Miles of Dirt

[Lucifer]

Used to write a lifetime ago. Picked it up today after a very emotional time.
_______________________________________________________________
Miles of Dirt


Sparkling foam breaks on gravel clay;
Pine, a woolen Earth
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt

Ancient worms translate the day;
Rock, a frothy Earth
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt

Sea caps smirk at birds of prey;
Mist, a prickly Earth
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt.

Where songs don't sing but write their way;
Miles of dirt translate the day

[bena]

I feel as if this is a form that I should recognize, but I don't. Is it a Rondel?
I love it though, although I'm not sure how worms or dirt translate anything.
cheers,
mel/bena

[Lucifer]

I feel as if this is a form that I should recognize, but I don't.  Is it a Rondel?
I love it though, although I'm not sure how worms or dirt translate anything.
cheers,
mel/bena

I just kind of came up with it. I'm glad to hear that it feels like a classical form. Also glad you liked it.

I wanted to capture that beauty and melancholy of nothingness, of sheer isolation. Songs don't sing, but they get written in the movements of the universe - they are there to be sung if there were singers.

Dirt and worms translating, as in transposing the daily cycles of movement into their own sort of life force. Like they're tspping into to the ancient source code of creation.

[shemthepenman]

hello,

Used to write a lifetime ago. Picked it up today after a very emotional time.
_______________________________________________________________
Miles of Dirt


Sparkling foam breaks on gravel clay;
Pine, a woolen Earth - Some clearer punctuation would help, especially because you have chosen to make each line begin with a capital letter (something that is relatively old fashioned (but, having said that, it seems to be making a bit of a comeback, for good or ill). Furthermore, I have just noticed that you are punctuating but haphazardly.
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt

Ancient worms translate the day; - personally, I don't like the definite article being used in this instance, but of course, it gives us metre. I would prefer 'each day'.
Rock, a frothy Earth
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt

Sea caps smirk at birds of prey;
Mist, a prickly Earth - Now, I may be missing something integral, but I will tentatively say that mist evokes more 'woolen' imagery and pine more 'prickly'. In which case, shouldn't these be exchanged? I have only read it the once, and as I am writing this, so I may be missing a fundamental layer. You could be deliberately contradicting the natural inclination of sense experience by juxtaposing seemingly incompatible images; which is commendable, but I cannot help thinking that the overall piece doesn't warrant it.
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt.

Where songs don't sing but write their way;
Miles of dirt translate the day - why not cut this last into 3 lines? Is it to simply full-stop the poem? in which case, it needn't. Also, and again, you seem to be confounding the refrain with a punchline, ironically, presupposing that this is the readers expectation , but I would prefer the last line to be a repetition 'miles of dirt, miles of dirt'.

I really like this (shit, we're not supposed to say that); regardless, this is a very fine poem. thanks for sharing it.
Now, don't be a fly-tipper (you're better than that). Start critiquing other members' poetry.

[Lucifer]

Thank you so much for the critique, it is truly appreciated.

Some notes:

I'm generally pretty lost when it comes to punctuation. I do like the capitalization. I wanted this to be read slow, with a pause at the end of each line. I'm not sure how to best achieve that.

The contradiction was on purpose. I kind of wanted to confuse - I wanted the reader to feel like maybe this is about another home, another Earth, another phase of perception. I like the surprise and confusion.

As for the last bit being only two lines, i like the stop that it brings. I also like the surprise of it NOT ending in "miles of dirt, miles of dirt". I feel like this sudden personification of the dirt brings a level of surprise and wonder. While reading the poem the drone like repetition of miles of dirt makes it seem barren, dumb, blank, simple. Then the last line gets you with "Miles of dirt translate the day" and you feel like maybe the dirt was more of a moving character all along, that perhaps it was up to something, something important, right under your nose.


I definitely appreciate the feedback - let me know what you think of my notes! I'll get on some critiques here shortly

[Erthona]

Lucifer,

'm generally pretty lost when it comes to punctuation. I do like the capitalization. I wanted this to be read slow, with a pause at the end of each line. I'm not sure how to best achieve that.

In response to that comment, here is a suggestion which I will impose on the first stanza, but the same can be used on all stanzas.

Sparkling foam breaks on gravel clay; the semi-colon works fine here.
pine a woolen Earth. don't see a reason to capitalize pine or have a comma
—miles of dirt, miles of dirt— the third line is a refrain so it can be said parenthetically as this is like a sea shanty

As someone mentioned, I see no reason for "pine" to be associated with "woolen."

