Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconttbloodlusttt: More from ttbloodlusttt


Featured in Collections

Awesome F'N Reads by GrimFace242

Written Works by LostPuzzle


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
August 19, 2013
File Size
1.9 KB
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,826 (3 today)
Favourites
131 (who?)
Comments
111
×
Your Body Cried Crimson
Angela Malzow

Behind the pretty words hides a mouth of razor fangs
Quite frankly, I'm completely deranged.
So few know what lurks in my mind
What nightmare places exist for you to find.
At times I picture kissing your lips
All the while my knife slips
Into your innards and rips
Away your trust.

Stacked behind the allure of my pale eyes
Are rows and rows of myself in disguise.
The masks I wear to convince you that you're safe
Alone, you realize you're the victim I've raped.
I took away your innermost emotions
And placed them within the hands of my devotion.
Now you're trapped in my toxic web
I swallow you and you sink like lead
To the bottom of my heart.

The way I love is violent at best.
For instance, I'd like to tear your heart from your chest
And drink away the nectar of your affection.
Your body, subject to my dissection.
In this game, only I will win.
My tongue is dripping your blood and sin,
Drop by drop it sprays away
And from you, your life I take
To keep for myself.

Do not doubt the imagery of my desires
Manifest, likely spawned from hellfire.
Does it sicken you, churn your belly with acrid distaste?
Can you keep up with my careless pace?
Oh, I do love to torment you so
And watch you bleed, just to let you know.
I am haunted by red splashed across my vision
As my hands mechanically make the incision
That will end you.

The glass of your eyes searches the skies
Reflecting the glaring truth of my lies
The faces of those devised and trapped inside
My fingers wrap, the crunch follows, ribs divide.
I curl and cuddle into the tide
Of the crimson your body cried.

For me. Only for me.
A love poem.

Thank you Jul (=SolidMars) for being such a wonderful friend. That you found my poem
worthy of such an honor leaves me speechless. You truly are made of
chocolate.

And thank you ^GrimFace242 for considering my work and deeming it worthy.
I am completely humbled.
Add a Comment:
 

Daily Deviation

Given 2013-11-14
Your Body Cried Crimson by ~ttbloodlusttt ( Suggested by SolidMars and Featured by GrimFace242 )

The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork

Please sign up or login to post a critique.

:iconbritish-prophetess:
British-Prophetess Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
This is really wonderful work - very powerful imagery you have used with such a dark tone. I love how there is a pattern within the verses and the way you write is just so amazingly morbid. Honestly this was a real treasure to read! :)
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2014
I do love morbidity. Glad you enjoy it <3
Reply
:iconbritish-prophetess:
British-Prophetess Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
:)
Reply
:iconastro-creep166:
Astro-Creep166 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I love the way you think ;)
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013
lol I love that you love how I think.

:heart:
Reply
:iconastro-creep166:
Astro-Creep166 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I love that you love that I love how you think ;)
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013
Oh my goodness... my mind is blown. @_@
*takes brain out and attempts to stomp out the flames*
Reply
:iconastro-creep166:
Astro-Creep166 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Quick, the fire extinguisher!!
*Shoots the foam, but it catches on fire even more*
Oh goodness...I forgot that I replaced it with gasoline...
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013
It's okay... I am much happier without flesh...
*rattles bones*
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013  Professional Writer

You’re pretty good, fellow poet, but your poem/work can be more extraordinaire. I can only encourage you to advance your phraseology and terminology. For lack of better way to put it — this poem and some of your other material — comes off somewhat drab, kitsch, and cliché. Sound harsh? I am sorry. I mean well minus the harm.


With that said, no one can ever improve if everyone who comes around praises us all the time, often believing our intellectual property we put forth is perfect or unprecedented.


Below is my revision of your poem the way I think you thought the poem should have sounded, but due to a lock-up in your mind, I think (not saying you did) you felt as if you didn't quite express what you really wanted to get across to viewers. Who am I to say such things? I am a vicarious critic, getting into the minds of authors I believe worthwhile or need support so they can improve.


I arrive(d) at these notions because of the varying line lengths in your stanzas. Much like most art professors would suggest, when there is too much unfilled white space (in this case, between the lines in your stanzas,) fill them with fuller thoughts so each line neatly aligns with others much as possible so they are of even conciseness. The challenge is not to add lackluster filler words to make it work. When you mix three-word lines with eight to ten-word lines in stanzas, it not only comes off aesthetically displeasing, but it also comes off incomplete in thought. That just said is the exception to the rule with the ending line in any stanza. Conclusively, if you're going to start your first line with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 words, try to keep the rest of your lines at that length throughout all your stanzas much as possible. In doing so you push your mind further.


However, be careful of line length. Think book. Among other poets, if ever you were to publish some of your lengthy-lined poems in a book, they wouldn't format correctly on the pages because the lines in your stanzas stretch out too far. Narrower text margins challenge your words and ideas. The wider someone’s text margins in his or her word processor, the more they take advantage of the absurd leeway they are given, and the more likely it is their enjambments will cut off if put in a book. Prose and short stories are different in that there are dashes in cut-off words since prose doesn't rely on line breaks.


Anyway, I kept your poem original as possible. You may compare:


Your Body Cried Crimson
by Angela Malzow



Behind graceful words hides a mouth of razor fangs—

I’m deranged, and few know what lurks in my mind,

What untamed, nightmare realms exist for you to find.

I oft picture me kissing your lips while my knife slips

Into your innards and rips away at your trust.


Lined behind the allure of my platinum eyes

Are successions of rows of myself in disguise.

Put-on faces I wear to persuade you are safe

Fools you: you’re alone, the victim I've raped.

Now I steal away your innermost emotions
To place them in the hands of my devotion.

Furled and trapped within my toxic web,

I swallow you while you sink like lead
Into the bottomless abyss of my heart.


The way I love is paroxysmal and violent at best;

I’d love to snatch that petty heart from your chest,

And drink the succulent nectar of your affection.

So curious, your body is subject to my dissection.

Checkmate baby; in this game, only I will win!
My tongue is dripping with your blood and sin:

Drop by drop it spews out your life I have taken
To keep for myself.


Do not; you doubt the savage imagery of my desire(s),

These manifestations likely spawned from the hellfire.

Does it skewer or sicken your guts with acrid distaste?
Can you keep up with my remorseless, careless space?

To clarify and elaborate furthermore, you should know

I love to torment you mercilessly until your light is low,

And when I watch you bleed from your wracked frame,

I am haunted by red splashes passing across my vision

While my hands mechanically make the incision
That will end you.


The glassiness of your eyes searches the skies,

Reflecting all the glaring truths within my lies,

And the faces of those devised: trapped inside
My fingers wrap, crunches follow, ribs divide.

I curl and cuddle into the crimson tide

Your body cried . . .


For me, only for me.



Take from this what you will, learn from this what you may, but it is to my certainty the original version lacks in what it wants to say. It needs more expressive oomph in it to sound lovelier, darker, and terrifying.


