[Carl Copeland]

Thanks, Cameron. It’s hard to resist treating each sher as a bead to be polished and then strung on a thread. Ideally, as John suggested, I think the connection between them should be more subtle and allusive. If only I knew what did suit me. I’ll keep looking.

[Carl Copeland]

Your comment does help, Cameron. I’ve given up the idea of doing another ghazal along very similar lines. Another ghazal, if I do one, will be different.

[Susan McLean]

Carl, I think you have the form of the ghazal here, but not its beating heart. Narrating events in the history of Babylon doesn't evoke the depth of feeling that I associate with the form. I see the ghazal as an expression of yearning and loss, and history is certainly full of yearning and loss. What about using Babylon as a metaphor for your own feelings? To evoke feelings, think of phrases like "metaphor/score/sore/swore in Babylon." Ideally, each sher should evoke a feeling in the reader, and having a range of different feelings, even mixed feelings, adds depth.

Susan

[Carl Copeland]

Thanks, Susan. I don’t think I’m up to rewriting this one—not for now, anyway—but I take your advice to heart. You’ve helped me understand what John and Cameron found lacking. I think the yearning and loss has a lot to do with the genre’s resonance for me, so why have I left it out? You’ve given me much to meditate on.

[Yves S L]

Hello Carl,

I have not immersed myself in the Ghazal form, but I sorta get what Cameron and co are pointing at. I want to come at these comments from another angle though. There is an interesting pattern of tension and release relative to if at the end of the lines Babylon is addressed directly or not. Perhaps if you approach the poem emotionally from this angle, then you might free yourself from the strict linear progression you have imposed on the form.

The Ghazal is for you if you are sufficiently interested! I myself have not even spent a whole hour of lifetime reading Ghazhals.

Yeah!

[R. Nemo Hill]

Yeah, Carl, the poem comes off as a hollowed-out, an unfulfilled form. Here on the Sphere, one may garner positive comments on one's workmanlike adherence to form, but really that's just shoptalk and it begs the question of what it is that makes a poem. Too often we succeed only in the mechanics of the language, and lose sight of what it is a poem must conjure to be memorable. Trying to write a free verse poem often frustrates me: I need the unexpected associations of a formal device in order to stimulate me, and yet those formal devices alone can't replace inspiration. Everyone, of course, has a differing level of tolerance for formal constraints, but at a certain point they can become detrimental to expression. Our workshops carry the echoes of many such poems, bouncing off its walls, making a lot of scannable noise, signifying next to nothing. More and more often I try to start with a mood, rather than a form. Then I begin to measure and map the mood.

Nemo

[Carl Copeland]

Ok, I hope three is enough to answer at once. I’ve only just learned (after two years!) that individual responses—repeatedly bumping me to the top—are distracting and rude. The problem is that I’m a criminally lazy correspondent, and if I have to respond to ten at a time, I may resort to a collective thank-you and let it go at that.

Yves, I’m not sure I understand your advice, except that you and others fault this ghazal for lack of emotion. I take that seriously and will let it work on me.

Matt, I thought of it as the story of a city—a dramatic history—but if it doesn’t engage you, it doesn’t. You and others have convinced me that a poem—a ghazal in particular—needs more heart and more of me.

Nemo, I too need the stimulation of form, and as you know, I crave a sensual, palpable form, which may be why the ghazal resonates with me. Form may be as important as content for me, but it can’t make up for a dearth of content—in this case, feelingful content. I hear you.

[Yves S L]

Carl, I am not really giving you advice, more commenting on the technical aspect of the poem most interests. Of course the poem expresses emotion, whether that is the emotions a reader expects in a Ghazal is up to the reader.

All I am saying is that the pattern of using a direct address or not at the end of the line has interesting effects that can be interpreted emotionally and patterned. That is the aspect of your Ghazal that I find interesting.

For example this how you set up the Ghazal:

Your glories fade to horror, Babylon, [Direct Address]
from Babel to the Whore of Babylon. [Not a direct Address]

This pattern functions like an A and B rhyme that get repeated in the Ghaza as it goes round and round.
I am sure that trick has been used before, but I don't spend much time with Ghazals so ...

(If there was advice it would be to dive even deeper into the world of the Ghazal if that is a form that you sincerly want to be able to control, and not just give up because some folk on a forum did not much like it.)

[John Riley]

Carl, since you want to keep bringing it up I will say yes bumping your poem repeatedly to the top of the queue can be impolite and selfish. Why is obvious. I admit that the board isn’t how it was once. There’s often only one poem in play so it may not matter as much. But if there are two or three new poems and you repeatedly jump over them by responding to every comment individually it can be rude.

I didn’t say anyone was rude and the other individual who passed on that truth for consideration dir not call anyone either. But we have a board now that isn’t receptive to actual critique. Feelings are hurt and instead of considering the comment let’s accuse the person who took their time to help with the poem of being a hater. Yes, it is now that immature around here. The goal seems to be for a mutual admiration society instead of a board where,people put poems up and accept the critique instead of slurring the person who did the critique. Things change and not always for the better.

[Carl Copeland]

John, this is the first site of any kind I’ve ever been active on, so things aren’t always “obvious” to me. I was hoping someone would reassure me that I haven’t been “impolite and selfish” for over two years, but no one has, and I’ve already modified my behavior. By the same logic, I should avoid extended discussions with critters, but that can’t be right, can it? In fact, I’m stealing the limelight again with this very post.

As for the rest, you seem to think I took sides in an argument where I did nothing of the kind. You’ve given me some very hard criticism at times. It’s always been sincere and almost always on the mark. That’s what I’m here for. As far as I’m concerned, you can keep on swinging.