“A short poem” is a lyric poem written in one stanza of six lines. The lines are very short, at times consisted of only one word. The line breaks are phrasal at times, but sometimes, there is tension created between lines because of abrupt line breaks (such/An).
In terms of ‘aboutness,’ “A short poem” is about discovering something nasty/unexpected inside of something else that is usually positive or at least ordinary. The poem begins with the image of the paper ball, and as the paper ball unfurls, so does the poem—it moves from an ordinary image of paper to a disgusting image of a web of snot. There is a nice movement here—the poem, the images, and the meaning all move together to reach the conclusion. It also is about finding beauty in the disgusting, though this aspect is not quite as developed as it could be (more on this later).
While the movement of the piece works well, the actual form is problematic at times. In 2009, it is not the convention to capitalize the first letter of each line. Why does this poem use this antiquated formal device? There is nothing in the content of the poem to justify it. I also question the line breaks, such as the aforementioned (such/An) line break. Why break here? “To reveal such” is not a particularly interesting line when viewed in exclusion. Therefore, this poem is not charged at the level of the line in all cases. “The paper ball / Unfurled” is a moment when the line break is thoughtful and adds to the poem. The image of unfurling would naturally lead to a line break. But this type of careful play with form is only evidenced in very few line breaks.
The title is also troubling, as it is honestly a throwaway title. It sounds metapoetic in nature, and the poem does not live up to this. The title should enhance the poem, add something to it. If it were called “Constellations” for example, the intricate web of snot could be likened to a constellation, complicating the poem (snot is gross, constellations are beautiful). That’s just a random example, but still, titles are important and shouldn’t be wasted on pure description.
The grammar is also off. Since the poem only uses one period (at the very end, which is another issue), the verb ‘unfurls’ becomes an issue—the paper ball sounds like it is an active agent, unfurling itself. This doesn’t make sense. Is the poem now attempting to be surreal? If so, why does the poem only use surrealism in one instance? The poem manages to move down the page quickly and has found its order (something many poems struggle with). But problems with grammar/syntax and form hold the poem back from its full potential. And while the image of snot being an “intricate web” certainly moves the poem past a level of superficiality, what is truly at stake in this poem? The poem can definitely play up the ‘snot as beautiful’ theme that it just barely touches in this stage and become something interesting and new.
2 comments:
Critique of “A short poem”
“A short poem” is a lyric poem written in one stanza of six lines. The lines are very short, at times consisted of only one word. The line breaks are phrasal at times, but sometimes, there is tension created between lines because of abrupt line breaks (such/An).
In terms of ‘aboutness,’ “A short poem” is about discovering something nasty/unexpected inside of something else that is usually positive or at least ordinary. The poem begins with the image of the paper ball, and as the paper ball unfurls, so does the poem—it moves from an ordinary image of paper to a disgusting image of a web of snot. There is a nice movement here—the poem, the images, and the meaning all move together to reach the conclusion. It also is about finding beauty in the disgusting, though this aspect is not quite as developed as it could be (more on this later).
While the movement of the piece works well, the actual form is problematic at times. In 2009, it is not the convention to capitalize the first letter of each line. Why does this poem use this antiquated formal device? There is nothing in the content of the poem to justify it. I also question the line breaks, such as the aforementioned (such/An) line break. Why break here? “To reveal such” is not a particularly interesting line when viewed in exclusion. Therefore, this poem is not charged at the level of the line in all cases. “The paper ball / Unfurled” is a moment when the line break is thoughtful and adds to the poem. The image of unfurling would naturally lead to a line break. But this type of careful play with form is only evidenced in very few line breaks.
The title is also troubling, as it is honestly a throwaway title. It sounds metapoetic in nature, and the poem does not live up to this. The title should enhance the poem, add something to it. If it were called “Constellations” for example, the intricate web of snot could be likened to a constellation, complicating the poem (snot is gross, constellations are beautiful). That’s just a random example, but still, titles are important and shouldn’t be wasted on pure description.
The grammar is also off. Since the poem only uses one period (at the very end, which is another issue), the verb ‘unfurls’ becomes an issue—the paper ball sounds like it is an active agent, unfurling itself. This doesn’t make sense. Is the poem now attempting to be surreal? If so, why does the poem only use surrealism in one instance?
The poem manages to move down the page quickly and has found its order (something many poems struggle with). But problems with grammar/syntax and form hold the poem back from its full potential. And while the image of snot being an “intricate web” certainly moves the poem past a level of superficiality, what is truly at stake in this poem? The poem can definitely play up the ‘snot as beautiful’ theme that it just barely touches in this stage and become something interesting and new.
It's simple... yet also powerful.
Post a Comment