[N. Matheson]

All valid points. I had originally made the description of monarch singular, but I was worried it would imply a single character the audience should be familiar with, so I moved it to plural. I forgot to adjust the grammar accordingly.

[Yves S L]

Hello Matheson,

So I am ignorant of the source material. I am judging this verse as follows: if I saw this in an anthology of old poetry would it interest me? I reckon (yeah, I am being thoroughly subjective ) the strongest passage is the following:

I know not rest, nor idle sighs of peace,
But slavish vigilance to Sun and Moon,
Whose deities express no soft regard
For me, this blunt and bouldered monument.
What once I was, in human likeness still,
So far removed from that, and now distinct
And peerless; neither flagrant Man nor Fay,
But something unto self-anathema;
I am pariah, drunk on sleepless woes.

That is a decent block of iambic pentameter. The meaning threads itself clearly through the syntax. In other passages, like the preceding sentences, it feels to me like ornateness for ornateness sake, rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric, syntax for the sake of syntax, the overall effect disproportional to what is being expressed, the thought itself not being measured properly and going on too long (there is a reason why I stop the excerpt here). How long can one stay on a single motif before it starts sounding like yada yada yada? How many metaphors does one pile up before it starts sounding like yada yada yada. It is all individual judgements. What does Shakespeare do? How long does he go on for? How does he maintain interest? Is that the desired model? How close to your writing is the model?

[Christopher Carstens]

Hi,

Just a question from a newbie here. I'm wondering how it would look if you approached this piece as a trove of ore from which some gold may be mined, instead of as the introduction to a vast piece of epic literature?

One thinks of Ozymandius.

Chris

[N. Matheson]

As I have explained a million times over, if I could replicate his skill, you would be naming the moons of planets after my work. Though it doesn't matter what Shakespeare wrote. He could have written five random words and people would proclaim it the Word of God.

[Yves S L]

Matheson,

For me the passage I excerpted is comparable to similarish work in the literature. Which means, to me, you have the ear to capture that style convincingly, and you have enough content to sustain it, at least for a little while. I don't worship Shakespeare and I am not here to give you a pep talk (you are a grown man).

If I thought you goals of writing in style were utterly hopeless, then I would just leave you to it without passing comment.

When I wrote my comments, I thought it was just going to take a little bit of elbow grease to improve the poem, or at least take the strongest parts and rework the rest. I assumed you were technically proficient enough that line by line would not be necessary (and given the way you do not even concretely respond to comments, the labour does not seem worth it).

If you just observe, say, where folk find it difficult to track your sequencing and nesting of metaphors, then that is something you can work on and present for additional comments. Making observations of how Shakespeare handles the technical problem of sequencing and nesting metaphors might give you some idea of how to solve the problem. Yeah, you are going to have to work it out by yourself, but since ye do love the Olde English so much, I thought you would enjoy the technical challenge.

Student musicians every year imitate the counterpoint of Bach and Palestrina as standard undergraduate work without worrying about the names of the moons of planets (self defensive hyperbole?). It is not that deep (for me).

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

As I have explained a million times over, if I could replicate his skill, you would be naming the moons of planets after my work. Though it doesn't matter what Shakespeare wrote. He could have written five random words and people would proclaim it the Word of God.

As has been explained to you seemingly ad infinitum, you are wrong about this. I promise.

[N. Matheson]

Then what sections do you feel are the weakest?

[Jim Moonan]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

As I have explained a million times over, if I could replicate his skill, you would be naming the moons of planets after my work. Though it doesn't matter what Shakespeare wrote. He could have written five random words and people would proclaim it the Word of God.

Are you sure? Sure that, if you could replicate Shakespeare's skill, people would be naming the moons of planets after your work? I wouldn't be so sure. Methinks you jest too much. (FYI, you can name a celestial body after yourself for the low, low price of $49.99)

To the poem: my only other reference to the Tam-Lin folk tale is Fairport Convention's rendition. By comparison, yours clangs along. No moon for you. Write something with blood flowing through it. Unchain yourself. Come out of your cage. Invent.

You're young. You're old. Begin again.

.