Bflag's Pleasures of Criticism

[bflagsst]

Yes, the opposition is deafening.

Here is what you asked for. Let's see what genuine criticism you can offer.

Original version:

You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small.
A young trunk made gnarled by force,
sustained by roots grown too big,
too starved, pushing the envelope,
sustaining thin, atrophied limbs,
cut again and again,
never meant to bear fruit.
An experiment,
perfect in its execution,
perhaps good for exposition.


Edited version:

You and me

We are like a bonsai tree.

A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small. Gnarled
by force, fed by roots too starved,
sustaining atrophied limbs, cut again
and again, never meant to bear fruit.

.................An experiment, perfect in its execution,
............................good only for exposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm assuming the second is the version posted as final edit. The value in this poem is in its pruning, as 1201 mentioned, since the meaning hasn't changed even a smidge from first to last. I have to admit I glossed over most of the comments, but I did see some criticism of the ideas within the poem.

The author began with a complete poem, which I agree was a finished poem, but only accepted suggestions in phrasing; using 'critics' as thesauri and proof readers to her already entrenched idea of the poem. The author didn't quite engage with criticism of the ideas within her poem.

Hence, the unmoved point of retaining too/too where it makes sense in the first version and reads lackadaisical in the last; the loss of sounds, rhymes, best parts of the original poem:

me/tree/seed/things.........thin/limbs

Why is this important? This poet is good at mixing those partial rhymes with prose-ish lines and stanza, so it's disappointing that the mass ensemble pruned that quality.

A hybrid of the first and last version which retains important elements of poetry from the first:

You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.

A pretty seed meant for great things,
planted in a pot too small,
a young gnarled trunk, sustained
by force of starved roots grown too big,
feeding thin, atrophied limbs,
pruned again and again
never meant to bear fruit;

an experiment in perfection
good only for exposition.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for actual criticism of the poem and not of its author or critics' actions.

Bonsai aren't cut, they're pruned. Cutting isn't shaping an idea. Bearing fruit is problematic, it's fine that bonsai don't bear fruit or that most are derived from non-fruit trees, but many bonsai are meant to flower and are quite beautiful as a vessel for focus, meditation that finally comes to fruition.

The first poem was finished and nice and said what you wanted it to say, it just needed "pushing the envelope" removed, since the idea is already encased in 'a pot too small/roots grown too big'.

So, was there value for anyone during the long group analysis? Did anyone learn anything as poets or people? Maybe, because there was some actual criticism of ideas, but the poem ultimately lay static from its release and just atrophied and withered with all the inputs.

You're a good poet of one poem, poet. Don't think I had ill intent or took on a snide tone in this text box as I researched your poem's public history.

 

[twelveoone]

Original version:

You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small.
A young trunk made gnarled by force,
sustained by roots grown too big,
too starved, pushing the envelope,
sustaining thin, atrophied limbs,
cut again and again,
never meant to bear fruit.
An experiment,
perfect in its execution,
perhaps good for exposition.


Edited version:

You and me

We are like a bonsai tree.

A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small. Gnarled
by force, fed by roots too starved,
sustaining atrophied limbs, cut again
and again, never meant to bear fruit.

.................An experiment, perfect in its execution,
............................good only for exposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm assuming the second is the version posted as final edit. The value in this poem is in its pruning, as 1201 mentioned, since the meaning hasn't changed even a smidge from first to last. I have to admit I glossed over most of the comments, but I did see some criticism of the ideas within the poem.

The author began with a complete poem, which I agree was a finished poem, but only accepted suggestions in phrasing; using 'critics' as thesauri and proof readers to her already entrenched idea of the poem. The author didn't quite engage with criticism of the ideas within her poem.

Hence, the unmoved point of retaining too/too where it makes sense in the first version and reads lackadaisical in the last; the loss of sounds, rhymes, best parts of the original poem:

me/tree/seed/things.........thin/limbs

Why is this important? This poet is good at mixing those partial rhymes with prose-ish lines and stanza, so it's disappointing that the mass ensemble pruned that quality.

A hybrid of the first and last version which retains important elements of poetry from the first:

You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.

A pretty seed meant for great things,
planted in a pot too small,
a young gnarled trunk, sustained
by force of starved roots grown too big,
feeding thin, atrophied limbs,
pruned again and again
never meant to bear fruit;

an experiment in perfection
good only for exposition.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for actual criticism of the poem and not of its author or critics' actions.

