[N. Matheson]

I'm not entirely convinced the line about witches meshed with the rest of the poem. Also, I don't know the full sense of hang in this context. Because if you're talking about people, those are hanged, if it's your laundry, it's hung. I can't tell if this means their bodies were hung like ornaments or if they were physically hanged.

[Roger Slater]

I also questioned hanged/hung, but I think "hung" is defensible. The act of executing someone with a rope around their neck is hanging, and people subject to that act are being hanged. But after they were executed but their bodies had not been taken down from the rope, it is technically accurate to say they hung from a rope.

[Michael Tyldesley]

Thank you both,

There's a unanimous view here that the witch stanza overpowers the whole poem and as intriguing or controversial as that image might be... I can see that it needs more development in it's own right.

I've posted a more inwardly looking revision that removes reference to the witches. Does it work without?

Thanks again.

[John Riley]

I love how if someone chooses not to put up with narrow-minded bigotry you're part of the mythical "cancel culture."

Perhaps it's something I should apply my "penetrating gaze" by using my "dancing eyes" toward, or "pace in geometric lines" or watch "light track shadows" on the sun.

Does it no longer matter when a poem is filled with such dull, hackneyed language? Writers at my hometown paper wouldn't be allowed to get away with "dancing eyes."

This is fundamentally bad and if this is just my "opinion" my opinion is the only correct one.

[Michael Cantor]

You're not alone John. I started to tune out at "penetrating gaze" and five more ho-hum modifiers in the first two stanzas - and two more in the third, including the memorable "dancing eyes" -are a sign that the poet is scrambling, trying too hard to say something poetical.

[Michael Tyldesley]

John, I think dancing eyes is a good weak spot spot that can be looked at so thanks.

Michael, I had another look at the modifiers and I'm failing to see how 'winter' sun or 'low' beam are overly poetic. The sun is low and gets in our face most in winter, although by 'ho-hum' I assume you mean that's just a boring image or sensation for you. Penetrating is an intrusive and creepy type modifier that serves a purpose here.

I've just grabbed a random poetry book off the shelf, an Alexander Pope collection, and if I strike out the modifiers it both buggers the meter and sometimes significantly alters the meaning so I'm not buying "don't use modifiers" as a general rule. It's wise to pick good modifiers though and I assume that's what you're saying.

[Roger Slater]

If you cross out any words in existing lines of Alexander Pope it will disrupt the meter, of course. No one suggested simply crossing out the modifiers. You need to fill the space with other words that don't rely too heavily on modifiers, that's all, even when their meanings are technically appropriate to the content. I think that's because it's tempting when writing in meter to use modifiers to solve metrical issues or to fill out a line, but if you resist that temptation successfully you'll probably end up writing a better line, even if the beckoning version with the modifier can technically pass inspection. Excess modifiers may produce lines that are good enough to defend with a straight face in a workshop, but that doesn't mean you can't do even better if you resist leaning on them too much.

[Michael Tyldesley]

Thanks Roger, you're not wrong, I've written and shared poems on here that were too modifier heavy and acknowledged it.

Here, for example, I'm saying:

"Its low beam dazzles like the winter sun"

I could change it to:

"Its glimmer blinds me like the winter sun"

I've stripped out one modifier and changed the verb to something more straightforward so is the revision better for it? Maybe but it doesn't fundamentally change the meaning. I'm not sure how close the interpretation was to the intent because the comment doesn't delve that deep. It dismisses based on modifier count or labouring the point on one clumsy modifier. There's no other consideration or balance.

I'm confident there's nothing bigoted about the poem either and I already said it's not a cancel culture poem so that's a tangent I'm not exploring further.

[John Riley]

Tell me, Michael, why “penetrating gaze” passes muster and “dancing eyes” doesn’t. It seems all you’re interested in doing is popping back in with tiny comments blowing off critiques and ignoring the continuing slackness of your poems. Poem after poem from you have the same weaknesses and you essentially blow off comments. This is a workshop to improve as a poet, not a place to dust off failed poems, or at least it once was.

Did you really look at Pope’s poetry and think you need not fix your weak, overused modifiers because Pope used modifiers?

[Michael Tyldesley]

Nope, that's not exactly what I did. I was illustrating this point that I don't believe modifier count is a measure of the quality of a poem. It's not a good idea to ram a poem full of them. I don't think this poem is rammed full of them but at least one of them is weak and thanks for pointing that out.

Choosing good modifiers is important.

I've already explained why I've used penetrating gaze and it appears you don't like it and it meets your definition for bad poetry. Thanks for sharing that.

This is a workshop to improve as a poet, not a place to dust off failed poems, or at least it once was.

You make a wrong assumption. This poem was written the same week it was posted and it's never been submitted anywhere or rejected so I'm not sure how you've decided it's an old failed dusted off poem. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion there's bigotry in the poem or at least that appears to be what you were implying. It's like you're bringing your own prejudices or baggage to the poem and I can't mitigate against that.