My heart

I can hear the words spoken out loud in my head. Thank you for this.

Why don't you say something about the lifting sight of hers. It will make your poem beautiful not so empty and nothing like the shark bones?

"Why don't you say something about the lifting sight of hers"

of hers?  Does she have lifting sight?

Why is saying something more (presumably about the sight of her being "lifting") necessary?  Shouldn't you have filled that in with your own imaginings of what the sight of her is like?

A better question is why don't you ever compose pieces that are filled with evocative imagery, engaging similes,  and concrete appeals to the senses?

As I said once before:

I wonder if you’re capable of writing verse
that’s not about calamity
or man’s “bright” Gnostic otherworldly destiny,
or how men are depraved, like beasts,
unsaved, unsave-able and jealous, full of
damning lusts,
or just how much you love the lord
and see in him relief, release,
from this world’s misery?
 
Can you post, instead, a gentled exploration of
the subtitles of love
with cunning vibrant words,
not heavy-handed ones,
as is your wont,
that show, not tell,
through simile and metaphor
and language that is sparkling, fresh,
just what the joys of being flesh is like,
and how there’s liberation true and good
within a woman’s kiss
or what the feeling is of being wrapped,
enveloped in,
the raptured bliss inside her arms?
 
Have you ability to craft the kind of lines
that make a woman catch her breath and sigh
for want of your embrace?
that and brim her glad she’s bodied,
of the earth,
and not a flimsy ghost
up somewhere in the sky?
.
Sing, now, if you can,
of how the earth’s our home,
a sacred place
that God intends to bring once more
alive, and to uncurse, renew.
 
You say you’re talented in poetry
OK. So show us that you have
the skill
to write in such a way
that makes a female's heart beat fast
and spurs in her desire for you?
 
I for one
have many doubts you do.

...the sight of her is lifting, or of HERS, Baldwin?

what comes into my view when I turn her way.  Why would I use a third-person possessive pronoun?

hers
From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
hers /hɜːz $ hɜːrz/ ●●● S3 W3 pronoun [possessive form of ‘she’]    
used to refer to something that belongs to or is connected with a woman, girl, or female animal that has already been mentioned
 He bent and touched his mouth to hers.
 These are my gloves. Hers are in the drawer.
 The idea was hers.

And once again, you didn't answer my questions to you

I am writing about your sentence, "the sight of her is lifting." It should be," the sight of hers". I am not writing about the other sentence, which is correct.

"I am writing about your sentence, "the sight of her is lifting." "

That's odd since I never wrote any such sentence in my submission above.   Why would you write about something I never said?

By the way, in your poem, the last phrase, "Oh for the lifting sight of you." You have two mistakes in this phrase. It should be,"Oh, for the lifting sight of yours." Oh, is an interjection. It should be followed by a comma. The second mistake is, "sight of yours". After of, you should have a possessive pronoun.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that I'm speaking of my wish to see the face of a particular person (not what a person possesses) that I've not seen for a while since I know that doing so would create an elating experience in me.  So no,  the line in question should not end with a possessive pronoun.

You are right to say that a comma should have been placed after my "Oh" if it functions as an interjection.  But since I did not intend for you or anyone to see that there is a pause between it  and "for",  a comma is, as is noted not only at the Grammar file blog that:

"A comma follows an exclamatory oh or ah only if a slight pause is intended."  

(https://www.proofreadnow.com/blog/bid/83210/Phrases-and-Commas-and-Words-Oh-My

but by Shakespeare himself in his parallel to my phrase that appears as the opening line of his Henry 5

O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention,

So this is not a mistake.  In any case, you are hardly one to speak about the correct way of punctuating things.

What you don't seem to comprehend is, " the sight of her is lifting" is grammatically wrong. How can you use a PREPOSITION before a possessive ADJECTIVE without a NOUN after the possessive adjective? So HER should be HERS a possessive pronoun. Can you admit this obvious mistake without being too proud to admit it?

What you don't seem to comprehend is, " the sight of her is lifting" is grammatically wrong. How can you use a PREPOSITION before a possessive ADJECTIVE without a NOUN after the possessive adjective? So HER should be HERS a possessive pronoun. Can you admit this obvious mistake without being too proud to admit it?

"What you don't seem to comprehend is, " the sight of her is lifting" is grammatically wrong. How can you use a PREPOSITION before a possessive ADJECTIVE without a NOUN after the possessive adjective? So HER should be HERS a possessive pronoun. Can you admit this obvious mistake without being too proud to admit it?"  
 
I'd be happy to admit a mistake IF I made one.  But first of all,   I didn't write "the sight of her is lifting". I wrote "O [i.e., what I wouldn't give] for the lifting sight of you".    
 
How interesting (and revealing) that you have to put words in my mouth in order to  claim that I have written poorly and to show how superior you are to me in  one's knowledge of grammar.  
 
Second, even if I had written what you falsely attribute to my hand, it would NOT be grammatically incorrect  since here  
 
"sight " means   "an instance of seeing",  
 
"her" is not in this instance a possessive adjective.  It is the object form of "she",  
 
"of her" means  "of a particular woman, and  
 
"lifting" is a present participle that (see below)  bears the meaning "elating" and that  modifies "sight.  
 
In other words,  the sentence you attribute to me is no more ungrammatical than this is  
 
"His elation increased at the sight of the little girl he had saved."  
 
In any case,  in writing  "O for the lifting sight of you"  I was NOT speaking of something that the woman whose face I long to see possesses.  I was speaking of what I know would be the nature of the effect that my seeing a particular woman's face would have on me if I were to see it.  
 
