deepundergroundpoetry.com
MAN IS LIKE THE ROSE.
MAN IS LIKE THE ROSE.
What are you, rose, but mind and soul.
Those two are what remain of you.
Man's soul can see the rose's core,
the charm that dwells in it to pull.
It pulls each one, me, and the bee,
but each gets from it what he wants.
The flying bee sees nectar there,
which is as sweet as God's soft care.
I smell through it the perfumed smell
that invites me and all to it:
bees bring the pollen and l care;
we both help it to stay alive.
Man sees inside it what will live
in endless space where nothing dies:
on earth, it lives few days but goes
to join the creatures high above.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
What are you, rose, but mind and soul.
Those two are what remain of you.
Man's soul can see the rose's core,
the charm that dwells in it to pull.
It pulls each one, me, and the bee,
but each gets from it what he wants.
The flying bee sees nectar there,
which is as sweet as God's soft care.
I smell through it the perfumed smell
that invites me and all to it:
bees bring the pollen and l care;
we both help it to stay alive.
Man sees inside it what will live
in endless space where nothing dies:
on earth, it lives few days but goes
to join the creatures high above.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Published 22nd Jun 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 7
reads 197
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
There are several problems here.
First, there’s nothing here that deals with or depicts or describes how, let alone that, “man” is like a rose. So your title is not apt.
Second, roses do not have minds or souls. Nor is a mind or a soul what constitutes a rose’s core.
Third, to say that what remains of a rose is its mind and soul is to indicate that it once possessed features other than a mind and a soul. What were they? And what caused them to become bereft of them? When did this removal of these features occur?
Fourth, souls do not see. They have no eyes.
Fifth, L4 in stanza 1 is an incomplete thought. “To pull” needs an object or an adverb (to pull where?) For the clause that begins with “the charm” to be complete.
Sixth, roses do not consciously want anything. The personification is nonsense.
Seventh, the repetition of “care” to get a rhyme is clumsy. So is the twofold use of “smell” in a single line.
Eighth, the statement that “bees bring the pollen and l care” is clumsy in that what you need to say, given the next line” is that “I give the rose its necessary care (for it to stay alive). To say “I care” is not the same thing. In fact, your sytax indicates that what you care about is the fact that bees bring pollen to a rose. And, BTW, "the pollen" is deixis -- and the expression raises the question of "which pollen is "the" pollen.
Ninth, the idea that what’s inside a rose will, once a rose dies, live on in “endless space”, let alone with creatures who dwell “high above” (the earth?) is an absurdity.
In any case, what’s the point of this clichéd piece?
Cue the ad hominem laced response in which I'm derided for not having enough poetic imagination to see how well this is (supposedly) written or to understand what's being said here, let alone to have any grasp of what poetry is or how to write it.
First, there’s nothing here that deals with or depicts or describes how, let alone that, “man” is like a rose. So your title is not apt.
Second, roses do not have minds or souls. Nor is a mind or a soul what constitutes a rose’s core.
Third, to say that what remains of a rose is its mind and soul is to indicate that it once possessed features other than a mind and a soul. What were they? And what caused them to become bereft of them? When did this removal of these features occur?
Fourth, souls do not see. They have no eyes.
Fifth, L4 in stanza 1 is an incomplete thought. “To pull” needs an object or an adverb (to pull where?) For the clause that begins with “the charm” to be complete.
Sixth, roses do not consciously want anything. The personification is nonsense.
Seventh, the repetition of “care” to get a rhyme is clumsy. So is the twofold use of “smell” in a single line.
Eighth, the statement that “bees bring the pollen and l care” is clumsy in that what you need to say, given the next line” is that “I give the rose its necessary care (for it to stay alive). To say “I care” is not the same thing. In fact, your sytax indicates that what you care about is the fact that bees bring pollen to a rose. And, BTW, "the pollen" is deixis -- and the expression raises the question of "which pollen is "the" pollen.
Ninth, the idea that what’s inside a rose will, once a rose dies, live on in “endless space”, let alone with creatures who dwell “high above” (the earth?) is an absurdity.
In any case, what’s the point of this clichéd piece?
Cue the ad hominem laced response in which I'm derided for not having enough poetic imagination to see how well this is (supposedly) written or to understand what's being said here, let alone to have any grasp of what poetry is or how to write it.
