. You can howl in indignation, and claim your piece is brilliant, but the people who have praised your other work are conspicuously missing from this one.

I'm surprised that you've not written them to beg for a comment...or have you?

[emipoemi]

The fact that you're still banging on about my supposed indignation concerning the mere aspect that you critiqued me shows you haven't been paying attention this entire argument. I can handle a critique very well, because I welcome them. But I only welcome them from people who have shown they UN - DER - STOOD the piece. I gave you now seven chances to prove that you UN - DER - STOOD the piece and You - Have - Not! You're just extrapolating bits and pieces from my points and skewing them to your fallacious standards. Because they are fallacious. "Any teacher of poetry would say the same"? Any teacher worth their word would talk about the piece in detail and show exactly what is both right and wrong with it by the very lines themselves (which you have not done....not yet). Also, the majority of poetry teachers don't know s**t! I once took a class where the teacher didn't even know the term "flower" and was just as pretentious as you when talking about poetry. I don't condone pretension, pal; you wanna critique this poem, show me that you've analyzed it to the very core. You think I'm a child? You're the one going about my work for the mere sake of comparing our output and reception to prove a petty point. You - Are - Petty! You didn't even read the other poems, and you're basing my entire talent on this one poem (you say you're not, but you definitely are - or, as I've said before, you only comment on the work you don't think meets your standards, and are too haughty to otherwise leave the simplest word of praise). If you don't want to do the work, don't critique. I'm not insisting on a gold star or demanding that you change your view, I'm asking that you support it with more evidence from the poem itself. But you don't want to do that, because you just like to extrapolate and skew - extrapolate and skew - extrapolate and skew. You wanna keep dancing? I'll keep dancing circles around you, pal, I don't need the reviews and comments or to have sold anything to show it, because those numbers don't matter in the face of the truth, which You - Can't - Handle! And for the record: the others who have "praised" my work in the past? hmmmmm....I wonder where they are? hmmmmm.....Why not review this entire argument as I have mentioned that aspect already! Do yourself a favour and sit down. You've danced enough, and you must be tired of trying to defend a fallacy (let alone your overblown ego). Actions speak louder than words. So if you're a man of action, stop being a blowhard and prove yourself in your claims....or admit that you're just full of s**t.

[JayG]

• The fact that you're still banging on about my supposed indignation concerning the mere aspect that you critiqued me shows you haven't been paying attention this entire argument.

Pay attention to your responses? Why would I? You're argument is that if you wrote it, it's perfect, simply because you did. But everyone on this site is refuting that idea, because the only other person who commented on it didn't like it.

I've already given a critique, remember? You chose to ignore what I suggested, and that's your right.

But asking me to support my comment with more evidence is silly The work is not of a quality that causes people to approve of it. I said that and explained why. I even suggested several resources you might find useful. I made no demand that you change it, I simply made some suggestions on how to improve it. And in response, for a full week you've been howling in outrage. But had I not hit the target you'd have shrugged and ignored it, or deleted my comments as I suggested. I've seen it before, over the years, mostly from kids.

And in those seven days, six people who I also critiqued have thanked me for the help. Were it one or two, you might argue that you're so much smarted than they are. But six? Naa.

So in the end, as I said earlier, you can't handle a critique. Not the best way to grow as a writer.

No one says you have to change anything. Posting work that no one likes is your right. And if you're satisfied with the quality of the piece is certainly doesn't hurt me.

I can only point out the water-hole. To drink or not drink is up to the horse.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
~ Mark Twain

“It’s none of their business that you have to learn how to write. Let them think you were born that way.”
~Ernest Hemingway

“Self-expression without craft is for toddlers.”
~Rosanne Cash

“Talent? Were talent enough, there’d be no need of rehearsal...or editing...or Photoshop. And if desire were the key, we’d all be famous. Sweat, though. That’s the magic elixir.”
~ Me

[emipoemi]

