A GRACEFUL SMILE

So crowded was the street; l passed.  
I saw a girl that pleased my heart.  
She hid a smile that had great charm;  
it touched all those who stole a sight [of it].  

She was a beggar and l wished  
to give her what would allow me  
to tarry and rob her again.  
She locked my heart and had the key [to it].  

She had no job and was too poor  
but thanked the Lord and all His saints.  
She did not care for her poor life  
as her sweet smiles were her assets.  

Several remarks and questions:

1.  Your meter is inconsistent and clunky.

2.  Why have you placed a semi-colon between “street” and “I” in your first line?

If you meant to say that you passed **through** a very crowded street, you haven’t done so.  (Nor have you indicated, as you should have done,  how crowded a “so crowded” street was.  Your phrase begs to be coupled with a metaphor or simile as well as a notice of what a street that was “so” crowded prevented – e.g.,   So crowded was the street that I could not drive my truck down it/that I could not walk to the end of it without constantly bumping into people -- for it to be a complete thought).

3. How could a hidden smile be seen by anyone?   If it was hidden, it wasn’t visiblle.

4.  Your remark that you wished to rob the beggar “again” says that you had previously robbed her.  But this not only identifies you as a thief. It contradicts your indication that you had never encountered her before you “passed” her while traversing the “so crowded street”.

5.  “To lock one’s heart” is to close it up to all feeling/emotions.  If you meant to say that the beggar “captured your heart”, you haven’t done so.  In fact, what you’ve said is that the beggar hardened it and that only she had the means to soften it.

6.  The expression “too poor” raises the question “too poor to do what?” since it is the beginning of a comparison.

7.  To say that “she did not care **for** her poor life” means that she was uncomfortable with it and found it not to her taste.  

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/not-care-for-sb-sth

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/not-care-for-someone-something

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/not-care-for

Were you trying to say “she didn’t care **that** she was poor”?  If so, you haven’t done so.  And besides that, if she didn’t care that she was poor, why was she begging?  And why would she hide her smiles if she knew that they were assets?

Sorry, but this is a poorly conceived and poorly written piece.  And that I think it is has nothing to do with any lack of poetic imagination on my part.

If you don't mind, let us discuss each point separately.
1- So crowded was the street; l passed. Here, we have two main clauses separated by a semi-colon. What is wrong with that?

The first clause is a circumstantial clause, not an independent one.  Nor is the second clause an independent one.  It requires an object to make sense.  What did you pass?  If it was the crowded street,  you should not have used a semicolon.

See
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/how-to-use-semicolons

"Semicolons separate things. Most commonly, they separate two **main** clauses that are closely related to each other **but could stand on their own as sentences** if you wanted them to.

Here's an example:

I have a big test tomorrow; I can't go out tonight.

The two clauses in that sentence are separated by a semicolon and could be sentences on their own if you put a period between them instead:

I have a big test tomorrow. I can't go out tonight."

Try that with your first line, and see if it is comprehensible.

Moreover,  if you passed (by) the crowded street,  you'd never have seen the beggar girl, since the implication of your lines is that she is begging on that street.

Poor writing.

BTW,  my first point was the clunkiness of your meter.  Would you care to show me how it is consistently regular, not only in each line but from line to line?.

1- so: adv. very_ so happy: very happy.
2- pass: int. to go forward_ the car was unable to pass.
So, the two clauses are main clauses.
Please, no need to explain the semi-colon. I know the English grammar very well. Save your time.

The question is whether the first clause is an  **independent**  clause that could stand on its own.    
 
When "So" is used at the beginning of a clause, it makes that clause a **circumstantial** clause,  not an independent one.  
   
And when one says "I passed.",  it means that he/she  declined an offer or opportunity of some sort or was successful in an exam or course,  not that they passed by or through something.   BTW,  your example of "the car was unable to pass" means it was unable to get by or around something or someone.  
   
And does, "So crowded was the street.  I went forward" "  really make much sense?  Where did you go forward to? Are you now saying that the beggar girl was not in the crowded street, and that we're you saw here was in some other place?  If so,  what's the point of mentioning that there was a crowded street?  Isn't it superfluous?

Tell me how and why you would claim that this piece is not better written and less conceptually confusing than your piece is.