P.S. This commentary is already very long, but you are welcome to send me a Note if you would like explanation on why I took out unnecessary words, etc. from the original version of your poem, or why I added words, etc. to the original version of your poem.


Congratulations on your DD. This was fun for me.

VicariouSoul

Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2013  Professional Writer
It seems KhazDa wants to play the, "The author did not ask for your opinion(s) or a critique, therefore, you have no business saying anything." card. To which I openly reply and contend, "The comments section is not for praise alone. The comments section is open to what people want to say and will say. That is what it's for. To expect everyone to say only what you want to hear all the time is equivalent to foolishly expecting the same thing everywhere you go in this world."

P.S. No one yet (I wonder why? No I don't . . .) has stepped forward to debate the third comment down (from this one) written by me regarding copyright infringement because I infringed nothing. However, KhazDa and SolidMars would have everyone here believe otherwise because they have no better punch to deliver to my face.

Call me any name in the book all you want, but don't accuse me of something I did not do without intending to do it in the first place.



Thank you.
Reply
:iconsolidmars:
SolidMars Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
a fool is a man who thinks he's all high and mighty. you may defend your opinion as you please, but you already made it clear and i am sure =KhazDA saw it as well,  that you're simply not worth the time nor the effort to bother with someone who won't see beyond his own nose. therefore, we both find it pointless to reply any further. so please, yell as you may, you've proven yourself to be a selfish, narcissistic ego who thinks he's the only right person in the world and all the rest are wrong.
your opinion is misguided and arrogant, that's why it's unneeded, keep your peace mate, spare yourself some humiliation. the fact that you didn't refer to either of use by the dA valid username link says it all. also I am sure *ttbloodlusttt told you clearly to stop commenting on this because she didn't want to see any more mile long replies on her page. 
just to be clear, you may respond to this as your please, i am not wasting any more breath on you than i already have.
cheers.

Reply
:iconkhazda:
KhazDA Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Random side note, but, "Checkmate baby" is considered a better revision? I apologize for not including this in my comment before but the thought of that line alone has had me laughing all day. If only we could all be so delightfully lost in our own tiny realms...
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Professional Writer
The poem is a love poem, and since the author is a woman directing her voice to her loved one, I thought it may be within the author's style where saying "Checkmate baby; in this game, only I win." might have added to the winning, somewhat seductive, and twisted diction used by the author in the poem. When I read the original phrase, "Only I win in this game," it wasn't controlling or dark sounding enough. It sounded drab and too lighthearted. However, when you say, "Checkmate baby; in this game, only I win." it tells the reader the person saying that is more in control of the game and manipulative, so much in that no matter what the author's loved one does, he is trapped no matter what move he makes.

Your remark proves you read things as they are without acknowledging the possible backstory behind a single line or phrase whether in a poem or prose.

I can go on all day behind the reasoning of everything I say and suggest through criticism. I don't just pull words and phrases out of nowhere for the sake saying or writing them.

P.S. I put myself in the author's realm and got lost therein in the revised version of the poem, not my own realm. My own realm gets boring; inhabiting other people's realms vicariously is more exciting.
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013
I find this slightly entertaining simply because adding something
 like "Checkmate baby; in this game, only I win."
is not a thought process I tend to entertain.

I am not trying to say that typically that kind of mentality
is represented by the simple line I chose to write only
that it doesn't apply to my personal emotions when I
wrote this poem.

The poem, as you aptly noted, is a love poem. Yes, I took
the subject to the perspective- if but for a moment- of a
game. The game isn't a victory, it isn't a coquettish "In your
face!" and it most certainly isn't cheeky in nature. It is simply
playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun and handing
it to my lover first. It is violent, it's cat and mouse, and it is
absolute.

I'd like to repeat that I appreciate the time you've taken to
thoughtfully rearrange my poem, idea, vision, and emotion,
however, I'd also like to repeat that I feel your rendition
destroys both the blistering calm of my represented insanity
that has been inspired by this intensive adoration and the
admittance of guilt at feeling a love so violent I could create
that hellish reality and enjoy it on a basal level.

Take these lines:
"At times I picture kissing your lips
All the while my knife slips
Into your innards and rips
Away your trust."

Compare:
"I oft picture me kissing your lips while my knife slips

Into your innards and rips away at your trust."


I favor the rhyming scheme as an obvious mechanism

here. Using "Away your trust." to abruptly end the

stanza with no rhyme to inspire a simple fact; I might

flow from sentiment to slaughter, the result being

nothing more than stark betrayal. To use your lines

strips away the waltz of sweeter destruction through

deliberate abrasiveness without overloading the lines

with infrequently used terms such as 'oft' which I tend

to feel the urge to reflect throughout a poem if used once.


Plain and simple, this poem was written about =KhazDA

and the emotion is understood by him. Thus in need

of no embellishments, as in many of my poems; half of

it is words on a page, the other half is what it means

either to myself or the one in which I wrote about.


Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Professional Writer
Fair enough. Simply put, I never did say anything in the modified version of the poem you wrote was anything you would entertain. I also acknowledged you would not agree with certain things I said. Proof of this can be seen in my original comment where you see "I think," "I thought," "It seems / to me," or "It is to my certainty</i>..." (not the certainty of other readers.) Those are my opinion, and one's opinions are not always agreed with.

These are my opinions, biased to you or not. Here is an often untold truth: everyone is biased in some way, shape or form through rearranging one's prejudices. The thing with me is I don't sugarcoat what I say in criticism I give by hiding anything. The straightforwardness, honesty, and rawness of my words is not to be interpreted as anything other than what I said / say.

Unlike visual art where the gratification and message is almost always instant, the beauty in poetry is it's up for interpretation, and if I read your poem wrongly in that you wanted to preserve a sort of calmness throughout the madness in your poem, so be it. However, I didn't see your poem as what you're explaining, that if I did I would have gone about revising the poem differently. To me, your love poem came off very dark and unrelenting toward the man in the poem. I didn't really see any sweetness in the poem.

I also did not see the coquettish, or otherwise, flirtatious disposition of the woman in the poem. The woman came off more as being a tormentor than a sweetheart (to me.)</span>

This is what I mean (as mentioned here to someone else) by the beauty in getting into an author's words. You either misunderstand or are on target. Now that you're coming forth giving explanation about your poem, the poem has become more interesting to me than originally thought before.

Conclusively, all I did was say you were quite good, followed by an opinion saying your terminology and phraseology could improve. Much like the language of mathematics, simple math makes you simple money. The perplexing math like cosmologists, physicists, astronaut theorists, etc. use is what makes you the bigger money. It also broadens your understanding of things. This is no different in the written word. When words are too simple they come off drab, worn out, and risk crossing into what has already been said by someone else. Simpler words also teach or show nothing fresh for viewers. Throwing in a few words viewers may not have seen before makes them more curious and drawn to what you're saying. More complex words also show your love of language opposed to sticking with simpler terms all the time.

