Why are many Literotica poems so vague?

[sack]

Ninja's "Paint this picture"

This is my favorite of Ninja's submissions, but they were all pretty amazing:


Paint this picture
by Ninja Nookie ©

A palette of colors the pansies bloom,
while the sky hangs a rainbow
over a sea of tranquil blue.

Turquoise garnish on olive skin
while pearls sparkle
near silvers trend.

A handed rose of lustful red
while silken hair dances in wind
over a dress held by thread.

Standing under the chandelier fixture
by marble taken for granite
can your mind paint this picture.


Yes, my mind can paint all these pictures. Maybe I'm getting better at this. Seranades "Winter Butterflies" was the turning point for me. Thanks Sera!!

Sack

 

[annaswirls]

Damn! 300 posts? I saw the topic and wanted to read it....but it will take me all night

are there cliff's notes on this?

is it worth reading the unabridged version?

~anna

 

[twelveoone]

Sack
saw your King...and raised you
matsukaze mon amour


Art - original american title "middle of nowhere" where all three places are
translation = wind in the pines, my love
now check this out,
Hiroshima mon amour

I am a little surprised the deeper meaning folks, didn't pick up on it (rife with Freudian symbols) nor post modern deconstructionists (very binary)

Do I win?

 

[ishtat]

Sack the Obscurantists.

Sack made, I think a very valid point which has not been taken all that seriously. Three months ago I decided I would read about 250 to 300 poems to get back into reading poetry after a fairly long (re)lapse. I have just about completed that and am of the view that 20% of the poetry on this site is totally incomprehensible. I also have significant problems with at least half of the remainder. I have not been making comments as I went, because frankly I doubted ,especially initially, my own capacity to comprehend.

Sack is right but possibly a bit too polite in making his point. Much of the work I have read is of such byzantine obscurantism that it would be worthless as any form of communication. There is a small amount of good poetry and a lot which is indifferent varying to dross. That is not a criticism, that in fact is what one would expect. But, amongst the lesser work there are plenty of examples of capable minds staggering blindly through a miasma of vague allusion. They could do much better

Another problem which I think occurs is in the poetry comments. Far too much is excessively flattering . It isn't helpful to gush over the mundane and I think that happens a lot .How you fix it though I do not know because I have to acknowledge that the comments on poetry are generally free of some of the abuse one finds in the prose section.

Finally, I know the weakness of my argument is that I have not attached any examples. I could have but I did not want to start a brawl ! Not yet anyway!

I would just suggest that Sack's gentle admonition deserves to be acted upon not merely noted.

 

[Tathagata]

Re: Sack the Obscurantists.

Sack made, I think a very valid point which has not been taken all that seriously. Three months ago I decided I would read about 250 to 300 poems to get back into reading poetry after a fairly long (re)lapse. I have just about completed that and am of the view that 20% of the poetry on this site is totally incomprehensible. I also have significant problems with at least half of the remainder. I have not been making comments as I went, because frankly I doubted ,especially initially, my own capacity to comprehend.

Sack is right but possibly a bit too polite in making his point. Much of the work I have read is of such byzantine obscurantism that it would be worthless as any form of communication. There is a small amount of good poetry and a lot which is indifferent varying to dross. That is not a criticism, that in fact is what one would expect. But, amongst the lesser work there are plenty of examples of capable minds staggering blindly through a miasma of vague allusion. They could do much better

Another problem which I think occurs is in the poetry comments. Far too much is excessively flattering . It isn't helpful to gush over the mundane and I think that happens a lot .How you fix it though I do not know because I have to acknowledge that the comments on poetry are generally free of some of the abuse one finds in the prose section.

Finally, I know the weakness of my argument is that I have not attached any examples. I could have but I did not want to start a brawl ! Not yet anyway!

I would just suggest that Sack's gentle admonition deserves to be acted upon not merely noted.

The weakness of your argument is that everyone has an opinion and yours ( or sacks) is no more right or wrong or valid than anyone else's.

