What Carl says is important. Using rhyme in a didactic poem like this necessitates that one's argument be as crystal clear as the rhymes. In fact, trying to put one's abstract thoughts on a subject into rhyme is a great way to learn if one has any clear idea of what one wants to say. Most often, the argument melts into nothing, or it gets tangled up in impenetrable lexical knots. For me, both those things happen here. A lot of breath is expanded to say something negligible; while the constructions employed, when closely studied, are fruitlessly intricate. Alexander Pope made it look easy, but it is not. At their best, such lines can cut through verbiage with a revelation enhanced by the sparkle of their rhymes. At their worst, they merely enlighten one to the fact that one doesn't really know what one is talking about. Subsequent comments of yours, Jim, like—"rhymers should accept on faith that their verse is superior to the alternative of free verse because few in the world of poetry now do"—convince me of the latter.
Sorry, but I think this is a complete train-wreck, from start to finish. The "patience and navigation skills" that Carl over-generously laments that he lacks, well, they should be the province of the poet not the reader.
A tone of archaic authority is no substitute for timeless clarity of thought.
Nemo
|