Bonsai aren't cut, they're pruned. Cutting isn't shaping an idea. Bearing fruit is problematic, it's fine that bonsai don't bear fruit or that most are derived from non-fruit trees, but many bonsai are meant to flower and are quite beautiful as a vessel for focus, meditation that finally comes to fruition.

The first poem was finished and nice and said what you wanted it to say, it just needed "pushing the envelope" removed, since the idea is already encased in 'a pot too small/roots grown too big'.

So, was there value for anyone during the long group analysis? Did anyone learn anything as poets or people? Maybe, because there was some actual criticism of ideas, but the poem ultimately lay static from its release and just atrophied and withered with all the inputs.

You're a good poet of one poem, poet. Don't think I had ill intent or took on a snide tone in this text box as I researched your poem's public history.

hmmm, looketh like the intent of the main part of the poem
but as I did not write it...

 

[twelveoone]

Is the pleasures of criticism

the joy derived from reading and examining poetry and perhaps helping the writer and or yourself become a better writer?

-or-

is it the joy derived from hearing the sound of one's own voice leading others on a tour through one's own warehouse or museum of labeled, categorized and shelved intellectual property?

Don't get me wrong ..... debate is a great thing ...... but this thread didn't start out as the pleasures of debating.

With all due respects, it is difficult to do the first part without access to the second part, I, for one, am interested in the operating system behind bflagsst's criticism.
Frankly, yours too. Perhaps, I bore you? Easily solvable.

 

[pelegrino]

With all due respects, it is difficult to do the first part without access to the second part, I, for one, am interested in the operating system behind bflagsst's criticism.
Frankly, yours too. Perhaps, I bore you? Easily solvable.

Talking about operating systems, are you interested on how correctly they operate on a given task or on how and why they are designed to operate like they do?

 

[Magnetron]

With all due respects, it is difficult to do the first part without access to the second part, I, for one, am interested in the operating system behind bflagsst's criticism.
Frankly, yours too. Perhaps, I bore you? Easily solvable.

I have a short attention span for ...... oh, look there on the sidewalk ..... a shiny coin ......,...

 

[twelveoone]

Talking about operating systems, are you interested on how correctly they operate on a given task or on how and why they are designed to operate like they do?

More the later in bflagsst's case, as in most cases. Now bflagsst has a scholarship that I lack, however I am mystified as to what is painfully obvious to me, i.e. in foehn's poem, he seems not to see. This is not quite the same as "taste" but rather a fundamental difference in viewing perspective.
I tend to look at the internal structures and then how the words play in that towards an intent of the poem. He seems to look at usage of specific poetic tools. My guess is there is a preconceived concept of what a poem should do, whereas I look at it as, a poem exists, how viable is its existence (how true is it to itself) in a certain sphere.

A few words on "local to universal", in most cases it will be:
Local: "this is me, this is what I am going through"
Universal: "I am applying this on a broader level, so that you can relate to it"
All well and good, it is a tool brutally used by politicos and has a tendency towards the demagogic. None of the poems here cross that line.
As a poetic tool it gives the illusion of movement (text as is, is in nature generally flat) and can make it "come alive", i.e. the reader engages and relates.

I can sense I bored the shit out of everyone.

 

[Magnetron]

This poem is just a step into cloying sentimentality that works really well save for a few missteps of phrasing and a near complete disregard for any poetic tool or tradition. If you think you're writing a poem outside of any tradition you probably aren't, fucking Foehn has done it though.

You read this poem and it's something written for someone else who actually exists or has existed and you believe in a zealotry for horses and for the narrator's adoration of Hannah and her complete being in this world. Think about how rare it is to come across a poem that reads like it's actually about real people living real human lives and not just complete fictions interacting.

http://www.literotica.com/p/hanna-loves-horses

Hanna Loves Horses
byfoehn©

We all love something.
Hanna loves horses.

Horses galloping through dust and yucca plants.

Horses trotting on grassy Tennessee slopes.

Horses walking among palmetto palms in Florida.

Hanna loves horses that aren't horses.
She loves them because of what they want to be.
She loves them because of form:
because they are smart, like her,
feeling, like her,
explorers, yet obedient,
like her.

Hanna loves horses. It won't go away.
Last year, tomorrow and today,
the magic word is, "horse."