Yes, your words are simpler than what I exampled in the revision, and they get your point across good enough, but why settle for good enough? My point is while simple words can explain complex words, complex words have something about them in that they say what 4 or 5 words put together cannot say. More complex words also have more a variety in meaning than a string of simple words within their definitions.

So you say the modified version I exampled for you to mull over was way off . . . That's great, but that still doesn't change the fact your poem could sound better. Me, I am always going over my older work because I am my own worst critic. I am never satisfied with almost anything I write.

P.S. Let none of these said things to the supposition I am trying to persuade you to side with me, or force you to submit to my way of thinking. That goes for my original constructive comment to you.

All I am is an onlooker who is a stranger passing by your work I took interest in who likes to be told he is wrong by welcoming others to disprove me wrong so I can add what disproved to my mind for better understanding.
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2013
"To me, your love poem came off very dark and unrelenting toward the man in the poem. I didn't really see any sweetness in the poem."
^ The only reason anyone is assuming this is a poem about
love is because I put 'A love poem.' in the description. I'm
not saying it isn't about love, but anyone who knows me
also knows I tend to be rather sarcastic. In this instance
I did intend the poem to be dark. If you read some of
the initial comments I admit that I am ashamed that I
often feel this way. My overactive imagination can tear
apart my lover, yes morbid. I would never act on the bizarre
violence my imagination conjures but I find it personally
disturbing that I am capable of such brutality in regard
to someone I love. Having explained nearly every emotion
behind this poem by now should send a rather obvious
message. I wasn't being sweet or loving. If the reader
manages to see the admittance of guilt through blunt
statements, they may also glean the warning. In those
first few comments, he surprised me by seeing my warning
and raising me the invitation of being allowed to cause
the soul rending damage. The point was made, I was
satisfied and gained the added bonus.

Simple.

"I also did not see the coquettish, or otherwise, flirtatious disposition of the woman in the poem. The woman came off more as being a tormentor than a sweetheart (to me.)"
I used those terms in regard to the feeling I get from 'checkmate baby.'

"Now that you're coming forth giving explanation about your poem, the poem has become more interesting to me than originally thought before."

Since this has earned me a DD and seems to be dragging out a lovely
debate, I figured I would provide insight that may give invaluable insight
to my personal thought processes. I rarely care to explain what my poems
are about since they often pop into my head without invitation and write
themselves. Once it's over I rarely know what every line means but
the emotion no longer bogs me down.

I am not in any way saying what you offered to me is wrong but
I have said you were off base. It's just not 'me' to complicate my
poetry. I could spend time revising but what I would be corrupting
by doing so costs me more emotionally than what I gain.
Reply
:iconkhazda:
KhazDA Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I just want to take a second to point out that while that may have been your original intent, with the whole improvement concept, you come off as an arrogant ass. The way you write things in here is not of a polite nature, albeit it is a bit elevated, but it still rings of intelligent disdain. That is not to say you are intelligent, because phrases such as "disprove me wrong" include double negatives that only further my theory you use a thesaurus and don't actually know the words you use because you don't use them routinely. 

The truth of the matter is that to tear apart a poem written of pure emotion is to tear apart the emotion that instigated it, and given that nowhere on this page does it ask for a critique, let alone an advanced one, or a rewrite, nor does it ask for insight into publishing the work, you overstepped yourself. Your elevated linguistics are ridiculous and most paramount absurd in the way you view them. It is okay to use complex words should they actually elevate the work itself, but emotional works, true emotional works, are not recounted in complex phraseology. Emotional memories are basic and instinctual. If you doubt me, look into a psychology 101 class. 

The end result of what you did with your rewrite is not unlike those that called Beethoven a mad man for writing an entire song about a fart. You want to take the talent that exists and restrict it by converting it to your ways, which aren't entirely wrong, but still bear little consequence in this specific area. Could the author improve on her skills technically? Most definitely. I have edited sixty pages of a short story for her and have begun editing a much larger work. The truth is we could all improve, and while that statement may lead you to your "larger words mean larger brain mean better" mentality, they are most certainly not intended that way. 

Pardon me if I stray loquaciously off course, but I dare say thou art quite a fool's fool, given the indiscretion so violently displayed in the entirety of your verbose and besmirching elucidations of such a pulchritudinous piece of versification.
Reply
:iconkhazda:
KhazDA Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I have to say the greatest part about this discussion, if I may call it that, or perhaps better, chess game, is that you assume that you have any insight into the author's realm at all when I can honestly tell you I inhabit that realm more than you could ever possibly imagine and the glimpse you think you got was but a peep through a key hole which left you with just enough knowledge to commit suicide with. At the end of the day, you know nothing of which you speak. 

That being said, let me continue forward and state that I have dealt with quite a few manipulators, and have a certain, expertise if you will, in the matter. I have never, and can't imagine ever, hearing a manipulative and destructive personality looking at another individual and state, "Checkmate baby". Sounds like something out of a gas station comic book right before the hero eviscerates the villain in some cartoon fashion for an eight year old to get all wide eyed and self righteous about. Just a personal insight. 

Your remarks prove that you seek to have insight into others, but fail miserably. You make presupposed assumptions and leave out any thought of outside opinion or insight. You don't question, you make blind assumptions and push through with the grace of a wrecking ball. 

I also want to point out that I am sure you don't pull words and phrases out of nowhere because as stated in my other comment, you use a thesaurus in your day to day to make yourself appear to be someone you aren't. No one thinks in elevated speech other than pompous ingrates who are unaware that no one else cares to continuously raise their nose to the sky while hoping their nostrils aren't big enough for anyone to catch a glimpse of their inadequate brain capacity. 

You didn't put yourself in the author's realm. You got lost in your own self righteous design. If you doubt that my insight into the author's world is greater than yours, I beg you to ask. I am incredibly anxious to see you continue to dig this hole, so please my dear, make your move. 
Reply
:iconsolidmars:
SolidMars Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Dear Sir, 
First of all, as a reader I appreciate your attempt to sound like a professional critic and offer helpful feedback, but as a writer here's why I don't think you should attempt to critique a piece in such a brutal manner:

:bulletblue:You're very arrogant. A good critic is humble, and takes the artist's work in consideration before attempting to write a single word as a critique. Your words may have been written in good intentions and may have been indeed helpful, but they come by as selfish and mocking more than anything. The way you introduced yourself, and wrote down your response would make any writer repulsed from going through it or contacting you again to hear your explanations. The obvious arrogance, the lack of a valid argument beyond "Please change this or that because I don't like it.", the fact you demanded the change instead of suggesting it, along with other things make your own attempt to help dwindle. If you're trying to be a good critic, you are failing your job. 

:bulletblue:Your own perspective is blinding your judgement. What you did here was shift this poem to match your personal taste, ignored all the emotions that are in the text, all the reasons as to why it's written like this and went with what you think is best. You are thus rendering your own critique as invalid for the simple fact you lack all the respect towards the piece. You are also being extremely bias in your own opinion about it by choosing what you prefer to see without giving what other readers would like to see a second thought.  