24th Jun 2020 11:38am
1- My title is very suitable. Look at the last stanza:
Man sees inside it what will live
in endless space where nothing dies;
on earth, it lives few days but goes
to join the creatures high above.
Therefore, man sees the soul of the rose inside it, of course if he has imagination. This soul will live like his soul and the soul of everything else that lives shortly on earth and eternally high above. Moreover, the rose has a mind, so it uses this mind and gives smell to bring the bee with the pollen, and man to care for it. Man also uses his mind to keep his kind on earth. Both of them have minds and souls, and both are clear in this poem to those who have poetic imagination.
2- Do you think l am ready to do the same with every point you mentioned in your criticism? I should write a book after every poem to make it to those who don't have poetic imagination. I am ready to give up poetry and not doing that. Thank you for your comment
Man sees inside it what will live
in endless space where nothing dies;
on earth, it lives few days but goes
to join the creatures high above.
Therefore, man sees the soul of the rose inside it, of course if he has imagination. This soul will live like his soul and the soul of everything else that lives shortly on earth and eternally high above. Moreover, the rose has a mind, so it uses this mind and gives smell to bring the bee with the pollen, and man to care for it. Man also uses his mind to keep his kind on earth. Both of them have minds and souls, and both are clear in this poem to those who have poetic imagination.
2- Do you think l am ready to do the same with every point you mentioned in your criticism? I should write a book after every poem to make it to those who don't have poetic imagination. I am ready to give up poetry and not doing that. Thank you for your comment
24th Jun 2020 2:16pm
What kind of English is "I should write a book after every poem to make it to those who don't have poetic imagination" and " I am ready to give up poetry and not doing that"?
Did you mean to say " Should I should write a book after every poem TO MAKE MY MEANING CLEAR to those who don't have poetic imagination?"? and "I am not ready to do that"?
In any case, I did not know that roses intentionally, consciously, and voluntarily gave off the odor that draws bees to its stamen or that they could choose not to do that, which is what you are now claiming when you say that a rose has a mind. What's your evidence for that?
And there's the predicted (and typical) ad hominem response.
Did you mean to say " Should I should write a book after every poem TO MAKE MY MEANING CLEAR to those who don't have poetic imagination?"? and "I am not ready to do that"?
In any case, I did not know that roses intentionally, consciously, and voluntarily gave off the odor that draws bees to its stamen or that they could choose not to do that, which is what you are now claiming when you say that a rose has a mind. What's your evidence for that?
And there's the predicted (and typical) ad hominem response.
24th Jun 2020 2:37pm
1- When l miss writing a word, you look just for that missed word, and correct it in the way l mean to give the general meaning. What do you call that......?
2- Did answer what l wrote to you?
3- You are sensitive when l use certain words, whereas you allow yourself to say everything you like. Who do you think you are Mr......?
2- Did answer what l wrote to you?
3- You are sensitive when l use certain words, whereas you allow yourself to say everything you like. Who do you think you are Mr......?
24th Jun 2020 3:10pm
"When l miss writing a word, you look just for that missed word, and correct it in the way l mean to give the general meaning"
So you admit that you do not always say what you meant to convey?
"Did answer what l wrote to you?"
Er ... what?
"Who do you think you are Mr......?"
I'll answer this question when you finally tell me unambiguously and with a simple "yes" or "no" whether you think that you are incapable of writing poorly and show me how my telling you who I think I am has anything to do with the validity of my comments on your "work".
So you admit that you do not always say what you meant to convey?
"Did answer what l wrote to you?"
Er ... what?
"Who do you think you are Mr......?"
I'll answer this question when you finally tell me unambiguously and with a simple "yes" or "no" whether you think that you are incapable of writing poorly and show me how my telling you who I think I am has anything to do with the validity of my comments on your "work".
24th Jun 2020 3:38pm
If you meant to ask if my questions are worth answering (I don't know how one answers words), my answer is Yes -- as much as you think your questions are worth answering and that your red herring replies to my criticisms actually undercut the validity of what I note about how your work is repeatedly substandard and poorly worded, if not worthless. Otherwise, you show yourself as one who is unable to deal directly with criticisms of his work and who has to hide behind ad hominem replies to them instead of doing what he should be doing -- showing through evidence and valid argument how and why the criticisms are off the mark.