"Would you like to see?"
she asks the new friend.
And behind that world, behind
the vision of so many
collectibles

are thousands, millions, kazillions
of wild horses, herding themselves
as quickly as possible
into the future and the past…

Ah, the snorts and whinnies
die in the wind, but the thunder
goes on forever



for Hanna 2-15-05 : tm

I really don't care much for this poem.

Hanna loves horses that aren't horses.
Hanna isn't too fond of horses that are just horses
She loves them because of what they want to be.
She really doesn't care much about horses that only want to be horses.
She loves them because of form:
However, she does love the way all horses are built
because they are smart, like her,
feeling, like her,
explorers, yet obedient,
like her.
Either Hanna or the writer thinks they are smart, feeling, explorers, yet obedient like Hanna - I'm not sure which

And behind that world, behind
the vision of so many
collectibles


Why not say

And behind that world, behind
the shelf of so many
collectibles

Collectibles that one shows off are usually put on display. Makes more sense for the poet to have me imagine these on a shelf before my eyes and then envision all those wild horses galloping in a realm beyond the physical before me in my mind.

Instead, I'm being led to treat the physical reality of the collectibles as a mental scenario that morphs into another mental scenario. Even sight, spectacle or display itself would have been more suitable, more effective.

Also ....

And behind that world, behind
the vision of so many
collectibles

What was the point of line structuring here? It must have been important for me to read it this way, but could have easily read

And behind that world,
behind the vision of so many collectibles


into the future and the past… does nothing for me. The impression I get is that the poet didn't know what to do with all those running horses now that he brought them up.

I give this 3 Stars.

 

[bflagsst]

I tend to look at the internal structures and then how the words play in that towards an intent of the poem. He seems to look at usage of specific poetic tools. My guess is there is a preconceived concept of what a poem should do, whereas I look at it as, a poem exists, how viable is its existence (how true is it to itself) in a certain sphere.

Certain poetry-specific mechanics convey meaning better than other written or spoken modes of expression. <--- I start by assuming this is true.

I first look at poetry specific tools, how can they be identified when written and when spoken as something apart from prose or conversational English or technical writing etc.

To establish whether the first 'truth' is true or not I have to find mechanics that are special to poetry that convey meaning even before metaphor and symbol-detail are tacked on to the mechanic.

This would make more sense to a Greek lyrical poet. They had mechanics for songs, satire, epics, elegiac couplets, death, regional meter...which provided a bootstrap to meaning before any metaphor or symbol was fed by detail.

How was history proper created by Herodotus and Thucydides? They still used satire, drew upon mythology, relied on metaphor; they plainly rejected the symbol-rich mechanics of the minstrels, tellers of folktales, poets.

It's almost an insurmountable task now trying to describe the mechanics we use to bootstrap meaning in such a way that expresses things better than non-poets. If Pennsylvania had at one time it's own meter and form that relied on magic Quaker numbers, a love of trochaic verse and metaphor based in William Penn's Fruits of Solitude there might be remnants of the order of the past in contemporary free verse poetry written in Pennsylvania that readers could access much quicker as readers of poetry than as readers of Pittsburgh prose.

 

[butters]

I really don't care much for this poem.

Hanna loves horses that aren't horses.
Hanna isn't too fond of horses that are just horses
She loves them because of what they want to be.
She really doesn't care much about horses that only want to be horses.
She loves them because of form:
However, she does love the way all horses are built
because they are smart, like her,
feeling, like her,
explorers, yet obedient,
like her.
Either Hanna or the writer thinks they are smart, feeling, explorers, yet obedient like Hanna - I'm not sure which

And behind that world, behind
the vision of so many
collectibles


Why not say

And behind that world, behind
the shelf of so many
collectibles

Collectibles that one shows off are usually put on display. Makes more sense for the poet to have me imagine these on a shelf before my eyes and then envision all those wild horses galloping in a realm beyond the physical before me in my mind.

Instead, I'm being led to treat the physical reality of the collectibles as a mental scenario that morphs into another mental scenario. Even sight, spectacle or display itself would have been more suitable, more effective.

Also ....

And behind that world, behind
the vision of so many
collectibles

What was the point of line structuring here? It must have been important for me to read it this way, but could have easily read

And behind that world,
behind the vision of so many collectibles


into the future and the past… does nothing for me. The impression I get is that the poet didn't know what to do with all those running horses now that he brought them up.

