Heart of Stone

[-ty-]

Heart of Stone

Her skin is not warm, nor soft, nor pliant,
Its marble coats the flesh- Quiet. Latent.
Without arms, upon men she's reliant.
Her breasts unguarded, she stands in torment.

Upon a pedestal she dances, still.
Naive eyes widen, they point and shrill.
Her legs are heavy, she cannot walk
Away from the lurid eyes that stalk.



A bit of explanation: If you were not able to tell, this poem personifies the Venus de Milo. Like other works of art, she is vulnerable to judgment and scrutiny. She is mocked by everyone else, so lively and able to do as they please, but she is coerced to show off her body.

 

[Oryx]

The rhythm is really nice in this poem. A lot of poets nowadays are afraid to use rhyme at all, because it makes them nervous that their poem will just be written off or that rhyme is too "kiddy" for them, but I personally like it, if it's used correctly.

A few nitpicks though - I believe the second line needs some heavy editing. I understand that "Quiet. Latent." is supposed to rhyme with "Pliant", but if you do it that way it confuses the reader, because of the period. The period makes them want to pause, but using both words as one rhyme makes them want to read them quickly together. I know I got confused a bit at that part xD That's easily fixed though, since pliant is a perfectly acceptable slant rhyme with quiet. You can just switch the two words around and it will flow better. :3 The other nitpick on that line I have is the use of "its" in the beginning - the last noun you referenced is her skin, and if that's what 'it' refers to, then it doesn't make much sense, lol. How can her skin coat her flesh? Not sure exactly what word goes there, maybe something like "Their marble coats her flesh", to imply that she's not one with the marble, and it's the doing of the sculptor, not herself?

The only other word-related thing I have to criticize is the end of line 6 - to shrill is to make a very high-pitched, annoying noise. I highly doubt that her eyes are making that noise at people, it kind of sounds like shrill is there just to make it rhyme. There are a lot of other words that I feel you could easily work into that line that would fit better: chill, drill (as in eyes drilling into someone), will, etc.

I would also look at the punctuation in the poem. I like that you've obviously considered it and used it to your advantage in the poem already. A lot of poets just ignore it entirely, and you haven't and that's great! :) Actually the only point I think you should look at for punctuation is line 7 - the sentence seems to continue on the next line, and yet there's a period there. I'm not sure why that is or if you have a reason for it though. On another note, if I were you I wouldn't capitalize the beginning of a line that doesn't start a sentence, it just looks more realistic imo and less like you're capitalizing the line because that's just "what you do" in poems.

I like the poem overall though! Very fireside poet-y, which you don't get much today. :)

 

[-ty-]

The rhythm is really nice in this poem. A lot of poets nowadays are afraid to use rhyme at all, because it makes them nervous that their poem will just be written off or that rhyme is too "kiddy" for them, but I personally like it, if it's used correctly.

A few nitpicks though - I believe the second line needs some heavy editing. I understand that "Quiet. Latent." is supposed to rhyme with "Pliant", but if you do it that way it confuses the reader, because of the period. The period makes them want to pause, but using both words as one rhyme makes them want to read them quickly together. I know I got confused a bit at that part xD That's easily fixed though, since pliant is a perfectly acceptable slant rhyme with quiet. You can just switch the two words around and it will flow better. :3 The other nitpick on that line I have is the use of "its" in the beginning - the last noun you referenced is her skin, and if that's what 'it' refers to, then it doesn't make much sense, lol. How can her skin coat her flesh? Not sure exactly what word goes there, maybe something like "Their marble coats her flesh", to imply that she's not one with the marble, and it's the doing of the sculptor, not herself?

The only other word-related thing I have to criticize is the end of line 6 - to shrill is to make a very high-pitched, annoying noise. I highly doubt that her eyes are making that noise at people, it kind of sounds like shrill is there just to make it rhyme. There are a lot of other words that I feel you could easily work into that line that would fit better: chill, drill (as in eyes drilling into someone), will, etc.