We've all made our opinion clear on this topic go back and read them.
If you still don't get it...stick with your stories.
It's pretty simple.

I'm getting a little tired of people who have no idea what goes on here and whom I don't know from a hole in the ground coming in and stirring the shit.


You use a lot of " pretty words" all of which, if used in a story, I could call mundane or perhaps pseudo ostentatious displays of vocabulary....does that mean I'd be right?

as for the comments on stories...
If you are suggesting we should tell each other to " get to the fucking; too much talking; great anal I jerked off twice;" I think i'd prefer the way we do it..which is to publicly praise and scold and anything deeper we will pm or email.


also you must have gotten a new name to come back and post after a long (re)lapse...you have two posts.

and finally...someone who no one knows and has no works to present for you to come in and insist that

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would just suggest that Sack's gentle admonition deserves to be acted upon not merely noted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say.....
so what?
(actually I would say ,who cares what you think?, but that wouldn't be polite)

 

[twelveoone]

Re: Sack the Obscurantists.

Sack made, I think a very valid point which has not been taken all that seriously. Three months ago I decided I would read about 250 to 300 poems to get back into reading poetry after a fairly long (re)lapse. I have just about completed that and am of the view that 20% of the poetry on this site is totally incomprehensible. I also have significant problems with at least half of the remainder. I have not been making comments as I went, because frankly I doubted ,especially initially, my own capacity to comprehend.

Sack is right but possibly a bit too polite in making his point. Much of the work I have read is of such byzantine obscurantism that it would be worthless as any form of communication. There is a small amount of good poetry and a lot which is indifferent varying to dross. That is not a criticism, that in fact is what one would expect. But, amongst the lesser work there are plenty of examples of capable minds staggering blindly through a miasma of vague allusion. They could do much better

Another problem which I think occurs is in the poetry comments. Far too much is excessively flattering . It isn't helpful to gush over the mundane and I think that happens a lot .How you fix it though I do not know because I have to acknowledge that the comments on poetry are generally free of some of the abuse one finds in the prose section.

Finally, I know the weakness of my argument is that I have not attached any examples. I could have but I did not want to start a brawl ! Not yet anyway!

I would just suggest that Sack's gentle admonition deserves to be acted upon not merely noted.

yes, but did I win?
the miasma of vague allusion challenge?
byzantine obscurantism - love this BTW.

The real question here is what did you find that is praiseworthy (if anything), and why is it?

 

[The Mutt]

I may have mentioned this before...

"If everybody likes it, it isn't art. It's potato chips."
--John Huston

 

[ishtat]

Re Sack the Obscurantists

I suppose that having advocated slightly more rigorous criticism I cannot complain too much about the vigour of Tathagata's response. But, I think a couple of points are worth making.

Yes it's just an opinion.

I am not sure what is meant by "people who have no idea what goes on here and whom I don't know from a hole in the ground coming in and stirring the shit". If it means newcomers then it seems pretty strange if one has to serve some sort of apprenticeship before qualifying to comment. I was under the naive impression that comment and involvement might be welcomed.I dont think that because "we've all made our opinion clear" that I must keep silent because I do not apparently belong to some freemasonry of poetic "we's"

I admit to being pseudo on occasion and also to being ostentacious on other occasions, but never pseudo ostentaceous!

No, I am not suggesting the crude comments found in the stories section would be at all a good thing in the poetry section. What I did observe was that the poetry comment was almost entirely praise. I am not sure that the explanation of public praise and private criticism has any genuine intellectual rigour, though I can see your point from a practical point of view having read some pretty unpleasant responses involving someone called tonguelasher a few weeks back. (I think that it was in response to one of WickedEve's poems but I could be wrong)

My relapse was from reading poetry, not from posting on this site.

Why because "no one knows" me and because I haven't posted any work here, should I be disqualified from supporting Sack. I would say "So what" and who cares what anybody else thinks.

Finally, I'll promise to try not to use big words in future but not before awarding twelveoone the prize - not for byzantine thingamywatsit but for mastery of the apothegm

 

[twelveoone]

Re: Re Sack the Obscurantists

I suppose that having advocated slightly more rigorous criticism I cannot complain too much about the vigour of Tathagata's response. But, I think a couple of points are worth making.