In this one it makes a little more sense:

"Ancient worms translate the day;
Rock, a frothy Earth"

That is I can see that the worms translate "rock" into a "frothy earth."

In this one:

"Sea caps smirk at birds of prey;
Mist, a prickly Earth"

I see that maybe earth is being prickly as it smirks, but I see not connection to "mist," which should probably be "mists."

Regardless, the first three stanzas seem at odds with themselves. I don't know what you are trying to say, but I suspect you could say it more clearly I don't know if you have a problem stating what you mean, or are under the delusion that one should purposefully obscure what you are saying, because many people read poems from hundreds of years ago and deem them obscure, but people praise them as being great poems and so one mistakenly confuses that great poems are obscure. This is of course not so. People simply do not have the knowledge to understand that what is being talked about is probably common knowledge for people of that time period and they are fully aware of the meaning of the language.
either way, whether you are unable to express yourself clearly, or you are purposely obscuring the poem, both are errors and need to be corrected.

At this point we also need to see a few more critiques from you.

Dale

[BW BRINE]

"Sparkling foam breaks on gravel clay; Is it gravel or clay?
Pine, a woolen Earth Pine seems more prickly than woolen. See below
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt
Ancient worms translate the day; I don't understand what an ancient worm is, and what translate the day means. This comes up again.
Rock, a frothy Earth How is rock frothy?
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt
Sea caps smirk at birds of prey; I like this line. Good imagery.
Mist, a prickly Earth
Miles of dirt, miles of dirt.
It seems that mist is frothy, or even woolen, whereas pine is prickly. Furthermore, I don't understand where rock or pine or mist is coming from; why is it here instead of in the first stanza? Is there something related to sea caps smirking?
Where songs don't sing but write their way;
Miles of dirt translate the day"
Again with translate the day. What does that mean? Perhaps I am dull. Are you saying there is nothing but miles of dirt - as in a depressing sort of tone? If so, I can see where the poem is trying to go. But there seem to be so many dichotomies/ random disconnected metaphors and similes that the meaning that I am sure is there for you isn't there for me; in short, I don't really know what you're trying to say (and I'm relatively decent at deciphering metaphorical language).
On another note, I enjoyed some of the imagery, particularly the sea caps line. I also like the style in which you have presented this poem; short and sweet, and up for interpretation. Just try to lead the reader on a slightly more obvious path

-BW

[Bananadon]

I found this poem tricky to read at times, due to improper use of punctuation - or a lack thereof. Commas would help enormously, especially in the first stanza, in boosting the conciseness and credibility of the poem. It would be much easier to understand.

[Lucifer]

Lucifer,

'm generally pretty lost when it comes to punctuation. I do like the capitalization. I wanted this to be read slow, with a pause at the end of each line. I'm not sure how to best achieve that.

In response to that comment, here is a suggestion which I will impose on the first stanza, but the same can be used on all stanzas.

Sparkling foam breaks on gravel clay;    the semi-colon works fine here.
pine a woolen Earth.                             don't see a reason to capitalize pine or have a comma  
—miles of dirt, miles of dirt—                 the third line is a refrain so it can be said parenthetically as this is like a sea shanty  

As someone mentioned, I see no reason for "pine" to be associated with "woolen."

In this one it makes a little more sense:

"Ancient worms translate the day;
Rock, a frothy Earth"

That is I can see that the worms translate "rock" into a "frothy earth."

In this one:

"Sea caps smirk at birds of prey;
Mist, a prickly Earth"

I see that maybe earth is being prickly as it smirks, but I see not connection to "mist," which should probably be "mists."

Regardless, the first three stanzas seem at odds with themselves.  I don't know what you are trying to say, but I suspect you could say it more clearly I don't know if you have a problem stating what you mean, or are under the delusion that one should purposefully obscure what you are saying, because many people read poems from hundreds of years ago and deem them obscure, but people praise them as being great poems and so one mistakenly confuses that great poems are obscure. This is of course not so. People simply do not have the knowledge to understand that what is being talked about is probably common knowledge for people of that time period and they are fully aware of the meaning of the language.
either way, whether you are unable to express yourself clearly, or you are purposely obscuring the poem, both are errors and need to be corrected.  

