Young Writers Society

The Seagull

It soars through the sky, gliding along the wind
that invisibly supports its thoughtless aerodynamics.
They say that it gathers the clouds, but thus to have sinned
is beyond its lot; only Zeus graces urns, madams’ ceramics.

Rather, has not the storm attracted seagulls
to flock as they are wont — in camouflage
dull even on the brilliant reflection that mulls
itself, on the water’s surface a mirage.

Whether it is one or another the attractive force,
ultimately both are ignorant of their roles' clash
for us enough to correlate, and relate in voices hoarse
the graying world they bring about like so much ash.

Hi Ilya! Like promised, here I shall review.

Since I'm not so confident in reviewing poetry, bear with me here while I try my hardest to give you a decent review. I'm okay at rhymes, though, so that might make it easier for me.

Really, I wasn't a huge fan of this poem. There are so many words that everything just gets jumbled and your rhymes seem painfully forced, like, Oh! I just found a word that rhymes with this word and so I'm going to make it work! Don't do that, please, because then it slaughters a poem with potential. I also get the sense - unless I stand corrected - that you're using hopelessly elaborate words to just make your poem fancier. Then that's a double slaughter. It's annoying and then I get confused about where you're going with the poem. By the end, I was struggling to find the references toward this all being about a seagull. You tend to stray from the real heart of poem to go fiddle around with some fancy words and pretty rhymes.

But, yeah, clarity is really important when writing a poem. I'm only just experimenting with poetry, but writing with clarity is always important, be it prose or poetry or both. You have so many words that cloud the real point of the whole poem - it's foggy in its true meaning. Be careful with that.

And circling back to the rhymes: they aren't very well done. This ties in with the fact of mish-mashed words and probably the forcefulness of the rhymes influenced the over-wording. When rhyming, be free and just go with the flow, bro. (ehmagawd, can't believe I just wrote that.) Don't stress too much about rhyming. If you're good enough at it, rhymes shouldn't be difficult to find and ones that work, too.

I'll make it clear that despite the fact I wasn't a big fan of this, I didn't hate it either. I think with some tweaking, it might be awesome (lay off on a few big words). Especially loved the reference to Zeus. Y'know, God of the Heavens etc.

Yours,
Lavvie

Hi! I basically clicked on this because I am a sucker for bird poems. Yup, I admit it!

Anyway, for this, you seemed to use a lot of filler that were kind of throwaway words. I mean, I don't mean to sound mean. It's just that you're using a lot of adjectives and adverbs, and usually that's a sign that your verb choice is weak and not very powerful. For instance, your first stanza:

It flies through the sky, gliding along the wind
that invisibly supports its thoughtless aerodynamics.
They say that it gathers the clouds, but thus to have sinned
is beyond its lot; only Zeus graces madams’ ceramics.

You say it flies and then you say it glides. Why do you use both verbs? It feels like you're trying to compensate for using a weak verb, so then you use another weak verb. But that doesn't quite work! You can use other words instead of "fly" or "glide". You can use "soar." You can use "whizzes." You can use a lot of different words! Grab your thesaurus and have a go at it.

As far as thoughtless aerodynamics/ceramics? That looks like you're just rhyming because you don't know what else to do. Find better rhymes that don't force themselves in awkward positions! There are free rhyming dictionaries out there on the internet... check them out. Rearrange these lines so that they make more sense. Or, first do a poem that is in free verse (as a rough draft) and then force it into the metered, rhyming poem you want it to be in. So, have fun with this.

And then you have the adjectives and adverbs... that's another sign of a weak verb or a statement, so rearrange it so that it looks better. Instead of saying invisibly supports, which is a bit weak, you can talk about how it looks like a lost kite floating on the breeze. Or a puppet that lost its strings and learned to fly. And so on. So, find a strong image and use it!

And, most of all, have fun. Half the fun of poetry is constructing all these whimsical images and boggling the readers' minds with them.

(**puts on her best "Spinning into Butter" voice**)

"Sometimes I want to run out onto the quad and hike up my skirt and pee all over everything”

Wait, no. Wrong quote.

"Just- Read the Rilke."

That's the one.

I think the concept of classic iconography is an interesting one. On one hand it is considered to be bombastic self aggrandising twaddle, a smug nod among Etonian classmates, on the other, what was written by the Ancient Greeks and Romans is still sharp, shocking and relevant to the human condition. The fact that Lysistrata's technique of withholding sex can cripple a government or a drug cartel today is proof enough that regardless of time and place we remain united in our love of T&A. Not to mension "the lioness and the cheesegrater". Anyway, I'm just going to get more obscure and more filthy, and nobody wants that, so where was I? Oh yes. Zeus! It made me think of Rilke's "Archaic torso of Apollo". I am a massive fan of AD Hope, and boy was he a one for classical allusions, the man would have half a page of references for his poems. He knew he was being a bit of a prat about it, but you forgave him, because he could also come alive around ypu, this rich, ancient texture of fur and muscle and sweat, much like Rilke's Apollo. There is a profundity and divinity to their subjects, even while they are made more visceral. This can technically be contrasted with Dorothy Parker's Sappho, Salome or Guenivere, Parker is sparse but intensely empathetic, these women become heartsick, witty, bitter flappers like Parker herself. I think that Zeus is a missed opportunity, is my point. I think there is a conflict between the visceral and cerebral at the heart of this poem, I think Zeus is the key to this, the character of a vast, inhuman, inscrutable flock with seen and unseen logic. The seagulls share the same wants, food, drink, warmth, success, sex, but you can't know how they think. More flesh/physical presence/instinctive sense imagery could create a larger space in the poem.

I disagree intensely with Lavvie, I loved the structure, I loved the wordplay, it seemed to me that you fell on symmetry rather than devising it, which is almost impossible to pull off.

dull even on the brilliant reflection that mulls

I am crazy about this line. I keep noticing new things about it every time I look, but my favourite thing is the symmetry, as I said. Dull/mulls then supported with the vowel symmetry inside the words at the centre of the line, brilliant and reflection. It's not crass and obvious, it sneaks up on you and it is lovely.

Okay, there is a leaning towards stylistic choices above striking bold images, but I don't mind that so much. It isn't a Cubist painting, it's an intricate ivory scrimshaw, it's in the line. You guys can disagree with me, but I think clarity and style are contextual, a good poem creates the gestures of the subject, and I think this does. You can't see every eye, wing, beak, but you can feel the moment of the flock along your skin.

Sorry for the rambling, it is late, I am crazy. Well done, lovely work.