My Lady of Graces

O' gracious lady, so much more glorious than all the other
Graces heaven has bestowed upon man, As she virtuously walks
In the most reverant beauty with every sole sweet step she takes
Up from the earth.

She is the fair sun to my window where her saintly eyes
Sparkle with a bright radiance and illuminates every region with
Her outshining beams, and from those fiery spheres that
Became loves tender soul from that very flame inspired,
Melds my parts and drains me of my hearts blood.

She is that beautious June day when I my lady met, every mortal
Thought, so sweetly received by the tenants of my heart, every
Gilded word that documents my love for my beloved, and every
Ivory page I fill in her dreamy loveliness.

(c) Copyright by Kevin B. Wright "My Lady of Graces" 2009-2010

 

Is it really you writing this? You're from another age

An impressive command of language. This could almost be Lord Byron or maybe Edgar Allan Poe.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my work and putting it within a circle of such tall company. Your thoughts are much to kind and of course greatly appreciated.

Wright.

 

Don Quixote to...( probably not D.)

 

"O'" is an ineffective way to start a poem.

The entire subject matter of the poem is very overused and the poem does not stand out in any way. You use a lot of really...well...overused adjectives... such as "loveliness", "gracious", "virtuously", etc.

Sounds like a weak attempt at a 17th Century British poem.

 

potentially unattainable loves are... so tantalizing.

 

the story of "O"? non, merci.

 

O was a darkie.

 

BraveSirRubin, you are very brave.

 

rubin is on a poetry bashing spree lmao

i enjoyed this poem even though it's not usual language

 

People only get better through criticism. Encouraging their shit poetry would be doing them a disservice.

 

Thank you SirRubin, I appreciate your input on my work. I was looking forward to reading any material you might have posted, but it seems there is none available on the board, at least for what I see. The only thing I found was your thrashing other poet's.

usually I would not respond to a post such as yours, but according to what you said, it seems like you need to be educated in the art and science of poetry. So I decided to give you a brief lesson, before you make another foolish post.


Lets begin with what you said with O'...which can be written and has been written many times by novice and classic poets as O' or Oh. It is a proper and very often used way to begin a poem or verse.

As for over-used adjectives...when writing poetry as even a novel, one must be very desciptive for the reader, "Paint a picture" which leans toward the main ingredient in poetry, IMAGERY -also known as (Symbolic complexity, or word pictures) leaving a poem without description leaves it dry, and will drive the reader away.

I never like to pat myself on the back, but if what you told me was the case, I think my publisher would of told me same and not published three manuscipts I submitted. So it just seems you have issues.

So have fun bullying other members on your little poetic playgroud.

Good day

W.

 

the imagery used is too cliché and i didn't like this piece. Ive seen it too many times in culture as it is. . . this is the type of poem that has become standardized into the mainstream...and sadly it is not original in attempt other than to play it safe with know emotions.

i understood the message, but was not learned in any way of the human experience. Good luck next time.

 

This post is hardly any better. You just come across as condescending, especially the whole 'if my writing wasn't good it wouldn't have been published' bit. This is true to some degree, but Twilight got published too, so I wouldn't treat publication as a guarantee of talent. You also seem intent on appealing to tradition, defending your choices simply because they have been used by others. You're right about imagery; what you said about 'O' is a matter of opinion. But regardless, I didn't hear anyone deny the presence of imagery -- just its originality.

In my honest opinion, the poem is much better than what the majority of people are capable of writing. It is only because it is in that league that it is deserving of the kind of serious criticism it has received; most of the 'poets' on these boards will never be accused of a failed attempt at imitating 17th century English poetry. It is in fact a decent imitation, though it does not do full justice to the language or content of that 'genre'; consequently it comes off as an imitation. So I agree with BSR on this one. I would suggest that you learn to accept criticism a little better, and certainly that you try to avoid the whole thing where you try to be humble when someone compliments you and then get all haughty when someone criticizes you.

You're no Byron or Poe (I wouldn't have made this comparison to begin with; Byron I can see, but not Poe so much), but you have a good command of language and poetry in general. I think the work would benefit from some originality.

 

Well I have no problem taking criticism, just when you see one person bashing everyone on the board, who needs to think and understand what he reads before he writes. Then I will speak.

As such as you and those that posted saying it is an immitation of a 17th century poem, no this is how I write...im not trying to be an immitation. This my voice, the language i use.

I never called my self byron or poe, read the first comment, the girl said that not me.

 

I know she said that. I was responding to her comparison.

And I highly doubt you talk like that in everyday life. Just sayin'.

 

we need to get back to Romanticism- it has been missing for a very long time.
We need Flowery language

"You hit me with a Flower" (Lou Reed, 20th c.)

flower petals fall from the air

 

"The girl" simply enjoys the interplay of language. It was an innocent comment.

 

I think there's a balance to be struck between flowery and concise language; that balance can be tipped one way or the other depending on the form the writing takes.

 

i dont see him having command of the English language at all.. . and this style and form is not beyond anyone. in short, this is mediocre. Until i see stuff from him that proves otherwise, ill stand by this assessment.

i have work posted here under the thread title: 'words play'
feel free to unleash criticism. i welcome all negativity, more so than positive lies.