Yes it's just an opinion.

I am not sure what is meant by "people who have no idea what goes on here and whom I don't know from a hole in the ground coming in and stirring the shit". If it means newcomers then it seems pretty strange if one has to serve some sort of apprenticeship before qualifying to comment. I was under the naive impression that comment and involvement might be welcomed.I dont think that because "we've all made our opinion clear" that I must keep silent because I do not apparently belong to some freemasonry of poetic "we's"

I admit to being pseudo on occasion and also to being ostentacious on other occasions, but never pseudo ostentaceous!

No, I am not suggesting the crude comments found in the stories section would be at all a good thing in the poetry section. What I did observe was that the poetry comment was almost entirely praise. I am not sure that the explanation of public praise and private criticism has any genuine intellectual rigour, though I can see your point from a practical point of view having read some pretty unpleasant responses involving someone called tonguelasher a few weeks back. (I think that it was in response to one of WickedEve's poems but I could be wrong)

My relapse was from reading poetry, not from posting on this site.

Why because "no one knows" me and because I haven't posted any work here, should I be disqualified from supporting Sack. I would say "So what" and who cares what anybody else thinks.

Finally, I'll promise to try not to use big words in future but not before awarding twelveoone the prize - not for byzantine thingamywatsit but for mastery of the apothegm

Thank you,
although I must confess I did want that King of Byzantium crown. I admire your integrity for not awarding it to me, despite the fact mine mentioned an Australian city and his didn't.
Sack, rumour has, is undergoing a secret intiation as we speak. But that maybe just an ugly rumour started be a disgruntled "king..."wannabe.
Still the question remains,
what did you find that is praiseworthy (if anything), and why is it?

 

[Angeline]

Re: Sack the Obscurantists.

Sack made, I think a very valid point which has not been taken all that seriously. Three months ago I decided I would read about 250 to 300 poems to get back into reading poetry after a fairly long (re)lapse. I have just about completed that and am of the view that 20% of the poetry on this site is totally incomprehensible. I also have significant problems with at least half of the remainder. I have not been making comments as I went, because frankly I doubted ,especially initially, my own capacity to comprehend.

Sack is right but possibly a bit too polite in making his point. Much of the work I have read is of such byzantine obscurantism that it would be worthless as any form of communication. There is a small amount of good poetry and a lot which is indifferent varying to dross. That is not a criticism, that in fact is what one would expect. But, amongst the lesser work there are plenty of examples of capable minds staggering blindly through a miasma of vague allusion. They could do much better

Another problem which I think occurs is in the poetry comments. Far too much is excessively flattering . It isn't helpful to gush over the mundane and I think that happens a lot .How you fix it though I do not know because I have to acknowledge that the comments on poetry are generally free of some of the abuse one finds in the prose section.

Finally, I know the weakness of my argument is that I have not attached any examples. I could have but I did not want to start a brawl ! Not yet anyway!

I would just suggest that Sack's gentle admonition deserves to be acted upon not merely noted.

Your points are well taken, at least by me. Most writing--in most places, not just poetry--is obscure because, in my opinion, people are not taught to think clearly about what they are saying. Then they don't edit what they've said, so you get muddled writing on top of muddled thinking. And I'm no less guilty of it than anyone. I go back and look at things I've written that got raves, and parts of it, phrases, are obscure or illogical or both. The difference between me and lots of writers here--again, or anywhere--is I do go back and think about what I've written and try to fix what doesn't make sense. Sometimes over and over, lol.

On the other hand, you have to agree that there is a range of what people consider poetry that is as wide as the sky. Certainly here in the USA the kind of poetry that held sway for at least the past twenty years is obscure, elusive. Then there's imagery and metaphor. Yes, a great poet will use those tools and still communicate, but you have to educate yourself and work at it.