:bulletblue:It's considered a copyright infringement to take a poem written by someone else and edit, then repost it without their permission, even if it's in a comment. A professional writer like yourself should be very aware of this fact.  

Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Professional Writer

Let these said things within this reply not to the supposition of arrogance, or any other fancied characteristic quality you may assume of me, that unless you can prove your insulting claim(s) with doubtless reason and devastating evidence (not guesswork,) say nothing at all. The temperament within these words is the result of ruffling my feathers at best, not arrogance. You do not know me. Have I labeled you or the author any specific name? No. So please, don’t do it to me. Thank you.



Let this be a surefire example of arrogance: you picked the wrong man to squabble with.


Solid Mars said,

“You're very arrogant. A good critic is humble, and takes the artist's work in consideration before attempting to write a single word as a critique. Your words may have been written in good intentions and may have been indeed helpful, but they come by as selfish and mocking more than anything. The way you introduced yourself, and wrote down your response would make any writer repulsed from going through it or contacting you again to hear your explanations. The obvious arrogance, the lack of a valid argument beyond, "Please change this or that because I don't like it." The fact you demanded the change instead of suggesting it, along with other things make your own attempt to help dwindle. If you're trying to be a good critic, you are failing your job.”


I must clarify that the modified version of the author’s poem is a soup pot of ideas for the author to taste test. That is not an act of theft, and it is not an act of spooning those ideas down the author’s throat, up into the brain and out the eye sockets.


Anyway…


Even though you are wrong, I welcome the misconception of arrogance on your receiving end. You will think what you want to think, and mind only what you want to mind regardless what anyone says, including me. Honesty and straightforwardness; they never know what they are really going to say. They just say what they want to say with minimal interruption or arrangement through one’s thoughts. It is then poorly interpreted by others in every way imaginable. More than wars of every kind, I despise assumptionists, whose assumptions are silhouettes of non-existent things.


Let the opening of my constructive analysis be proof of that interruption and arrangement within my thoughts in that I did consider the author may perceive my comment harshly, but guess what? I did not hold back. Holding back is pretending. Unless it involves a life and death situation, when it comes to reviewing someone’s work, say what's on your mind, do not be overbearingly harsh about it, and never hold yourself back.


Conversely, I did not put the gun barrel of a tanker to the author’s head, forcing or demanding change as you say. There is discrepancy between demanding change and encouraging change for improvement.


You seem to have trouble recognizing fact vs. opinion, forcefulness vs. suggestion in what people say, notably me. Let’s go back in retrospect. I said to author, “I can only encourage you to advance your phraseology and terminology. For lack of better way to put it — this poem and some of your other material — comes off somewhat drab, kitsch, and cliché.


The underlined word encourage is not forcing the author to do or change anything. The rest is evidence of opinion, my opinion.


Then there is, “Below is my revision of your poem the way I think you thought the poem should have sounded, but due to a lock-up in your mind, I think (not saying you did) you felt as if you didn't quite express what you really wanted to get across to viewers.”


The first underlined part is another example of opinion, nothing forced on the author. The second underlined part is yet another example of opinion. The second underlined part also shows how I went about critiquing the author’s work in the first place in that I evaluated the poem like I would, for lack of better example, a psychologist would a patient. When I read people’s literature (especially love, macabre and horror,) I really get into it, and I enjoy living through an author’s words vicariously. In doing this, I get a sense of what the author felt when writing it.


So I ask you, what is wrong with you thinking I was so wrong in how I analyzed this author’s work? From kids into our adulthood, we are often taught to tell truths, not lies, and lo and behold! we get shot down because we didn't say our words the way others want us to say them, much like you’re claiming, that I shot the author down, that I demand change because the author’s words are not exactly to my preference. You are so wrong, and I prove(d) you are wrong.


Then there is, “…but it is to my certainty the original version lacks in what it wants to say. It needs more expressive oomph in it to sound lovelier, darker, and terrifying.”


The underlined words are my opinion, mind you, a suggestive opinion. It is nothing forced, as you exaggerate, into the author's ear to the brain. Now look, you got me exaggerating to reflect how ridiculous exaggeration can be.


It is better to tell the truth and a hurt a little than a lie to hurt a lot. Why must I fill this author’s head (or any author’s head) with sweet, praiseful words knowing how fake that is if they don’t come to me? If what I have to say comes out gritty and not so pretty, it is for very good reason you fail to recognize. I am me, not something or someone I am not. What I say is raw and certain unless proven otherwise.


To drag this out a little more, you do not know cruelty, intense cruelty. If you do you don't show it much. I could have said one million billion different things in CAPITALIZED profane words by saying what some people would contend that, because of the demonic-like nature of this poem, it is therefore satanic and disgusting beyond disgust! No. Compared to other, more ruthless individuals, I was a saintly angel to this author, and guess what I did? I remained more humble than you think, humbler than others, and I spent my time to give my analysis, expecting nothing in return. There is where my selflessness comes in.


Instead, you continue to cast me out as this spiteful demon, slavering at the mouth over the author’s work.


SolidMars said,

“Your own perspective is blinding your judgement. What you did here was shift this poem to match your personal taste, ignored all the emotions that are in the text, all the reasons as to why it's written like this and went with what you think is best. You are thus rendering your own critique as invalid for the simple fact you lack all the respect towards the piece. You are also being extremely bias in your own opinion about it by choosing what you prefer to see without giving what other readers would like to see a second thought.”


You're 100% right! The one half of everything I said in my analysis is biased; the other half is what I know to be true through many years of experience. (In case you didn't catch on, damned be me for lightening the moment with a joke.)


You only mind what you want to mind, disregarding everything I said in front of you and everyone reading my constructive comment. I did recognized the author was quite good (if you hadn't noticed,) but said improvement(s) can be made. Furthermore, if I was so ignorant (as you say) toward the author’s emotions in the poem, etc. explain how I was able to example an exceptional amplification of the poem in that I did take in consideration what the author may have been attempting to say in better words? Are you going to sit there and deny the fact I was, for the most part, in accord with the author’s diction throughout the revision I gave?


You cannot begin to attempt what I did within my constructive comment unless you actually acknowledge (not ignore) the emotions, etc. within an author’s work.


I suppose you also forgot I pardoned my straightforward honesty in the opening of my comment when saying I was sorry for being harsh (if I come off as so,) that I meant good minus the harm (assumed.) This is typical for those who read a half and not a whole, handpicking sections of what I said, arranging them how you want in your head to support your argument. Meanwhile, I am going through everything you said with answers.


Oh, and viewers of my analysis are given the ability to have a second thought about what I am saying because it's not likely they are going to agree with everything I say anyway, right? Correct. Here is another truth: if everyone agreed with me and everything I said, they would be too much like me, not knowing how pretentious that is.


SolidMars said,

“It's considered a copyright infringement to take a poem written by someone else and edit, then repost it without their permission, even if it's in a comment. A professional writer like yourself should be very aware of this fact.”