I walked along a crowded street
and saw amidst the busy throng
that gathered there
a beggar girl
whose plea for alms
was lyrical, temptation filled,
as any Siren’s song.

I made my way to stand
in front of her to listen to
the things she had to say.

Her voice then took my breath away
and stole my heart.
And like Odysseus upon the Western sea,
I found myself desiring to allow
the whole of me and all I owned
to find a place within her hands,
so much had I become one swayed,
disarmed of sense,
by her sweet charm.

And she knew how to all my thoughts
beguile
with flashes of the starlit smile
that she possessed but rarely gave to anyone..
So I resolved to walk her street again
tomorrow and then every “after” day
to seek her out
and by voice and smile be blessed.

We are discussing the problem of the main clauses and the semi-colon. Let us finish it first.
Nobody says that his poetry is better than other people's poetry.

"We are discussing the problem of the main clauses and the semi-colon. Let us finish it first."  
 
So you admit that there is a problem there.  
 
"Nobody says that his poetry is better than other people's poetry".  
 
Nobody?  You have done this frequently in your (unsubstantiated) claims that I don't know anything about how to write poetry and that I have no "poetic imagination" and that what I post is NOT poetry, let alone good poetry".  And note, what I asked you was not whose poetry is better,  but how and why you would claim that my piece above was not better **written** and **less conceptually confusing** than your "A Graceful Smile" is if you thought it was not.  

Yes, it makes much sense. I don't want to leave the dictionaries and believe what you say, especially after thinking that you are not a native speaker of English, and you don't know the English grammar well as l notice from your discussion of it.

Is "you don't know **the** English grammar well" good English?

The + a noun of which there is only one. Therefore, we can say both:
the English grammar: to specify not any grammar, but the English one, or,
English grammar to mean : English grammar in general.
WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS OUR  FIRST POINT, namely, SO and PASS as an int. verb to mean not only to pass a test, but a car to pass a certain place. I know English grammar[ in general] much better than you do. This is what l have clearly noticed from my long discussions with you.

"WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS OUR  FIRST POINT, namely, SO and PASS as an int. verb to mean not only to pass a test, [sic -- as Grammarly notes, the comma is not needed] but a car to pass a certain place".  
 
I HAVE been discussing it.  And I've provided evidence that you have not said what you apparently think you have said and why grammatically your line is faulty and the semicolon is ill-used.  
 
In any case, to say that "a car passes a certain place" is to use the verb "pass" transitively.  And your syntax makes you claim that "so" is a verb.  
 
So much for your knowledge of English grammar.  
 
And the first point I raised with you was that your meter is irregular and clunky within the lines of your piece and from line to line.  Why did you skip speaking to that point?  
 
And what sort of English is "The + a noun of which there is only one."?

I'll say it again -- if you meant to say "I passed a very crowded street", you have not done so.  Moreover, if this is what you meant to say,  then what you say in your next line is an impossibility since you could not have seen a beggar girl who was on that street if you passed the street without going down it.  To say that you did, you would need to have written "As I passed along a very crowded street I saw a beggar girl ..."

I note, too,  that your claim that you are well versed in English grammar only means, if true,  that you **should** be able to use it well.  It does not mean, let alone guarantee, that you will always do so.

BTW, your deduction that I am not a native English speaker, let alone that I am a Syrian, shows just how poor your deductive abilities are.

Amazing poem … I really liked your use of words. Thank you for sharing this one :)

To whom are you speaking?  J-Z or me?  If J-Z, what's "amazing" about his use of words?  Can you be specific as to how and why his words are "amazing"?  Moreover,  are you related to J-Z or a friend of his?  And how familiar are you with what does and does not make up good poetry?

Dear Baldwin,
How dare you speak with poets in such a way? Who do you think you are? And who are you? Are you one of the administrators of this group. Please tell me who you are. JZ

Is Slazkani a poet?  

And I could ask you the same question about how you speak with me when you ask me if I have any critical acumen or who I am.

Dear Slazkani,
I am very sorry for the reception you got from Baldwin. Thank you very much for your kind comment. JZ

Are you sure she was speaking about your piece?  And what's wrong with asking what a person's level of critical acumen is?  Why should I or anyone take what he/she says about your pieces as worth considering if that person really knows nothing about poetry?  After all,  that's your basis for saying that my comments on your pieces are not worth speaking to.  So who are **you** to speak to me that way?

