[Hilary Biehl]

Ahh, that makes sense Harry. So I wasn't too far off in thinking that perhaps the scrambled syntax was meant to disorient the reader as N himself is disoriented. In that case, I think it's justifiable.

I do think you could use the title to point people more in the right direction, though I am not sure "Neurodivergent" is the right title - it's not subtle enough, I think.

[Harry Nicolas]

Hey Hilary, I see how maybe it is the title that is causing the confusion. I did like that aspect of it but if it is throwing people off I might come up with something else.

Thanks, Harry

[Hilary Biehl]

Here's a thought - since the poem is largely other people speaking to or about the N, maybe the title could be something someone is saying to the N, like "Pay Attention" or "Look at Me When I'm Talking to You" - it doesn't need to be that, just an example of what I mean.

[Yves S L]

Hilary,

I was not seriously suggesting "Neurodivergent" as actually the title (the poet can choose their own title and my suggestion is a placehold). The point was that the title is itself part of the craft of writing poetry, and a person ruins their feedback by explaining the poem at length. Just taking time to choose a different title could still have left the poet with adequate feedback of how the actual poem is being interpreted as opposed to how the poem + the textual exposition is being interpreted. For myself, the poem never needed such a lengthy exposition, and a lot of the time it is not even that important that the reader captures every little thing the poet intendend.

Confusion and disorientatieon is part of the effects the poet is trying to achieve.

Changing the title is not even the only way to edit the poem while keeping its flavour; it was just an obvious suggestion, and I do not want to give too many explicit suggestions because I feel it is something Harry needs to manipulate with his own hands.

Harry,

I think the pace and tone is fine for giving the reader an "in world" experience of a different mentality. For pace and tone, consider speaking this poem at a camera while maintaining character. The way I imagine individuals such as the N, they would probably speak it as the same (probably quick and stuttering) rate, not giving the listener any pause. Yeah folk would like it if atypical people's speech patterns, emotional inflections, and attention to social cues was "normal" so they get less tired listening to such individuals, but it is what it is.

Also, I would imagine the person would probably not vary tonal qualities that much, probably tending towards a monotonal lack of inflection.

[Trevor Conway]

Hi Harry,

I suppose one way to do it would be to introduce a stanza with much shorter lines. It could things feel a little less frenetic for a bit. As it is, keeping up the frenetic pace/tone from start to finish feels a bit wearisome by the end. A break in that would give a different flow/structure overall, kinda like how a song consisting of only verses could be improved by adding a bridge, middle 8 or a chorus, if that makes sense.

Trev

Originally Posted by Harry Nicolas

Thank you for the feedback Yves and Trevor.I don’t really understand what tone/pace means in the context of poetry, could you explain or maybe give an example?

[Hilary Biehl]

Yves, my title suggestions are also meant merely to point in a possible direction.

I agree that the pacing is fine.

[Jim Ramsey]

Hi Harry,

I am going to try to be helpful. Really. Everything a poet puts on the page can be explained and rationalized by the poet after the fact. Like Yves implies, sometimes it's Ok to draw the reader in and put them in the middle of a sensory storm and let them find their own way through it. However, I think this piece at the least needs a title that warns the reader that they are entering a storm. I am sure I am less fond of poems that puzzle than is Yves and than are probably many other readers. John Ashbery, ee cummings, and Rae Armantrout are not my favorite poets. My unworldly unsophisticated preference is to want a title that immediately points to the syntax trick and its connection to the act of seeing, like "Reversed Images" or "A Mirrored Lens" or "Duality" or "Two-way Mirror" or "Reversed Polarity" or something that does a better job than those of hinting more clearly that the N is neurologically predisposed to seeing off kilter. If you do choose to keep to your intention of trying to show that the poet symptomatically procrastinated in titling the piece, then I think that intent should be more obvious. Here in the workshop, "Finish Title Later," seems a placeholder and we read past it. I'm afraid that a casual reader would start misreading the poem. Expecting someone to go back and forth through the poem to unravel meaning is a lofty goal—I don't think most slush pile readers and casual readers even get halfway through most poems encountered before they move on. I can't imagine any reader but you ever inferring that the N had procrastinated in creating a title and then overlooked that the temporary title was still in place.

All the best,
Jim

[Harry Nicolas]

Thank you Jim, Yves, Hilary, Trevor, and Glenn for your feedback and inputs. This has been a very eye opening and I have learned a lot. I am still trying to find my poetic style which tends to lean more experimental and I think some things I guess you have to live and die by. I will admit I am new to poetry and I am still getting better at knowing the audience you are writing for and I do agree that I have shown a poem I wrote to non poetry readers once and the subtlety that I thought made it artistic they didn't pick up on, which partly was my fault I guess.

[Hilary Biehl]

Originally Posted by Harry Nicolas

Thank you Jim, Yves, Hilary, Trevor, and Glenn for your feedback and inputs. This has been a very eye opening and I have learned a lot. I am still trying to find my poetic style which tends to lean more experimental and I think some things I guess you have to live and die by. I will admit I am new to poetry and I am still getting better at knowing the audience you are writing for and I do agree that I have shown a poem I wrote to non poetry readers once and the subtlety that I thought made it artistic they didn't pick up on, which partly was my fault I guess.

I just want to say that it's okay for not everyone to understand your work. I'm not into obscurity for the sake of obscurity, but sometimes my poems end up being obscure anyway - just because I said what I wanted to say in the only way I knew how to say it. You have to decide for each poem how important it is for other people to "get it."

Also, as a reader, I will sometimes read a poem and enjoy aspects of it but not understand it at first. Often the enjoyment brings me back to the poem and leads to eventual understanding.

So don't be discouraged and don't feel that you have to explain yourself. If somebody (like me) doesn't understand, you have choices to make. You can wait to see how others respond. You can edit the poem to make it clearer. Or you can just leave it and let some of us be mystified. It really is up to you.

[David Callin]

I feel I've arrived here at a time when all the hard work has been done for me, and I'm enjoying the benefit of that. Even if I'd been first on the scene I think I would have appreciated it.

The change in scene - as I see it - from S1 to S2 still throws me a bit, but each verse seems like a thing in itself, so that's not really a problem.

I think it works well, Harry. I would even call it charming, if that didn't sound (I expect) a bit patronising. So I like it. Excellent last line. I even think the title works well.]

Cheers

David