I am very aware. How aware are you? You should know the terms involved in true copyright infringement.


Your assumptions give shadows to things not there. I did not infringe, steal or disrespect the author’s work. To infringe is to steal someone’s work in that you’re editing it in such way so as to make it sound different from the author’s original material for the sake of / in an attempt to claim it yours by persuading others it is yours. You have no proof I did that. True copyright infringement happens when someone posts someone else’s intellectual property on his or her d.A. Home Page (or a separate media site altogether from d.A.) where it is tougher to track where the original work came from.


Furthermore, to infringe is to disrespect the author’s work in that you harm it through intent to do so, not help the author or their work. You have no proof I disrespected the author’s work. You can only poorly assume I did so. You call it disrespect; I call it being straightforward minus the sugarcoated tongue. There is a difference. When I comment on someone’s work, I always acknowledge I may come off too strong in that I preemptively expect the author’s supposition of me coming off unkind, and, if ever I do come off cruel — everyone receives constructive criticism differently — I apologize to them beforehand like I did to this author in the opening of my comment.


Let your comment, and anyone else's quarrelsome comment to me, be a prime example of why I make preemptive statements or apologies before anything can be said, or before one's heart can be disheartened. This is why.


Now tell me, how much sense does it make I committed the crime of intellectual theft you accuse(d) me of when it makes no sense to accuse me of intellectual theft when what I referenced and edited from the author is in a comment everyone can see? The answer: nonsense.

 

Everyone reading my comment made on the author’s work knows (or should know) I did what I did to help the author not steal or profit from the author.


I have enough of my own literary material in my gallery. If I wanted to profit from or steal this author’s work (or any author’s work,) I would: post his or her work in my d.A. Gallery, post his or her work on other media sites, share his or her work with friends and family, and convince all my d.A. viewers it was me who produced the material—property otherwise owned by someone else.


To be clearer, “Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiari…


“Wrongful appropriation” is to steal something for one’s own use. One would then go about persuading others it is yours. I did not do that. “Purloining” is to steal. I stole nothing. The only minor offense I am guilty of is publicizing / publishing the alteration of the author’s work in that doing so in a comment was the only way to express what I was meaning in the tips I gave regarding using better words, and making each stanza sound more complete in thought.


I did not premeditate anything you assume(d) I did with malicious intent. Instead, I referenced the author’s original material in front of God and everyone here for the sake of revision only to illustrate my reasoning behind the tips, etcetera and etcetera for the author to think about. What I did was not for me, your, or anyone else here. It is for the author.


Whether or not I get a "Thank You!" out of my critique does not matter to me because conversations like these are good practice for writing, and I can only gain from it, not lose.


P.S. I do hope this clears everything up. Next time I will cite the author’s original material followed by quote end quote (the author’s words,) then the term “Consider: [whatever it is I am giving the author to mull over.” Perhaps if I had done that — as I have in other critiques I gave to people before, minus the Hell someone like you has given me for critiquing like this for the first time — you would not have judged me so wrongly by accusing me of wrongdoings and things I do not commit.



Departing for now,
VicariouSoul
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013
Thank you for taking the time to read and carefully edit
my work. I appreciate the time and the thought you put
into every line. I also see where you are coming from and
I have heard this before, believe it or not.

My poetry, however, tends to be entirely personal and
is often directed at a person. I submit it to dA with the
thought that few people will take the time to read it and
that's okay with me because I mainly submit it for myself,
and if the person I directed it towards reads and comments
I am all the more content.

On to the matter at hand. Your corrections.
I understand the why and how of your corrections and
crafty additions. I understand that if I wanted to publish
this piece it would be in need of some serious refining.
When I wrote poetry for school I followed the format
you are sticking to. Uniformity in line length and words
that inspire a more precise image for the reader.

In my personal poetry is a lot of internal emotion. Nothing
fancy or pretty, nothing wordy or overly descriptive. The poem
pops into my head, I write it, and submit it shortly after. The
only editing I tend to do is correct anything I spelled wrong
and occasionally change a word. The satisfaction for me is
inside of the emotion and I see the readers are gleaning
even a small fraction of what I felt when I wrote it and are
feeling compelled to comment. That in itself is rewarding.

I rarely go back and go to such elaborate lengths to give
my poetry vivid dynamics. I honestly feel that what you
changed in my poem detracts from its simplicity. I am
agreeing with =KhazDA, whom I discussed this with, that
while I have the vocabulary at my disposal to do what
you have done I do not speak like that very often. Thus
conveyed in my poetry is a simpler aspect. I am not
entertaining the reader with my poetry, I am entertaining
me. If that makes sense at all.

Were I to publish my poetry the poems would most definitely
be edited into a proper format though my jagged lines
tend to be part of my sporadic thinking and very much
a part of what I was feeling when I wrote it.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion about why
my poetry seems to lack the consciousness of a refined
poet and more resembles the rantings and ramblings
of someone who is clearly torn from their emotions, which
I often am.

What I took away from your comment was effort. The effort
you put forward to reach out and offer me some of your insight
is a priceless gesture and a much appreciated one. Again, I
thank you for your time and expenditure of intellect on my sloppy
poetry, however while it's on dA it is staying as it is.

-Angela
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Professional Writer
ttbloodlusttt said:
"Again, I thank you for your time and expenditure of intellect on my sloppy poetry, however while it's on dA it is staying as it is."

Please, do not put words in my mouth I did not say, even if it seems I said them. Me saying your work is 'sloppy' is the biggest misconception on your part and anyone else's part reading this in thinking the same. All I said was that your work can improve.

Aside from that, everything you say is fair and to the point. I understand you now as a writer. However, I can never bring myself to write something down on a napkin and ever be satisfied with and post it on d.A. That's where you and I are much different. I am my own worst critic. While I welcome anyone's criticism on my work no matter how sweet or brash, I don't really need much criticism because I'm the one that's always criticizing myself and my work, so much, I feel like burning it because not even I (sometimes) can figure out what's wrong with it. I see something's wrong, but I cannot pinpoint it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but while you consider writing a hobby, I consider writing my life in that I want to leave something remarkable behind.

Every day, I look at this way in the palm of my hand: you live just this one time; now is your most beautiful moment. You will never be lovelier than you are now. The money you make and all materialistic things you gain are temporary. Anything you do only for yourself dies with you; what you do for others and the people they tell lives on forever so long they live. Say what you need to say now lest you will never have the chance to say it again.

I do not write for me; I write for the world, investing my words into a society full of half-theres, but I don't care. There is nothing more profound to indulge in than the arts whether literature or visual. The messages in our creations is what lives on; we do not.

I also do not expect to profit from any of my creations, that if I do it's happenstance if the opportunity comes. I want to trespass into un-trespassed thinking, saying things by using words very few exploit or use.

