deepundergroundpoetry.com
FROM WINDOWS TO ETERNITY
FROM WINDOWS TO ETERNITY
From a window in his house
that increased the charm for him,
he could see her not so far
and her face appeared so clear.
He imagined that she came
from a different world so far
leaving all her weak points there
to appear as perfect charm.
Love, your net had strong appeal.
It attracted both of them;
neither wanted to escape
as their windows' love was dear.
Love could show them such a world
none can live except the pure.
It attracted them to live
In one house of endless lure.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
From a window in his house
that increased the charm for him,
he could see her not so far
and her face appeared so clear.
He imagined that she came
from a different world so far
leaving all her weak points there
to appear as perfect charm.
Love, your net had strong appeal.
It attracted both of them;
neither wanted to escape
as their windows' love was dear.
Love could show them such a world
none can live except the pure.
It attracted them to live
In one house of endless lure.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Published 25th Oct 2021
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 10
reads 288
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
This awful in any number of ways.
First of all
“From a window in his house
that increased the charm for him
as her window was not far
and her face appeared so clear.”
is nothing but a circumstantial clause and therefore an incomplete sentence/thought. It has no controlling verb.
And the phrase “ that increased the charm for him” fails to be comprehensible in that it needs to note not only that it was the window that he found charming, but what it was that increased the window's charm. Presumably, it was the fact that it wasn't far away from the house of the girl he fancied and that through his window he could easily see her when she was looking out of a window there. But your phrasing of this is thoroughly muddled and a reader has to do what he/she shouldn't have to do (i.e., some very hard lifting) to see his/her way clear to understand what you were trying unsuccessfully to say.
“He imagined that she came
from a different world so far”
A second use of the comparative "so" without elucidation and so close to its first use -- which is also not followed by an elucidation.
And more deixis. So far as what or from what? So far away from his own world?
“leaving all her weak points there
to appear as perfect charm.”
This second use of “charm” within a few lines of your previous use of it is another example of how you possess a very limited vocabulary and how much the language that you use is repetitive and unimaginative.
Moreover, your syntax makes you say that once the woman left the world she came from all of her weak points began to appear in that world as “perfect charm”. If you meant to say that she shed whatever weak points she possessed back in the world from which she came and now appears as one divested of them and appearing in this world as imbued with perfect charm, you haven’t done so. And it’s not because I lack poetic imagination that I say that this is not clear. It’s not clear because of how you failed to state this.
“Love, your net had strong appeal.
It attracted both of them;”
More deixis. Attracted them to what?
“neither wanted to escape”
And yet more deixis. To escape from what? If you were trying to say "escape from love’s net", you haven’t done so since you haven’t said that the man and the woman had become entrapped in it, only attracted to it.
“as their windows' love was dear”.
All tell, no show. What was this being “dear” like? And to whom was it "dear"?
“Love could show them such a world”
Leaving aside the fact that before this you haven’t mentioned the particular world that love could show them, and therefore that your statement is something out of the blue, your use of “could: means that if your statement is true, love only has the **potential** to show them whatever the world you mention is or is like. And that means that it hasn’t done so – and even that it might not do so.
“none can live except the pure.”
Did you mean “live in”. How does one “live a world”?
“It attracted them to live”
A second use of “attracted”.
"In one house of endless lure. "
The house endlessly “lures” them? To do what?
Did you mean “one house of endless allure?
Cue the ad hominems.
First of all
“From a window in his house
that increased the charm for him
as her window was not far
and her face appeared so clear.”
is nothing but a circumstantial clause and therefore an incomplete sentence/thought. It has no controlling verb.
And the phrase “ that increased the charm for him” fails to be comprehensible in that it needs to note not only that it was the window that he found charming, but what it was that increased the window's charm. Presumably, it was the fact that it wasn't far away from the house of the girl he fancied and that through his window he could easily see her when she was looking out of a window there. But your phrasing of this is thoroughly muddled and a reader has to do what he/she shouldn't have to do (i.e., some very hard lifting) to see his/her way clear to understand what you were trying unsuccessfully to say.
“He imagined that she came
from a different world so far”
A second use of the comparative "so" without elucidation and so close to its first use -- which is also not followed by an elucidation.
And more deixis. So far as what or from what? So far away from his own world?
“leaving all her weak points there
to appear as perfect charm.”
This second use of “charm” within a few lines of your previous use of it is another example of how you possess a very limited vocabulary and how much the language that you use is repetitive and unimaginative.
Moreover, your syntax makes you say that once the woman left the world she came from all of her weak points began to appear in that world as “perfect charm”. If you meant to say that she shed whatever weak points she possessed back in the world from which she came and now appears as one divested of them and appearing in this world as imbued with perfect charm, you haven’t done so. And it’s not because I lack poetic imagination that I say that this is not clear. It’s not clear because of how you failed to state this.
“Love, your net had strong appeal.
It attracted both of them;”
More deixis. Attracted them to what?
“neither wanted to escape”
And yet more deixis. To escape from what? If you were trying to say "escape from love’s net", you haven’t done so since you haven’t said that the man and the woman had become entrapped in it, only attracted to it.
“as their windows' love was dear”.
All tell, no show. What was this being “dear” like? And to whom was it "dear"?
“Love could show them such a world”
Leaving aside the fact that before this you haven’t mentioned the particular world that love could show them, and therefore that your statement is something out of the blue, your use of “could: means that if your statement is true, love only has the **potential** to show them whatever the world you mention is or is like. And that means that it hasn’t done so – and even that it might not do so.
“none can live except the pure.”
Did you mean “live in”. How does one “live a world”?
“It attracted them to live”
A second use of “attracted”.
"In one house of endless lure. "
The house endlessly “lures” them? To do what?
Did you mean “one house of endless allure?
Cue the ad hominems.
25th Oct 2021 11:51pm
26th Oct 2021 00:00am
What are your criteria for judging something to be poorly written? And given all of the faults I have pointed out this piece from J-Z possesses, why should anyone take your evaluation of it as valid, let alone well informed about what makes something well written?
26th Oct 2021 5:38am
It doesn't take great insight or wisdom to see a mountain when you're standing in front of one.
I like the metaphor of the windows, giving on the other for each one.
The Italian poets used to believe the eyes were windows to the soul--maybe the windows are just windows to windows...?
I wonder if there's a hint of sadness to this, in that each remains separated by the pane of glass.
To experience endless "luring" is kind of frustrating, and knowing that humans are fundamentally impure--flawed, selfish, vain--it would seem like a variation of narcissus, always looking at his own reflection: to look and be unable to tear your eyes away from that which isn't attainable.
Food for thought!
Enjoyed!
I like the metaphor of the windows, giving on the other for each one.
The Italian poets used to believe the eyes were windows to the soul--maybe the windows are just windows to windows...?
I wonder if there's a hint of sadness to this, in that each remains separated by the pane of glass.
To experience endless "luring" is kind of frustrating, and knowing that humans are fundamentally impure--flawed, selfish, vain--it would seem like a variation of narcissus, always looking at his own reflection: to look and be unable to tear your eyes away from that which isn't attainable.
Food for thought!
Enjoyed!
The idea that windows are full of charm because they are the gateway through which their owners get to see the object of their desire is an interesting one.
But the issue isn’t whether the topic J-Z has written about here is interesting or even a good topic for a poem. It's whether J-Z has done it justice by setting it out in a way that shows, not tells, what the viewing experience was like for the viewers and does not put a reader off because its lines are mangled, muddled, ill phrased, and filled with dull and unimaginative language that do not say what J-Z apparently wanted to say.
How anyone can think, given what I’ve noted about how poorly written this piece is, that it is well crafted is beyond me. Do you think that it is? If you do, could you explain why you think so and, even more importantly, show me with reasoned arguments that the things I said about how and why it is undeserving of any praise are off the mark?
But the issue isn’t whether the topic J-Z has written about here is interesting or even a good topic for a poem. It's whether J-Z has done it justice by setting it out in a way that shows, not tells, what the viewing experience was like for the viewers and does not put a reader off because its lines are mangled, muddled, ill phrased, and filled with dull and unimaginative language that do not say what J-Z apparently wanted to say.
