Footprints on the Moon (529 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.5 on 13 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by drgoatcabin (View user info) at 2006-11-21 12:04:48 EST
I was digging through a box of my high school junk and found a poem that I wrote my junior year. I thought I would share it with y'all and get it critiqued.
So here it is "Footprints on the Moon" by Ryan Gautreaux.
Have you ever walked along the beach, across the cold, wet sand,
And come across a footprint made by only a mortal man?
Then a rush of water comes and the footprint disappears,
And you walk away casually, with no regrets or any tears.
Or have you ever trudged along in the snow,and left a trail behind?
To wake the next morning, with footprints left only in your mind.
Or maybe even the desert, where you'd think they'd last for days.
But one small wind arises and all's left is smooth sand in the blaze.
These are the deaths of footprints, but no one cares if a footprint dies.
No one frowns, no one tears, no on even bats an eye.
But there is one exception, a place where your head will never lie.
A place not located here on Earth, but in the midnight sky.
There is no water, there is no wind, nothing falls from up high.
This place I describe is the moon, where footprints never die.
There is no rain, there is no snow, nothing blowing by-and-by.
This is a place of complete tranquility, and footprints never die.
So when at night, I'm missing her, I just look into my mind.
And she's always there, like on the moon, the footprints that never die.
Hope y'all enjoyed it. Go easy on it.
User Reviews
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2007-01-03 09:21:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good
Submitted by gina (user info) at 2006-11-22 11:10:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sama;
You're kidding, right? I think that the author of this poem actually appreciated what I said. If not, he should feel free to tell me (and I assume he does.)
Generally, people here appreciate actual criticism when they post something serious. If you don't, that's fine. I'll make a point not to bother with any of your posts.
Submitted by kuroneko_sama (user info) at 2006-11-22 06:37:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
poetry is shit!
but i thought what you wrote was good, not great.
it is something you are obviously proud of so i can respect it as true expresion, and not total "try to hard, wanna be poet" crap
ahhh poetry critique, a chance for those to pretend to know soo much about something that cant truly be graded...
poetry in its truest form should be done for the message, not for the thirst for critique
though there is a redeeming factor in praise, it should not be the motovation.
some of you douchebags need to look more at what is said, not how it is said
anyone here leaving 500 word "poetry 101" essays in how to write poetry need to fucking hang yourself
Submitted by PhillipTheGreat (user info) at 2006-11-22 01:27:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The poem was great.
But your last name is even better.
Submitted by gina (user info) at 2006-11-21 14:47:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Something you mentioned that I didn't address: poems can have meter, or not. There are different kinds, rythms, measurement, etc and I don't think you are asking me for them, so I'll not bore you with it. My comment was limited to your poem in that it was set up like a metered poem, and at times, felt like it was trying to scan. That's all. If you want to write free verse, that's cool. Your poem just felt like it wanted meter and hadn't achieved it. The example I gave was written in iambs, and each line was limited to a pentameter. Yes, this is also the meter of sonnets, but that doesn't mean you have to follow it, or have to write a sonnet in order to use iambic pentameter.
Submitted by gina (user info) at 2006-11-21 14:40:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You are right in a sense. Good poems begin with a kernal of truth. But a million lines of doggeral have been written in the name of "but I was being honest!" or "But that's how I really feel..." Just because you feel something and convey it honestly, does NOT mean it is a good poem. I'm going to make a quick point and I don't want you to take it the wrong way: but read some of that highschool bullshit poetry that the goth chicks crank out in endless verse in black notebooks. I'm sure that all of it is very heartfelt and "honest." But none of it is good poetry. This, in my opinion, is the fundamental problem with most poets today. "But it came from the heart!" As if that makes it a good poem.
In terms of structure, read some Rae Turnbill (not sure how to spell that..) What a bunch of garbage. It is basically loose prose, written in structured lines, and called poetry. Absolute tripe. Unfortunately, also some of the most widely read and popular poems of our day. Sad.
