Replies

I can really commend what you were trying to do here. It's not unusual to see poetry moulded around enjambment and abstract structure, and this piece is considerably better than most. But to really stand out from the crowd you need to be more clever than just being abstract for the sake of being abstract.

That's a harsh thing to say, but let me try and explain. Take, for example, the line breaks, to answer your first question; they're used to metaphorically suggest awkwardness, or shyness, directly referencing how the character in this poem feels around his love interest. That's actually quite clever. The thing is, is that it doesn't really 'wow' me. I guess there's no kind way of saying this, but although it's an intelligent way of approaching a poem, it's not so intelligent that I would be able to enjoy it on a second reading. I hope that makes sense: the idea is a good one, but it loses everything it has once you've read it once.

You also fixate on it way too much. It's fine to say "well, awkward structure is what I was trying to do", but what separates a good poet from an incredible one is the ability to not only consider what you are trying to convey, but to also have the insight to understand what the reader takes from it. What I'm trying to say is, would you rather you put all of your ideas into a single piece, or would you rather the reader have a consistently enjoyable experience? I just feel that, at some points, the structure seems forced and it actually takes away from the poem, and the only reason why it's there is because it fits with an idea that you became a bit too attached to.

The same criticism applies to the use of brackets and spacing. The brackets are used to project inside thoughts, the way brackets are meant to. It’s not really clever because you’re literally using punctuation the way punctuation was meant to be used. The spacing, also, seems to make sense in the last paragraph, where you detach 'slip' and then gradually make the following words 'slip' away: it’s a bit blunt and a bit too straight-forwards for my liking. I'm being really unkind but frankly that's a structure trick that anyone could pick up upon. I, personally, define intelligence as subtlety. I am impressed by an idea that is not only clever and makes me go "oh, yeah", but one that's also put across in a roundabout way.

I, lastly, just wanted to apologise, because I have been unanimously negative. Not unfair - and I hope you agree - but definitely negative. And the reason why I did that was because I read the other critiques on this piece, and they were all very positive, but sometimes we just need a slap around the face from someone who goes "actually, this isn't as clever as you think". We often get attached to our work and lose sight of the truth. I do it. Everyone does it. It is impossible to improve as a person unless somebody is so unnecessarily harsh with you that you suddenly just wake up. I mean, to say that this poem is bad is simply untrue - but to say that this poem deserves four or five stars when it only shows the potential of a great writer and not a writer who is quite yet there is also true.

If you are genuinely interested, Edward Thomas is one of my favourite poets. He uses language in such a way that it's never black and white. I once thought that my poems were amazing and deep and then I read Thomas and realised, actually, my ideas only really scratched the surface. Like I said before, subtlety is the best measure of intelligence. If anyone can get it, then it's way too dumb. I appreciate that maybe you weren't trying to make a historic work here - or maybe you were - but I genuinely see an intelligent writer and poet in you, and I just think a little bit of sourness and realisation will take you there one day. You could genuinely be clever and subtle and make people go "woah" with your poems, if only people would just slap you 'round a bit and stop giving you compliments. Just maybe. Praise is the burden of all poetry, it really is.

Thanks for reading. Sorry.