| = only too | Veronica Vãleanu [17.Feb.12 18:54] |
| I tend to think that the text was thought in prose. [What naïveté I’ve tended]- you could have used credulity, but the first pick might have been the adjective, otherwise it doesn't sound natural. and the vb tend seems a choice of terms for lack of better alternative. i think that the text is too elaborated, crowded, and therefore unnatural. I know that when you have a vision that won't go away it's hard to master the flow of sensations, sometimes it looks like a kind of explanatory vision. e.g. the rhetorical questions. and you had the tendency to go all the way with those arguments/contexts, but a reader feels that he is given everything on a plate. I wholeheartedly appreciate the minuteness of the ideas, imagery and everything. from the point of view of creating atmosphere and delivering a message, this is quite outstanding. but what I am trying to say here is that you could have cut several poems into this bulky one. many parts do not necessarily add to the poem's substance, especially some adj, but ideas too: [ mark the thought /made when the morbid horn is quenched there /In the mask of her special place.] the general turmoil belongs to the story, not to the atmosphere, which leads us to the idea of prose, again. the ending is not really successful in this raw form: [In the end, phantoms live everywhere.] anyway, I am curious to read some other texts in your page. | |
| = err | Veronica Vãleanu [17.Feb.12 18:55] |
| *was thought out in prose | |