Since you've not demonstrated (but only asserted) that my remarks about the incoherence of your first line hold no water, let alone that "So crowded was the street" is not a circumstantial clause, and since you show no sign of your willingness (or ability) to actually demonstrate how and why my remarks are wrong,  let's move on to the third and fourth remarks I made, namely,

that contrary to what you wrote, a smile that was hidden was not seen by anyone, no matter what people did to see it, let alone could not be seen since being hidden, it was not visible, and  

that your notice that you wished to rob the female beggar “again”  not only identifies you as a [persistent] thief but says that you had robbed her on a  previous occasion and therefore contradicts your indication that you had never encountered her before you “passed” her while traversing the “so crowded street”.

Please demonstrate (noting that assertion is not demonstration) how and why I am wrong to say such things.

This is not true. I've shown you why your remarks are wrong. Go back to what l have written, and you know that you are weak at English grammar. I am not ready to repeat anything.
I told you that you have no poetic imagination, but you didn't believe me. I STOLE A LOOK AT HER SMILE. Go up a few lines and you read it.

"and you know that you are weak at English grammar."

Did you mean to say "and you WILL know/see that you are weak ON English grammar/ your grasp of English grammar is weak."  (see Longman  "She speaks quite fluently but she’s weak on grammar"  https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/weak)?

"I STOLE A LOOK AT HER SMILE. Go up a few lines and you read it."

Did you mean to say "and you WILL read it" (i.e., "you WILL  see that I said it.)?

In any case,  here's what I find when I go up a "few lines" to see what you wrote.

"She hid a smile that had great charm;  
it touched all those who stole a sight."  

Nowhere did you say that **you** stole **a look at** her smile.    And even if you did say -- or, more accurately, implied --  this,  you are ignoring the fact that you yourself said that you couldn't really do any such thing, since (as you noted) her smile was hidden from anyone who looked at her. All you really could have done was **to try** to steal a look.

It's also to be wondered how you knew that her smile possessed great charm since you and others were prevented from knowing anything about what it possessed by the beggar's having hidden it from anyone ever seeing it.

Bad writing.

Each point separately, according to the Oxford Dictionary, l read: She is rather weak at maths. Do you think that maths is different from English grammar.

Each point separately, according to the Oxford Dictionary, l read: She is rather weak at maths. Do you think that maths is different from English grammar?

"according to the Oxford Dictionary, l read: She is rather weak at maths"

Please tell me which Oxford dictionary this sentence appears and send me the link to this attestation.  It is not in the OED.

"Do you think that maths is different from English grammar?"    
   
Yes with respect to which preposition should be used with "weak".  

And unless you write "Do you think that "maths" is different from "English grammar",  there is quite a difference between maths and English grammar.    
     
But perhaps you'll write the editors of Longman and tell them how wrong they are to have written what they have written.    
 
You might also want to know that the Oxford Dictionary on Lexico that when one wants to say that someone is weak in the sense of "​not good at something",  one uses the preposition "in"  
 
"I was always weak in the science subjects."  
 
In any case,  my first point was NOT on the use of ON vs. AT (or for that matter, IN),  but whether it you should have written "and you WILL know/see that..."  rather than "and you know that ...".

I wonder why you did not see this, let alone speak to it.

OXFORD COLLOCATIONS DICTIONARY FOR STUDENTS OF ENGLISH
She's rather weak at maths.

And it also notes that "in" is more likely to be used when one is speaking about language use.

 He's weak in English

http://www.freecollocation.com/search?word=Weak

This means that AT is correct. Please, don't write anything when you are not sure that what you say is right. Don't you see that you are getting very disgusting and boring. BTW, you didn't say IN, but you said ON. Isn't this lying?

"BTW, you didn't say IN, but you said ON. Isn't this lying?"

No.  Lying is what you do when you cite sources selectively by not noting that they provide evidence against your claims.

Your are used to writing words without meaning. How can you write poetry?

The issue is whether **you've** written poetry and used words and expressions correctly, not whether I  have.    But let's grant for the sake of argument that I have.  How does that show that you haven't?
   