To keep my philosophies about life and the arts to myself is selfish. It is my mission in this world to pass them on, welcoming anyone who alienates them, inquiring why, learning from their answer(s). All I am doing is passing what I know to you and anyone else who may want to pass it on. I do not care if you or anyone else agrees with what I say. The fact I say or said anything is a miracle in itself. That's what makes me feel good. There's a lot of God's science involved for us to speak. It's amazing (to me.)

P.S. it is a pleasure speaking with you. I will respond to any comments you bring to my Inbox.
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2013
Writing is not a hobby so much as it is an extension of my
emotion and therefore part of my soul.

That is where we do differ greatly. I write poetry
for myself, even if it is about or directed toward another.
It is always to satisfy the nagging emotional paradox within
myself.

Beyond poetry, I do write prose and I acknowledge in that
area I need a lot of work. I hope one day to be a published
writer in regard to my fiction. I am seeking critique often for
my prose and I have gained insightful tutoring from =KhazDA
who has been very patient with me. I've learned a lot thus far
and have been slowly editing my prose, which still needs updating
on dA.

I am not nearly as egocentric as many artists or writers. I am
confident that my work is enjoyable as is to the casual reader
but for those of higher or loftier intellect I understand how
frustrating my work may be. Further insight I can offer is that
I did poorly in grammar, I had horrible literature teachers save
one junior year in high school for adv lit. The concept of sentence
structure was presented poorly, I have a photographic memory
and I find it difficult to learn from people who aren't animated in
some way. I scraped through literature with decent grades at the
cost of my sanity hanging by a thread. My desire to write has
increased throughout the last decade and I am often flustered
by my own short comings but it hasn't deterred me. This is all
irrelevant in regard to my poetry.

Poetry submitted to free verse is exactly that and nothing else.
It doesn't have to be and for me will never become structured
just so it can be 'improved.' I didn't say you said my poetry
is sloppy, I said my poetry is sloppy. Sorry but you are
the one who assumed right there. I have no issue calling my poetry
sloppy. It is. It truly is and it's because my emotions and thought
process tends to be sloppy. Abrupt, cold, fragmented, confused,
abrasive, corrupt, delusional, here and there. I am content with this.

I too do not expect, at current time, any monetary compensation for works
I've submitted to dA. I view dA as a place to gain feedback and critique,
which is why I've been less harsh to your reply than others have been.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, harsh, rude, or otherwise. My gallery
here on dA has hundreds of works from the last decade. I've grown, I can
see it for myself any time I wish to revisit my older pieces. Even if you
were to view my writing as a hobby, to me there is no denying that as an
individual with relatively little influence from outside sources even my poetry
has improved on its own.

I value the opinion of others as it is presented. I see what you have to say,
I understand it for what it is.

PS: Perhaps your work is often lacking because your effort is so intensive
that you are blocking the emotional flow of your creativity. Straying from
the confines of structure can sometimes satisfy and nurture a place within
that desires freedom. I read that you believe you break the rules in a good
way, you believe you do it in the right way... Art is never finished, not for
the artist, it is always a work in progress. It can always be better and there
will always be someone better. It's how we view our work that really matters.
In my opinion you are dooming yourself to a lackluster path by continuously
considering the expectations of those around you or readers beyond. What
I saw when I read your rewrite of my poem was someone (you) who saw
a great idea and concept written in a simple presentation of free verse poetry.
You saw the opportunity to mold it into a story or recount, saw the benefit of
structure and applied it to my poem. The brutal truth is that it just doesn't
work that way. My poem is and always will be what it is because the moment
I wrote it I invested emotion and thought and as I did the edge of it left me.
Simple is how I prefer things.

Now, if I told you I really love math... You might have a good laugh considering
everything I just said... ^_^
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2013  Professional Writer
Pardon the late the reply.

Why would I laugh because you like math? I like math too, but I am not ashamed to admit the more advanced math is what I am not so good at (notably math above the algebraic level,) and I welcome anyone who tells me I am wrong somewhere in my calculations, which is no different than I treat the written word.

I say, "That's fine. I am sorry to hear that. I understand." to the first half of everything you said, until I came to the second half:

ttbloodlusttt said:
P.S. Perhaps your work is often lacking because your effort is so intensive that you are blocking the emotional flow of your creativity. Straying from the confines of structure can sometimes satisfy and nurture a place within that desires freedom.

I do not necessarily think my work is lacking, I just see error (even in the seemingly perfect) where others do not see error. People who view my work often tell me, "Omg, that's great!" whereas I will think to myself, "Really? How can that be so . . . I see something out of place here and there, and this and that word is not the right word."

When people say I've done something wrong in my work (or in other said words,) I must have done something right, yet when people say I've done something right in my work (or in other said words,) I must have done something very wrong, that which is the greatest paradox because if I make something others tell me is right more wrong, does that make it more right? If I make something more wrong than right, does that make it more wrong? This leads me to a quote Shakespeare once wrote and goes, "Nothing is right or wrong, but thinking makes it seem so." To which I reply, "That is correct, but since we are cursed with the ability to reason, there are three layers to right and wrong: there is right, there is wrong, and then there is right and wrong in balance by tolerating each other."

Right & wrong, good & evil, ideas, creeds, philosophies, temperament, and manners are all pairs of shoes varying in size; pick which one(s) fit you, but don’t force people to wear your shoes. Instead, encourage people to at least try them on, that which does them no harm. If they like them they will feel and experience something different and exciting; if they dislike them they will give them back.

That is what I did with the re-written version of your poem: I gave you a different pair of shoes to walk in to see and experience things a little differently, and you didn't like them, which is completely fine.

ttbloodlusttt said:
"I read that you believe you break the rules in a good way, you believe you do it in the right way...

Right, rules can be broken in that some people break rules very well, and other people break rules very bad in that it's absurdly obvious. To put it in understandable off-topic terms, what is more clever and correct despite the illegality and stupidity: a person who does drugs, beats the system, and gets away with everything without being caught (to protect his or her livelihood,) or the person who does the same thing(s) yet knocks on the police department's door and waves two three-pound bags of drugs in the air saying, "Woo-hoo, look at these! Arrest me, arrest me!"

Regarding the first person, it is quite illogical to do drugs, and surely there are others way to make a living, then again, it's only smart because that's all they know or grew up around, that which is their livelihood, the only way they know how to survive.

Regarding the second person, some people would call that ballsy honesty or a great surrender, others would call it stupidity at its finest, and those who give it deeper thought would say it's a smart thing to do if that person's intent is to get tax payers to pay their way throughout the time they are in jail.

ttbloodlusttt said:
"Art is never finished, not for the artist, it is always a work in progress. It can always be better and there will always be someone better. It's how we view our work that really matters."

Of course our work can always be better, which is why I go over my work with new eyes until I am satisfied with it, or at least be somewhat pleased.

Must it be said? Yea, there are people that are better than us, but without competition in the art world, there is no motivation to improve our work. You seem to be the more 'I leave it alone' type whereas I am the more competitive type that competes with others, and competes against my worst enemy: myself.

