deepundergroundpoetry.com
POETRY I LOVE TO READ
Poetry l love to read
Poetry should be great charm
in its form and word appeal.
Greatest beauty teaches lots
with no didactic intent.
Beauty of the lowest kind
has a true attractive force,
showing us how life should be
but without preaching a word.
When l hear the charm of tune
and the sweet semantic sense,
they uplift me to a state
showing life how it should be.
Teachers of immortal love,
when you use a suiting tune
with a gist from real life,
you produce what l would read.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
.
Poetry should be great charm
in its form and word appeal.
Greatest beauty teaches lots
with no didactic intent.
Beauty of the lowest kind
has a true attractive force,
showing us how life should be
but without preaching a word.
When l hear the charm of tune
and the sweet semantic sense,
they uplift me to a state
showing life how it should be.
Teachers of immortal love,
when you use a suiting tune
with a gist from real life,
you produce what l would read.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
.
Published 28th Oct 2021
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 3
reading list entries 1
comments 14
reads 382
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
"Poetry should be great charm
in its form and word appeal".
Don't you mean "poetry should HAVE great charm"? How does something **be** charm?
"When l hear the charm of tune"
Another use of "charm" within a few lines of its first use showing once again that your vocabulary is very limited. On top of that "one is charmed by a tune". **A** tune may posses charm. But the phrase "the charm of tune" is not only deictic, but unintelligible. And it's only words that have a semantic sense, not tunes. Nor do tunes have " the substance or essence of a speech or text/ the real point of an action), let alone from real life.
In any case, since your submissions have none of the things you say it has to have if you are to want, let alone to love, reading it, and they are it is more often than not didactic, it follows that you do not (and should not) love what you write.
Cue the insults and the red herrings and variations of "they are not worth responding to" in reply to my remarks above than a reasoned demonstration that they are off the mark.
in its form and word appeal".
Don't you mean "poetry should HAVE great charm"? How does something **be** charm?
"When l hear the charm of tune"
Another use of "charm" within a few lines of its first use showing once again that your vocabulary is very limited. On top of that "one is charmed by a tune". **A** tune may posses charm. But the phrase "the charm of tune" is not only deictic, but unintelligible. And it's only words that have a semantic sense, not tunes. Nor do tunes have " the substance or essence of a speech or text/ the real point of an action), let alone from real life.
In any case, since your submissions have none of the things you say it has to have if you are to want, let alone to love, reading it, and they are it is more often than not didactic, it follows that you do not (and should not) love what you write.
Cue the insults and the red herrings and variations of "they are not worth responding to" in reply to my remarks above than a reasoned demonstration that they are off the mark.
28th Oct 2021 11:35pm
Somebody here once said that poets have this horrible habit of making everything beautiful.
Avoid beauty like the plague. It’s a disease.
Avoid beauty like the plague. It’s a disease.
Charm: n. [ c. u] is the power to delight or fascinate.
Her charm is well known.
In the same way, poetry should be great CHARM itself, not only or just have CHARM.
Her charm is well known.
In the same way, poetry should be great CHARM itself, not only or just have CHARM.
28th Oct 2021 11:49pm
Ah yes, a response that by implication states that I only raised one point about your piece.
The implication of "Her charm is well known" is "the power that she HAS to delight or fascinate is well known" It does NOT support or justify your claim that saying "poetry should be great charm" is good English. In fact, it shows that it isn't.
In any case, the statement that "poetry should be great power to delight or fascinate" is linguistically and conceptually awkward whereas the statement that "poetry should** have** great power to delight or fascinate" is one that fits the facts and conveys far more felicitously than your statement does what you meant to say.
The implication of "Her charm is well known" is "the power that she HAS to delight or fascinate is well known" It does NOT support or justify your claim that saying "poetry should be great charm" is good English. In fact, it shows that it isn't.
