# Your Will, Not Mine



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 11, 2017)

Tonight we danced, she could not see
Above her head, my proclivity
Intricately matched, unwittingly,
To her masked voracity;
Usurp, oh Lord, my importunity
May our wills not fall in disunity.


----------



## andrewclunn (Oct 11, 2017)

The density here is making it difficult to decode.  For example, "Intricately matched, unwittingly.  To her masked voracity;". Do at an innate level you are paired (without knowing it) to her concealed honesty?  Like, how does such an abstract concept relate to the rest of the work?  If it's just word flow, where the simplicity of the spoken word and rhyme serves as counter to the obscurity of meaning, then the line syllable count needs to be more tightly controlled.


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 11, 2017)

Hey, thanks so much for responding; TLDR, I intended purposely to be dense here, got more and less dense intentionally, and unfortunately I believe you're speaking about "Veracity" instead of "Voracity" - not your fault, as the first is used almost 99% of the time. In my family, one had a voracious appetite - the initial meaning. Veracity speaks to the truth, but has overwhelmed the other in use and has therefore taken on the same spelling.

To dissect, the first thing I'd address is the comma missing following "unwittingly" - it's been added.

Second, if you notice, the intro starts impossibly simply - proclivity is my first foray into the sesquipedalian nature of the poem. The relation with this girl was limited - we'd had no great opportunity to divulge our hearts to one another, or to become familiar with the other. The next 2 lines show that we developed great "knowing" over the next couple of hours of interaction; the next two lines serve, perhaps, an opportunity to lose my own meaning with intended intention. What I mean to say is, that by being so intentional with the word use, I may not be able to convey the meaning intended because of the issue around the word voracity. The last two lines, while sticking with the ee rhyme, are both using -unity to show a unity of thought that is pervasive across all the realms of my current existence; the Lord's plan is first to all, and second to none, (and never third, just to continue the redundancy).

Third, the word choices are, while purposefully long and uncommon, intentional in their strict meaning as well. When read separately, it looks like:
"My predisposition is identically mirrored in her own desires, despite the unplanned nature of our meeting."
The discovery process was actually through reading her writings, wherein I discovered her deepest desires towards a certain thing that I too am greatly interested in. The last bit is intended to read, with this "our" being different than the first "our":
"Though my wish is to arrive at my desired outcome, let our wills not be misaligned."
This line is intended to reference the line in the Lord's prayer "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (something central to my own spiritual journey), my own struggles with pride and trying to impose my own will on the plan that God has laid out for me, and as the word choice is negative (I believe importunity and disunity can be considered negative), so too is the ending supposed to be a recognition of my recent tendency toward allowing His will to be done in my life, and in my desire that he forcibly realign my desires if they're misdirected (or not parallel).

Fourth, 8 9 9 7 10 10 - the rise of syllables from the first line announcing the rise in passions, but the first 4 lines being lesser (with the fourth intentionally the fewest to indicate transition of thought) than the last two, intentionally to line up with the desire (and title) that it's God's will, not mine, that takes precedence. Not that more syllables needs to represent this, but I just try to layer things in for depth.

Which leads to the fifth thing, Taitum, the girl's name - it's spelled in the acrostic.

Thanks for reading, hopefully my verbosity can be read joyfully instead of in annoyance; I have always loved being wordy, and find great joy in emulating my favorite part of Shakespeare: "Brevity is the soul of wit." (Thus spoke Polonius, the irony contextually dripping).


----------



## ned (Oct 12, 2017)

hello - with your exhaustive explanation above, you seem to make poetry sound very complicated - 
when it's just the passing of information in a pleasing manner.

I enjoyed the wording, rhyme and rhythm of this poem - but it doesn't say a lot.
boy meets girl - boy has a hang up.....

for me, the acrostic was unnoticed and unnecessary - again, just over-complicating things for yourself.

would like to see this poem with a stronger and clearer message - perhaps, more passion beyond the verbiage...

Ned


----------



## Pete_C (Oct 13, 2017)

As a reader, this didn't work for me. As a writer, I read this like an exercise.

It is very much a piece written for poets, which is more focused on methodology and gimmicks than the creation of a poem which can be enjoyed or which creates emotions or images.