In very rare cases I will leave what I create alone, and other times I will not.

ttbloodlusttt said:
"In my opinion you are dooming yourself to a lackluster path by continuously considering the expectations of those around you or readers beyond."

If what you are saying is I expect people to agree with me, etc. that's not it. There is a difference between expecting things from people, and encouraging things out of people. I only encourage people to do better in their work, and if I call them out on a wrong (or what I believe to be wrong,) or if I call them out on something wrong they assume of me, I encourage (not expect) them to tell me I am wrong through reasonable explanation, not assumption. Otherwise, people give me with the impression they have nothing to say or don't care about improvement.

ttbloodlusttt said:
"What I saw when I read your rewrite of my poem was someone (you) who saw
a great idea and concept written in a simple presentation of free verse poetry.
You saw the opportunity to mold it into a story or recount, saw the benefit of
structure and applied it to my poem. The brutal truth is that it just doesn't
work that way."

Actually, it does work that way when my only intent was to demonstrate what I was meaning in what I was trying to get across in the writing tips I gave you through a re-written version of your poem. The way it does not work (as everyone here wrongly assumes) is for me to do a re-written version of your poem and say, "Hey, your version of your poem is terrible; replace your version with the re-written version I gave you." I did not say that, and I did not expect you to do that.

The only thing I did was encourage you to at least consider looking over your poem and maybe make some minor changes where possible. I saw the opportunity to help someone ([you] minus the Hell people gave me here,) not the opportunity to mold your poem for my own enjoyment, or not the opportunity to mold your poem into something I want(ed) you to consider wholeheartedly.

P.S. This is why it's good we go to each other to get at each other's meanings rather than find (y)our meaning by leaning on (y)our own understanding through assumption.

I hope now there is an understanding between us. I came here to help you, not tear you down.
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2013
I didn't say you came here to tear me down.
The opinion of others is theirs. How I feel is
relatively indifferent despite my lengthy replies.
All I'd like you glean from this encounter with me
is that my poetry is emotionally tied to events
or people in my life that impacted me in some way.
The poems tend to be what they are for a reason
and editing them (for me) detracts from their initial
intent. I guess for me it's more of a record of events
or feelings that stuck me so I put it to words to get it
out of my head. For me it's basically a coping mechanism
and has been since my teens.

All I've been trying to get at (aside from the clear
indications of my personal opinions throughout these
exchanges) is that it is what it is and will stay that way
because it wasn't intended to be a great literary piece
that wowed the world. That people gather anything
meaningful from what I've written is a bonus but not
needed. I submit most of my work to dA so I have a
place to send friends and family to read/see my work
if they are interested.

I'm not offended that you rewrote my poem. I am more
so amused that you thought I could benefit from it. I
won't disagree that it could be better but to me it's
prefect because it says exactly what I wanted to say in
a relatively simple way.

Thanks for offering your insight. I'd like the debates on
my page to cease since they have become a monster all
their own. I will put the fact that you rewrote my poem
without my permission aside since I believe you weren't
intending harm, I know it. If you'd like to expand on any
point or topic feel free to note me, I may or may not
reply but I will most definitely read it.
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2013  Professional Writer
Then I will send you a Note.
Reply
:iconkhazda:
KhazDA Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Yes, let us take one of the few true poets who lets the emotion of the piece dominate any form of elevated sensibility and compress them so that they fit the box or mold we try to stuff anyone who is unlike what we presuppose as correct into. One should be careful not to let elevated lexicon depth dictate their initial dispositions towards pieces of another's soul. The greatest pieces of literary history are neither grammaticaly perfect, nor necessarily viviacious or verbose with their vivid displays of character and emotional context. I do enjoy that you try to use a thesaurus through everything that you do though. It is cute, and almost worth a similar effort on my part, despite the fact that the time spent looking up and replacing all the words she wrote could easily be replaced with two very simple words I have for anyone who thinks that refining the initial emotional impact of a piece is for the betterment of the writer or any of the readers, "Fuck you." Who am I to say such things? A person who has taken the time to read near all of this artist's work and who believes that the greatest writing comes not from elevated speech patterns, a sound look at diction and syntax, but rather from the looking glass of the soul. It is the unrefined nature of raw emotion that makes it such a powerful force in our day to day lives. I agree, it is cleaner to see even lines. I agree that elevated diction and a thesaurus are great tools for many aspiring writers. The truth of the matter is that if you look at any great artist, they learn the form and the practice and then they break every rule in the book becoming something more than was ever imagined. I would say that rather than paying attention to what the art teachers are instructing you to do, take their ideas and twist them. This site is called "deviantArt" for a reason, and all of us are the least bit twisted in our own way.
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Professional Writer

I am back. Pardon my late reply, but since I am one man vs. 3 (more to come, I am sure,) I tend to think before composing a comment so I don't get pummeled more than I already am (still standing.)


KhazDA said:

"Yes, let us take one of the few true poets who lets the emotion of the piece dominate any form of elevated sensibility and compress them so that they fit the box or mold we try to stuff anyone who is unlike what we presuppose as correct into."


I must admit, even for me I do not understand exactly where you are getting at in the above quoted. It's one of those "I get it, but don't get it" kind of things. Therefore, I am not going to attempt replying to it to avoid possible misinterpretation on my receiving end. However, if you can speak up more clearly, I am sure I can give you explanation and prove what you're saying is interpretation lost in something I said in my previous comment.


KhazDA said:

"One should be careful not to let elevated lexicon depth dictate their initial dispositions towards pieces of another's soul."


You are right, but only if lexicon depth is used improperly. Mind you, I only spent maybe 20 minutes writing the modified version of the author's work for the sake of exampling what adding fuller thoughts to lines in a poem looks like. Therefore, you are right. I could have eased it down a little in the revision I made, but I wasn't going to spend an hour or more on a poem I wasn't going to make my own in the first place, that if that was my intent it would sound so much better (and in my d.A. Gallery.)


Anyway, what you point out does not change the fact one's literary work can improve by adding fuller thoughts in the lines of stanzas by using one complex word to explain or make up for 3 or 4 words, or by adding effective, simple filler words to help even out the line lengths in your stanzas.


Words that are more complex have the capability to say more than 3 or 4 words put together. Therefore, why use 3 or 4 words if you know those 3 or 4 words are going to make your lines look outstretched and uneven?


I know free verse poetry is free verse (like this author's poem,) but outstretched, very uneven lines are notably problematic when writing traditional forms following strict of flexible rhyme schemes, including but not limited to: successive couplets, quatrains, quintains, sestets, stand-alone septets, octets, or sonnets.


I know most poets (wannabe or advanced) revere free verse the most opposed to traditional forms, but the true challenge comes when trying to attempt traditional forms in that it trains your eye to understand the true elegance of poetry when trying to cram much as possible into a single line.


Just look at any one of Shakespeare's Sonnets; you will see I am not completely stupid in what I point out. In every line in of every sonnet, you will see each line is of near even conciseness. It would look very silly to begin a sonnet (or any traditional form) with 8 words for the first line, 3 words for the second line, followed by 10 words for the third line, and so on. That just said is exception to the rule if those 3 words for the second line were very long words, equaling the length of the first and third line.


