Please give me your opinions on this poem from a novice poet

[D A Stone]

taking criticism

To everyone, including Senna, who gave suggestions on how to write better poetry, thanks. I appreciate all of the advice. As for the suggestion that I am just dismissing Senna because I don't like him, this is not true. I read his poem and took the parts of his critique that I think will help me to write better.

The only thing that I took the slightest offense to was his suggestion that people who did like it as is might be mentally unbalanced. It was uncalled for and my response to it was based on the fact that he hurt the feelings of someone I care about. You can tear my poetry apart as much as you like and personal attacks on me mean about as much to me as a fart in the wind, but please leave her out of it.

D A Stone

 

[lickmyboot]

D A-
I hope you don't hold this experience against us. I thought it was quite a brave effort to tackle a sestina...a form I haven't attempted myself. I hope we haven't scared you away from Lit entirely. I'd like to see more from you.

 

[Icingsugar]

I hope you don't hold this experience against us. I thought it was quite a brave effort to tackle a sestina...

Indeed.

Personally, I have written poetry for years, and I still wouldn't recognise a srstina or any other specific formula (except a haiku or a limerick perhaps) of poetry if it jumped up and bit me in the family jewels. And I sure as hell wouldn't dare to write one, and offer it up to the vultures here.

/Ice

 

[HomerPindar]

S.J. will always be S.J. I must agree with Lauren this time. This was Senna "Lite".

Senna Jawa is a poet who can write far above the average poster on this site. Besides here on Literotica, some of his work can be read at: http://republika.pl/wh_poetry/en/index.html
Unfortunately, his social skills often seem below average, at least concerning subjects that really interest him. I think, that at times, he confuses the world of mathematics (where "true" may be provable) with real life.

I got this far and went - oops, mistake. "True" can never be proven as an absolute. Consider, 0 = false, 1 = true. We can hit 0 easily, test once, 0 response = false. We can never test and hit 1 because we can never do enough test to ensure that the subject matter won't change the next time - i.e. we can always test the theory again.

Sorry to be picky here, but if you're going to feed the cockroach you're best off feeding it the truth as far as anyone can demonstrate it.

Hey, that means I might one day have to apologize for calling him the cockroach! Woohoo! I so look forward....

HomerPindar

 

[Rybka]

Truth or probable

I got this far and went - oops, mistake. "True" can never be proven as an absolute. Consider, 0 = false, 1 = true. We can hit 0 easily, test once, 0 response = false. We can never test and hit 1 because we can never do enough test to ensure that the subject matter won't change the next time - i.e. we can always test the theory again.

Sorry to be picky here, but if you're going to feed the cockroach you're best off feeding it the truth as far as anyone can demonstrate it.

Hey, that means I might one day have to apologize for calling him the cockroach! Woohoo! I so look forward....

HomerPindar

Perhaps I misspoke HP. Certainly in the real world, dealing with empirical theories, you are correct in that one can only prove the "Null" hypothesis. However in theoretical math things can be true or false, starting with what is "given", by definition. Formal logic is a branch of mathematics (or at least it was when I took it many years ago), And in Aristotelian (also called Descartian) logic things can only be true or false. (Although I have always favored a multi-valued logic where parallel lines do meet and "maybe" is an acceptable value.)
What I was attempting to convey was my feeling that Senna often seems to apply "on/off logic" to social situations where it may not be applicable.

Rgards, Rybka

 

[HomerPindar]

Re: Truth or probable

Perhaps I misspoke HP. Certainly in the real world, dealing with empirical theories, you are correct in that one can only prove the "Null" hypothesis. However in theoretical math things can be true or false, starting with what is "given", by definition. Formal logic is a branch of mathematics (or at least it was when I took it many years ago), And in Aristotelian (also called Descartian) logic things can only be true or false. (Although I have always favored a multi-valued logic where parallel lines do meet and "maybe" is an acceptable value.)
What I was attempting to convey was my feeling that Senna often seems to apply "on/off logic" to social situations where it may not be applicable.

Rgards, Rybka

Well, certainly not in a place to comment on social skills of others when my own are so lacking (take for instance how we've hijacked this poor defensless thread!)



HomerPindar