Zeo
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 29 May 2009 23:33:47 +0000
The duel:
The crits:
knight_of_chivalry
An Honest Romance
Mon amour Grammatically, there should be a comma after this. However, the spacing kind of acts in its place, even though the grammar nazi in me is still twitching.
Mon amour if I may call you that,
toss away the half-shadows
that rest between our lips;
open them wide
and let the sunlight in,
let the light find its’ way No apostrophe
neither reflected nor distorted
all the way down our throats
until it reaches
the deepest corners of our hearts.
Hopefully then
It will finally bring it back to life, I don't think "it" should be capitalized here.
restarting its beating
without worrying
about the prices and transactions
or eHarmony’s thoughts
on our quantifiable compatibility. Nice.
I know it’s not currently conventional
according to the current confines
of our current view of “reality”, The repetitive use of "current" here trips me up when reading it. It feels more jarring than clever.
we’ve all heard romance is dead.
_______But what is “reality”
_______except a series of limitations? heart
Call me a necromancer,
but tonight I will show up unexpectedly
on your front doorstep
for the sole purpose of telling you
that I love you
with your favourite flowers in hand,
with every intention of making you feel special
and none of getting laid.
Honesty is such a beautiful thing.
Overall: the flow is nice and works really well in this piece. The only things I noticed were small nit-picky stuff, as the overall piece is pretty solid. The aspects of conventional romance (flowers, tender emotion/expression) might come off as cliche were that not the intention: the piece is showing how these remnants of romance are from days past and thus seem to have lost their relevance.
cafebrulot
I can't help but drip some sweat The capitalization of "I" throughout makes the lack of capitalized starts-of-sentences a bit confusing. I think you should stick with one or the other: people who don't capitalize sentences don't tend to capitalize "I" either.
in the ashes of another cigarette:
a nicotine treat that stains my hands;
breaks me down with each inhale.
no inhibitions, chemically free
shivering at these reveries --
I want to talk about you and me:
your curling hair, skin salty sweet,
torn up jeans, all nineties chic;
dirty clothes, nor yet eighteen. Did you mean "not"?
god, you're way too young for me.
lover boy, you are such a tease.
you're a beautiful boy, a sweet little kid --
I'm going to spoil your feigned innocence.
god I'm going to smack you up.
less of this talk and more of the act,
I want to leave bruises
like heroin tracks.
I'll pin you down and sex you up.
******** until I've had enough.
leave makes that you just can't hide;
beat you, rape you, break your pride.
oh little boy, I can eat you alive.
god I want to make you scream.
tie you up, sink in my teeth,
bruise your face against the wall.
leave you battered, wanting more
with shaky knees; rug burnt and sore.
and you'll wonder,
was it ever really love at all?
I like the use of near rhyme and rhythm in this. The energy of this piece really carries it along as well, aided of course by the rhyme.
One thing that I saw overall was your mixed use of punctuation. You essentially have semicolons, dashes, and colons doing the exact same thing throughout, and it makes it a bit confusing. I would either suggest cutting down on your use of any of these marks (taking out or rewriting the parts that require their use) or picking one of the three and using it consistently. There are times when one is more appropriate than the other, and in those cases you can certainly use a variety. But don't just use them interchangeably and excessively.
The imagery and language in this feels a bit...overdone. There's nothing in the ideas this piece is exploring that really stands out to me, from the mention of drugs and violent sex to the words used to describe it. Maybe it's just me, but this subject matter really seems done to death these days, and this piece didn't particularly transcend the subject. It's almost conventional in its unconventionality, and I really think with a different approach to the subject, this piece could be a lot stronger.
The judgment:
Both of you took the same route but in different ways: you explored unconventional romance through conventional means. Knight took the approach of looking at traditional romance which is now nontraditional and unusual in our culture, while cafe took the approach of looking at the violent sort of love that is becoming more exposed and mainstream in our cultural understanding. So both, in their own ways, are very conventional.
In terms of execution, both poems were pretty solid. Cafe's had a nice use of rhyme and rhythm that strengthened the piece, where Knight explored some interesting metaphors and ideas. Both were well written and interesting to read.
The final judgment is, as might be expected, a close call. As I said, I felt that both poems were a bit more conventional than unconventional, but only one of the poems used this aspect intentionally. Thus, I'm going to have to declare knight_of_chivalry as the winner.
Good show, both of you. biggrin
Challenger name: knight_of_chivalry
Defender name: cafebrulot
Bet: 5k
Type of Duel: regular
Judge I prefer: Zeo
Style/Form I prefer: free verse
Topic: unconventional romance
Defender name: cafebrulot
Bet: 5k
Type of Duel: regular
Judge I prefer: Zeo
Style/Form I prefer: free verse
Topic: unconventional romance
The crits:
knight_of_chivalry
An Honest Romance
Mon amour Grammatically, there should be a comma after this. However, the spacing kind of acts in its place, even though the grammar nazi in me is still twitching.
Mon amour if I may call you that,
toss away the half-shadows
that rest between our lips;
open them wide
and let the sunlight in,
let the light find its’ way No apostrophe
neither reflected nor distorted
all the way down our throats
until it reaches
the deepest corners of our hearts.
Hopefully then
It will finally bring it back to life, I don't think "it" should be capitalized here.
restarting its beating
without worrying
about the prices and transactions
or eHarmony’s thoughts
on our quantifiable compatibility. Nice.
I know it’s not currently conventional
according to the current confines
of our current view of “reality”, The repetitive use of "current" here trips me up when reading it. It feels more jarring than clever.
we’ve all heard romance is dead.
_______But what is “reality”
_______except a series of limitations? heart
Call me a necromancer,
but tonight I will show up unexpectedly
on your front doorstep
for the sole purpose of telling you
that I love you
with your favourite flowers in hand,
with every intention of making you feel special
and none of getting laid.
Honesty is such a beautiful thing.
Overall: the flow is nice and works really well in this piece. The only things I noticed were small nit-picky stuff, as the overall piece is pretty solid. The aspects of conventional romance (flowers, tender emotion/expression) might come off as cliche were that not the intention: the piece is showing how these remnants of romance are from days past and thus seem to have lost their relevance.
cafebrulot
I can't help but drip some sweat The capitalization of "I" throughout makes the lack of capitalized starts-of-sentences a bit confusing. I think you should stick with one or the other: people who don't capitalize sentences don't tend to capitalize "I" either.
in the ashes of another cigarette:
a nicotine treat that stains my hands;
breaks me down with each inhale.
no inhibitions, chemically free
shivering at these reveries --
I want to talk about you and me:
your curling hair, skin salty sweet,
torn up jeans, all nineties chic;
dirty clothes, nor yet eighteen. Did you mean "not"?
god, you're way too young for me.
lover boy, you are such a tease.
you're a beautiful boy, a sweet little kid --
I'm going to spoil your feigned innocence.
god I'm going to smack you up.
less of this talk and more of the act,
I want to leave bruises
like heroin tracks.
I'll pin you down and sex you up.
******** until I've had enough.
leave makes that you just can't hide;
beat you, rape you, break your pride.
oh little boy, I can eat you alive.
god I want to make you scream.
tie you up, sink in my teeth,
bruise your face against the wall.
leave you battered, wanting more
with shaky knees; rug burnt and sore.
and you'll wonder,
was it ever really love at all?
I like the use of near rhyme and rhythm in this. The energy of this piece really carries it along as well, aided of course by the rhyme.
One thing that I saw overall was your mixed use of punctuation. You essentially have semicolons, dashes, and colons doing the exact same thing throughout, and it makes it a bit confusing. I would either suggest cutting down on your use of any of these marks (taking out or rewriting the parts that require their use) or picking one of the three and using it consistently. There are times when one is more appropriate than the other, and in those cases you can certainly use a variety. But don't just use them interchangeably and excessively.
The imagery and language in this feels a bit...overdone. There's nothing in the ideas this piece is exploring that really stands out to me, from the mention of drugs and violent sex to the words used to describe it. Maybe it's just me, but this subject matter really seems done to death these days, and this piece didn't particularly transcend the subject. It's almost conventional in its unconventionality, and I really think with a different approach to the subject, this piece could be a lot stronger.
The judgment:
Both of you took the same route but in different ways: you explored unconventional romance through conventional means. Knight took the approach of looking at traditional romance which is now nontraditional and unusual in our culture, while cafe took the approach of looking at the violent sort of love that is becoming more exposed and mainstream in our cultural understanding. So both, in their own ways, are very conventional.
In terms of execution, both poems were pretty solid. Cafe's had a nice use of rhyme and rhythm that strengthened the piece, where Knight explored some interesting metaphors and ideas. Both were well written and interesting to read.
The final judgment is, as might be expected, a close call. As I said, I felt that both poems were a bit more conventional than unconventional, but only one of the poems used this aspect intentionally. Thus, I'm going to have to declare knight_of_chivalry as the winner.
Good show, both of you. biggrin
