I know why the sky is blue. I know it has nothing to do With how it is lit or of what it is made. I know from whence comes its flawless shade, Intensely rich cerulean azure Against which all other blue is measured. It is She so dear gazing up at the sky Where I see mirrored the blue of Her eyes. I know why the sun is gold, Not white sapphire as others are. 'Tis not because the sun's olden Fires burn slower than other stars. In truth, he draws a golden veil To shade a face of fierce blue-white So as across the sky he sails, He bathes Her in a gentler light. I know why the flowers bloom, To lure no bee with sweet perfume. Nor do they open their hearts to the sky In hope of the hummingbird's darting eye. They spread wide their petals in wonder and awe Of the most unforgettable Flower of all And waft their sweetness around Her there So She may breathe a softer air. I know what no others know, Why the oceans ebb and flow. They rise and fall but not in tune To the beck and call of a wanton moon. 'Tis heaven's most entrancing Daughter Whose breathless beauty enchants the waters To rise from the abyss in a surging throng And kiss the earth She has walked upon. I know why the sky is blue. I know why the sun is gold. I know why the flowers bloom. I know what no others know. She is the reason for everything In my neverending season of Spring.
I especially enjoyed the final two stanzas. You poured a lot of work into this and it shows. It was enjoyable to read... I hope She gets to read it and enjoy it too.
This is one of the best poems I have read in all my years on these forums. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
That's not constructive criticism. Why say something that has no purpose other than making someone feel bad?
i feel bad now. i was not trying too express that. what i really think is that she has plenty of talent...and enough so to break new ground. excellent application.
"too boring and cliché." Thats kicking a writer in the nuts. What parts of the poem did you like? What would you do differently?
i didnt like the whole earthly, be one with nature and have a mental orgy part...the whole thing. flowers, bells, whistles...ocean roars. blah. blah. i did, however, enjoy the technicality in she.
my critique shouldn't be of any significance to the author. i think she knows that this is a very fine piece. she's skill leaves me to believe that the op has been at it awhile. therefore, anything i say shouldn't matter unless the author has no confidence in her abilities. which i think is not the case. further more, my dislike in the earthy subject matter is irrelevant, considering what has just been above said. but non the less, it was still a honest critique.
as is my critique of your critique if you had something that could be critiqued. then id critique it. critique.
Well, the whole point of posting on a forum of writers is to learn and hone your skills. And it is by honest, thoughtful, constructive criticism that we learn and grow as writers. And so a good critique is one that does not put the writer down, but helps them rise even higher. You subjective dislike for earthy topics, for instance, is a of no value to the writer. It is your preference, you're entitled to it. But the writer was writing, not for you, but for people who enjoy poetry of this sort (such as me). So what you wrote is fine, and honest, but it is an opinion, not a true critique. Now if you were to suggest new approaches to metaphor or rhythm, for example, that would be really meaningful criticism.
you make a lot of sense. on reflection, i was not being helpful in anyway. so i stand aside. i hope this thread will be put back on track. this poem deserves it.
Rereading, I would perhaps drop the "intensely rich in the first verse". In fact, I would drop that whole line, at the risk of ruining a good rhyme scheme (which by the way you've handled admirably well). I just prefer to create an image, but not force it on the reader. Since we're talking sky, the reader is seeing blue already. No need to belabor the point.
