I'm the one comment you got but I hope you won't mind me commenting again - this time more critically - though I don't see critique as my forte - just know what does and doesn't work for me and can't always put into words why.
Love lost or love leaving is a hard theme to write about cos there are so many poems about it around. People are therefore turned off to the theme unless you can express yourself in a new or novel way. There is also a passion. desperation and complete self effacement in this poem that not all people can handle. I think they would rather read a poem that tells the lover to eff off than one that begs. Even though I guess people do beg in real life - few admit to it. The poem therefore has a dated feel, much like the song.
The rhyming scheme is a bit too rigid - too pat - I would like to see a bit more freedom - randomness - not sure how to express it. I have this problem myself. I start off wanting to write something different that isn't 'rhymy rhymy' as someone recently put it - but seem to end up in the same groove. How we get away from it I don't know - should we even bother? If it works for thee and me, maybe we should ignore the rest. Not sure if I've been of any use but what I have said may hopefully open the poem up for more discussion. xx

Also...be careful 'borrowing', even inadvertently, lines from other, extremely famous poems, unless it is an obvious homage or reference to that poem...especially not for the last line.

: )

Jx

Hi Chris, sorry I read the poem earlier then wandered into this discussion being nosey - does this mean you have to change the title?? I enjoyed the poem because of its intelligent references, it gave me little avenues to explore. I wouldn't criticise a poem because of it's particular structure, I think it's a matter of personal taste often whether a poem works for me or doesn't but I always welcome people's opinions. I read all the new postings and yes, sometimes I don't comment because I don't like it but usually it's because I can't think of anything intelligent to say.

As you know, from another thread, I have no objections about nicking other folks ideas if it is artfully done. I was just a bit suprised that someone who is as sensitive as you to the possibility of being plagiarised (qv 'other thread') was happy to make your last line the title of one of our most famous poems without indicating why?

It just struck me as a bit odd.

No worries.

: )

Jx

Hi Chris Co

Further to your plea for appraisal.

The sight of a sweating Jaques Brel Re: YouTube’ full on to camera and singing ‘Ne Quitte Pas’ was liken to that of Arkle having just run the Grand National and enjoying chewing a wasp within his bag of oats. All thoughts of romance and unrequited love dissipated at the bolting of the stable door.

Izo is correct in her assertion that taking up this over cooked subject requires originality of a most unique poetic stance.

Whilst I think your lines invocative and clever I think the essence of the sincerity of romance, i.e. the real soul in this poem is missing…

Gus

Hi Chris,

I'm happy to give you some kind of crit. Please bear in mind though that I'm no expert. In fact most of my crits might be described as "anatomical" in nature - in that I usually end up with my foot in my mouth.
Whatever crits you get, you should bear in mind that they are, and can only ever be, personal opinions. It all comes down to personal experience and taste. When I write I always try to bear in mind who I'm writing for. I have found that in poetry, as with all art forms, unless you are writing purely for your own entertainment, it is as well when you feel your work is "finished" to try and detach yourself from it as far as possible; and to look at it as f it was someone else's - or from an audience/reader's viewpiont. I know this is difficult, but in terms of any kind of appraisal, unless you are able to do this it is impossible to be entirely objective about it.

OK, here goes.

Do not leave me (Ne Me Quitte Pas)

The title itself prefaces the work, as Isobel rightly pointed out, as being a little bit "whimpering; not necessarily something that might endear itself to today's more "hardened" readership. The structure, pairs of rhyming couplets in four, four-line stanzas, is nothing unusual, but might be regarded by some as an easy option in terms of rhyme structure. When using rhyme there is a very fine balance between sacrifing content for structure; this is especially true with rhyming couplets. This may well be off-putting to the less traditional. In any case, poetry written in this form usually has to be exceptional in content to stand out from the rest.


However I wronged, say you wont go,

Offer me a chance, undeserved I know.

You are my vessel, you are my chart,

My port in a storm, my second start.

