# I'm Lovin' It



## Sumguy (Oct 24, 2017)

*Original*

Love conguers all,
learn the words well.

Wield them a cudgel,
they're an easy sell.

Say it and grin,
they'll notice no sneer.

But hold back a laugh,
lest you elicit due fear.

'Neath the arc of the lie,
lie unwitting dead.

Use it, my friend,
to my enemy's end.*

Rewrite One
*
*Political Advice

*Love conquers all,
do you doubt what I say?
While surely unproven,
has not is not cannot,
and love need not be love at all,
if love is but a lie.

Folks love this lie, love to hear this lie.
Tell it true to get what you want.
Hell, say it and grin, they'll notice no sneer.
But hold back a laugh, lest you elicit due fear.

And if you have love, what has your foe?
Hate is the answer, and obviously so.

Love conquers all, learn the lie well.
Wield it, a cudgel, an easy sell.
'Neath the arc of the lie, lie unwitting dead.
Use it, my friend,
to my enemy's end.


----------



## ned (Oct 24, 2017)

hello - I feel the message needs to be stronger here -

love conquers all - is a a bit of a cliche, and rather vague 
but here, it is accepted without question, with a plea to pass it on.
and so we are simply given advice on how to say it - 
(other than the strange departure in the penultimate verse)
and misses the point for me.

if the narrator passionately believes in the phrase - then let them justify it, perhaps.
for a more engaging plot.

just a thought.....Ned


----------



## Sumguy (Oct 24, 2017)

ned said:


> hello - I feel the message needs to be stronger here -
> 
> love conquers all - is a a bit of a cliche, and rather vague
> but here, it is accepted without question, with a plea to pass it on.
> ...


Thanks for the critique ned. My intent was to take the cliche and twist it to political design (I had a particular American politician in mind as the narrator, feel free to insert your own). Hence the discordant ending. However, it shouldn't require an intro, so I'll look into how I might better convey my purpose. I am finding that getting into someone else's head (particularly a politician) is not trivial...

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Darkkin (Oct 24, 2017)

Sumguy said:


> Love conguers all,   Conquers, not conguers.  Spellcheck, basic.  And no love does not conquer all.  It is a prime motivator for everything from bullying to all out war.  Homer teaches most that much, as does Shakespeare.
> learn the words well.  Why does the reader need to bother, when the statement is patently false?  Writing for the rhyme?  As a reader, I have to say, yes.
> 
> Wield them a cudgel,  How does one wield them a cudgel?  One misspelling in the first line, now this?  Poor grammar will come back to bite the unwary.  And who are they?  The nonquantified pronoun...(The words, this is where it is critical to hook the reader in the first stanza.)  And for that line to make sense.  A simple comma can make a world of difference.
> ...




Under basic logic, this piece has foundations built on sand.  No context, no message.  An unspecified idea told in spotty rhyme.  Take this back to the drawing board, sit down with it and decide what the narrator actually wants to say.  To some metaphor needs to be obscure to be pithy.  The OP says it is a spin on a cliche of love, but as a reader, I fail to appreciate the cliche because it is a patently unproven statement.    Love is powerful, but it never conquers all.  So how does that draw a logical allegory to the political landscape?  Where are the quantifiable parallels? 

 One thing that might help address the overt ambiguity of this piece:  Remove the space between the stanzas and the rhyme scheme.  Both are preconceived constructs that do little to aid the flow and clarity of the piece.  Combine S1 and 2 into one sentence.  Form a complete thought.  Point A, support it with S3 and 4, again combining the lines in a single, complete thought.  Remove S5 as it has no ascertainable function within the piece and conclude with S6.  Another complete thought.  No spaces between the lines.

e.g.

Love conquers all,
learn the words well,
so wield them, 
a cudgel, an easy sell.
Say it and grin,
they'll notice no sneer,
but hold back a laugh,
lest you elict fear.
Use it, my friend,
to my enemy's end.

How is the the reader supposed to ascertain a political meaning from this piece?  From a reader's standpoint, the narrator could be bemoaning the McDonald's menu.  Context is a critical element in poetry.  And it only takes a little to say a lot.

And beware of the cliched, all poetry must rhyme and be divided in couplets to be a poem.  Structure in poetry should enhance a piece's flow and function, not inhibit it.  

- D.


