Shop More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconcanis44: More from Canis44


Featured in Collections

Poetry by 91816119

Poetry by thetaoofchaos

Literature by Quolia


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
December 14, 2012
File Size
2.7 KB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
411
Favourites
16 (who?)
Comments
18
×
Odyssea Nunquam Abstitit:

(Dreams)

When the blue jacaranda mocked the sky
Sleep bound is she, the drowsy brilliance
below the whispering branch.

Her Cao Cristales hair,
strewn amongst wild blue and green;
Though her eyes
tell of time waiting,
when the wind was lonesome and
slaughtering butterflies in its chill.

They turned, almost at once
Eyes gray, yet dancing with the frenzied
glory of cosmos.
Striking out at her wanderer, like a warm
crash of wave.
She understood, "Your laurel leaves speak of death
but I still need you."

And he wept, "Your garland
speaks of the flowers, streams
and the meadows which is our home."

(She answers)

"Here, is where I still love you
this place, where arms renounce arms
with care, warmth and adoration."

(He dreams)

"My arms tangle in shadows, and
my mind only imagines; night falls
on my face within the whirlpool;
Your spark is the farthest from me; distraught
and left desolate, in Ithaca."

(She holds all his hopes)

"Kalypso; she cannot keep you. Our fire was kindled
in the glorious Springtime, and stays in all the places in
which we played. Where in, you loved me and I you.
The flames stay, waiting, in the marital bed that you made."

Once more, awake from the immense murk,
The depths they spake in choirs, from a mouth that
smiles in the water, "Vast tracts of your life, I will drown
them before you, Like Agamemnon at the nave of Klytemnestra.
I will, make a myth of you."

(He continues the journey, within himself)
No smoking altar, nor long dead God.

Will extinguish the blaze that we made.
In the springtime, by the jacaranda.
No myth, from man shall mean
more than when I placed the garland atop your
silken curls. You stretched alongside me, arms reaching
out towards the warmth of sun.

You spoke the words that set me forth;
They find me in all endeavors,
Throughout all trial,
Throughout all disaster.

Those words
That you spoke, like the climbing lark
never waning, even in the face of Gia's
center.

You followed up the noon,
with a smile, and you said
to me.

"For as long as I remain; my love.
I shall be the solid earth, at your
journey's end.
Our embraces will be like the
drowning man,
who reached the love of land."
You are welcome to quote me if you give me credit for the work, meaning citing properly. No stealing my work please.

Partly inspired by a group (Heart-of-Poetry [link]) prompt, "Journey".

If people do not get the references from "The Odyssey", than they should buy a copy, read it, and then 'understand the references'. lol
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsadisticicecream:
Hello! I found this on the Literature Critique Thread. Please ignore the star rating. :)

I don't usually critique poetry because I typically write prose myself, but I thought I'd give it a try if you'll bear with me.

I really love the Odyssey, and I think you do great justice to it in this interpretation. All of your images are gorgeous and well-placed, and the overall rhythm of the piece adds up to a kind of melancholy that I think is appropriate (I read this as Odysseus speaking to Penelope in his mind even though they're separated because of course he's been wandering around/at war for twenty years, but correct me if I'm wrong).

I think the one thing that I would pay attention to in the revision is your verb tense. For example, in the first stanza, the first line is in the past tense with "mocked," but then in the next line, you say, "Sleep bound is she," suggesting the present tense. Then in the second stanza, the second line uses "strewn," but the fourth line uses "tell." Basically, I got confused about where in time I am -- is Penelope still waiting for Odysseus to come home, or is she recalling the past, while she's actually situated in the present and he is home?

Other than those sorts of issues, I found this poem very beautiful, and it was a joy to read. :)
What do you think?
The Artist thought this was FAIR
1 out of 1 deviants thought this was fair.

The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork

Please sign up or login to post a critique.

