ive finally started to write Poetry:
Hidden Inside
the Dungeon of my ribcage
Inside was him
sheltered from the sun
and the sand
the devil and all his men
all that was him
Disguied in Black
from the angels above
through the storms and turmoil
He kept them inside
making sure to keep watch,
from the eyes
hidden,in the walls
Down, bruised and beaten,
in the ground for so long
yearning for the heavens above
Cracked the shell,
and out come the worms,
riddled with maggots,
finally one with the devil
and all his men
it can all ...
One of my first solid attempts^^^
I dont expect praises of any sort, but dont be to harsh with your criticism :Smug:
However, please do offer some tips.
another:
A rope,tied, holding me, bracing me down
unable to wallow in the filth,in the mire beneath
tied down, rotten,
reveling in the filth
hung high,like a rag doll
Waiting, hoping to die
I;ll tear them open, my eyes
close them when I like
If the world is just
leave me the silence
a shred of the absolute is all, that I need
show me...
its closer now
not so far away, away
I really hesitate to give pointers or advice on poetry, mostly because I know what I enjoy, but I find it difficult to give constructive technical criticism. All writers write differently, and it's hard to say that one person's style is "bad;" I may just not like it.
I do, however, think you could work on your vocabulary or at least on your choice of words; I found the first poem you posted more interesting, but both recede somewhat into generality. There's just nothing that leaps from them; your meaning isn't easily communicated.
The great thing about poetry is that it conveys the complete essence and meaning of a moment. John Stuart Mill wrote that the difference between eloquence and poetry is that eloquence (i.e. speech that is pleasing to listen to but retains its beauty/purpose purely through its verbal aesthetic [my definition]) is
heard, whereas poetry is
overheard. By this, he meant that eloquence supposes an audience, but the "peculiarity of poetry appears to us to lie in the poet's utter unconsciousness of a listener."
For a long time I've struggled with this idea, for the following reason: I believe that poetry should be an intimate confession of the essence of a moment that seems to speak as though no one is listening. In that, it maintains the element of pure veracity.
However, I also believe that this purity of essence, sung from complete isolation in this manner, is so esoteric that it retreats into the hazardous territory of abandoning any meaning whatsoever. Basically, that it becomes so personal that it resists interpretation.
Now, I believe that poetry should be written for the poet, not for an audience; because then, like Mill said, it would not be pure poetry. However, I also feel that all artists require validation and approval, and if poets write in this pure, isolated fashion that Mill espouses, they risk any hope of others respecting their work.
I feel that the essence of a poem should be crafted in this pure, bare, basic sense; but I also feel that it should not be left this way. If a poem truly is a "work" of art, then it should be returned to, refined, and refueled by its author. It should be given eloquent language without it simply becoming eloquence, because this is the way in which meaning is communicated. The best words are sometimes the most obscure words, but they convey the essence of meaning.
Sorry for the length of this post.
EDIT:
Devasya Chāyā;8636249 said:
Then I pointed out that I do that on purpose because sometimes I think if a poem gets too rhythmic it can lose the attention of the reader.
True, but that's not the fault of the poet. Rhythm, I often find, can really grab a reader and hold his or her attention. The problem with rhythm is that it can become so lulling that the reader begins to lose focus of the meaning of the words and gets lost in the drift of the meter. However, if this happens, a reader should simply go back and reread.