But thanks for the (right on cue) ad hominem and the implicit contradiction of your claim that no one has said that their poetry is better than others.    
     
And what meaningless words (e.g., combinations of vowels and consonants like Igliboo,  franfell, grdbish that have no definition, referent, purpose, or linguistic value)  have I written?   
     
Did you mean to say that the words that I've used don't have the particular meaning that I think they have?

You need to note that to say "she is good at X" means that she **does** X well.  One does NOT "do" grammar.

Yes my dear friend, we can say good of a person, to mean efficient, competent eg. He is good at French to mean, he is efficient at it, and in the same way, He is good at grammar, to mean efficient at using it.

Don't you mean **proficient** (having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude)?    
 
And saying "he is efficient at grammar" or even "he uses grammar efficiently" is NOT the same thing as saying "he knows grammar well",  given that the adjective efficient describes function and use with the least amount of waste and most economy and the adverb means "to do something in a way that achieves maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense".  
   
Note the following:  
    
"As adjectives the difference between efficient and proficient is that efficient is making good, thorough, or careful use of resources; not consuming extra especially, making good use of time or energy while proficient is good at; skilled; fluent; practiced, especially in relation to a task or skill."    
   
https://wikidiff.com/efficient/proficient

No, it is not proficient, but it is efficient, and competent according to OXFORD DICTIONARY & THESAURUS. Don't say anything you are not sure of. You reveal your ignorance.

"No, it is not proficient, but it is efficient, and competent according to OXFORD DICTIONARY & THESAURUS"

Please quote the entire entry on "efficient"  from the _Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus_.

Here's what the Oxford Thesarus   gives for the synonyms of efficient

efficient adj. unwasteful, economic, thrifty; effective, efficacious,
effectual, competent, productive, proficient, operative: The
technique for producing electrical power from tidal action has
not yet proved efficient.

And here's what it gives as the synonyms of proficient.

proficient
adj. skilful, skilled, talented, adept, gifted, expert,
experienced, practised, au fait, veteran, well-versed, (highly)
trained, professional, qualified, capable, able, accomplished,
dexterous, competent, knowledgeable, top-notch, first-rate,
Colloq ace, crack, whiz-bang or whizz-bang, Brit wizard: She is
an extremely proficient surgeon.

Given the connotations of proficient, and the fact that it is applied more often as a description of a person than efficient is,  it surely is the right word.

Let's move on to discuss the validity of the third and fourth remarks I made about  the  problems of statement and conceptuality your piece has, namely,

that contrary to what you wrote, a smile that was hidden was not seen by anyone, no matter what people did to see it, let alone could not be seen since being hidden, it was not visible, and  

that your notice that you wished to rob the female beggar “again”  not only identifies you as a [persistent] thief but says that you had robbed her on a  previous occasion and therefore contradicts your indication that you had never encountered her before you “passed” her while traversing the “so crowded street”.

Please demonstrate (noting that assertion is not demonstration) how and why I am wrong to say such things.

What is it that I don't understand?    
 
And the issue is NOT whether I am a poet,  but whether you have actually communicated clearly what you thought you were saying.   The claim that people have to use imagination to understand what you are saying is an admission that your think poetry is code that has to be broken and that readers have to fill in what you have left blank.  It is a mark of poor writing.  

Besides that,  YOU were the one that you wanted to discuss my remarks point by point.
   
And who said you had to write pages to show that my remarks are invalid?

"I can't imagine that you are so limited in understanding"  [that I don't see how coherent and intelligible your verses are].

Please do me a favour to show me that I am someone who does not have the capacity to understand what you write and that your piece is perfectly comprehensible to, and thought to be well written in the minds of,  people who have poetic imagination.  Post it to the Poetry Free For All  

http://www.everypoet.org/pffa/
    
http://www.everypoet.com/pffa.htm  

where the moderators are published poets and are experts in poetry and will give you honest and informed critique of the way you write.

If you say that you won't do it, I'll be driven to conclude that you are not as sure of your poetic abilities as you have claimed you are.  And if you ARE sure about this,  then you have no good reason not to post there.  Besides that,  I want to hear from others besides yourself, not to mention those who are demonstrably knowledgable in what makes for good poetry,  about whether or not my remarks about your work is off base.