[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

The preceding part has a subject "A panoply of whispers, charms, and smiles" then never seems to get a verb.

Great critique as always, Matt, but I can set you straight on one thing: “panoply” is the subject of “lives.”

[Matt Q]

Ah, OK. Thanks Carl. I'd read "lives", as the plural of "life" -- not "lives" as verb.

So much for the reincarnation reading! That's a shame, I thought the mythic reading added something unexpected.

It still reads a comma-spliced to me, though. I still see two independent clauses (and it still seems ambiguous as to which clause belongs to what) I reckon it's this:

For in her lives a panoply of whispers, charms, and smiles more fierce than feminine. As whetted steel in wanton war, she wields her beauty’s hilt.

This seems less likely:

For in her lives a panoply of whispers, charms, and smiles more fierce than feminine, as whetted steel in wanton war. She wields her beauty’s hilt.

but given the comma, it's how I start reading it.

A semi-colon or dash would also work to replace the comma, of course.

-Matt

[N. Matheson]

I was literally told by another person here to overhaul how I used commas. So I either use them in a historical format or use them in a modern sense. Either way, the poem fails.

I'll leave the poem up for others to examine, but I can declare that is more or less failed given the response.

[N. Matheson]

Originally I had, but I was told to drop them.

[W T Clark]

What is your qualification for "failure"?

[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.

[Carl Copeland]

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.

[N. Matheson]

I'll treat it as a learning experience, but I can toss this poem out. I don't think it can be redeemed.

[Mark McDonnell]

N,

Of the 11 people who have commented, only 3 have discussed the poem's potential misogyny and none of those 3 said they were offended. As for "my entire style is seen as an archaism that is not needed", yes many have questioned the outdated language of this particular poem. But it seems to me a matter of observable fact that the style here is archaic. If this is the way you always write, and not just a stylistic exercise for one poem, then the majority of poets will probably reject it. It is up to you whether you listen to those voices or go your own lonely way.

Edit: I'm still unsure which is the case. In your introduction you seemed to suggest the language was a stylistic exercise, somehow fitting in with your fantasy world setting. But then later you also suggest a complete rejection of "modern" language, and even topics, in poetry.

[Julie Steiner]

N., I have often given advice that resulted in a worse version of someone's poem.

Please don't feel obligated to follow advice if it doesn't feel right, even if you feel pressured to. You're still the ultimate boss of your own work.