At this point we also need to see a few more critiques from you.

Dale

It's interesting to me how many people have problems with lines like 'Mist, a prickly earth.' To me it's a rather obvious implied 'and'. The Mist isn't prickly, it's mist AND prickly earth. It's juxtaposition, without the need of muddling up the page with 'ands' or colons. Clearly 'mist' isn't earth either, so I thought the juxtaposition was rather obvious.

As for as you saying I'm purposefully obscuring, or am somehow not using 'common knowledge' or 'common language', I am honestly at a loss as to how such a simple poem could lead you to that conclusion.

As far as the confusing aspects of worm's translating the day - I'm speaking about the strange abstraction that occurs when we try to conceive of biology, and in this case specifically biological cycles. A worm going about decomposing organic matter into simpler pieces (like dirt) might as well be a translation - the way humans abstract biological systems in order to explain them is very similar to how language works. In this case, worms take things we can not use (more complex organic molecules) and turn them into simpler organic molecules we can use (things that are good for growing plants) in this way, I felt, was an interesting parallel to translating.

Because the subject of the poem deals with translation, and nature, I felt a really simple style was fitting. I thought the implied 'and' would be picked up easily, and I would retain a lyrical style that's more potent and direct. "Mists and prickly earth" seems much weaker than "Mist, a prickly earth".

---

Lucifer,

'm generally pretty lost when it comes to punctuation. I do like the capitalization. I wanted this to be read slow, with a pause at the end of each line. I'm not sure how to best achieve that.

In response to that comment, here is a suggestion which I will impose on the first stanza, but the same can be used on all stanzas.

Sparkling foam breaks on gravel clay;    the semi-colon works fine here.
pine a woolen Earth.                             don't see a reason to capitalize pine or have a comma  
—miles of dirt, miles of dirt—                 the third line is a refrain so it can be said parenthetically as this is like a sea shanty  

As someone mentioned, I see no reason for "pine" to be associated with "woolen."

In this one it makes a little more sense:

"Ancient worms translate the day;
Rock, a frothy Earth"

That is I can see that the worms translate "rock" into a "frothy earth."

In this one:

"Sea caps smirk at birds of prey;
Mist, a prickly Earth"

I see that maybe earth is being prickly as it smirks, but I see not connection to "mist," which should probably be "mists."

Regardless, the first three stanzas seem at odds with themselves.  I don't know what you are trying to say, but I suspect you could say it more clearly I don't know if you have a problem stating what you mean, or are under the delusion that one should purposefully obscure what you are saying, because many people read poems from hundreds of years ago and deem them obscure, but people praise them as being great poems and so one mistakenly confuses that great poems are obscure. This is of course not so. People simply do not have the knowledge to understand that what is being talked about is probably common knowledge for people of that time period and they are fully aware of the meaning of the language.
either way, whether you are unable to express yourself clearly, or you are purposely obscuring the poem, both are errors and need to be corrected.  

At this point we also need to see a few more critiques from you.

Dale

It's interesting to me how many people have problems with lines like 'Mist, a prickly earth.' To me it's a rather obvious implied 'and'. The Mist isn't prickly, it's mist AND prickly earth. It's juxtaposition, without the need of muddling up the page with 'ands' or colons. Clearly 'mist' isn't earth either, so I thought the juxtaposition was rather obvious.

As for as you saying I'm purposefully obscuring, or am somehow not using 'common knowledge' or 'common language', I am honestly at a loss as to how such a simple poem could lead you to that conclusion.

As far as the confusing aspects of worm's translating the day - I'm speaking about the strange abstraction that occurs when we try to conceive of biology, and in this case specifically biological cycles. A worm going about decomposing organic matter into simpler pieces (like dirt) might as well be a translation - the way humans abstract biological systems in order to explain them is very similar to how language works. In this case, worms take things we can not use (more complex organic molecules) and turn them into simpler organic molecules we can use (things that are good for growing plants) in this way, I felt, was an interesting parallel to translating.

Because the subject of the poem deals with translation, and nature, I felt a really simple style was fitting. I thought the implied 'and' would be picked up easily, and I would retain a lyrical style that's more potent and direct. "Mists and prickly earth" seems much weaker than "Mist, a prickly earth".

[ellajam]

Now that you've bumped this older thread I'm wondering if any of the critique at that time was of any use to you and whether or not you've put any further work into this piece. Do you have a current version?