:iconarkathor:
arkathor Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Photographer
nice poetry, but you could practice a little more, i guive you a 16 in 20
Reply
:iconcanis44:
Canis44 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Student Writer
There is a certain rule of thumb that I maintain, when I receive some sort of comment dealing with a quantitative poetry grade. This 'rule' arises out of my love for irony. I claim the right to quantify the commenter's attempt at a critical comment.The criteria being spelling, grammar, and usefulness. I will give you a four out of ten. Don't take it the wrong way, I am just a bit weird :crazy:.
Reply
:iconarkathor:
arkathor Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Student Photographer
:) I gave my opinion, does not mean that your poem is good or bad, after all it was only the opinion of one person.
When i said "practice" I did not speak of experience (after all who am I to talk about the experience of others) I was talking about the feelings, the poem was realy good, but should have been done not by your brain but for your heart
Reply
:iconcanis44:
Canis44 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Student Writer
I gave my opinion as well; moreover my point about quantifying poetry still stands. Your notion of what I "should" write is a bad word choice, as it implies that I am bound to your whim or something.Telling someone how to write is in very bad taste, almost as bad as that old canard or heart metaphor. Last time I checked the Roman's thought emotion was held in the stomach, then the dark ages came along, and cooky Christians decided that emotions were held in the heart. Now days, most people understand the brain is the seat of all behavior,emotion,motor functions etc. It is difficult not to write with a brain, because without a brain the body is a vegetable, a heart may continue to pump blood but that does very little for literature. Unfortunately, people seem to cling to a boring form of 12th century cliche, as though it is something more than banal.
Reply
:iconarkathor:
arkathor Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Student Photographer
Against your facts i dont have many arguments ,but once someone told me : The poet is a pretender, pretending so completely that comes to pretend that pain is the pain that he really feels.
In fact I apologize if my first comment has not been appropriated yet the message i want to pass is that I was unable to feel your poem, I can read it, but i could not feel and than i was unable to understand it.


By the way, i am sorry for my bad english.
Reply
:iconcanis44:
Canis44 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Student Writer
It is in my knowledge of writing, that if you do not understand it you should learn about what you are reading before either commenting or, do not comment at all. When I read Milton for the first time, I learned about what I was reading, I did not just say 'hey, I do not understand it therefore I give it an 8/10!' That would be missing the point of literature.

There is nothing of any use, within a statement based totally off subjectivity, such as stating that you do not understand the work etc. Maybe it makes you feel a form of exaltation. However, any artist, in any medium will not care about such a statement because it is a statement of pure relativism; it does very little for the artist.

George Orwell wrote an essay called "Politics and the English Language”, wherein, he states that people use bureaucratic words (meaningless words) such as 'feeling' because it adds a vagueness to what the critic, writer or speaker really means, and leaves the critic's meaning in a state of non-confirmation. Saying that you cannot feel the writing is a worthless statement that does not make sense. Why is this? Well, people do not actually feel the writing, their cognition allows for understanding, and then they decide if they like it or not.So what is not to like, and what is so confusing? Why people intentional muddy there true notions, I think is because people believe it is more 'artistic', and in turn, they believe it pre-emptively saves them from possibly being wrong. Perhaps some kind of quasi-sense of civility is involved. What really is implied is that the critic or reader has not taken the time needed to fully understand the piece, and instead hopes that his or her insipid idea of self-entitlement will suffice argumentatively, in the sense of pulling wool over someone's eyes. So, why commit the fallacy? I believe people continue with this phenomenon, because their is great emphasis placed upon personal opinion, to the extent that some reviews consider their own opinion above reproach. I use a term for this fallacy, it was coined by C. Wright Mills called the 'failure of nerve'; which I will explain later in the third part of my 'personal guidelines for writing critiques'.

I use a set of guidelines (that I developed from Orwell's essay) when reviewing any art or writing:

1) Critiques must be objective and subjective; objectivity deals with the 'facts of poetry', rhyme, meter, and theme. Objectivity helps to maintain equilibrium in the critique. Meaning that subjectivity does not become relativism, and objective theme does not become lost in jargon. Secondly, as Eliot shows in his collection of essays "Sacred Wood", the critic should address the poem itself, and not try to fill in "what the author was thinking when writing"; there is no such thing as omniscience, therefore we comment on the thoughts that the writer has put in front of us. Writers and critics must stave away the fallacy of the soothsayer. Traditional art (paintings etc), is more subjective, but one must still look objectively at technique and 'the facts' of the piece.