In any case, the statement that "poetry should be great power to delight or fascinate" is linguistically and conceptually awkward whereas the statement that "poetry should** have** great power to delight or fascinate" is one that fits the facts and conveys far more felicitously than your statement does what you meant to say.
29th Oct 2021 00:26am
I am not waiting for you to tell me this is better. I write what l find better. Don't you know that there is METAPHOR in poetry, Baldwin? The man is a tiger. Is it possible for a man to be a tiger? Don't tell me that we should say, "The man has a tiger."
Who said that you were waiting for me to tell you anything? And are you claiming that what you wrote is something you "found" to be better than what I said actually conveys what is true about good poetry? If so, on what grounds?
In any case, your line "poetry should be great charm" is not metaphorical. It is a statement that declares what, in your mind, poetry should be, not what poetry is like.
And if you say that "the man is a tiger" then you are saying that it's true that he can be a tiger, at least in some ways. But what the statement "the man is a tiger" conveys is "the man has tiger-like qualities" or is as ferocious as a tiger can be.
BTW, the actual parallel with the phrase in question is
man should be great tiger
which is horrible English.
And I do know that poetry employs metaphor (and other figures of speech) since, unlike you and your generally imageless postings, I use them (as well as concrete appeals to the senses) in what I write.
In any case, your line "poetry should be great charm" is not metaphorical. It is a statement that declares what, in your mind, poetry should be, not what poetry is like.
And if you say that "the man is a tiger" then you are saying that it's true that he can be a tiger, at least in some ways. But what the statement "the man is a tiger" conveys is "the man has tiger-like qualities" or is as ferocious as a tiger can be.
BTW, the actual parallel with the phrase in question is
man should be great tiger
which is horrible English.
And I do know that poetry employs metaphor (and other figures of speech) since, unlike you and your generally imageless postings, I use them (as well as concrete appeals to the senses) in what I write.
Anonymous
29th Oct 2021 9:54am
You make a valuable observation--
the first choice is aesthetic; morality is a function of aesthetics;
to paraphrase Joseph Brodsky, when the infant chooses one face over another, that's not moral--
the good is a function of the beautiful--
the other day I was explaining that the attraction to me of Christianity is the beauty of life with grace, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ--
Enjoyed!
the first choice is aesthetic; morality is a function of aesthetics;
to paraphrase Joseph Brodsky, when the infant chooses one face over another, that's not moral--
the good is a function of the beautiful--
the other day I was explaining that the attraction to me of Christianity is the beauty of life with grace, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ--
Enjoyed!
29th Oct 2021 4:43pm
"You make a valuable observation"
But the issue isn't whether J-Z's observation is valuable (let alone valid) but whether it is well written and does not contain the grammatical and conceptual infelicities that I noted it has.
I find it rather odd that you do not speak to that issue. For, after all, J-Z has (falsely?) claimed that what he wants from readers is honest criticism (i.e. analysis) of the way he writes, not fawning remarks about the message contained within his submissions.
But the issue isn't whether J-Z's observation is valuable (let alone valid) but whether it is well written and does not contain the grammatical and conceptual infelicities that I noted it has.
I find it rather odd that you do not speak to that issue. For, after all, J-Z has (falsely?) claimed that what he wants from readers is honest criticism (i.e. analysis) of the way he writes, not fawning remarks about the message contained within his submissions.
29th Oct 2021 12:09pm
1-Thank you very much, my very dear friend, Mark, for your very kind comment, which l highly appreciate as l feel it is true, sincere, and coming directly from the heart, not affected by any advantages as it sometimes happens with other writers.
2-According to your ideas about Christianity, namely,"The attraction to me of Christianity is the beauty of life with grace, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ-" . I am reading THE LETTERS OF SAINT Paul to the Romans. I've found out that according to him, "Christianity is the belief in what Jesus did for us to save us from the torture of sin that leads us to death. Without His death and this belief there is no salvation. It is the center and heart of our belief. This belief is the core of any real happiness, and without it there is no happiness at all. Thank you very much my very dear friend, Mark.
2-According to your ideas about Christianity, namely,"The attraction to me of Christianity is the beauty of life with grace, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ-" . I am reading THE LETTERS OF SAINT Paul to the Romans. I've found out that according to him, "Christianity is the belief in what Jesus did for us to save us from the torture of sin that leads us to death. Without His death and this belief there is no salvation. It is the center and heart of our belief. This belief is the core of any real happiness, and without it there is no happiness at all. Thank you very much my very dear friend, Mark.
"I am reading THE LETTERS OF SAINT Paul to the Romans."
I was unaware that Paul wrote more than one letter to the Christ believers in Rome.
And he does not speak of the torture of sin. The word βασανισμός (or any of its cognates) does not appear in Romans 6:23 or anywhere else in Romans.
I was unaware that Paul wrote more than one letter to the Christ believers in Rome.
And he does not speak of the torture of sin. The word βασανισμός (or any of its cognates) does not appear in Romans 6:23 or anywhere else in Romans.
If you wish for me
to spend my time in reading
any of the compositions you insist
are poetry
to see if they are "love worthy"
I need to know,
and certainly be shown,
that in the way they're shaped
and worded by your hand,
they're filled with rapturous imagery
and such linguistic grace
and charm
that’s truly powerful enough
to take my breath away
and when my breath’s regained
to make me nod agreeably
and primed enthusiastically to say
“oh this is something magical
and lyrically so grand.”
But these, I fear, are qualities
that don’t appear in things
that you indite.
To say that what you post deserves
the slightest moment’s read
would not in any way be right.
Cue the response that though my submission does not reproduce any of the linguistic faults that I noted above that "Poetry I Love to Read" is filled with, i.e., its solecisms and its awkward and deictic phrasings, I am nevertheless "imitating" it rather than responding to it and outlining what follows when its claims are taken seriously.
to spend my time in reading
any of the compositions you insist
are poetry
to see if they are "love worthy"
I need to know,
and certainly be shown,
that in the way they're shaped
and worded by your hand,
they're filled with rapturous imagery
and such linguistic grace
and charm
that’s truly powerful enough
to take my breath away
and when my breath’s regained
to make me nod agreeably
and primed enthusiastically to say
“oh this is something magical
and lyrically so grand.”
But these, I fear, are qualities
that don’t appear in things
that you indite.
To say that what you post deserves
the slightest moment’s read
would not in any way be right.
Cue the response that though my submission does not reproduce any of the linguistic faults that I noted above that "Poetry I Love to Read" is filled with, i.e., its solecisms and its awkward and deictic phrasings, I am nevertheless "imitating" it rather than responding to it and outlining what follows when its claims are taken seriously.
26th Dec 2021 7:47pm
Beauty of the lowest kind
has a true attractive force,
showing us how life should be
but without preaching a word
this intrigued me a lot but I am a bit confused, what do you mean? that all deserves love and that the humble forms provoke speachless admiration instead of triumphing big examples in life? i.e. solitude teaches best how to love?
has a true attractive force,
showing us how life should be
but without preaching a word
this intrigued me a lot but I am a bit confused, what do you mean? that all deserves love and that the humble forms provoke speachless admiration instead of triumphing big examples in life? i.e. solitude teaches best how to love?
26th Dec 2021 10:47pm
Very dear Aaron,
Thank you very much for your great interest in my poetry. You are very kind, indeed. I mean by this stanza that beauty attracts the eyes to it. When a beautiful person is affected in one way or another, eyes are attracted to it. Through this attraction, it can affect people, whereas ugliness does not attract anybody to have the same effect.
Thank you very much for your great interest in my poetry. You are very kind, indeed. I mean by this stanza that beauty attracts the eyes to it. When a beautiful person is affected in one way or another, eyes are attracted to it. Through this attraction, it can affect people, whereas ugliness does not attract anybody to have the same effect.