Free verse poetry was born out of the post-modern notion that rules are antithetical to primal human emotion, or that rules inherently hinder the honest expression thereof. Some people still agree with this, but ultimately I think that structure equals freedom, and that the rules, when followed properly, can make a poem (or any art for that matter) much more satisfying. Post modern dance did the same thing, saying that all movement is dance, even walking, farting, washing the dishes, whatever. But I would rather watch a dancer with some technique or skills or rules, rather than one who was moving "honestly" as the Grotovskians call it. But the best dancers move "honestly" within the rules. That's good dancing.
Truth is just the beginning, the very, very beginning of a long process. I think in "Ode on a Grecian Urn" Yeates says something about truth is beauty, beauty truth, that is all you need to know and all there is to know, or something like that. He's wrong. If that were true, then we wouldn't need poetry at all. Poetry is the translation of one person's truth to another in an interesting way. So again, truth is just the beginning.
Submitted by drgoatcabin (user info) at 2006-11-21 14:01:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey gina. I understand what you're talking about and I appreciate the critique. But I thought poetry is supposed to be based on the author's feeling? I understood poetry as being open, a "no rules" sort of thing. I could be wrong?? From what you said, I'm very wrong. I thought only sonnets and plays had to have a specific meter?
Submitted by drgoatcabin (user info) at 2006-11-21 13:56:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks bean. Considering I wrote it 7 years ago, I wouldn't call it behind. And I know it doesn't involve butt sex or rape(making it a useless poem), but you gotta give props to someone with absolutely no poetic background.
Jizzle thanks for that one. It was long...
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-11-21 13:38:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
What gina said, oh and whatever Orgasm says to..... you could learn a lot young Jedi.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/96016
It's blatant Linkwhoring but I think that the educational needs allow me to link.
Read that my friend and weep. You'll probably die on the spot and never write another poem as long as you live but I owe it to you to show you just how far behind you are.
Submitted by beauxjizzle (user info) at 2006-11-21 13:38:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gina (user info) at 2006-11-21 13:25:48 (#)
Ranking: 2
Poetry is tricky. It generally needs to be graded on three levels: what is the poem saying? How well is it saying it? Is it worth saying? These aren't my rules, they are the generally accepted rules according to literary criticism. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just a general guideline that I like to follow.
In terms of the first criteria, this poem isn't bad. It seems like a commentary on imagination, on the transient quality of all things, and to the contrary, on the permanence (or seeming permanence, according to the author) of love and romance. Nice.
In my opinion, it says it pretty poorly. You set up your stanzas as if you are going to write them in iambic pentameter, and then, inexplicably, you don't (The meter on this poem is so bad, that it was frustrating to read at times; like it's trying to fit, but can't.) Forgive me for a second, but I want to re write one of your stanzas to show you what I mean. Your first stanza goes:
Have you ever walked along the beach, across the cold, wet sand,
And come across a footprint made by only a mortal man?
Then a rush of water comes and the footprint disappears,
And you walk away casually, with no regrets or any tears.
There is no reason that I can see not to say (and I will keep your rhymes in place, dreadful as they are):
I've walked along the beach, 'cross cold, wet sand,
And seen the footprints made by mortal man.
The tide comes in, the footprint disappears,
I've walked away with no regrets or tears.
It really says the same thing, but scans properly. I'm not saying that my version is better than yours, I just want to point out that with a little work, you can save everything you want to say, and still pack a much better punch by following the meter. Meter is to poetry what melody is to music, yeah? If you say a Peter Gabriel song without the melody, it's okay, but WITH the melody, it kicks your ass.
Your rhymes, by the way, are really, truly awful and trite: blaze/ days, eye/ die, and then for reasons completely unfathomable: mind/die. It's too bad because some of the imagery, albeit not very original, is very lovely: the notion of the footprints being washed away by waves, much like time erases all things, is a very nice metaphor; except that we've seen it a thousand times before, but that's cool. It's pretty nonetheless. But then you have a strange stanza that I don't understand:
These are the deaths of footprints, but no one cares if a footprint dies.
No one frowns, no one tears, no on even bats an eye.
This seems to go against your thesis, which is how sad it is that all things are temporary. Don't we all grieve over the temporary nature of our lives? Don't we all wish that love and life (especially love) would go on forever? It's confusing because you have created the metaphor of footprints being equal to the lives of men, and then you change the metaphor and footprints are just footprints again. This doesn't work for me, because it undermines your basic premise. Likewise, the final stanza extolls the virtues of the permanence of the footprints on the moon (as a metaphor for the permanence of the author's love.) But why would this particular permanence matter if no one "even bats an eye" at the disappearance of footprints on Earth? I would simply cut this stanza, or re work it to clarify your position.