I give this 3 Stars.

*facepalm*

 

[Magnetron]

*facepalm*

I would have gave it 4, but I knocked off a star for being unclear.

 

[butters]

I would have gave it 4, but I knocked off a star point for being unclear.

there's a whole lot going on in that poem, M, not least the choice of line-breaks. not gonna do this tonight, though. i know you've stated before that you like to see it all on the first read-through; personally, i like the reward of working a little to get at the meat of a write beyond that initial bite. this piece has layers so offers more than first appears.

 

[Magnetron]

there's a whole lot going on in that poem, M, not least the choice of line-breaks. not gonna do this tonight, though. i know you've stated before that you like to see it all on the first read-through; personally, i like the reward of working a little to get at the meat of a write beyond that initial bite. this piece has layers so offers more than first appears.

I've read it several times and there are no additional layers presenting for me.

I can only critique and rate what is before me.

And I don't need everything up front in the first pass. I do need a first pass that encourages me to perform additional passes. Good writing, sensible story, it left me somehow affected or some or all of these combined will encourage me to read again and again.

The writing of this poem in particular actually discourages me from wanting to keep re-reading it, but I have anyway in order to give an honest critique.

If I am getting nothing special out of this poem, imagine the reaction from the average reader.

 

[bflagsst]

I've read it several times and there are no additional layers presenting for me.

I can only critique and rate what is before me.

And I don't need everything up front in the first pass. I do need a first pass that encourages me to perform additional passes. Good writing, sensible story, it left me somehow affected or some or all of these combined will encourage me to read again and again.

The writing of this poem in particular actually discourages me from wanting to keep re-reading it, but I have anyway in order to give an honest critique.

If I am getting nothing special out of this poem, imagine the reaction from the average reader.

If I remember correctly this poem had an 'H' for a long time and may have been on one of the top lists, as voted by your average lit reader.

 

[Angeline]

If I remember correctly this poem had an 'H' for a long time and may have been on one of the top lists, as voted by your average lit reader.

You're right. I remember this poem and it was very popular at the time because people knew the author had written it about his daughter--which tells you something about voting as opposed to feedback via comments or email.

 

[Magnetron]

You're right. I remember this poem and it was very popular at the time because people knew the author had written it about his daughter--which tells you something about voting as opposed to feedback via comments or email.

This.

 

[todski28]

Certain poetry-specific mechanics convey meaning better than other written or spoken modes of expression. <--- I start by assuming this is true.

I first look at poetry specific tools, how can they be identified when written and when spoken as something apart from prose or conversational English or technical writing etc.

To establish whether the first 'truth' is true or not I have to find mechanics that are special to poetry that convey meaning even before metaphor and symbol-detail are tacked on to the mechanic.

This would make more sense to a Greek lyrical poet. They had mechanics for songs, satire, epics, elegiac couplets, death, regional meter...which provided a bootstrap to meaning before any metaphor or symbol was fed by detail.

How was history proper created by Herodotus and Thucydides? They still used satire, drew upon mythology, relied on metaphor; they plainly rejected the symbol-rich mechanics of the minstrels, tellers of folktales, poets.

It's almost an insurmountable task now trying to describe the mechanics we use to bootstrap meaning in such a way that expresses things better than non-poets. If Pennsylvania had at one time it's own meter and form that relied on magic Quaker numbers, a love of trochaic verse and metaphor based in William Penn's Fruits of Solitude there might be remnants of the order of the past in contemporary free verse poetry written in Pennsylvania that readers could access much quicker as readers of poetry than as readers of Pittsburgh prose.

without getting into details that would more than likely confuse the shit out of me what would some of the devices be that you look for to give me a chance at basic research since I am eassentially little more than a prose writer from the looks of the way I write

 

[todski28]

I've read it several times and there are no additional layers presenting for me.

I can only critique and rate what is before me.

And I don't need everything up front in the first pass. I do need a first pass that encourages me to perform additional passes. Good writing, sensible story, it left me somehow affected or some or all of these combined will encourage me to read again and again.

The writing of this poem in particular actually discourages me from wanting to keep re-reading it, but I have anyway in order to give an honest critique.

If I am getting nothing special out of this poem, imagine the reaction from the average reader.