----------



## jenthepen (Oct 24, 2017)

Sumguy said:


> Thanks for the critique ned. My intent was to take the cliche and twist it to political design (I had a particular American politician in mind as the narrator, feel free to insert your own). Hence the discordant ending. However, it shouldn't require an intro, so I'll look into how I might better convey my purpose. I am finding that getting into someone else's head (particularly a politician) is not trivial...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk



Welcome to the poetry thread, SG. I got the irony of your poem but knowing who it's about - there's only one US politician just now  - gives it extra depth. Maybe you could incorporate some of his well-known phrases to open the message up a bit?


----------



## Sumguy (Oct 24, 2017)

Darkkin said:


> Under basic logic, this piece has foundations built on sand.  No context, no message.  An unspecified idea told in spotty rhyme.  Take this back to the drawing board, sit down with it and decide what the narrator actually wants to say.  To some metaphor needs to be obscure to be pithy.  The OP says it is a spin on a cliche of love, but as a reader, I fail to appreciate the cliche because it is a patently unproven statement.    Love is powerful, but it never conquers all.  So how does that draw a logical allegory to the political landscape?  Where are the quantifiable parallels?
> 
> One thing that might help address the overt ambiguity of this piece:  Remove the space between the stanzas and the rhyme scheme.  Both are preconceived constructs that do little to aid the flow and clarity of the piece.  Combine S1 and 2 into one sentence.  Form a complete thought.  Point A, support it with S3 and 4, again combining the lines in a single, complete thought.  Remove S5 as it has no ascertainable function within the piece and conclude with S6.  Another complete thought.  No spaces between the lines.
> 
> ...



First, thank you Darkkin for your critique. I am responding now so that you don't think I am blowing it off. However, I am struggling with a rewrite, so it may be a while. You have given me much to consider. I desperately want to simply reply and explain myself, but that bypasses the poetry. The problem is, the poem says to me exactly what I was thinking, but it obviously (based upon all three critiques) fails to convey those thoughts to others. I do appreciate the replies though, and am attempting a rewrite.


----------



## Sumguy (Oct 24, 2017)

jenthepen said:


> Welcome to the poetry thread, SG. I got the irony of your poem but knowing who it's about - there's only one US politician just now  - gives it extra depth. Maybe you could incorporate some of his well-known phrases to open the message up a bit?



Thanks for the welcome and feedback. Actually, the politician I had in mind as delivering this advice, while rather prominent, is not particularly well covered on the world stage. In fact, I suspect most Americans wouldn't recognize the name. Which is a shame, given this person's considerable power and influence. I refrain from further identification to avoid unnecessary political strife. Besides which, I suspect that this mentality could be applied to many a politician from virtually any political leaning, so the particular who is not really relevant.


----------



## Sumguy (Oct 24, 2017)

Rewrite One

*Political Advice

*Love conquers all,
do you doubt what I say?
While surely unproven,
has not is not cannot,
and love need not be love at all,
if love is but a lie.

Folks love this lie, love to hear this lie.
Tell it true to get what you want.
Hell, say it and grin, they'll notice no sneer.
But hold back a laugh, lest you elicit due fear.

And if you have love, what has your foe?
Hate is the answer, and obviously so.

Love conquers all, learn the lie well.
Wield it, a cudgel, an easy sell.
'Neath the arc of the lie, lie unwitting dead.
Use it, my friend,
to my enemy's end.


----------



## Firemajic (Oct 26, 2017)

Sumguy said:


> Rewrite One
> 
> *Political Advice
> 
> ...





Hello, Sumguy, welcome to the fabulous poetry thread, thank you for the pleasure of reading your work 
Ok, I can see that you have revised the hellouta this poem and I respect that... however.... [ dammmIT, I hate "however"] I disagree ... I don't think that ANYONE really wants to hear "love conquers all" second stanza.. "folks love this lie. love to hear this lie"... see, I disagree... change THAT cliché..  People like to hear that everything will be ok.... everyone NEEDS HOPE... it is what we cling to.... change your cliché, and you will change this poem into something I can connect with.... "Trust me"....sell THAT...  With your skill, you can capture the essence of the Chump... hahaaa.... doIT! anyway, thanks for the read....


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 26, 2017)

Hi Sumguy,

Glad to finally see some of your work!