Saying everything you did without showing that you understood the original intent isn't a cogent argument to take you seriously. Nor is your pretension. I don't know who those six were you claim have thanked you for your critiques, but they might have been people who don't know too much about the craft and could easily be guided. I know the craft, and have been writing for a while, so when I say you haven't understood the piece well enough to be critiquing this way, I mean it. I wouldn't be defending myself this much if I didn't believe it to be the case. I do understand that a line or two could be improved (and I'm trying to figure out how at the moment), but that wasn't in the slightest influenced by your comments, as you haven't proven you understood the intent. You compared this to Lydia Deetz's suicide note, and, sure, mood-wise maybe, but the theme expressed in the poem is not "utterly-alone" despair - not quite. If you don't understand it, that's ok, you can move on, but until you prove that you understood the poem, I cannot take you seriously. Because you do know your s**t, but you're also full of s**t as throughout this entire argument you've merely shown to abide by a fallacy. Give me a name of one of those supposed grateful writers you critiqued and I'll verify if you deserved that thanks. For also.....that other person who commented here: he did like it. He just didn't want to get involved with this debate, which could ALSO be a reason no one else is coming to read this. They either don't understand the argument or they're driven away by it. And we're both to blame for that. There are so many factors at play here, and you seem sooo certain that it's the quality of the writing, when you haven't even understood the piece as a whole. So who are you to say that's the case? You don't take everything into account, you just go after the bits you think are bad and that's your argument. Not enough! Look at the context of the piece, analyze the context of the piece, and then tell me how it's wrong. All you did was give it a superficial glance over and be done with it. You didn't do the work. I never once this whole week gotten the impression that you had understood the piece in full, and you're implicitly basing my entire repertoire on this one poem, which you claim to suck. But as far as I'm aware, this is the ONLY piece of mine you've ever read. Why not read another (better) poem, and prove you're actually capable of writing a comment of approval, as all I've ever read from you across this site is screed after screed after screed (and I'm not the only one on here who thinks you're too much.....and petty). I can go another week, pal, if you wanna keep dancing, but you have more to prove than I do, so get proving you do actually know your s**t (anyone can quote a writer of literary pundit, but putting it in action? That's the magic charm, pal; that's the magic charm!)

[Aura]

Hi JayG and EmiPoemi, I know this isn't my place to say and I probably shouldn't be getting involved in your argument here... and i mean this in the most respectful way possible but can you both please stop arguing... its getting you both nowhere... JayG's made his inital comment a week ago, and the arguments still going, its doing no good for anyone...

[Aura]

You both are talented writers, JayGs comment was a critique and I can understand how EmiPoemi felt that he didnt necessairly understans the content of the poem... that aside, please stop arguing, you both made your points, leave it at that... My apologies, I don't mean to be nagging or anything... just stop aeguing its pointless

[JayG]

• Saying everything you did without showing that you understood the original intent isn't a cogent argument to take you seriously.

Kid...look at the number of comments. Zero. Nothing you can say changes that because if you accuse every member here of being too dumb to understand your meaning, you'll look pretty dumb yourself.

One the first things a writer learns is that if the reader doesn't "get it," it's the author's fault. Our JOB is to be clear. You weren't.

And in this case, I noted why you failed in that. But you can't handle a critique. You take it as a personal attack.

“A writer, shy or not, needs a tough skin, for no matter how advanced one’s experience and career, expert criticism cuts to the quick, and one learns to endure and to perfect, if for no other reason than to challenge the pain-maker.”
~ Sol Stein


You can't explain yourself into people liking the work. It must be inherent, because you're not there to explain as it's read.

Want to prove that it's as good as you think it is? Sell it. I only tried to sell one poem, Roland Sky. I was paid $200. And since you know so much more than I do, it should be easy. Or, wait a bit till all the people who will love it when they see it take a look. Then you can bask in the love of your adoring fans.

I'll wait.

Accomplishments matter. Talk? Not so much.

[JayG]

Milady Aura:

I'm not arguing with him. He's mounted on a very tall horse, locked into battle where only he’s fighting—a war in which he's running in circles saying lots but changing nothing. I commented on the poem, as it stands now. No more.. I suggested that if he deleted my comments he could go back to believing himself perfect. But he obviously can’t handle a critique, and can’t bring himself to say, “Oh well, that’s his view,” and move on. He has to pick at the scab.

He literally has no argument and no ammunition, but he’s painted himself into what is to him an “I must win” situation, and cannot face the reality that people aren’t loving this piece, because if that’s true, I might be accurate with my comments.

So, he first blamed the lack of response on people not seeing it, as though I have a special channel where more people see my work.

Now he’s arguing that I don’t understand his meaning, in spite of the fact that I commented not at all on the message, just the structure and errors in logic and word choice.

I’m not attacking him, only negating to his attacks on me. He’s upset, but I find this funny.