How anyone can think, given what I’ve noted about how poorly written this piece is, that it is well crafted is beyond me. Do you think that it is? If you do, could you explain why you think so and, even more importantly, show me with reasoned arguments that the things I said about how and why it is undeserving of any praise are off the mark?
26th Oct 2021 6:59am
Thank you very much, very dear Lozzamus. You are always a very dear friend, whose opinion l appreciate and depend on.
26th Oct 2021 7:08am
I really love and appreciate your very encouraging and highly appreciated comment, very dear Mark. You are a very dear friend whom l love. Thank you very much, my very dear friend.
27th Oct 2021 2:13pm
I'm wagering that the following is in substance and style and comprehensibility far better than your piece. If you disagree, please demonstrate through articulate, reasoned analysis (not declarations) how and why I am wrong to say so.
I think my window’s full
of dazzling charm
because it lets me see
across the way my lover’s face
within her bedroom’s own;
a face I’d gladly gaze upon
from now until eternity
if only God would let this be.
So bless this framework and its glass
that shows and brings
her gracing countenance to me.
And may she pray the same
about her casement’s bowering
when she, though it, at certain times
in looking at my house
spies mine.
I think my window’s full
of dazzling charm
because it lets me see
across the way my lover’s face
within her bedroom’s own;
a face I’d gladly gaze upon
from now until eternity
if only God would let this be.
So bless this framework and its glass
that shows and brings
her gracing countenance to me.
And may she pray the same
about her casement’s bowering
when she, though it, at certain times
in looking at my house
spies mine.
27th Oct 2021 4:17pm
Though it is iambic, l see in your writing mere prose, talking about a subject empty from the spirit of poetry.
"because it let me see across the way." Which way? This is nonsense.
Where is the spirit of love which started from seeing each other through the windows of their houses.
"If only God would let this be." Where is poetry in these words?
"So bless this framework and its glass." Is this poetry? There is no smell of poetry in it. Etcetera, for me, there is no line in your repulsive metric prose that is considered poetry. Believe me if my poem is like your writing, l would be ashamed to show it to anybody. Your piece, l am sorry to say, is mere rubbish.
"because it let me see across the way." Which way? This is nonsense.
Where is the spirit of love which started from seeing each other through the windows of their houses.
"If only God would let this be." Where is poetry in these words?
"So bless this framework and its glass." Is this poetry? There is no smell of poetry in it. Etcetera, for me, there is no line in your repulsive metric prose that is considered poetry. Believe me if my poem is like your writing, l would be ashamed to show it to anybody. Your piece, l am sorry to say, is mere rubbish.
According to you, what a writing has to have in order for it to be poetry is meter, rhyme, and an interesting subject.
This has all of those things. So on your own criteria of what makes something poetry, your claim that my piece is not poetry is rubbish.
Moreover, the meaning of its lines is readily apparent and nowhere near as incomprehensible as the ones in your Windows piece are or as syntactically flawed, conceptually bankrupt, and grammar gaffed.
And your (ironic) claim that there are thoughts that should have been stated for a line to not be "nonsense" but are absent from my piece is due to your reading my piece without imagination, let alone with the willingness to fill in any gaps of thought that you've acknowledged you've placed in your submissions that you think intelligent readers of them will gladly engage in.
And what on earth is "the spirit of poetry", let alone "poetry's smell", or for that matter, "mere" rubbish as opposed to "rubbish"?
Cue the "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" reply.
This has all of those things. So on your own criteria of what makes something poetry, your claim that my piece is not poetry is rubbish.
Moreover, the meaning of its lines is readily apparent and nowhere near as incomprehensible as the ones in your Windows piece are or as syntactically flawed, conceptually bankrupt, and grammar gaffed.
And your (ironic) claim that there are thoughts that should have been stated for a line to not be "nonsense" but are absent from my piece is due to your reading my piece without imagination, let alone with the willingness to fill in any gaps of thought that you've acknowledged you've placed in your submissions that you think intelligent readers of them will gladly engage in.
And what on earth is "the spirit of poetry", let alone "poetry's smell", or for that matter, "mere" rubbish as opposed to "rubbish"?
Cue the "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" reply.
