Quote:
Originally Posted by N. Matheson
Considering my entire style is seen as an archaism that is not needed and my poem is seen as a confused jumble that actually offended people? I'd say I crossed the threshold somewhere about.
|
I’d put this differently. You’ve gotten three kinds of criticism:
1) Resistance to the archaic language. But you’re used to that by now. If you’re committed to seventeenth-century language, this criticism shouldn’t faze you.
2) Objections to the theme of “a woman using sex/seduction as weapon.” Those are Matt’s words, and it’s worth thinking about, but, as he added, the theme may gain value in context.
3) Specific suggestions on grammar, punctuation and word choice. These you can take or leave. I doubt that Julie’s comma rules (which I follow religiously) apply to the seventeenth century, but Matt’s suggested punctuation is intended to clarify meaning.
Three strikes and you’re out? I think not. It’s unproductive to lump everyone’s thoughts together into a single collective judgment that the poem is a failure. Try to see what each commenter has to offer you—or doesn’t.