I quite like this. It's extremely simple. I almost feel given the form and subject matter it may be bordering on 'too simple', but I'm sure that's by no means a widely shared opinion.

Another issue I have, and again there's nothing really objective behind it but it was a sense I got, was that it was way too generalist. When I read poems featuring love/death/fear/laughter I want some semblance of a character either as a speaker or focal point or both. I want a sense of a voice rather than soundbites. Your poem is fine and I'm a sucker for these enduring, grand themes but I almost found I was being lectured at rather than seduced by images. 

Again, this doesn't in itself make for bad poetry but it doesn't make for great poetry ever. The result is something a little middle road, which is a shame.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 26, 2017)

Oh, and the title is weird. What is it, a play on McDonalds?


----------



## Space Cadet (Oct 26, 2017)

Sumguy said:


> Love conguers all,
> learn the words well.
> 
> Wield them a cudgel,
> ...




I Love this!!  H3re is what I what I'd change "::::::::::::::::::::\\




Love's  all,
learn the when the word all's   well.

Wield them a cudgel,
they're such an easy sell.

Say it and we're suppose to grin
they'll notice, it's no sneer.

But hold back a laugh,
lest you elicit due fear.  (GREAT LINE )

'Neath the arc of the lie,
lie unwitting dead.

Use it, my friend,
to my enemy's end.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Space Cadet (Oct 26, 2017)

Sumguy said:


> Love conguers all,
> learn the words well.
> 
> Wield them a cudgel,
> ...




I have not read the others(') posts/     I"m reading directly from your initial words/  They are punk.    But not poetry.   I wish your words were poetry.   But whom am I to SAY.   ????   These MAY not be, but I Think they are POETRY .  W


----------



## RHPeat (Oct 26, 2017)

This poem is "posey". It attemps to impress, but is pretentious. If it were to be looked at as sarcastic humor it might become ironic. Which would make a stronger poem. But I get the feeling that is not the impetus behind the lines. So it dips low into what many might call greeting card posey, because it is so straight forward and simple. 

If you have a message, try putting it into real images and not abstracts, like "love". which has some many different definitions as well as it insipid flavors as posey. It's overused to the point where it doesn't really contain any intent. It is difficult to start a poem on a cliche anyway, cliches are so overused that lack real depth. Something more original might draw a reader into what you want to say. "when harmony crowns a kiss" would be a stronger line.  And it would say practically the same thing as "love conquers all." But it immediately become unique and specific to intent rather than cliche. It would also allow for more imagination in a more metaphorical presentation as symbol or hyperbole.  Which might offer more depth to the complete poem. 

a poet friend
RH Peat


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 26, 2017)

RHPeat said:


> This poem is "posey". It attemps to impress, but is pretentious. If it were to be looked at as sarcastic humor it might become ironic. Which would make a stronger poem. But I get the feeling that is not the impetus behind the lines. So it dips low into what many might call greeting card posey, because it is so straight forward and simple.
> 
> If you have a message, try putting it into real images and not abstracts, like "love". which has some many different definitions as well as it insipid flavors as posey. It's overused to the point where it doesn't really contain any intent. It is difficult to start a poem on a cliche anyway, cliches are so overused that lack real depth. Something more original might draw a reader into what you want to say. "when harmony crowns a kiss" would be a stronger line.  And it would say practically the same thing as "love conquers all." But it immediately become unique and specific to intent rather than cliche. It would also allow for more imagination in a more metaphorical presentation as symbol or hyperbole.  Which might offer more depth to the complete poem.
> 
> ...



I wouldn’t disagree with any of your point. It is extremely valid, however I feel the need to point out that “when harmony crowns a kiss” is also extremely abstract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RHPeat (Oct 27, 2017)

Von

I'd agree with that most definitely, but it's not a cliche. A poem isn't contained in one line. And that's my point. Imagery offers a wider field to build on to create a emotive poem with inventiveness. The title and the first stanza or first line is just the opening for a poem. It is just a suggestion concerning many possibilities narrowing the scope of presentation using a specific rather than broadening the field through a greater abstraction. Any single line can be pretty abstract. But the opening to any poem is just the introduction to the subject of the poem on which more complex thoughts are build; a more complete poem will have a unified form/content as a whole. The specific image is less abstract and can become heightened with an additional supportive line easily, which couplets tend to do. 

