i(r)onic bonds

Re: "wow, very brutal for a poem that was voted the best in the yearly journal it was published in by the creative writing classes at my school."

Oh, come on love. Is that all it takes to inflate you? Twenty-or-so lobotomized high school students telling you that compared to the other twelve poems submitted, yours was the most legible? I wouldn't get to puffed up about that my dear, its not really any big achievement.
I mean, to be brutally honest, it just isn't that spectacular a poem. It's not awful, but the technique and the concept could both use some work.
Anyway, what I mean by all this is that you're a decent writer, and if you're open and you take the advice of the other writers on this site, you stand a chance of getting better.
Good luck!
Amy

My gods, Zooey,
I love you.

I thought the concept was pretty good! The only major problem, in my opinion, is that this is one of those poems that threatens to cross the line between poetry and prose. The definition of poetry is rather subjective, but what exactly makes this a poem, other than the line breaks? There's no apparent rhyme or rhythm, nor any aesthetic value beyond the metaphorical meaning of the words; basically, it could be written quite nicely in paragraph form, simply by taking out the line breaks, without changing any of the words. Would it be a poem then? Either way, nice metaphors.

It wasn't high school. It was a creative writing II class, and it was a very competitive journal called the mid rivers review.

I go to another site for my constructive criticism. Since you can only post every 3 days here, I try to put the polished versions here (save the last poem i put up.) This poem is about a year and a half old, and has been through many revisions. I think this is the version everyone agreed worked well enough for submissions.

Michael, in my own opinion, meter and rhyme isn't what makes something poetry. Of course, we are discussing quality, which can't be accurately defined. Everyone has a slightly different opinion about what constitutes a poem due to life experience and education. But if this isn't a poem, then 99% of Bukowski's poems weren't really poems at all. If you think that, I can respect that opinion. I didn't think so at first either.

as far as aesthetic value goes...I think the idea of molecules floating and making and breaking bonds is a very interesting and beautiful mental image. If you don't that's okay. Again, it's all opinion.

It is an interesting metaphor.
It's just a shame you didn't do much with it.

I don't think you get the concept of why you're being criticized here...
It's not the poetry that was Zooey was talking about, it was your attitude to critique.
In the face of something that was negative, you showed arrogance.

Just because a piece is well regarded by one crowd, that doesn't mean that other audiences are wrong for having a different opinion. And, while you may have gone through the multiple revisions as you say you have, there's always room for improvement. That's the point of a review: Help the writer enhance the piece, and future writing.

Did do you post on here expecting serious reviews, or just ego boosts?

"Did do you post on here expecting serious reviews, or just ego boosts?"
Like I said, I don't post on here for reviews. I use another site for that.

Yes, in the face of something negative, I did show arrogance. It was an extremely short review written in generalized terms. I didn't agree with it at all, so yes, I displayed arrogance.

The reason I come to this site isn't to get an ego boost, or to get reviews. I come here to read other people's work, and maybe find some stuff that I really like. Along with that, I like helping people edit their work. Since I have the background to do it professionally, I like to help people here.

Re: It was an extremely short review written in generalized terms.

It was a short poem written in generalized terms.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you post a rather tiny, vague review yourself titled "Reminds me of pokemon for some reason."? I mean, really, is that your idea of an ideal review? Becuase I'm sure you wouldn't critique imdeadgoaway's review skills if yours weren't oh-so perfect.

I find it really funny that you're still clinging to that silly review journal. It's so unimportant, and the fact that you can't see that makes you look just as silly as your attachment to it.

Here's a little suggestion from me to you love. If you don't come here to get reviews or an ego boost, don't post! If you aren't prepared to get some constructive suggestions from well-meaing fellow writers, and you can't handle a negitive review gracefully (which, I might point out, will make any sort of professional writing career very difficult for you) don't place your articles in a place where anyone can burst your bubble of self-importance. Just read and enjoy the work other writers are putting here.

And don't come here with your "professional background" acting like you're doing everybody a big favor by gracing us with your online presence. There are plently of published writers who haven't got a speck of creativity or talent. Just because one or two people thought they could sell your work, doesn't make it good.

I can take constructive criticism. I do it all the time on WritingForums, or from friends who I give this stuff to. I just didn't with him/her (i don't know which it is, sorry) because I didn't think it was constructive.

And I'm I wasn't acting like I was doing a favor by coming here. I really enjoy reading raw writing. That's the main reason why I'm here. It's also really fun to be able to help people edit. I don't do it for the other people. No, I haven't met any of them seeing how it's the internet. I do it because it makes ME feel good. I wasn't trying to act selfless.

The "pokemon" review was a positive. Even though that's the case, I did try to help find the negative in it so that it could be worked out, but there wasn't much of anything. I also brought up the questions about it at the same time.

What about the poem was vague, since we have a running dialogue here?
The depth is in what's left out of the human realm but mirrored in the molecular realm(IMO obviously.) It's describing how the whole structure of society is built on this institution that's put together in a usually short period of time, and falls apart half the time due to very small problems that grow. Everything in the poem was essential, and I pulled out a lot to leave the building of the society to your mind.

I'm tired of talking about this poem, and you. The poem was not interesting enough to merit this much discussion, and since you seem to be so firm in your belief that it is fantastic, I won't try to intervene anymore.
In fact, re-reading this whole discusion, I'm actually a little embaressed that I even participated. I suppose my passion got the better of my reason.
And so, I will bow out gracefully and leave you to your review journals and your molecular realm. I hope you enjoy the site.
Zooey

What is interesting here is that one poem can be read in different ways by different people. We're not all going to like it - and while a poem can win awards, doesn't mean that some will think it is utter 'crap'. It's down to a subjective opinion at the end of the day.

It's the same with any art - look at some of the 'great' modern art - I think it's worthless , while others pay millions for it.

At the end of the day, if you are satisfied with it then that is all that matters. Being defensive or 'arrogant' really does not hinder or help anyone....this community doesn't make 'critisisms' for the sake of saying 'you're crap' - but just ot add some insight that may or may not be useful to you.... No need to get upset or offended, it's simply another opinion (see my Opinions are like Arseholes') note in the main review.


I also note that poetry has always incited 'differences' and that is perhaps what makes it so good (or so bad!!)

SimeyCook, you have a good point about modern art. Some of the "art" that people get excited over just looks ugly to me. I suppose I am a bit narrow-minded when it comes to art, though, as I most appreciate art that looks realistic, as opposed to impressionist pieces and Picasso-style abstraction. (Maybe it's for the same reason that I'm more likely to enjoy a poem with rhyme and rhythm, although I recognize that neither are necessary. (Sorry, TinyMachines; I wasn't trying to imply that you're not a poet.))

Anyway, I don't like seeing arguments on this site. If any disagreement carries on for more than two or three comments, both parties probably need to cool it. Flaming on Newgrounds is funny; flaming on Papertank is counter-productive.

In the interest of preserving freedom of speech and encouraging honesty, I think reviewers should be as harsh as they need to be when critiquing a piece of writing, but authors should keep in mind that it's not personal. (How could it be? We don't know you.) Likewise, if a reviewer disagrees with an author's reply to that review, the reviewer should just forget about it and move on. The author gets the last word. Otherwise, we would have review-reply-replies, and that's just overkill.