Juice

[SerraAvenger]

judgement bells, herding us together

winding up the gates of freedom
winding up the gates of life

their life

they lock us out

us, the dogs

that's what they call us

are we animals?

are we slaves?


judging us for sins we never would commit

breaking us, crushing our spirits

and thinking they're just

that they are the judges

standing on the high ground

outstanding

in the midst of living bodies

it is not hard to be the highest

when you're drowning

those who can't fight back

who do they think they are?

who are they?

victims of their blindness

winding up their eyes
winding up their ears

so they don't have to hear us suffer
so they don't have to see the slaves

we are no slaves!
we are the mirror

they break us

so they don't have to see their own reflections
so they don't have to look into the mirror

but even as we break,

we are no slaves

we are free

but them?



Both the initial writing, theme, and content were heavily inspired by jedimindtrixx

 

[Ninva]

This poem is substantially better compared to the your first poem since it's ambiguous with a clarity that can be understood; thus, it can be discussed. If anyone is willing to discuss this poem, I'd be much obliged.

I don't like the lack of punctuation. You don't have to explain to me why you didn't use punctuation. I just didn't like the lack of it.

 

[SerraAvenger]

This poem is substantially better

I'd like to say it is substantially different. You might like it more, it might be closer to what you call a good poem. But you see, you might say the frame is different, but the flesh is the same.

compared to the your first poem

You mean, the last one I published here? I still have stuff on page three which is like... Old.

it's ambiguous

Do you care to elaborate? Where is it ambiguous, what is the ambiguity?

If anyone is willing to discuss this poem

I would like to, but I would be very biased.

I don't like the lack of punctuation.

I know. I was aware of that when I wrote it, but I'm a word crafter. I think about almost every word I'm using, almost every line and dot I have is meaningful (to me). I will not add more punctuation. I am currently thinking if I should add bold and italic to the text in places where I deem them helpful, but I believe everybody should have the freedom to do that themselves.

 

[Ninva]

I know. I was aware of that when I wrote it, but I'm a word crafter. I think about almost every word I'm using, almost every line and dot I have is meaningful (to me). I will not add more punctuation. I am currently thinking if I should add bold and italic to the text in places where I deem them helpful, but I believe everybody should have the freedom to do that themselves.

You knew I wouldn't like the lack of punctuation? Oh.

The problem with that attitude is that you take out the discussion on how a poem should be read. There's an art to poetry reading. Each punctuation mark means something very precise and dynamically different. Depriving the reader from punctuation can be considered egotistical or laziness. I've been given this advice before: "You're not e.e. cummings." When you believe you're contributing an original rule, you're actually taking away a lot of what the reader expects and cutting him off of what should be rightfully his: directions on how to read the poem. So you should think about the dogmatics of poetry before branching off into a progressive approach. Picasso mastered traditional art before cubism.

You also asked how this poem is ambiguous. My answer is that you do not make any real clear statements on the poem's theme. This is very good, actually. In writer's dogmatics, we often say, "Write descriptively, not statements." By that we mean (over-exaggerated, of course): "The tall reeds of dead hair cells were tossed about by wind sliding off of the crashing waves. In the air, the long strands of dark brunette intertwined and curled and lashed out in all directions. And trying to hold back the free spiritedness of that hair -- a face with rounded, blushing cheeks smiled back at me." This is ideal since it depicts a scene rather than states it, and thus there can be discussion about the scene with the reader and the author. "What is reading but silent conversation?" -- Walter Savage Landor

I'd like to say it is substantially different. You might like it more, it might be closer to what you call a good poem. But you see, you might say the frame is different, but the flesh is the same.

If you're going to be all relativist on me, sure whatever.

There's no such thing as a bad or a good poem; ok, you got me. But there are poems that sound nice and have real substance to discuss, and other poems are just... eh... whatever, right?

 

[SerraAvenger]

you're actually taking away a lot of what the reader expects and cutting him off of what should be rightfully his

In this case, that was exactly what I wanted.

I agree though that I usually use little punctuation anyway.

Depriving the reader from punctuation can be considered egotistical or laziness.
The problem with that attitude is that you take out the discussion on how a poem should be read. There's an art to poetry reading.