The third criteria is: Is it worth saying? And I think here is where you score. I'm a big romantic sucker, I like the notions of omnia vincit amore, even time. Yes, it has been said before, but who cares right? Some topics can be written over and over again. I also really like the invocation of the moon as a symbol of permanence. So many authors use the transient nature of the moon's cycles to represent change and the mercurial quality of woman. But you are using it as a symbol of consistency, and I like that very much. The moon has always seemed very friendly and comforting to me, so I appreciate your view on this.
----------------------------------
doubleyou tee eff?
Submitted by gina (user info) at 2006-11-21 13:25:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Poetry is tricky. It generally needs to be graded on three levels: what is the poem saying? How well is it saying it? Is it worth saying? These aren't my rules, they are the generally accepted rules according to literary criticism. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just a general guideline that I like to follow.
In terms of the first criteria, this poem isn't bad. It seems like a commentary on imagination, on the transient quality of all things, and to the contrary, on the permanence (or seeming permanence, according to the author) of love and romance. Nice.
In my opinion, it says it pretty poorly. You set up your stanzas as if you are going to write them in iambic pentameter, and then, inexplicably, you don't (The meter on this poem is so bad, that it was frustrating to read at times; like it's trying to fit, but can't.) Forgive me for a second, but I want to re write one of your stanzas to show you what I mean. Your first stanza goes:
Have you ever walked along the beach, across the cold, wet sand,
And come across a footprint made by only a mortal man?
Then a rush of water comes and the footprint disappears,
And you walk away casually, with no regrets or any tears.
There is no reason that I can see not to say (and I will keep your rhymes in place, dreadful as they are):
I've walked along the beach, 'cross cold, wet sand,
And seen the footprints made by mortal man.
The tide comes in, the footprint disappears,
I've walked away with no regrets or tears.
It really says the same thing, but scans properly. I'm not saying that my version is better than yours, I just want to point out that with a little work, you can save everything you want to say, and still pack a much better punch by following the meter. Meter is to poetry what melody is to music, yeah? If you say a Peter Gabriel song without the melody, it's okay, but WITH the melody, it kicks your ass.
Your rhymes, by the way, are really, truly awful and trite: blaze/ days, eye/ die, and then for reasons completely unfathomable: mind/die. It's too bad because some of the imagery, albeit not very original, is very lovely: the notion of the footprints being washed away by waves, much like time erases all things, is a very nice metaphor; except that we've seen it a thousand times before, but that's cool. It's pretty nonetheless. But then you have a strange stanza that I don't understand:
These are the deaths of footprints, but no one cares if a footprint dies.
No one frowns, no one tears, no on even bats an eye.
This seems to go against your thesis, which is how sad it is that all things are temporary. Don't we all grieve over the temporary nature of our lives? Don't we all wish that love and life (especially love) would go on forever? It's confusing because you have created the metaphor of footprints being equal to the lives of men, and then you change the metaphor and footprints are just footprints again. This doesn't work for me, because it undermines your basic premise. Likewise, the final stanza extolls the virtues of the permanence of the footprints on the moon (as a metaphor for the permanence of the author's love.) But why would this particular permanence matter if no one "even bats an eye" at the disappearance of footprints on Earth? I would simply cut this stanza, or re work it to clarify your position.
The third criteria is: Is it worth saying? And I think here is where you score. I'm a big romantic sucker, I like the notions of omnia vincit amore, even time. Yes, it has been said before, but who cares right? Some topics can be written over and over again. I also really like the invocation of the moon as a symbol of permanence. So many authors use the transient nature of the moon's cycles to represent change and the mercurial quality of woman. But you are using it as a symbol of consistency, and I like that very much. The moon has always seemed very friendly and comforting to me, so I appreciate your view on this.
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2006-11-21 12:37:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good.
Submitted by beauxjizzle (user info) at 2006-11-21 12:15:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
where are you from man?
+2 for cajun names