I would also look at the punctuation in the poem. I like that you've obviously considered it and used it to your advantage in the poem already. A lot of poets just ignore it entirely, and you haven't and that's great! :) Actually the only point I think you should look at for punctuation is line 7 - the sentence seems to continue on the next line, and yet there's a period there. I'm not sure why that is or if you have a reason for it though. On another note, if I were you I wouldn't capitalize the beginning of a line that doesn't start a sentence, it just looks more realistic imo and less like you're capitalizing the line because that's just "what you do" in poems.

I like the poem overall though! Very fireside poet-y, which you don't get much today. :)

Oh... I just have a few comments.

Latent and pliant are not supposed to rhyme. Latent rhymes with torment, and pliant rhymes with reliant. I want the reader to pause for quiet and latent to make the tone more atmospheric and eerie, not hastened. Poems often have less character if they "flow" consistently without differentiation. If I do as you suggest, and say "latent quiet," the meaning is skewed. Her living interior is hidden and does not exist to the observer of the statue. So her flesh is both quiet and hidden.

I don't understand how "her skin" should be referred to as a plural possessive "their" rather than a singular possessive "it". It literally makes no sense to insert "their."

You asked, "How can her skin coat her flesh?" Umm...you don't understand that? Skin surrounds, or coats, all human's flesh.

You read line 6 incorrectly as well. "Naive eyes", refers to youthful eyes that have never seen a woman's exposed body, so basically, childrens' eyes; naive is a common meaning for children in poetry. The children point and shrill, because they are confounded and amused by the spectacle of seeing a naked woman. I did not just throw in shrill to rhyme; it is very purposeful to show how precocious and wound-up the children are.

Also, most well-known poets capitalize each line. I didn't just make that up for style as you suggest.

Robert Frost's "A Walk in the Woods"

Overcast but warm,
The day dry, unusually.
Walking the woods with the dogs
As many times before.
Lucy and Tig, away in the rough dark deep,
Yipping with the scent of deer, excited.
Ruby, river scrambling, biting
At the bogwater, wagging, from the shoulders back


Overall, not to sound rude, but these suggestions and comments lack knowledge of poetry, literature and grammar.

 

[Oryx]

Oh... I just have a few comments.

Latent and pliant are not supposed to rhyme. Latent rhymes with torment, and pliant rhymes with reliant. I want the reader to pause for quiet and latent to make the tone more atmospheric and eerie, not hastened. Poems often have less character if they "flow" consistently without differentiation. If I do as you suggest, and say "latent quiet," the meaning is skewed. Her living interior is hidden and does not exist to the observer of the statue. So her flesh is both quiet and hidden.

That rhyme was my mistake, I should have seen the ABAB rhyme scheme, but latent was so far from torment that I'm not even sure it counts as a slant rhyme. But if you want to keep it, it's your poem. What I was suggested wasn't "latent quiet", it was "Latent. Quiet." I would suggest you change the word latent to something that fits better, but then you would probably just get overly defensive again.

I don't understand how "her skin" should be referred to as a plural possessive "their" rather than a singular possessive "it". It literally makes no sense to insert "their."

You asked, "How can her skin coat her flesh?" Umm...you don't understand that? Skin surrounds, or coats, all human's flesh.

"Their" was referring to the sculptor and creator of the marble, the people that made her the way she is. Considering there was more than one person involved in the making of the stone and her sculpting. And in general, flesh is considered the same as skin. If you want to use the literal definition of flesh, that's fine, but honestly, very few people are going to be reading it thinking "oh that's right, technically flesh isn't skin".

You read line 6 incorrectly as well. "Naive eyes", refers to youthful eyes that have never seen a woman's exposed body, so basically, childrens' eyes; naive is a common meaning for children in poetry. The children point and shrill, because they are confounded and amused by the spectacle of seeing a naked woman. I did not just throw in shrill to rhyme; it is very purposeful to show how precocious and wound-up the children are.

Whaaaatever you say, Mr. Defensive. If you want to keep something that when read by another makes no sense until explained, feel free. The point of critique is to point out things that you didn't notice; what I'm pointing out is that when reading that poem, that line confused me and obviously made me think you didn't change subjects at all. You wrote the poem, you obviously know what you mean, but obviously at least one other person does not. Instead of blowing them off and deciding that you must "know better", maybe you should actually take a second look and see if you can make it more clear.

