I gave it the position in the Boot Camp because I thought the bones of the poem offered something worth exploring and delving into, both for the poet and the critiquers. While there are always things in every poem worth exploring, I thought this one offered more than some others I've moved.

In other words, I thought it met the criteria. I still think so.

L. thanks for the detailed feedback.

I guess I think that these "extra words" are not just filler. Cham has explained why "even" is there better than I could. "maybe" is the same, as in maybe the TV is as much as 3 paces away, but maybe it closer and therefore harder to switch off rather than easier. "Your mind" (S7L3) makes the point. That it is with your mind you should view the world. I don't see that as filler.

Part ii Gives an example. It makes the whole more palatable and further it is a condensing of the "why?". There are many reasons to switch of the TV a bit more, but that it controls your thoughts is maybe the best. Yes maybe it isn't new in what it is saying but hopefully it is weird, possibly funny and therefore more thought provoking. You've made a case (as Tony did) for a short version but that's not the poem I'm trying to write. I don't think directness is as good.

I've no beef about the crits for S1 and S2.

Very helpful. Thanks again for taking the extra time to explain.

Tekay wrote:

BrokenCrust I'm just curious, who are you writing for? A broad readership (perhaps those who watch alot of TV) or the approval of other poets or yourself?

I write mainly for myself. I enjoy the feedback I get here, so yes I write a bit for some cheers from others (those that post work must all do this at least a little), and yes I am hoping to make this piece (and some others) appeal to a broader audience. I have no delusion that my poem will appear in the paper one day, be read by everyone who will then all go outside and do good stuff. It might be nice to be able to get a piece into a non poetry publication. Maybe not this one, but what I'm learning in the work-shopping of this piece will apply to others. That it is focused on how I write and is on a subject I feel something about, makes the process work faster.

Tekay wrote:

I feel that this piece has been given a lot more gravity over others for no apparent reason

More gravity? How so? I have no control or influence on this site. Tony explained how selection works for this forum: I am not part of it.

Perhaps you mean that you are surprised at the number of replies? I didn't make folks reply, nor think differently about the poem than you. You think it is crap. OK I got that. You said why. I got that too, but disagree in the most part.

I'm very grateful for the help others have chosen to give, I'm trying out what they say and either using it or making a case why I'm not. I am receptive to the crits and prepared to listen to them and learn. That is what this forum is about. The poem is better and I hope I will take what I've learned and re-write other poems and improve them too. What is so bad about that?

I feel like it's beating me over the head with the message while pretending like it's not. The subtly is thinly disguised. I'd just take the advice, scrap the poem, and apply what you've learned to your next piece. While developing a voice, it's important to be forward focused.

BrokenCrust wrote:

You've made a case (as Tony did) for a short version but that's not the poem I'm trying to write. I don't think directness is as good.

One point, and I'm adding it here only for the sake of future times when I may do this, not as a defensive reply.

I did say this, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been -- the suggestion I made to look at certain lines was NOT a suggestion that you shorten or change the poem to include only those lines; I was trying to offer a way to isolate one of the two voices I could hear in the poem so it was more obvious. That's all.

Thanks Alvin for the feedback. I was trying to be less subtle, since usually what is subtle for me is obscure gibberish to others. Subtly is a relative term, based on the readers POV. You, I guess, write mainly for the poetry high-brow crowd who would require a delicate degree of subtly since they are over exposed to it and therefore see the device up front. I was aiming to be _more_ inclusive, since I have little to offer that audience and I'd be shouting at the converted. Definitely something more for me to think over.

Tony: Sorry again for the misunderstanding. I actually did pretty much what you advocated, so I'm taking on the important bit.