nosedivve has limited the viewing of this artwork to members of the DeviantArt community only.
You can log in or become a member for FREE.

Deviation Actions

nosedivve's avatar
By
Published:
372 Views

Literature Text

This content is unavailable.
edit: thanks to *archelyxs for the wonderful suggestions.

if you know Plath I hope you catch my references
© 2013 - 2024 nosedivve
Comments60
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
archelyxs's avatar
:star::star::star::star-half::star-empty: Overall
:star::star::star::star-empty::star-empty: Vision
:star::star::star::star-empty::star-empty: Originality
:star::star::star::star::star-empty: Technique
:star::star::star::star::star: Impact

Hmm. My knowledge of Plath is limited to Daddy/Lady Lazarus/Bell Jar/Ted Hughes/suicide by oven, so I don't think I'm qualified to answer too much about the references. I'm also of the persuasion that it's best to discuss a WIP poem as if it were an independent being in space and time, so I'm going to dismiss your questions specifically about Plath and focus on the words of the poem itself as they exist, right here on my laptop screen at 2:45 a.m., 12 August 2013.

One other thing, before we begin (and this part, especially, is personal opinion; feel free to dismiss), often, poems that begin as homages to other writers/poems take on a life of their own as they re-iterate. My advice is to let this happen naturally, if/when it does. You don't want a poem that reads like a (very difficult) literature exam. I've seen this process occur in several poems of my own, and this rule holds true: don't force an agenda onto the poem; let the poem develop its own and follow accordingly. Many young poets still have to learn this. You might think you want to write a poem about someone who you flirted with at Starbucks (hypothetically!), but you end up writing on the conditionality of oceans -- so what? Let it do its thing. Respect the poem's mindspace. If the poem someday ends up not wanting to Plath, don't force the Plath.

I tend to do critiques by going through the poem line by line, and then reviewing it as a whole and answering any remaining issues at the end. So here goes. I'm a little bit confused about the title; it looks like a title, with a subtitle, with another subtitle. Too many titles!! An abbreviated year, the title of one of the most popular poems of all time (you can't ignore this one), and a command with a specific name. I don't think any of them are fitting because (I'm breaking my own rule again, it's whatever) they are so obviously references, especially when they're all together. It looks like a guessing game. If I had to pick one, I'd go with '63, because it's the most subtle and references should be suggestive, not overbearing. Too many specific references weigh a poem down, and I think it needs to breathe a little bit.

Okay. I'm not talking about references anymore! Onto the first quatrain. "withered" is a very strange word to use here and i'm having trouble visualizing what a withered towel is, because towels are dry and lifeless anyway. May I suggest "shriveled" instead? I know it creates a tongue twister right at the front of the poem, but let me explain: the sound suggests stuffiness even more than "stuffed" does. the "s" sound at the beginning of "stuffed" makes for a nice transition for the shift in rhythm. "stuffed them / under doorways" has a simple cadence defined by the matching vowel sounds at the beginning of the lines, which lightens it up the second half of the quatrain very much, and the following quatrain reads even lighter (especially with its alternating line lengths). i think it sounds like something unfolding, or blooming, which is perfectly fitting and should be capitalized on. now, "stuffed them / under doorways" -- i know you want that last syllable there, but "doorways" usually refers to the space where the door is -- how would you stuff something under empty space? i'm not sure how to fix this, sorry, i want to say "door frames"? but that doesn't really work either... it's really not too bad if you just use "doors", if it bothers you at all...

Moving on, I'm deliberating -- the second quatrain, i already mentioned that i love the rhythm and the line breaks. perfect! I do have some issue with the causality of it: how "stuffing towels / under doorways" enables one to "bloom / alone" isn't apparently obvious to me. looking closer, i can see how it causes one to be alone -- okay. i'm not sure if "in the morning" is really adding anything, it gets outweighed by "alone" (which would be a cool spot to end the stanza) and sounds a bit mumbly (might be my New Jersey speak, swallowing the -ing...). but i get why you would want another line here. i think it would sound great to end the quatrain with a long syllable like you did in the first one -- i like "sunlight?" or another word that sounds more dynamic, emphasizable, attention-grabbing at the end of that line. i think another reason it sounds mumbly is because the stressed "or" sound is repeated from "doorways". you can fix this problem also by changing "doorways" to "doors" -- that eliminates the repetition in stress and allows "morning" to stand out a bit more.

i know i'm being very nitpicky. but it's a short poem! onto the next quatrain. I love, love, love "cooked / my brain waves". it's so abstract conceptually, yet it evokes enough descriptors still to be tangible. Lovely. The rhythm in this quatrain is also spot on, and I love the balance between repeated and variegated sounds here. 1 slight issue with "let them / stir" -- stirring is usually a willful, aggressive action, not really something one would "let" happen? maybe try "spin"? unless "spin in" bothers you (it doesn't bother me much, because "in" gets smothered anyway, but if you find it too annoying, i can understand)

okay. the last quatrain. I like what you're thinking repeating "waited" but i think the alliteration in "waited / to wake" accomplishes the feeling of something being drawn out without being excessive. My suggestion is to cut "and waited". The last line is punchy enough to make up for being shortened. And it's perfect! Like a punch in the gut. I want to leave flowers on Sylvia's grave after reading this. That's definitely a good thing.

Okay, now about the questions. I've already addressed 1-2. If you want to include footnotes explaining the references within the poem, that's your call but I think it might distract from what's actually happening here, especially because the poem is so small. (Artists' comments on dA is a perfect place for these.) 4. it's about the death of sylvia plath. (it's okay if this changes, at some point) 5, and 6, I mentioned these. 7, I didn't mention this, which means it's fine. 8. Addressed above!

Overall, this is a neat piece that I came to appreciate more being given the opportunity to critique it for you. So thank you! You have outstanding command of rhythm and an ear for the delicacies of sound -- two essential qualities of a poet. The title needs to change, there are small confusions within the logical flow of the piece, but it says a lot in few words, and the finish is commendable. I hope this was helpful, let me know if I was unclear or you have any questions. I'd love to see the revised version!

(Side note: Do you read Denise Levertov? You should. Here's my favorite poem by her (one of my favorite poems, ever): the-ache-of-marriage.blogspot.… (so sorry for the blogspot link...))