The first stanza is a plea. One can imagine the poet down on his knees "beseeching." A little flowery and overly "romantic" for some tastes. The first line obviously omits the word "you" to keep the meter, therefore it is a contortion of normal speech. The last line contains two well-known phrases together, which comes across as cliched.


Don’t ditch me now, say you wont go,

Passions I offer, like Vincent van Gogh,

Cast me some hope, don’t my soul plunder,

Plot a new course, don’t run me asunder.


In the first line of this second stanza, although the style of the poem is probably 18th/19th century romantic, "Don't ditch me now" is a contemporary colloquialism, and at odds with the rest of the content. The next two lines again contain linguistic contortions - "Passions I offer" and "don't my soul plunder", which will again date the poem and jar on the ear of the contemporary reader. The rhymes "go" and "Van Gogh", despite your explanation of pronunciation, seem at best tenuous, and at worst forced and a repetition. In the last line the word "asunder" - even via dictionary definition is archaic English. In the context you use it the reader expects to hear "run me aground"; whereas "asunder" means apart. When did you last hear anyone use the word "asunder" - and what would "Don't run me apart mean"?


The look in your eyes, say(s) you’ll go,

My faults paid me back(-) quid pro quo,

The seas my end(-)less tears un(-)requited,

This ship(')s heart can never be righted.


In this third stanza the meter goes plainly awry in line three; simply too many syllables. As I said earlier, in rhyming couplets the meter has to be perfect (or as near as dammit), as this structure is totally unforgiving. Seas of endless tears is again hardly a new or original image; and the words "unrequited" and "heart" are, to my mind, far too obvious to use in this poem. I have also bracketed areas of punctuation which need attention.


The look in your eyes, said you’d go, (change in tense?)

I couldn’t move on, for(-)ever your beau,

Passions in-toe, (in tow?) like Vincent van Gogh,

Not Waving but Drown(-)ing …..you know.


Again I have bracketed a couple of areas you might wish to consider. What throws me for this, the last and possibly most important verse of any poem, is the rhythm. For a poem with such a seriously emotional subject it has the totally unfitting rhythm of a Limerick! Your potential readers may well pick this up, if only subliminally, and it's a real distraction. In line two, the meter is again a good way out. The phrase "forever your beau" is something one might see on a love note in 18th/19th century Bath from Messrs Brummel or Nash, but certainly not in any contemporary context. Since you are ending with an homage to Stevie Smith's poem, (a 20th century poet) these two references are chronologically at odds. Using Van Gogh as an end rhyme in any poem is always going to be virtually impossible to pull off. The Stevie Smith reference didn't work for me, in that it made the last verse a little "jokey", rather like playing a not too sophisticated trick on the reader.

As Isobel says, the message of the poem is not a new or especially profound one - perhaps you didn't want it to be. But amongst the plethora of poems written about unrequited/lost love (perhaps the most common of all poetry, especially the "teen angst" genre) a poem has to be remarkable in terms of both form and content to stand out and be memorable. The partial repetition in the first line of each stanza didn't particularly endear it to me - too "whingy." And I didn't particularly understand why you felt you needed to repeat the title in French (apart from the Brel reference in your main posting) as there are no further Gallic influences evident.

I hope you don't feel I've completely trashed your poem. That wasn't my intention at all. All I, or for that matter anyone else, can offer is simply an opinion - and a personal one at that. i hope that at6 the very least I've given you some points to consider.

I think you need to realise that you set yourself a hugely ambitious and extremely difficult task in attempting a poem with this subject matter and structure. It has been done so very often that only the truly exceptional and original will ever be deemed both succesful and memorable.

Regards,
A.E.

"I wrote it for myself"

Then why ask for and subject it to crits - especially since you obviously seem unhappy and defensive about the crits offered? I'm always puzzled by poets who take this attitude (and I've come across quite a few) after posting their work for on a publicly accesible site for appreciation, ridicule or otherwise. If you want others to appreciate your work then surely you have to take a potential audience into account when writing it? I freely admit that I'm not a great fan of "personal;" poetry. In my experience the very personal thoughts/experiences/emotional traumas of a poet, unless they can be totally detached and given a universal relevance, are so difficult to distance oneself from and be objective about that any kind of criticism is inevitably seen as some kind of personal slight.