a poet friend
RH Peat


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 27, 2017)

RHPeat said:


> Von
> 
> I'd agree with that most definitely, but it's not a cliche. A poem isn't contained in one line. And that's my point. Imagery offers a wider field to build on to create a emotive poem with inventiveness. The title and the first stanza or first line is just the opening for a poem. It is just a suggestion concerning many possibilities narrowing the scope of presentation using a specific rather than broadening the field through a greater abstraction. Any single line can be pretty abstract. But the opening to any poem is just the introduction to the subject of the poem on which more complex thoughts are build; a more complete poem will have a unified form/content as a whole. The specific image is less abstract and can become heightened with an additional supportive line easily, which couplets tend to do.
> 
> ...



Yes...definitely.

All I would say about this poem - and I would defer to the writer - is that it seems to be satirizing cliches. 

In the authors defense I’m not sure the intention was to provide a new take on love but rather play with traditional takes. That belief stems from numerous aspects, from the title to the use of lines such as “love conquers all”.

I think the real question is whether he was able to accomplish the message. I’m not sure an overhaul in language is necessarily needed, but would - like you - prefer a little bit more from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RHPeat (Oct 27, 2017)

Von

I with you there. I was only trying to present an example to work from in his own way. But you make a strong point about the irony that is there in the poem. But it doesn't appear intentional to me. I saw that it had potential as well. But it could be stronger with fewer cliches and it might make a stronger poem as I suggested above. Maybe read some of Stephen Crane's "Black Riders" if he wants to write good irony. Reading the MS would put me in the mood. If he's truly pushing it in that direction; it could stand to have a bit more smack to the lines. 

https://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/crane/black.htm

a poet friend
RH Peat


----------



## Sumguy (Oct 27, 2017)

Hello Von and RHPeat. First, thank you for your consideration. To be honest, I didn't think that this poem would elicit this much attention, it was just the first thing I wrote when I was able to post. It has been quite some time since I have written any fiction, and even longer since I've written poetry.

I have to confess that your reviews are beyond my simple understanding. You see, while I do have a college degree, it is in engineering, not literature. As a result, you two sound like space aliens to me lol. Since I don't fully understand your critiques, I'll refrain from replying directly to them, as that will likely derail any understanding we might currently have. So, I'll give you my take on the poem (motivation) and we can go from there.

First, there is a rewrite of the poem, but it was buried amidst other comments. I copied it to the original post, if you'd care to have a look.

Initially, I was thinking about politicians and how they lie to get what they want. It occurred to me that they were convincing their followers that they loved them, when they didn't. I was also thinking that, at the extreme, this could probably be extended to just about any despot in human history.

My idea was to write a poem with one of these sleazy politicians as the narrator. To make it even more sleazy, I began with quite possibly the worst cliche known. This was indeed intentional, I could even picture the eye rolls as I wrote it. My hope was that when I diverged from the cliche's original meaning, the narrator would become even more sleazy. I originally used the sing-song couplets to accentuate that sleaziness, as well as the corny title.

Unfortunately, given the critiques, I wasn't entirely successful. But I am okay with that. I had to start somewhere.

Thanks again for your considered responses. Hopefully this clarifies a bit. I attempted clarification in my rewrite, but that seems like a bit of a failure as well lol.


----------



## RHPeat (Oct 27, 2017)

Sumguy

Try Third person Narrative. Look it up if want to write; get familiar with the jargon. It will place voice within another. "He said". Your statement sounds like you were concerned with the irony presented. Take a good read on the site I posted concerning Stephen Crane. This guy was ahead of his time, (November 1, 1871 – June 5, 1900). More novels than poetry but the irony in black riders is just worth reading. I'm sure you will enjoy it. Check out Robert Creeley and Charles Olson concerning form/content as a single unit. It's easily found on the net. But concrete images will help any poem rather than abstract images which haul a lot of unneeded baggage into a poem. Images connect to direct feelings spontaneously. Poems are written to emote feelings in others. So your idea was sound, but it lacked a stronger presentation. But that comes with more practice and writing, and a strong workshop always helps, offers more to think about. You have it here on WF. I've been publishing work since 1962. I am just a kid of 75. That means I shouldn't be trusted at all by my generation, anyone over 35 is suspect. Those were the days. 

a poet friend
RH Peat


----------

