[Yves S L]

Jan,

I meant that given the definition of "commodity", the fourth line "becoming things you'd sell or buy" reads as entirely unnecessary apart from filling up a line of meter and setting up the die/buy rhyme by using a line to spell out a definition (yeah, defining a word is a tool of emphasis, but I am just generally not convinced by what this poem is doing so it reads like rhyme driven choices (meaning the need to rhyme is contorting the poem previous to hitting the rhyme)). Sure anything is a tool, and also any tool can be used badly and judged as such by anyone else.

What is the point of defending the first line when other people were not comfortable with the line, and you ended up changing it? It is more like the horrid syntax and inarticulate use of personification is a symptom of an underlying problem of how the poem is thought out, because that line negatively impacted the rest of the poem anyways apart from any isolated technical issues.

Also, one of the factors in my deleting a post is that after posting, I reckon it is likely not going to be much use to the poet anyways: we are just coming at it from incompatible angles. If you misunderstood my simple point about "commodities" and "becoming things you'd sell or buy" then likely other points would not be understood nor accepted.

This also should be a deleted post. I would have saved myself some typing if I left it at my initial deleted post, but I type fast so the loss is minimal. Yeah!

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

There is little point in argument Yved. I thank you for your input and am glad that you have pointed out where you see illogicality. That is always helpful but this is polemic after all.

I write but what I write will never appeal to everyone but that is a problem I share with humanity.

Jan