I agree that the emotional content (given what you obviously set out to write) is difficult to do without it seeming whimpering. The point I was making is that this subject has been done to death and is difficult for the reader to find any kind of empathy with.

Structured poetry and free-verse are obviously different. Both have inherent difficulties and advantages. You decided to write to a structure. As far as I'm concerned there is no higher bar. You imposed the stricture of rhyming couplets, with its strict meter and rhyme on yourself. Just as those who choose free-verse impose the stricture of making (what is essentially) prose into a poem. There is a lot of free verse out there which, to my mind, never was and never will be poetry.

Each poem written is (hopefully) unique. That uniqueness is not a quality in itself. Every grain of sand on a beach is unique - presumably in your request for appraisal you wanted some gauge of perceived quality - not uniqueness. Content and sensibility will dictate (to a very large degree) how your poem will be perceived. One big turn-off for me, and I make no secret of it, is first-person, woe-is-me poetry. I don't know, and I don't want to know, whether your poem is written from personal experience. You asked for an appraisal of your poem - not your personal circumstances and history. There is (usually) a really big difference between poetry as personal therapy and poetry as art.

I don't enjoy the mixing together of contemporary and historic phraseology and language in poetry. To me it is inconsistent and incongruous. If you wish to use it that's your prerogative - just don't expect me to applaud it or appreciate it. I'm quite happy with my "flawed" taste.

The van Gogh reference (twice) didn't work for me. I understood the link in artistic passion, and the pronunciation. It was simply that you had too many themes in the poem by introducing van Gogh as another yardstick. I like unobtrusive rhyme, but to me this was far too "in your face." I understand you liked it - but you weren't asking me whether I thought you liked it, but what I thought of it.

Most words, especially unusual ones and those not in common usage, have subconscious connotations for those familiar with their meanings. If you put the two words "plunder" and "asunder" together (say in a word association test) I would imagine most people would come up with something to do with pirates. I get the nautical reference in the poem, but using this kind of vocabulary risks the reader drifting off into "Captain Pugwash" waters.

My comments are not a personal attack on you, your poetry or your literary values. I offer them simply because you specifically asked for comments. I have given your poem what I consider to be a fair amount of time, thought and due consideration. None of this is of any advantage to me. I have been open and honest - I'm not going to simply say "this is nice" like many commentators are wont to do. I have read other poetry you have posted on here that is way better than this. There are few people who will be bothered to even comment on poetry, let alone give you a detailed crit - and response. It's not an easy task, believe me, to objectively dissect a poem and offer an opinion which is more than polite niceities.

As for the meter, here's the syllable count. I don't know if you've read this aloud to yourself; if you haven't then I suggest you do. It's usually the easiest way to detect imperfections in meter.

However I wronged, say you wont go,
3 1 2 1 1 1 1 = 10
Offer me a chance, undeserved I know.
2 1 1 1 3 1 1 = 10
You are my vessel, you are my chart,
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 = 9
My port in a storm, my second start.
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 = 9


Don’t ditch me now, say you wont go,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 8
Passions I offer, like Vincent van Gogh,
2 1 2 1 2 1 1 = 10
Cast me some hope, don’t my soul plunder,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 = 9
Plot a new course, don’t run me asunder.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 = 10


The look in your eyes, say you’ll go,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 8
My faults paid me back- quid pro quo,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 8
The seas my end-less tears un-requited,
1 1 1 2 1 4 = 10
This ships heart can never be righted.
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 = 8


The look in your eyes, said you’d go,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 8
I couldn’t move on, for-ever your beau,
1 2 1 1 3 1 1 = 10
Passions in-toe, like Vincent van Gogh,
2 1 1 1 2 1 1 = 9
Not Waving but Drown-ing …..you know.
1 2 1 2 1 1 = 8

I won't go into the matter of stressed/unstressed syllables here; as there are others far more able in that department and I simply don't have either the time or inclination. If you want to explore that issue further then I suggest Stephen Fry's "The Ode Less Travelled" as a reasonable starting point.

