deepundergroundpoetry.com
WHEAT AND WEEDS
WHEAT AND WEEDS
I imagine that there are some folks
who may have the spirit that destroys
what is good because they can't produce
Luscious fruit but litter is their crops.
Vicious weeds, who may expect from you
useful wheat which people love to eat.
You can't give what's good that people like,
so you try to wreck what few can bring.
Gourmets won't deem weeds as their own food.
They will always seek succulent crops.
Man can't live on rubbish envy yields
though he fears that envy's dirty tongue.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
I imagine that there are some folks
who may have the spirit that destroys
what is good because they can't produce
Luscious fruit but litter is their crops.
Vicious weeds, who may expect from you
useful wheat which people love to eat.
You can't give what's good that people like,
so you try to wreck what few can bring.
Gourmets won't deem weeds as their own food.
They will always seek succulent crops.
Man can't live on rubbish envy yields
though he fears that envy's dirty tongue.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 24th Jan 2020
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 5
reads 307
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
This:
"Man can't live on rubbish envy yields
though he fears that envy's dirty tongue".
Makes no sense. In the first place
"Man can't live on rubbish envy yields" should have been written "Man can't live on THE rubbish envy yields" for your line to be grammatically and syntactically correct.
and " though he fears that envy's dirty tongue" is an incomplete sentence What is it that "envy's dirty tongue" is up to or doing or about to do that "man" is afraid of?
Then there's the question of whether weeds are litter.
Sorry, but your piece is not only poorly written. It's another example of your metrically jumbled, turgid, overly didactic, abstraction filled, question begging attempts to state how the world really works.
"Man can't live on rubbish envy yields
though he fears that envy's dirty tongue".
Makes no sense. In the first place
"Man can't live on rubbish envy yields" should have been written "Man can't live on THE rubbish envy yields" for your line to be grammatically and syntactically correct.
and " though he fears that envy's dirty tongue" is an incomplete sentence What is it that "envy's dirty tongue" is up to or doing or about to do that "man" is afraid of?
Then there's the question of whether weeds are litter.
Sorry, but your piece is not only poorly written. It's another example of your metrically jumbled, turgid, overly didactic, abstraction filled, question begging attempts to state how the world really works.
24th Jan 2020 6:04pm
I ask myself if I
should post on DUP,
as well as Facebook,
also Twitter,
‘bout the folks possessed
with spirits of malignancy
whose dark intent, I claim
(born out of jealousy?)
is growing in food fields
a stunning crop of litter.
Would my readers there
begin to wonder at
my grasp of truth about ,
the actualities within
the workings of the world,
let alone my sanity?
Can litter ever be what sprouts
by nature’s hand
up from the soil?
The answer’s “no”.
Litter’s tossed **upon** the earth
by “man”.
It is not something nature pushes up
from underneath
the nether layers
So once more I
write patronizing, halting verse
about things I
have little knowledge of,
content, apparently,
with an assumed, but quite unjustified
omnisciency,
to post absurdities.
should post on DUP,
as well as Facebook,
also Twitter,
‘bout the folks possessed
with spirits of malignancy
whose dark intent, I claim
(born out of jealousy?)
is growing in food fields
a stunning crop of litter.
Would my readers there
begin to wonder at
my grasp of truth about ,
the actualities within
the workings of the world,
let alone my sanity?
Can litter ever be what sprouts
by nature’s hand
up from the soil?
The answer’s “no”.
Litter’s tossed **upon** the earth
by “man”.
It is not something nature pushes up
from underneath
the nether layers
So once more I
write patronizing, halting verse
about things I
have little knowledge of,
content, apparently,
with an assumed, but quite unjustified
omnisciency,
to post absurdities.
DEAR POETS AND READERS: l haven't said that, but the poem written under my poem is what Baldwin has said. As usual, Baldwin is trying to destroy my reputation in your eyes. In my poem l have meant only Baldwin. DEAR POETS AND READERS: you have never tried to destroy my reputation, but he has always tried it, so you know that l don't mean you, but l mean only Baldwin, who takes me as his enemy for a reason l ignore. If you are angry with me I AM VERY SORRY, BUT YOU ARE CERTAIN I MEAN NO OFFENCE TO YOU.
24th Jan 2020 7:36pm
So this was an personal attack upon me?
Please show me where you have a reputation as a good poet anywhere except among your relatives and/or friends who, so far as I can see, have no critical acumen when it comes to determining whether or not a writing is good poetry.
And why would I try (or feel that I in any way **needed**) to destroy your "reputation" as someone who writes well? You do a bang up job of showing that you do not know how to write well, let alone that you do not know how to produce things that are moving and worth reading and show actual poetic skill and artfulness **all on your own** every time you post.
Please show me where you have a reputation as a good poet anywhere except among your relatives and/or friends who, so far as I can see, have no critical acumen when it comes to determining whether or not a writing is good poetry.
And why would I try (or feel that I in any way **needed**) to destroy your "reputation" as someone who writes well? You do a bang up job of showing that you do not know how to write well, let alone that you do not know how to produce things that are moving and worth reading and show actual poetic skill and artfulness **all on your own** every time you post.
25th Jan 2020 4:29pm
What is the antecedent of the "that" that you haven't said?
And if your piece above is directed at me, why did you speak of "folks" and use the plural pronoun "they" as you did here.
"I imagine that there are some folks
who may have the spirit that destroys
what is good because they can't produce
Luscious fruit but litter is their crops."
More importantly, you have yet to demonstrate that the writings that these "folks" produce **is** "litter" and "weeds", let alone that your writings are anything like luscious fruit against which the writings of the "folks" you speak of pale in comparison.
In any case, how many DUP people besides me actually read what you post here. What evidence do you have that there's any more than three or four at most?
And if your piece above is directed at me, why did you speak of "folks" and use the plural pronoun "they" as you did here.
"I imagine that there are some folks
who may have the spirit that destroys
what is good because they can't produce
Luscious fruit but litter is their crops."
More importantly, you have yet to demonstrate that the writings that these "folks" produce **is** "litter" and "weeds", let alone that your writings are anything like luscious fruit against which the writings of the "folks" you speak of pale in comparison.
In any case, how many DUP people besides me actually read what you post here. What evidence do you have that there's any more than three or four at most?
