It may be argued that any 'good' poem explains itself as fully as necessary or desirable. I don't think our interpretations are always openminded enough, however, to perceive all worthwhile qualities. I'd like to note a few stylistic issues.



Rhythm/Meter:

free verse:
n : unrhymed verse without a consistent metrical pattern [syn: vers libre]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

By this definition, much of my work is free verse-- but there is a lot of structure; it's just not always repetitive.

Some of my poems have very simple regular meters, some have (fairly) complex but repeated metric patterns, and some have assymetrical, end-oriented (teleological) structures. Others have little rhythmic form as a whole, but tend toward emphatic substructure.

I can't view my work through new eyes, but I would imagine that pattern recognition may sometimes require rereading. I don't know if my work's worth such examination, for any given person, but there are certainly things to find. (This may, of course, apply to many other poets as well.)

I enjoy a wide variety of rhythm, and hope to achieve far, far more with it in the future.



Graphics:

Many serious poets might question my visual presentation. I would certainly agree that most 'good' or worthwhile poems should be able to stand alone as plain text documents. My own poems, with one notable exception, were all designed as plain documents, and look fine to me that way. The graphics are not intended as distraction or obfuscation, but rather, as a bit of additional mood/color. One might compare this to a (hopefully good) movie soundtrack.

In any event, I'd love comments regarding the helpful or harmful effects of my presentation.



BACK