If you feel you wish to provide comment on anything I've posted, in whatever way you decide (positive negative, critical or otherwise) than feel free to do so. That's why I post, to discuss and hopefully learn from the opinions of others. I would be the first to admit that nothing I have written is of any great artistic or intellectual merit. I would be very pleased to receive a detailed crit of any of my writing. Few can be bothered - and frankly I don't blame them and completely understand why. But on some level I hope (some of) my writing might briefly entertain (some) others.

We all, I suspect, write partly for ourselves; out of (to coin a current topic) "catharsis", narcissism, peer-recognition or a myriad of different reasons. But when we expose our writing to the "public" gaze willingly and seeking opinion, we should not be surprised or offended when that opinion does not coincide with our own.

As for the positives in your poem; I thought it was ambitious of you to tackle such a hackneyed subject, brave of you to ask so specifically for detailed appraisal and a novel way of tackling the subject. the fact that it didn't work well for me is neither here nor there - simply opinion.

I hope my contribution has been of some use to you and I look forward to reading more of your work.

Regards,
A.E.

Quote 'Why so much anger?' Unquote

At last, some levity. That made me laugh out loud!

Can I just reiterate, I have never accused you of plagiarism or theft, I was merely curious that someone with your degree of sensitivity to the issue should flirt with such a borrowing.

I know that you are concerned that some folks might nick your entire poems and pass them off as their own. On this showing I think your worries are unfounded.

: )

Jx

Let's just end this thread right here. Chris - don't leave the site - it is a fun place to be - you have just been disappointed by the commentary on one poem but on the whole seem to have been getting a lot of pleasure from other aspects of WOL.
Putting a poem up for critique is a very brave act - one that I will probably never do. I like my poems as they are - as imperfect as they may be. I know that I wouldn't handle the criticism that well - and maybe wouldn't agree with some of it. If I want a poem critiqued I tend to send it to a friend, whose opinion I can trust and respect.
Anthony has been blunt - that is his way - with everybody and you get to understand and respect that the longer you know him. He has actually spent a long time reviewing your poem and is giving you the kind of thorough critical feedback that he would genuinly like to receive on his own. Unfortunately few of us have the time or inclination to do that for each other - so we don't bother to comment instead - which is the better approach is a personal take.
Anthony was right to say that you have written better poems. Everyone's poems fluctuate in standard.
I would agree with you however that this poem was definitely not 'back of a fag packet' stuff. You put a lot of thought and effort into it. The fact that it wasn't appreciated in commentary has less to do with its structure or quality, than its subject matter, in my opinion. Take a leaf out of my book Chris - don't put your poems up for serious critique - it is painful to see something you've created being hacked at. x

I would be sorry to see you go Chris, I'm no expert on poetry but I know when I enjoy sharing what someone has created. I found your work thoughful, interesting and entertaining and your contributions to discussions honest and from the heart.

Dear Chris,

Firstly, once again let me apologise if I have really offended you, although somehow I doubt it.

I think the word 'Troll' is a clue here. It did ocurr to me earlier that your behaviour was classic trollism and I was going to gently enquire whether you were actually a member of that species? Paradoxically, your completely over the top anger and defensiveness made you seem to be possibly genuine...even though it was exaggerated to such a degree that it became a parody.

When you were obviously angry, you accused others of anger...when you are 'outed' as a Troll you accuse others of Trollism...as opposed to troilism, which is something else altogether....although you might be into that as well...who knows?

Anyway...you have thoroughly spoiled my first few days on this otherwise wonderful website so you can congratulate yourself for that.

Don't disappear...please leave your opinions on my poem, my first ever, and feel free to be as rude as you like. I think I can discriminate between gratuitous sniping and useful criticism. I would be absolutely chuffed if Anthony gave mine half the time, effort and consideration he gave yours...and, I like to think I will be more gracious in my response.

Oaf.

: )

Jx