Poetry: forms, history, and critical analysis

Poetry Review; Impartially Cynical

The first edition of the unrevised poem held a prose unsteadily consistent to any form or generation of theme outside of the assortment of minutia that persisted boringly on and on. With little interest, I finished reading it to the imposing snore of perpetual boredom. No rhythm or rhyme is orchestrated in any of its composition. It would undoubtedly not achieve a recommendation or a plea for an encore. The ongoing poor descriptions of food fevered me further as a malcontent audience member; never to cease in rolling my eyes.

The revised edition of Real Food provided a bit different consideration for the first. As if a million dollar an hour maid service had rendered a thorough Spring-cleaning to a college frat house, this modified version proved to eliminate much of the unnecessary verbs, adjectives and nouns that exacerbated my hatred for the first. Perhaps, my idea and perceived notions of the second were similar to the effect of smelling a unbelievably horrible odor for hours and then welcoming the smell of rotting fish because it is less bothersome than the previous aroma. In other words, if the first had not delivered such a poor display of poetic expression, the second version might not have tided over as well. It would be almost the same as asking Mrs. Lincoln if she enjoyed the play despite the tragic murder of her husband on their opera balcony. The revision did provide for more of an intriguing concept of what the author was intending to depict. In sum, the original appeared to be a purposeful angle at irrelevance, while the second assured the redemption for the author as a poet.

The first edition of the second poem provided a very discerning notion of questions regarding the environment of the teller and the situation itself. For this, I found it to be quite interesting. With hints of rhyme, the progression of the tale expresses something dark, which is constantly eluded after the depiction of undesired ash. This poem altered in mere few, subtle absences and additions with the revised edition. Both poems provoke an interest as to what the main issue and dilemma remains for the poet. It progresses smoothly without escaping the vestige of mystery surrounding its focus on the remains on the buffet in a glass. The change incline to title made much more sense in the terms of the revision as compared to the first set of poems.

The third poem is perhaps, the most mysterious of the three. After several readings, my idea of the second subject aside from the narrator, I am unable to conclude the definition of their woes or where they inflict them. Three different guesses arise as to their identity - yet none appears more apparent than the other in any instance. The revision as compared to the original does little to clarify this mystery.