For me, the one and only person I care about when I write is the reader. While I understand that I require a reader of certain tastes and preferences for my work to hit home, I am also aware that some may be well versed in the construction of poetry but most might not. Some might have a good level of general education, but others will not. Some might identify with the cultural references I make, but many will not. 

Part of the challenge of poetry is to make it accessible, and too often I see writers writing to be clever rather than to share with a wide readership. This isn't about pampering to any and all readers; my work will be predominantly unpalatable for many mainstream readers. However, with the few who might enjoy it, I feel it is important to make it accessible to them.

This, in my opinion, is largely inaccessible and if you intend to publish or share it might need some work, plus a drawing back from an over-dependence upon constructed schemes.


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 13, 2017)

ned said:


> hello - with your exhaustive explanation above, you seem to make poetry sound very complicated -
> when* it's just the passing of information in a pleasing manner.*
> 
> I enjoyed the wording, rhyme and rhythm of this poem - *but it doesn't say a lot*.
> ...



I really appreciate you enjoying my wording, rhyme, and rhythm! It means a lot when someone can recognize and express value when they hold a negative view of the thing.

What does poetry mean to you? Is it really "just the passing of information in a pleasing manner"?

What leads you to say that my poem "doesn't say a lot"?

*"For me, the acrostic was unnoticed and unnecessary - again, just over-complicating things for yourself." *- So you agree, the acrostic was layered in well enough as to not be evident?
Another question - is it over-complicating and unnecessary if I the piece is meant to be complex and the layering necessary to achieve that complexity?

If you understand the poem, and you see the current message that's in there, could you tell me how I could make it stronger? Also - what is passion if not evident in the words we use, and the construction in which we use them?

Thanks for your comments, I really appreciate your input.



Pete_C said:


> As a reader, *this didn't work for me*. As a writer, *I read this like an exercise*.
> 
> It is very much a piece* written for poets*, which is *more focused on methodology and gimmicks* than the* creation of a poem which can be enjoyed* or which *creates emotions or images*.
> 
> ...



Was there nothing you enjoyed about this poem?

I had written more than a dozen questions for you based on the things I highlighted above, but I want to try to be grateful rather than confrontational. So I'd like to thank you for responding - I always appreciate feedback.

I'll summarize most of my concerns in one question; why do you feel that making poetry accessible is more important than reading a piece as the author intended it?

Lastly, a thought on enjoying flavours. If poetry were an expression and not a message, I think the most important thing would be trying to understand the author through the work and the work through the author, and not the work through my own eyes.

Thanks for your comments, I hope my response has been palatable.


----------



## ned (Oct 14, 2017)

hello - I fear you presume too much - I certainly do not 'hold a negative view of the thing'
my remarks concerning complexity refer to your explanation and approach to poetry - not to the poem itself.
I thought I made that clear enough.

'What does poetry mean to you? Is it really "just the passing of information in a pleasing manner"?'
I'm no scholar of poetry, and it is a vast and opinionated subject - but I challenge you to sum it up in eight words.

'What leads you to say that my poem "doesn't say a lot"?' - because it doesn't - not ultimately, anyway
 the narrator's interpretation of their chosen religion leads to feeling guilt over their own sexuality.
an old and well known concept, and not a healthy one, as I see it.

but it doesn't matter much - it would be better with a stronger or more surprising conclusion, but so would a lot of poetry.
what mattered more to me was the journey, which I found pleasing to the eye and ear.

the acrostic device is not an extra layer - but an extra constriction to your expression.
if it were writ large in bold and spelled out 'lust' - just maybe, it would have a point.

what I mean by lacking passion - is that the use of such verbosity detaches the voice -
and distances itself from the personal and therefore is less engaging, as I read it.
it's no big deal - and maybe your intention in this particular poem.

I have enjoyed the conversation Elven.....but now, I feel I have done this poem to death.

cheers.........Ned


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 14, 2017)

Artful expression.

