deepundergroundpoetry.com
HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN ?
HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN ?
People peruse on the internet
with wide open eyes and eager mind.
What can join all people on that screen,
but a secret that deserves their strain ?
Man has always been in such a case.
From the start of time he's risked his life,
looking for a treasure of great worth,
and has searched for it the deep and skies.
I join hands with them seeking the truth.
Can man's life end here, a heap of dust ?
Miracles have interfered to ask,
"How can you explain these marvels, man ?"
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
All rights reserved
____________________________________
People peruse on the internet
with wide open eyes and eager mind.
What can join all people on that screen,
but a secret that deserves their strain ?
Man has always been in such a case.
From the start of time he's risked his life,
looking for a treasure of great worth,
and has searched for it the deep and skies.
I join hands with them seeking the truth.
Can man's life end here, a heap of dust ?
Miracles have interfered to ask,
"How can you explain these marvels, man ?"
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
All rights reserved
____________________________________
Published 27th Sep 2019
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 1
reading list entries 0
comments 7
reads 321
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
27th Sep 2019 4:00pm
27th Sep 2019 11:09pm
1st Oct 2019 4:09pm
One peruses the internet, not on the internet. If you are going to use "on", then you need an object of the verb -- i.e., one peruses poetry sites on the internet.
And what is it that miracles interfere with, even if miracles are capable of asking questions.? And what marvels are you speaking of?
And what is it that miracles interfere with, even if miracles are capable of asking questions.? And what marvels are you speaking of?
2nd Oct 2019 11:24am
Dear Baldwin,
Thank you very much for your great interest in my poetry. Baldwin, there is an essential difference between you and me. I allow myself to use an implied object in the line, but you don't. This is what you always observe in my poetry. You consider it a mistake, but l don't. I can avoid it, but l will damage the choice of words, and the flow of rhythm. Therefore, l don't. Ben Jonson said about Shakespeare," Would he have revised a thousand words."
Thank you very much for your great interest in my poetry. Baldwin, there is an essential difference between you and me. I allow myself to use an implied object in the line, but you don't. This is what you always observe in my poetry. You consider it a mistake, but l don't. I can avoid it, but l will damage the choice of words, and the flow of rhythm. Therefore, l don't. Ben Jonson said about Shakespeare," Would he have revised a thousand words."
2nd Oct 2019 5:36pm
I'm not sure what words you think you'd damage if you wrote grammatically and syntactically correctly. And unfortunately, your assumption that the objects you "imply" when you engage in syntactical and grammatical errors are clear is highly doubtful.
You are far more in love with measurement than you are with making sense and in writing things that communicate effectively.
I've been reading _Strong Measures: Contemporary American Poetry In Traditional Form _ by Philip Dacey and David Jauss and I came across something which speaks directly to your notion that a good poem is one that adheres to a fixed structure and therefore that a "poet" can (if not should) ignore the rules of grammar and syntax so long as what he/she writes measures things "correctly".
"Poets can only ... write originally when they are in love with more than the poems' measurements ... "
Do you agree with this? If not, what are your grounds for disagreement?
You are far more in love with measurement than you are with making sense and in writing things that communicate effectively.
I've been reading _Strong Measures: Contemporary American Poetry In Traditional Form _ by Philip Dacey and David Jauss and I came across something which speaks directly to your notion that a good poem is one that adheres to a fixed structure and therefore that a "poet" can (if not should) ignore the rules of grammar and syntax so long as what he/she writes measures things "correctly".
"Poets can only ... write originally when they are in love with more than the poems' measurements ... "
Do you agree with this? If not, what are your grounds for disagreement?
2nd Oct 2019 8:48pm
Dear Baldwin,
I told you about my ground of disagreement in my last post. I don't want to repeat myself. You can return to it.
I told you about my ground of disagreement in my last post. I don't want to repeat myself. You can return to it.
In other words, you have no good evidence that the way you write communicates effectively and does not create possibilities that readers will not grasp what you are trying to say or that to write grammatically and syntactically correctly would (or does indeed) "damage" words and throws off the rhythm of lines. Nor can you show that love of measurement automatically leads to good poetry. Another dodge.