Interesting, there is an emotional content that runs through the entire piece for me without knowing this poet at all , i can sense the loss and hurt but can't put my finger on why, 1201.and bflaggst are speaking of mechanics but I can't see that past the emotional conveyance. As 1201 has said we all read and see things differently. Bringing different bias and*perspectives to each read. Butters is an empathetic reader and sees far more than most because she feels the poem, 1201 and bflaggst seem to rely on logical analysis and mechanics beyond the what the poem says.

Now if a writer references things off the page I normally get lost unless it is a human emotional connect.

 

[bflagsst]

without getting into details that would more than likely confuse the shit out of me what would some of the devices be that you look for to give me a chance at basic research since I am eassentially little more than a prose writer from the looks of the way I write

When you read a poem you enjoy try to pick out anything resembling repetition. When reading a poem that doesnt seem to flow right find where the extra or lacking syllables are. You dont need to worry about stresses unless youre interested in learning traditional forms. Learning traditional forms and practicing them instills an ease with writing free verse in a way that appeals to readers of poems. These are surface level suggestions. I'm interested in why practicing Spenserian sonnet might make for a better writer of today's interesting prose poem.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Think about how rare it is to come across a poem that reads like it's actually about real people living real human lives and not just complete fictions interacting.

http://www.literotica.com/p/hanna-loves-horses

Hanna Loves Horses
byfoehn©

We all love something.
[...]
for Hanna 2-15-05 : tm

This text (by foehn) is pure graphomania, or in plain language--this is junk.

I am talking about this garbage only in terms of art. In terms of someone's emotions this must be of great value, I guess. However, PF&D is supposed to be a poetry forum.

 

[Magnetron]

foehn is conveying Hanna having a distant relationship with her collection of what we can only assume are A] figurines that were never meant to be played with- or - B] toys that were never played with for the sake of keeping them in pristine condition. I know toy collectors, so B is where my mind travels while knowing it could be A. Which is it? My question remains unanswered after the pome is finished.

Either way, this appears to be about Hanna projecting herself into the horses, perhaps even better ilustrated if foehn had her witness her own reflection in the glass of a display case. I conclude Hanna concludes that the horses want to be running wild and free because she wants to be likewise due to .........? Again, unanswered. My best guess is she is physically ill to the point that death would be liberating - or - her homelife somehow stresses that child's play is unwanted, again touching upon the idea of a toy collection and her not being allowed to play with it.

If illness, the new friend can be interpreted as an angel come to take her to Heaven. If not illness, then it is just a new friend entering into the home of child who may or may not be encouraged to play. Because nothing in the poem suggests illness, the logical assumption is the latter because of what is suggested by the distant relationship. Children will play with toys and figurines. Obedient children won't. They will look, not touch.

However, the latter conclusion seems very unlikely since the writer appears more infatuated with Hanna's love rather than focusing on the sadness of a scenario involving a child not being able play.

The writer needs to give the reader more direction to arrive at the intended outcome. Which is it?

And the average reader is not going to work near as hard as I did to unravel the threads of the surface layer.

If you are not writing for the average reader, you are writing for poets who are better equipped to grasp layers and are more willing to solve riddles. Making a career of this is elitist and cheats the commoner out of quality poetry if the initial layers are always incomplete without the additional layers.

Give the average reader a complete initial layer and he will be satisfied and or enjoy it enough to read it again and again. Through this, he can become exposed to further layers and greater appreciation of the poem. The unfolding is natural instead of being a forced interpretation fueled by speculation, aggressive symbolism breakdown and poets facepalming themselves.

 

[todski28]

foehn is conveying Hanna having a distant relationship with her collection of what we can only assume are A] figurines that were never meant to be played with- or - B] toys that were never played with for the sake of keeping them in pristine condition. I know toy collectors, so B is where my mind travels while knowing it could be A. Which is it? My question remains unanswered after the pome is finished.

Either way, this appears to be about Hanna projecting herself into the horses, perhaps even better ilustrated if foehn had her witness her own reflection in the glass of a display case. I conclude Hanna concludes that the horses want to be running wild and free because she wants to be likewise due to .........? Again, unanswered. My best guess is she is physically ill to the point that death would be liberating - or - her homelife somehow stresses that child's play is unwanted, again touching upon the idea of a toy collection and her not being allowed to play with it.