Yes, that takes guidance away. It is work I might not seem to be doing, but I disagree. I have a very strong opinion about how I would read my poems. I just don't feel like "spamming" (for the lack of a better word) my text with dots and lines, and I think that if somebody has a different way to read it, so be it. Why do you like ambiguity in the content and theme, but not in the reading?
I can try and write the next poem twice, once with punctuation and once "without". We will discuss the difference.

So you should think about the dogmatics of poetry before branching off into a progressive approach.

I did for a long time. In fact, my writing style is heavily influenced by "expressionist" poets (most notably Trakl and Benn), as well as the works of Rilke. You will see however that over the years I moved a little bit away from them and started writing more personally. I like the stuff I am writing right now more than the stuff I was writing before, but that's just my personal opinion. And for me, that is all that matters ; )

My answer is that you do not make any real clear statements on the poem's theme.

Heh. In fact, I always do. I just want the reader to read the poem at least once without knowing what I have written about. But if you open your eyes, you might find a couple of clues on that. Very dumb (in the sense of neither witty nor abstract) clues in fact.

In writer's dogmatics, we often say, "Write descriptively, not statements." By that we mean (over-exaggerated, of course): "The tall reeds of dead hair cells were tossed about by wind sliding off of the crashing waves. In the air, the long strands of dark brunette intertwined and curled and lashed out in all directions. And trying to hold back the free spiritedness of that hair -- a face with rounded, blushing cheeks smiled back at me." This is ideal since it depicts a scene rather than states it, and thus there can be discussion about the scene with the reader and the author. "What is reading but silent conversation?" -- Walter Savage Landor

If you are asking me, this is still a statement. It doesn't even say what the writer feels, apart from appalled (by her scall, yummy). I would rather write something along the lines of
"Like waves of brown chocolate, her hair tenderly embraced the breath of wind. I could not tell if it was the rouge on her warm, round cheeks or if she was blushing; But the sweet strawberry red in her creamy face was mesmerizing. Her open smile unlocked the door to a part of me that I thought had died years ago - but here I was, enchanted, bound by her spell, dreaming with open eyes. Was she a dream? Was all of this a dream? I only knew one thing for sure: Whatever it was, I did not want to wake up!"

There's no such thing as a bad or a good poem; ok, you got me. But there are poems that sound nice and have real substance to discuss, and other poems are just... eh... whatever, right?

Yes but I would say that which poems you find "good" or "bad" (in the terms described above) is a very personal matter. I might find one poem splendid to read aloud that you find very boring indeed; and vice versa. Both this and the last poem are, when it comes to the process of crafting, equivalent in my eyes. They have a different structure, a different style, yes. You like this style more, and I accept that. That does not make the poem, as such, better or worse.

 

[Ninva]

You're right. Your poem was expressionism. And I suppose poets didn't use punctuation during that time, but I wonder why. From reading expressionism, I always got a distorted flow, and the poems always seem to be in one stanza, not several short stanzas which separate the phrases.

 

[SerraAvenger]

Your poem was expressionism.

Ugh. That's a very difficult statement = )
You see, expressionism is so broad and ill defined, that I would suggest we define it by the era, less than by style (as there is no unified "expressionism"). Also, my themes are often different from those most present in expressionist lyric (city, armageddon, destruction, pestilence), and the way I write is merely similar, but not Identical (I am using almost the same expressions and patterns, but the order of expressions does have more meaning. Seldom can you just rearrange the lines without loosing some of its quality; That was not the case in most expressionist styles. There are many more differences, but I will not go in more depth.).

And I suppose poets didn't use punctuation during that time, but I wonder why. From reading expressionism, I always got a distorted flow

Yes, yes! Great! Is that not part of the purpose? The anonymity of the verses, the "exchangeability"? The chaos? Breaking all conventions, all harmony? Yet, the disturbing fascination, the disturbed sense of beauty this distortion emanates? It is a feeling. It is the big city, the whore of whores, described without even having a word to say. The attraction to the fall of humanity, condemning it and having to be part of it at the same time, selling your own soul to the thing you despise the most - because you LOVE it...

And if they used punctuation... It was worthless. It were merely buttons to push, as dictated by the "rules".

Just watch metropolis, it is one of THE expressionist movies. It might help you understand better.