_'What leads you to say that my poem "doesn't say a lot"?' - because it doesn't - not ultimately, anyway
 the narrator's interpretation of their chosen religion leads to feeling guilt over their own sexuality.
an old and well known concept, and not a healthy one, as I see it._

There's no essence of sexuality within this piece, unless you want to leap from "we have stuff in common" to "all people end up having sex" - which I wouldn't.

Appreciate the kind words again.

You could definitely be right in saying the acrostic constricts, but I think intentional constriction is different than unintentional, although I'm biased to it for this piece in this purpose.

Certainly wasn't attempting to separate from the poem, so perhaps in alienation the piece did just that. I didn't think it would be a big deal to use the construction and verbiage the way I did, but apparently it has a great impact on seeing the message. I'll reconsider in my next efforts.


----------



## Pete_C (Oct 16, 2017)

Elvenswordsman said:


> I'll summarize most of my concerns in one question; why do you feel that making poetry accessible is more important than reading a piece as the author intended it?



Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I tend to find that most people who write poetry or prose (or most things, for that matter) do so with the intention of them being read. The writer creates something that is to be consumed by the reader. The written work will obviously not be 'right' for all readers, and as such the style and content and message will target the work towards the reader. Given that process of filtering, it then surely is necessary for the writer to ensure that the readers can absorb that work, consume it and experience whatever feelings and emotions the writer is trying to convey. In short, the reader is more important than the writer.

Making the poem or prose or whatever accessible to readers is therefore paramount. If writers try to be too smart or too deep or too cute (or too anything) and that places a distance between the work and the reader, then they've failed. They've failed because the reader will either not read the work, or will potentially not apply as much attention to the work, or may miss something. If the aim of the work is buried too deep, that's a failure. We, as writers, have no right to demand that readers put in the work to dig out what nuggets we may have hidden. We have no right to raise hurdles that the reader must vault. If such barriers exist, we have failed.

Writers must respect readers; without them we're merely screaming in a darkened room where no one can hear us. Therefore I believe (and others can disagree) that making any written work accessible to your readers is a paramount concern and anything else is doing them a disservice.


----------



## AwkwardWriter (Oct 16, 2017)

It looks like everyone else is confused by this poem, but if you look at the words and paint a picture, it makes sense; you don't have to register every word and analyze it to the very definition. Poetry is like abstract art; it paints a picture and asks you how it makes you feel. 

This reminded me of two people dancing on a moonlit dock, torches scattered down the boardwalk; things were not as they initially seemed, but the lie was enjoyable and they wanted to spend eternity together.  I'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but it was very well executed nonetheless.  There were some uncommon words in there and as some others said in the comments, "sesquipedalian."  Though the word often is used in a negative manner, take it as a high compliment and proceed in your "modusoperandi."

-A verbal Magpie


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Oct 16, 2017)

Pete_C said:


> Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree



Not in the slightest. We're certainly not in agreement on this, but I do sincerely appreciate your desire towards the reader. I read your first response as a "I don't understand, so I'm criticizing you." I now see you have a great passion for readers to find value in your work; I love this, and am so happy there are people who hold this position. I have hated pieces like the one I posted in my own seasons, where I'd rather someone do something I think other would enjoy, not just what they enjoy.

I'll leave off with saying again, thank you for responding, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question (and in such a great manner). I also want to end by saying that I view this piece as an abstract use of intentional constructions - take that redundancy as you will.



AwkwardWriter said:


> This reminded me of two people dancing on a moonlit dock, torches scattered down the boardwalk; things were not as they initially seemed, but the lie was enjoyable and they wanted to spend eternity together.  I'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but it was very well executed nonetheless.  There were some uncommon words in there and as some others said in the comments, "sesquipedalian."  Though the word often is used in a negative manner, take it as a high compliment and proceed in your "modusoperandi."



Thanks Awkward, I appreciate your thoughts. While I hold my own view of the piece, I see it as a total compliment that you could see your own imagery in the writing. The true interaction was the two of us sitting, playing guitar, and learning about one another. I left her, read the spoken word pieces she'd left me, and felt motivated to write this upon discovery of some commonalities that weren't apparent in having barely known her over a short period of time, but were glaringly apparent in her writing.

I may even take your words as an opportunity to write another piece, good food for motivation.

Thanks for your kind words!

Elves


----------