If illness, the new friend can be interpreted as an angel come to take her to Heaven. If not illness, then it is just a new friend entering into the home of child who may or may not be encouraged to play. Because nothing in the poem suggests illness, the logical assumption is the latter because of what is suggested by the distant relationship. Children will play with toys and figurines. Obedient children won't. They will look, not touch.

However, the latter conclusion seems very unlikely since the writer appears more infatuated with Hanna's love rather than focusing on the sadness of a scenario involving a child not being able play.

The writer needs to give the reader more direction to arrive at the intended outcome. Which is it?

And the average reader is not going to work near as hard as I did to unravel the threads of the surface layer.

If you are not writing for the average reader, you are writing for poets who are better equipped to grasp layers and are more willing to solve riddles. Making a career of this is elitist and cheats the commoner out of quality poetry if the initial layers are always incomplete without the additional layers.

Give the average reader a complete initial layer and he will be satisfied and or enjoy it enough to read it again and again. Through this, he can become exposed to further layers and greater appreciation of the poem. The unfolding is natural instead of being a forced interpretation fueled by speculation, aggressive symbolism breakdown and poets facepalming themselves.

Thank you for going this in depth magnetron your thoughts are interesting and I know how time consuming this stuff can be.

This text (by foehn) is pure graphomania, or in plain language--this is junk.

I am talking about this garbage only in terms of art. In terms of someone's emotions this must be of great value, I guess. However, PF&D is supposed to be a poetry forum.

OK senna I'll bite since I felt an emotional connection to the piece if you have the time and inclination and you reason for it being junk are different than magnetron would you be able to say why?

 

[todski28]

Sorry Bflaggst for running on tangents in your thread I'll shut up now, thanks for your answer to my question.

 

[Senna Jawa]

OK senna I'll bite [...]

Sorry Bflaggst for running on tangents

Which one is it?

Only very little percentage of time should be spent on analyzing poor poems. Even in the case of poems by participants of the board--not more than five-seven percentage. In the case of the authors out there--even less. (Perhaps in the given case one could make an exception, since so much attention got already invested).

 

[twelveoone]

Interesting, there is an emotional content that runs through the entire piece for me without knowing this poet at all , i can sense the loss and hurt but can't put my finger on why, 1201.and bflaggst are speaking of mechanics but I can't see that past the emotional conveyance. As 1201 has said we all read and see things differently. Bringing different bias and*perspectives to each read. Butters is an empathetic reader and sees far more than most because she feels the poem, 1201 and bflaggst seem to rely on logical analysis and mechanics beyond the what the poem says.

Now if a writer references things off the page I normally get lost unless it is a human emotional connect.

Hmmm, very good. Except, there is a reason, I fear Butters, AND NO ONE ELSE, least of all Senna. But both bflaggst and I have felt the emotional content also.

bflaggst suggests "When you read a poem you enjoy try to pick out anything resembling repetition." Which often is a good start or tactic when writing, one that Angeline often uses (see Interact #4), but foehn here is using a standard literary tactic known as the "power of three" (which the great ash, accuses me of being pseudoscience) and intertwining them (he is also diminishing them, an analogy would be making the chord minor). He is preforming acts of psychological impressment, however I don't think it was deliberate as there are no false notes.

This is what Senna calls "pure graphomania", true, no argument there. This is not a tactic he uses, he relies on the "profundity of juxtaposition" card which often generates pure junk.

But this is just my opinion and far be it from me to cast dispersions on "fucking Art" or "fucking discussion", i.e. Senna is using a non-argument, bullshit.
"It is not Art". Pardon my sarcasm.

Magnetron to his credit, makes an attempt, I feel it is a misread. Possible failure of operating system on reader part.
horses that are not horses is rather ambiguous, you have to read into it, for me the operative word is not, as it is more than just horses,i.e. running free, horses is concrete, running free abstract. Typical poetic tactic.

And Angeline is right, however, this poem has no obvious ploys, he is not playing the sympathy card, it is there but hidden in the mechanics.

I see a comment like this, yours, I am impressed, todski. You will do well. Question the right things.

One small correction: 1201 and bflaggst seem to rely on logical analysis and mechanics before (reading) what the poem says.

If you can't parse it, maybe it isn't thar, but I started to draw lines, didn't I? Go back, har, har, har.

 

[twelveoone]

Perhaps the average reader should get better for his own benefit, and quit reading Murdoch papers.