2) If one does not understand a particular piece, it is best to try to learn the implications, historicity and metaphors. If it is beyond ones abilities to comprehend a piece, other than a few objective comments, it is best to leave the piece alone (then perhaps try again sometime later). Logically, if one admits to not understanding the piece, then one does not have the knowledgeable authority to criticize the piece. It would be like a blind person walking through the Boreal forest, hoping to 'feel' there way through a situation that they will never be truly aware. A better example may be Plato's allegory of the cave from 'The Republic', where a person is chained in the cave in front of the cave wall. The sun splays shadows on the wall, and that person sees nothing but the shapes of objects on the wall, never the true image.

3) If the reviewer understands the piece of literature, or artwork, if the criteria for a proper critique is a possibility and the reviewer decides if he or she likes the piece or not. Then commence the review. When writing a critique it is seemingly best to base, ones dislike or like as the thesis (for the sake of honesty). When writing a critique, honesty must always be the main criterion.

There is a certain 'failure of nerve' within the pallets of many on this site. I reiterate the fallacy that I discussed earlier, which involves self-entitlement concerning the works of others. The need for self-exaltation can be thought of as a need for action, where the reviewer feels as though they must act out with purely self-deceptions and biased motives, a chest puffing action that involves the many ways of saying ‘I don’t feel your writing’ or ‘I don’t understand it; here is a random ratio out of twenty’. The failure of nerve is the way reviewers hide their true thoughts on a piece, they employ baseless ratios, and subjective redundancies and seemingly hope that an evocation of ‘personal feeling’ will spare them from making a moot point. Moreover, this fallacy serves as a way for the reviewer to doublethink themselves out of a corner, it is used in the equivalent fashion of saying 'I understand the piece,because I don't understand it'. Obviously such a statement is a contradiction, still people imply it in many different forms.

There is certain irresponsibility, especially when writers commit to a failure of nerve. It is irresponsible because writers depend on other writers and their readers for a certain level of support. When someone says hears an ‘8/10, I don’t get, I don’t feel it’ there is nothing contained in that sentence that is relevant for the writer; all it does is halt the conversation pertaining to the piece in question. A failing quantitative mark with a decent critique would be better than a decent mark and a moot point. In fact, quantitative marks without a known structural framework, are supercilious. Who cares if you do not get it, the piece is not going to change to your whim. Therefore why bring up the ‘understanding’ of the piece at all? It is meaningless comment; especially when written for a writer who writes because writing is who they are, more so than what they do.

The final part of my personal guidelines:

-Read, or review the piece at least three times before writing the critique.

-A critique’s thesis should be either optimistic or pessimistic, but a critique must point out both negative and positive aspects dealing with the critique.

- If a review is optimistic then explain what makes it so, consider the objective aspects and implement the subjective notions, while keeping in mind the theme of the piece.

- If a pessimistic review, explain what does not work in the piece; explain the particular parts of the work that do not work, and the aspects that do work. Again, consider the objective aspects and the main theme.

-Be truthful; put some backbone (nerve) into your vernacular and do not cower behind baseless ratios. Say what you want to say. Be prepared for a response from the artist in question, it is only fair that they explain themselves, this is how free speech and intellectualism works, it is reciprocal discussion that keeps mentalities from stagnating. Compare these rules to the failure of nerve fallacy, and consider which method of review is better.

* On the notion of poets being pretenders: Well, it looks like 'someone' does not know what an atomistic fallacy is. The statement implies that all poets do not write about their own pain or feelings, and what they do is a hoax. Now, I think ‘someone’ did not reason through that statement very well.
Reply
:iconintricately-ordinary:
intricately-ordinary Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I read this looking through today's DLDs (congratulations!) This is absolutely beautiful. A love poem without any overdone cliches or metaphors, something strong enough to warm my heart :heart: On top of that, the Odyssey references blended in perfectly. Wonderful job!
Reply
:iconcanis44:
Canis44 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Student Writer
Thanks so much; I am on a bit of a poetry craze. ;)
Reply
:iconintricately-ordinary:
intricately-ordinary Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
That's good, then, because I adore reading well-written poetry :dummy:
Reply
:iconcanis44:
Canis44 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Student Writer
Moreover, thanks for the fav.:)
Reply
Add a Comment: