The Wanderer
 

Wander, me, through the wandering fields

A furling, intrepid shade, between the lights and waning daze

The ever-beckoning sheen, seeming, unclean

And more effervescent within the unseeing moment

Growing me, the unshowing

Tentative, unknowing, furl me, “towards the depths”,

Subtlety among the effervescence of mine own wandering steps

Or waning, inner plight, a sighting, or wandering, need for sight

I need you, or seemed to within the height of craze

A meddlesome, woe, or desire’s sooth

Beauty so incandescent in youth, so blinding in age

That the confines of this timely cage, lay me, sweet

embitterment

Vigorous and wandering in the depths of reflection

Lulling, sweet punishment, I dared thee, for lack of sane

Craze and wanting in name

To declare unto mineself this sole entitlement, in vain,

One night in decadence’s once intrepid rain.

Okay, there are a few poems that popped into my head as I was reading yours. The first is the Kraken by Alfred Lord Tennyson, which is about the sea monster which Poseidon unleeshes on cities to be punished by the gods. Tennyson transforms the Kraken into a different beast entirely. The other two are Carrion Comfort, and 'No Worst there is None pitched past pitch of grief.' By Gerard Manley Hopkins.

Pay especial attention to Hopkin's sense of rhythm which is jagged, and broken, an assymmetrical, non-repeating rhythm.

But to adress your poem in particular, I think I'd try to fiddle with it, in a few different ways.

But before that, you must ask yourself the question that every poet must ask themself at some point: should I fiddle with it? This is entirely up to you. Perfection is never acheived (almost by definition) but the will and desire to acheive it are perfectly normal. This usually generates the urge to over and over a poem until its just the way you want it.

I would take any mention of the word 'wander' out of the poem proper if you're going to use it in the title. Consider it a challenge to yourself to think of words which carry the sense of a wanderer without leaning on the word itself to carry that sense. nomads, transients, run aways, fugues, escape artists, and seekers, and a myriad more examples from there.

I think rhythmwise you're good, and you can't fake rhythm nor timing. Do you read these poems out loud? I think you should. You should also (if you don't already) read at open mic's if the crowd is right. Anyway, I like you're poetry. No one can really tell you how to make it better except you in the long run. So the best way to inform yourself is read a lot and then write what you like. It's like a salad bar out there, and we take the things we like we mimic them, and create something unique out of the blend. You can take solace in the fact that everything could ever be said, has already been said, but the forms are ever changing, even Shakespeare lamented this. So don't be ashamed to echo what you like.

Once again, the last two lines are very good, in my humble opinion.

Thanks, I suppose. I will only change so much; I have updated the language a bit (i.e "between instead of betwixt", "yourself" instead of thineself), in order make my poems more effective. But I'm simply inspired by Shakespeare and Sappho. I can't help that. I also have more than one face when I write; check out "Melange" for a more "experimental" side.

You're probably familiar with this exercise; take snippets of newspaper articles, published poems, your poems, and other, published poems; combine it all to make one poem.

Even though you advise against it, I should probably be flattered that somebody out there considers it worth it to analyze and deconstruct the way that I write my poems. You misunderstand my intentions, however, I don't want to be perfect; I just want to be heard.

I've been trying to make my second book more "experimental". However, I'll probably need some more exercises. If you or anyone else knows of any, feel free to let me know.

Thanks,
Aaroneet

Also, the purpose of entitling the poem, "The Wanderer" is to "hit the reader over the head with it", colloquially speaking. One of my trademarks is to make something constant, be it a color, object, facial expression, etc, and present it as the title of the poem. Sometimes, though, I get the reader to think. I once named a poem "15 of 4" acknowledging a time that I was supposed to meet a teacher of mine. In no place was the time mentioned in the poem. So I can be subtle, too.

-But I'm simply inspired by Shakespeare and Sappho.-

It's okay to be inspired by Shakespeare and Sappho, but it makes no more sense to write in Shakespeare's dialect, than it does to learn Ancient Greek and write in Sappho's. Consider your purpose. You want to be heard. But if you speek in Ancient Greek, you will need an Ancient Greek audience.

What I think is interesting about this is (1) you want to be heard (2) all the people you want to adress are *dead*, it seems to me that your poems are Sermons to the Dead, something the living (I can assure you) will find interesting, *if you speak their language*.

"You misunderstand my intentions, however, I don't want to be perfect; I just want to be heard."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Be modest all you please. All it takes is a big mouth to be heard. Anybody can be heard. Nobody can be perfect. You shouldn't stop editing your work until you can't think of any way to make it better.

I'll post a poem I wrote using your exercise of snippeting (which is almost a default technique of modern literature, Joyce, Burroughs, as far back as Blake).

I don't care about editing my work the way that you want me to. I don't want to be a writing prostitute. Stop trying to play "agent". I don't like it.

I'll let you know when I become fluent in Ancient Greek.

I will. I'm sorry. I just advise against elderly language. There's a reason why people don't talk like that anymore.

Also, do you actually feel like your 'skin is being invaded' because someone suggested a modification to style? This is curious to me.