Now speaking of being too proud to admit making  writing mistakes  
 
***  
lifting  
present participle of lift  
Synonyms:  
exciting, thrilling, exhilarating, rousing, stirring, animating, enlivening, enthusing, stimulating, delighting, inspiring, inspiriting, invigorating, moving, elating, vitalizing, buoying, charging, electrifying, enrapturing, galvanizing, gladdening, gripping, heartening, intoxicating,  
 
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-adjective-for/lift.html      
 

It is not in your poem. It is in your first answer to my comment.

Really?  Exactly where in that post do I say what you claim I said there?  Give me a full and accurate quotation of the place where you claim I said this.

And why is what I supposedly said -- which I've demonstrated does not display a grammatical mistake--  in a response I made to a remark of yours relevant to the issue of whether "O for the lifting sight of you" is grammar gaffed?

[ presumably about the sight of HER being lifting] In the third paragraph from the beginning. It cannot be: about the sight of her being lifting as her being lifting cannot have a sight, but THE SIGHT OF HERS BEING LIFTING.

Your claim was not only that I had written the sentence  "the sight of her is lifting" but that it appears on the page that you reference.   Sorry,  you have failed to show that your claim is valid.   What you give as a quotation of something I wrote is NOT a quotation of something I wrote (nor is it punctuated as it should be if it were).  

Here is the full text of the exchange we had:

J-Z
Why don't you say something about the lifting sight of hers. It will make your poem beautiful not so empty and nothing like the shark bones?

Re: Re. My heart
Baldwin- Edited 17th Nov 2021 8:15am17th Nov 2021 8:12am
"Why don't you say something about the lifting sight of hers"

of hers?  Does she have lifting sight?

Why is saying something more (presumably about the sight of her being "lifting") necessary?  Shouldn't you have filled that in with your own imaginings of what the sight of her is like?

A better question is why don't you ever compose pieces that are filled with evocative imagery, engaging similes,  and concrete appeals to the senses?

As I said once before:

I wonder if you’re capable of writing verse
that’s not about calamity
or man’s “bright” Gnostic otherworldly destiny,
or how men are depraved, like beasts,
unsaved, unsave-able and jealous, full of
damning lusts,
or just how much you love the lord
and see in him relief, release,
from this world’s misery?
 
Can you post, instead, a gentled exploration of
the subtitles of love
with cunning vibrant words,
not heavy-handed ones,
as is your wont,
that show, not tell,
through simile and metaphor
and language that is sparkling, fresh,
just what the joys of being flesh is like,
and how there’s liberation true and good
within a woman’s kiss
or what the feeling is of being wrapped,
enveloped in,
the raptured bliss inside her arms?
 
Have you ability to craft the kind of lines
that make a woman catch her breath and sigh
for want of your embrace?
that and brim her glad she’s bodied,
of the earth,
and not a flimsy ghost
up somewhere in the sky?
.
Sing, now, if you can,
of how the earth’s our home,
a sacred place
that God intends to bring once more
alive, and to uncurse, renew.
 
You say you’re talented in poetry
OK. So show us that you have
the skill
to write in such a way
that makes a female's heart beat fast
and spurs in her desire for you?
 
I for one
have many doubts you do.

So what this shows is that  your claim is a lie. and that  in engaging once again in the unscrupulous tactic of putting words in my mouth so that you'd have grounds for claiming that I made a grammatical mistake, you show yourself to be a man without honour and integrity.  It's no wonder that people have stopped reading your submissions.

It's useless. Baldwin, to tell you about a lot of your repeated mistakes because you write a lot, on purpose, and mention very boring details to make the reader bored and lost through your details.

Did  I actually write what you claimed I  wrote or not? Can what you claimed I wrote be found in the message you said you found it in  or not?

If you are an honourable man  as well as one who possesses  integrity,  you'll answer these questions honestly.

"It's useless. Baldwin, to tell you about a lot of your repeated mistakes because you write a lot, on purpose, and mention very boring details to make the reader bored and lost through your details."

I find it  very revealing that you always resort to this kind of question begging response when you are squarely faced with the evidence that shows indisputably that you have lied about what I have written and have put words in my mouth in order to show that I've made mistakes.

It shows that you have no integrity.

"It's useless. Baldwin, to tell you about a lot of your repeated mistakes because you write a lot, on purpose, and mention very boring details to make the reader bored and lost through your details."

Leaving aside the question of the truth of your claim that the details I "mention"  in my responses to your messages are boring (which, BTW, is something you've never shown to be the case),, why does the fact that I "write a lot"  make it useless for you to tell me about the mistakes I (supposedly) make, especially if my messages are on point (something which you have never shown them not to be) and their length is dictated by what is necessary to say to deal adequately with the points I am addressing and to show that those points are warranted?

And the claim that I write what I write to you in order to bore readers, rather than to fully demonstrate to them  how and why the  claims I make in my messages  -- especially about how and why your claims about  the way I write are off base and unsupportable -- are valid ones,  is nonsense.   What's your evidence that supports your claim.  What's your evidence that anyone here has thought that my purpose in "mentioning" the details that I "mention" in my messages was/is to bore readers?

I'm wondering if  any of you who have read my responses to J-Z's criticisms of my submissions or my responses to messages he's sent me think that he is correct in his claim that  
 
"[I] write a lot, on purpose, and mention very boring details to make the reader bored and lost through your details."

Please tell me.