City of IF

[BStheGreat]

[deleted]

[D-Lotus]

Somehow, I feel as though the title of this poem, "Bohemian summer", expresses in two words as much as the rest of your verses. Too much redundancy, in my opinion. This poem could do a lot better if it shed it's mawkish, paternalistic tone, and chose it's words and sentences more carefully. Pack a punch with every image, with every word, rather than dawdle on and on like a charlatan.

After what I just wrote, it may surprise you to learn that the poem did not strike me as unpleasant. I am simply reacting to the tone, which assumed a little too much about the reader and what her 'correct' path in life should be (although it's not unusual that a bohemian would criticize the bourgeoisie).

I definitely believe there is potential here for an excellent poem-- which is why I am being harsh. What you need to do is convey the bohemian spirit through metaphor, not through verses such as:

Quote: We smile for the perfection of art,
And for the paradox of that very phrase.

.. which sounds a bit pretentious. I want you to demonstrate the paradox through your poem, in it's very form! Don't tell me about it like you just did, make it ooze out of your words and images.

For example, in the following verses you do an great job of conveying the blissful nature of bohemian life and its intimacy with nature (which actually sounds more transcendentalist than bohemian):

Quote: Soon you will glance upon the stars
And feel the moonlight on your wanting skin.
The slight summer breeze,
And the setting sun of summer solstice;
These will rouse you.

These are all images that we are familiar with and can transport us to the Bohemian summer.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

All I can really say is, I love it, and I agree wif it! Huzzaaa for the soul's of the artists!

[BStheGreat]

D-Lotus wrote:
Quote: We smile for the perfection of art,
And for the paradox of that very phrase.

.. which sounds a bit pretentious.

Really? I don't mind being criticized, and I am truly my biggest critic, but I don't think that is pretentious at all. I agree that those lines are a bit too obvious and could use some work, but the paradox of perfection is certainly not an idea shared only by me. I thought it was quite common.

I can agree with a lot of the other things you said, however one thing in particular struck me as a bit odd.

D-Lotus wrote:
which assumed a little too much about the reader and what her 'correct' path in life should be


What's with the "her" in this sentence? While it is not incorrect, I would think most men would use "his" (or "his/her" if he is afraid of being sexist) over "her." Not to mention that the poem itself calls for "brothers." Sure, that is meant as a gender neutral "brothers," but your use of "her" makes me curious nonetheless.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Heheheheh, D-kun has ladies on the brain.....

[D-Lotus]

Hehe, you may be right, Pope. ;)

Actually, it's a technique employed by, among others, Supreme Court judges in the US. They alternate between his and her in their sentences so as to avoid having to write his/her all the time.

The line was "pretentious" because it assumed something the reader doesn't necessarily know. I actually am not particularly familiar with what the philosophical roots of the phrase are, so that is why I didn't understand its meaning.

It is a statement that cannot be simply thrown about, as it actually has many implications (just like burgeosie). Perhaps you yourself do not understand what it means; it sounds as though you heard it somewhere and are repeating it. Maybe not. But the way it is embedded in the poem it needs clarification.

Besides, it is abstract and boring. Go for something concrete that exudes connotations.

[Thunderbird]

I really liked this. I won't get into the critting of it too deeply because I waver on the fence with the impressions D is expressing. But its message did stir the emotions in me, made life feel much like an adventure in progress, and I can say nothing finer for a poem.

[BStheGreat]

D-Lotus wrote: The line was "pretentious" because it assumed something the reader doesn't necessarily know. I actually am not particularly familiar with what the philosophical roots of the phrase are, so that is why I didn't understand its meaning.

It is a statement that cannot be simply thrown about, as it actually has many implications (just like burgeosie). Perhaps you yourself do not understand what it means; it sounds as though you heard it somewhere and are repeating it. Maybe not. But the way it is embedded in the poem it needs clarification.

I assume a lot of things about a reader. I assume they can speak English for one. I also assume that they know what bohemianism is, what summer solstice is, etc. To say something is pretentious simply because you don't understand its meaning is, by your own definition, pretentious. I don't care that you are calling me pretentious, I've been called far worse and for good reason, it's simply your reasoning that I don't agree with.

And yes, I do understand exactly what I meant by what I said. It is often imperfection that is perfect. While I was using art as an example, it also applies to other things as well, and yes there are philosophical roots behind it. I am still not convinced that my using it was pretentious.

[Thunderbird]

Wow... now we're getting into critting the critter.

BS - I support your right to self defense. I'm sure D is really just trying to be helpful. And I also think he may not have quite the negative connotation on the term 'pretentious' as some others may feel it delivers.

If we're talking about the line Quote: We smile for the perfection of art,
And for the paradox of that very phrase.
then let me add my :2c: to this discussion.

Paradox is one of my all time favorite words because if I were to name God something that makes sense to me, I would call her (;) ) Paradox.

In my philosophical delvings, I find the only reason ANYTHING exists (remember how Einstein himself wondered how reality could even be perceived) is because the universe is controlled by this very concept.

Look at it this way, the universal law of duality (a law no force can break) states that all opposites have a portion of their opposite within them (yin/yang) or they could not be. Apply this theory to considering truth/untruth.

That's sortof a mystic riddle but you may get the point if you think about it long enough. Anyhow, my point is this, the concept you delivered in that line was pointed and meaningful - to me. In fact, imo, it was the line in there that really stood out as the diamond in the rough - most profound thing you said, even if its been said before by many artists in many ways. The whole computerized perfection vs the nearly perfect human master (human master wins all the time because true perfection is imperfect (paradox)).

Didn't work for D.

So what?

I don't think either of you are being particularly pretentious. Just arguing like two actor's swords trying to clash and missing, accidentally nipping the other's cheeks.

[BStheGreat]

Yeah, it's not important anyways. To each his own I suppose.

[D-Lotus]

Forgive me if I offended you, BS. I wasn't calling you a prick by saying the line was "pretentious". I used the word only to get you to see something about the effect that the phrase had, and I see now it was too strong a term for a sensitive poet. The word was NOT intended for you personally. I do NOT mean to convey that you are a pretentious person.

If you pay close attention to my criticism, you will notice that I am only trying to get you to be more precise and to clarify abstract statements. I do not rebel against your expressing the idea in your poem, but I do wish for you to make it more graspable than a vague statement about the nature of art.

That is essentially what I meant by "pretentious".

I hope I have not discouraged you by my words. I don't want you to stop writing poetry, I just want to help you adjust the way you write. It's not bad at all, it has many virtues, some of which I pointed out already, but it needs a bit of work. Every poet knows that one must build off of the crticisms and comments of others. Sometimes they are delivered in a harsh and supercilious manner (I may have indulged in this behavior), but they are nonetheless valuable.

TB-- it's not that the notion didn't work for me, but the way that it was presented made it unpalatable.

[BStheGreat]

Don't worry, I'm not offended, I never was. I was simply unable to see how that line could be considered pretentious. I still don't, but it's not important. I was more curious than anything else. I'm also tired though, so I'm going to sleep.