Also, most well-known poets capitalize each line. I didn't just make that up for style as you suggest.

Robert Frost's "A Walk in the Woods"

Overcast but warm,
The day dry, unusually.
Walking the woods with the dogs
As many times before.
Lucy and Tig, away in the rough dark deep,
Yipping with the scent of deer, excited.
Ruby, river scrambling, biting
At the bogwater, wagging, from the shoulders back

Many well-known poets do, but I can go out and quote plenty of poets that don't as well. I was suggesting it because in my opinion they tend to flow better, and in general people who capitalize every line tend to look like they're just starting out because they don't understand that sentence structure remains in a poem despite it being in lines. While you may want to imitate other poets, I'm suggesting that may not be the best option, but I guess you know best, so do what you want.

Overall, not to sound rude, but these suggestions and comments lack knowledge of poetry, literature and grammar.

"Not to sound rude, but I'm going to be rude." You don't know my experience with poetry, and you really have absolutely no need to be so rude to someone who's trying to help. That's incredibly childish and petty and I expected better of you than that. I guess I misjudged you, my mistake. If you didn't want actual critique, you should have posted "I only want praise, please don't post unless you have only positive things to say". Everyone can grow as a writer, including you, although you may not think so. I'm not going to reply to this thread any further, because there's no need in getting in an argument with someone so stubborn and ill-mannered.

Edit: Feel free to visit my own poetry thread and critique it based on your own ideas. You've obviously got a very different idea of poetry and I'd like to see how it relates to my own.

 

[-ty-]

Torment and latent, form a "perfect rhyme". They both share the -ent in the last syllable. Definition of a masculine perfect rhyme: a rhyme in which the stress is on the final syllable of the words (rhyme, sublime). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme
Please do not make false claims, and then tell me that I am stubborn for not taking the false advice.

Flesh, definition from Webster: "The aggregate of the muscles, fat, and other tissues which cover the framework of bones in man and other animals; especially, the muscles." Please stop making ignorant statements, skin and flesh are not the same in this instance. It says right in the definition that flesh is BETWEEN the skin and bones. It is just SO frustrating because this is factually correct, however you keep saying it is incorrect. Please use a dictionary before giving out incorrect information.

Why would I be talking about the sculptor? The skin coats the flesh, period. This is why I was frustrated; these comments do not make sense. Simply, the skin's marble, coats the flesh. I do not see how that is so confusing for you to understand.

As far as the naive eyes, everyone knows that naive is associated with children and young people. It confused you, because, as I said before, you are just not knowledgeable about the references of poetry and literature. Poems that are clever, use words like naive to identify that "they" are children, and that "they" are innocent and impressionable. Using children gives a superficial description.

I want critiques that are not superficial. These one were; they were lined in fallacies, as I explained, and they lack intellect about poetry. I was not rude; I was truthful.

 

[Emolga]

Well, I have to say this poem has many double meanings, sexual undertones, and everything else that screams complex poetry. I like the line "her legs are heavy. She cannot walk." It is just so eerie.

BTW, I was like, how can someone think flesh and skin are the same!!! haha. I guess some people want to argue against fact. Also, I got the concept of naive eyes, myself! I got this definition from dictionary.com! Naive: Simple and credulous as a child. All I can say is that it must be rather annoying to have someone give such unintelligent critiques; maybe you should dumb-down your poetry so that every line is literal.

Well, now that I am started, I might as well address the other comments you forgot to address about Toujour's comments.

Ok, this is from, https://www.public.asu.edu/~aarios/resourcebank/capitalizing/. Capitalizing the first letter of each beginning word in a line of poetry is traditional, if not contemporary and common. Historically, this is how poetry has been distinguished from other art forms when rendered on the page, and writing it this way is still often taught in elementary and secondary schools.

Personally, I have never seen "distinguished poets" like Anne Sexton, Silvia Plath, or Robert Frost not capitalize the first letter of each line, unless, of course, the first line started with a quote.

Lastly, do not call someone ill-mannered and stubborn because your comments are not useful, and are, for the most part FALSE, and they told you upfront. And really? You think it's OK for you to be rude, as you stated. This comment screams flaming! OMG