And people write for different purposes; not everyone is willing to put time into revision. Who am I to judge someone else's purpose for writing or willingness to edit? If I don't think what they write is good, I generally won't read more of them. I don't have time.

There is a lot of flattery in public comments here, but who said the comments are supposed to be full critiques? I try to say why I like what I like, but I'm not going to parse a poem if I know the writer isn't interested in that.

 

[The Mutt]

Re: Re: Sack the Obscurantists.

Your points are well taken, at least by me. Most writing--in most places, not just poetry--is obscure because, in my opinion, people are not taught to think clearly about what they are saying. Then they don't edit what they've said, so you get muddled writing on top of muddled thinking.

I think that is one of the biggest problems with poems on Lit. Some people jot something down and immediately post it. I wouldn't dream of posting a poem I hadn't slept on and taken a fresh look at. More often it is several days before I'm sure it is ready.

When I see people posting 6 or 8 poems a day, I skip right over them. If they can't take the time to work on them, I can't waste my time reading them.

There are some nice threads available to throw down on. (All of a sudden passion, suddenly. The perfect ten.) And some really wonderful stuff on them. But please, folks. Art takes sweat.

 

[Angeline]

Re: Re: Re: Sack the Obscurantists.

I think that is one of the biggest problems with poems on Lit. Some people jot something down and immediately post it. I wouldn't dream of posting a poem I hadn't slept on and taken a fresh look at. More often it is several days before I'm sure it is ready.

When I see people posting 6 or 8 poems a day, I skip right over them. If they can't take the time to work on them, I can't waste my time reading them.

There are some nice threads available to throw down on. (All of a sudden passion, suddenly. The perfect ten.) And some really wonderful stuff on them. But please, folks. Art takes sweat.

True, and people always have the option of editing submitted poems or stories and resubmitting them if they choose.

 

[My Erotic Tale]

<grin>

I'm thinking of starting a thread ...
"Why do threads become 'vague'
or 'swayed' from their original topic <grin>

But ... the new topic at hand raises a question...

what would be a perfect / polite / and correct
feedback - comment - critic ?????????

I use honesty, I'm no professor so how
do I tell someone to try a villanelle style
instead of their choice of form???

I can relish in their creation and if I smile
from reading it I say so ... if I cry <I didn't say
that I did cry < chuckle > or stirred in some way
sack has critic'd critics till two I know of choose
not to comment anymore because they were
told they were not constructive, they were
'atta' boys there fore not worthy of his
tales so please don't comment on his work!!!

I'm not suggesting he's evil <grin> just
happen to stand on a toe when he went
to preach, any way what will be will be
Kay saraaaa saraaaaa (~_*)

never fear ... my comments will still
be here ... hehehey!

 

[twelveoone]

Re: <grin>

I'm thinking of starting a thread ...
"Why do threads become 'vague'
or 'swayed' from their original topic <grin>

But ... the new topic at hand raises a question...

what would be a perfect / polite / and correct
feedback - comment - critic ?????????

I use honesty, I'm no professor so how
do I tell someone to try a villanelle style
instead of their choice of form???

I can relish in their creation and if I smile
from reading it I say so ... if I cry <I didn't say
that I did cry < chuckle > or stirred in some way
sack has critic'd critics till two I know of choose
not to comment anymore because they were
told they were not constructive, they were
'atta' boys there fore not worthy of his
tales so please don't comment on his work!!!

I'm not suggesting he's evil <grin> just
happen to stand on a toe when he went
to preach, any way what will be will be
Kay saraaaa saraaaaa (~_*)

never fear ... my comments will still
be here ... hehehey!

Hey Art, I'm the orneriest bastard alive, never had a problem with what you had to say about mine, even that infamous PM you sent, you didn't like it, you said why, honesty should never be a problem.
Where is Sack anyway?, Oh yeah, the intiation in that secret poets society.
I betcha he comes out with a poem that has "bones" in it, that means he's a "made" poet.
Wait I second, how do I know you're not one of THEM, didn't I see you prancing around in that purple robe with "Sensitive Poet Person" on the back?

 

[twelveoone]

Re: Re: Sack the Obscurantists.

Your points are well taken, at least by me. Most writing--in most places, not just poetry--is obscure because, in my opinion, people are not taught to think clearly about what they are saying. Then they don't edit what they've said, so you get muddled writing on top of muddled thinking. And I'm no less guilty of it than anyone. I go back and look at things I've written that got raves, and parts of it, phrases, are obscure or illogical or both. The difference between me and lots of writers here--again, or anywhere--is I do go back and think about what I've written and try to fix what doesn't make sense. Sometimes over and over, lol.

On the other hand, you have to agree that there is a range of what people consider poetry that is as wide as the sky. Certainly here in the USA the kind of poetry that held sway for at least the past twenty years is obscure, elusive. Then there's imagery and metaphor. Yes, a great poet will use those tools and still communicate, but you have to educate yourself and work at it.

And people write for different purposes; not everyone is willing to put time into revision. Who am I to judge someone else's purpose for writing or willingness to edit? If I don't think what they write is good, I generally won't read more of them. I don't have time.

There is a lot of flattery in public comments here, but who said the comments are supposed to be full critiques? I try to say why I like what I like, but I'm not going to parse a poem if I know the writer isn't interested in that.

On a more serious note:
Well said
Except the flattery part, would be nice to have a clue as to why, not everyone should do it all the time, its just a bit frustrating to read ten-twelve comments on how wonderfull something is and nobody says why.

 

[twelveoone]

"clarity of purpose"
I think I heard that in a movie

 

[Angeline]

Re: Re: Re: Sack the Obscurantists.

On a more serious note:
Well said
Except the flattery part, would be nice to have a clue as to why, not everyone should do it all the time, its just a bit frustrating to read ten-twelve comments on how wonderfull something is and nobody says why.

I know what you mean, but I've learned not to step on toes here. Most people don't want critical reviews. If anyone ever wants one from me, just ask. If I can, I'll scour your poem for you or, at least, tell you specifically what I think it's strengths and weaknesses are. But as I said before, what people want in a comment depends on their purpose for writing and, not knowing that in advance, most of us who've been burned here have learned to keep it pretty general.

 

[WickedEve]

Re: Re: <grin>

Hey Art, I'm the orneriest bastard alive,

You, creampuff?

 

[BooMerengue]

"clarity of purpose"
I think I heard that in a movie

I think she was in that movie with hildegarde of bingen and agnes of god...

 

[The Mutt]

I think she was in that movie with hildegarde of bingen and agnes of god...

Agnes of God? Were they Sisters of Clarity?

 

[BooMerengue]

Agnes of God? Were they Sisters of Clarity?

no no... there was no order

I was gonna make a remark about them being friends of monks, but I can see my very traditional Catholic Mom leaning over the edge of her cloud holding a lightning bolt aimed straight at my head

so I'm bowing out.

LOL

 

[twelveoone]

Re: Re: Re: <grin>

You, creampuff?

yeh, I got in touch with my ornery side,
must have been the parachute lesson yesterday, I and a furless squirrel with a bell.
How's your ear?
My "bones" hurt.

 

[WickedEve]

Re: Re: Re: Re: <grin>

yeh, I got in touch with my ornery side,
must have been the parachute lesson yesterday, I and a furless squirrel with a bell.
How's your ear?
My "bones" hurt.

Furless squirrel is a euphemism for something naughty, isn't it?
Just listen to you going on about bones and bells and furless creatures. I never knew you were such a kinky and ornery boy. I think that's positively exciting.

 

[twelveoone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: <grin>

Furless squirrel is a euphemism for something naughty, isn't it?
Just listen to you going on about bones and bells and furless creatures. I never knew you were such a kinky and ornery boy. I think that's positively exciting.

shhh, this was supposed to be our secret language.
Someone might decipher matsukaze....

 

[The Poets]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: <grin>

shhh, this was supposed to be our secret language.
Someone might decipher matsukaze....

There is a squirrel in my pine.


(I think that's the nastiest thing I've ever said to another poet.)