Anyway, that mostly pertains only to traditional forms, then again, my point is the same elegant quality explained above can be included in free verse, too.


KhazDA said:

"The greatest pieces of literary history are neither grammaticaly perfect, nor necessarily viviacious or verbose with their vivid displays of character and emotional context."


Since you're doing a half decent job in at least trying to school me in the written word, if you are going to attempt big words too big for you, please spell them correctly.


Aside from that, the above quoted is not something I do not already know. Just to example, I love to write sonnets, but one thing I do not follow all the time is the Shakespearian or Petrarchan rhyme schemes. Instead, I make up my own intricate rhyme scheme(s) while still following the rules of 14 lines, two ending rhymed lines, etc.


You are completely alien to the literary material I produce. So please, stop trying to judge whether or not I break or follow all rules (you assume) in poetry. I follow only some rules, and the rules I do break I break very well in poetry.


KhazDA said:

I do enjoy that you try to use a thesaurus through everything that you do though. It is cute, and almost worth a similar effort on my part, despite the fact that the time spent looking up and replacing all the words she wrote could easily be replaced with two very simple words I have for anyone who thinks that refining the initial emotional impact of a piece is for the betterment of the writer or any of the readers, "Fuck you."


It seems you mistake me for a fool so easily moved by your failed attempts to mark me up, not knowing how silly that was.


It's been a while, but the last time I used a thesaurus religiously is when my instructor in college encouraged me to do so to help me get through the creative writing course I wanted to take. Mind you, her criticism was far worse than the kinder criticism I gave this author.


I do not actively use a thesaurus when writing comments, and I did not use a thesaurus when looking over this author's poem. Just because I retained everything I learned in college (and on my own,) does not mean I am the thesaurus whore you perceive me to be. Most of the words I used in the modified example of the author's poem didn't even exist in the original poem. In fact, I added to it what I thought was missing in it. However, you are right, some words she used were upgraded to words with a little more power few use in their work, but not through the meticulous use of a thesaurus as you poorly assume.


KhazDA said:

"Who am I to say such things? A person who has taken the time to read near all of this artist's work and who believes that the greatest writing comes not from elevated speech patterns, a sound look at diction and syntax, but rather from the looking glass of the soul."


And who am I to say the things I say? A man who has been through a legion of artistic material, including but not limited to, the memorable literary magnum opuses our ancestors penned, and the work of beginners and aspirers here on d.A., abroad and in person.


KhazDA said:

"It is the unrefined nature of raw emotion that makes it such a powerful force in our day to day lives. I agree, it is cleaner to see even lines. I agree that elevated diction and a thesaurus are great tools for many aspiring writers. The truth of the matter is that if you look at any great artist, they learn the form and the practice and then they break every rule in the book becoming something more than was ever imagined. I would say that rather than paying attention to what the art teachers are instructing you to do, take their ideas and twist them. This site is called "deviantArt" for a reason, and all of us are the least bit twisted in our own way."


To the first half of everything you said in the above stated, yea, I already know those things.


Besides five years of college, throughout my entire life from age 7 to 24, I have always been a self-taught artist and writer. More than not, teachers are a joke to me in that I do not agree with them all the time. Again, I do break rules in poetry, and when I do I do it well, yet I still preserve the elegant beauty of poetry whether I write free verse or fixed.


Your above quoted seems to insinuate I have no practice whatsoever in my work, and that I break no rules. Look how wrong you prove to be. Don't feel too bad; I have proved to be wrong too when the author pointed out some things to me, but guess what? At least I know how to let down my shield of dignity and admit my wrongs unlike everyone here barraging me with their interpretations lost in almost everything I have said thus far.


P.S. I will not be replying to anyone else anymore except the author. It is foolish for me to continue trying to make sense to those who cannot make sense, and likewise anyone trying to make sense to me because I prove your sense to be nonsense by making sense of it first. That is why (to my best guess) Shakespeare once said, “…but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.” because the handicap of the wise is the need to make sense to a world full of fools and ‘half theres' who think they know themselves to be wise.

Reply
:iconkhazda:
KhazDA Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I have to admit that it is always a pleasure to see an ignorant whelp decide he has had enough of his own game and throw in the almighty "I will not respond" card. To this day I don't know what it is that makes people feel so incredibly self righteous when they play that hand. Let us recount a few things since you feel the need to make this an intellectual debate and go through quote for quote. 

"I must admit, even for me I do not understand exactly where you are getting at in the above quoted. It's one of those "I get it, but don't get it" kind of things. Therefore, I am not going to attempt replying to it to avoid possible misinterpretation on my receiving end. However, if you can speak up more clearly, I am sure I can give you explanation and prove what you're saying is interpretation lost in something I said in my previous comment."

The point of the comment was that you are attempting to strip away the emotion of the piece and force the author to conform to your predetermined ideas of correctness. Not exactly a smart move to make when commenting on a piece submitted to a free art site that promotes everything from emotes to fanfics, but, I never took you for the intelligent type. 

"You are right, but only if lexicon depth is used improperly. Mind you, I only spent maybe 20 minutes writing the modified version of the author's work for the sake of exampling what adding fuller thoughts to lines in a poem looks like. Therefore, you are right. I could have eased it down a little in the revision I made, but I wasn't going to spend an hour or more on a poem I wasn't going to make my own in the first place, that if that was my intent it would sound so much better (and in my d.A. Gallery.)


Anyway, what you point out does not change the fact one's literary work can improve by adding fuller thoughts in the lines of stanzas by using one complex word to explain or make up for 3 or 4 words, or by adding effective, simple filler words to help even out the line lengths in your stanzas.


Words that are more complex have the capability to say more than 3 or 4 words put together. Therefore, why use 3 or 4 words if you know those 3 or 4 words are going to make your lines look outstretched and uneven?


I know free verse poetry is free verse (like this author's poem,) but outstretched, very uneven lines are notably problematic when writing traditional forms following strict of flexible rhyme schemes, including but not limited to: successive couplets, quatrains, quintains, sestets, stand-alone septets, octets, or sonnets.


I know most poets (wannabe or advanced) revere free verse the most opposed to traditional forms, but the true challenge comes when trying to attempt traditional forms in that it trains your eye to understand the true elegance of poetry when trying to cram much as possible into a single line.


Just look at any one of Shakespeare's Sonnets; you will see I am not completely stupid in what I point out. In every line in of every sonnet, you will see each line is of near even conciseness. It would look very silly to begin a sonnet (or any traditional form) with 8 words for the first line, 3 words for the second line, followed by 10 words for the third line, and so on. That just said is exception to the rule if those 3 words for the second line were very long words, equaling the length of the first and third line."

That whole first paragraph agrees with me and then goes on to completely disregard every common rule for sentence structure known to the English language, and as such, I shall leave it untouched. 

I agree wholeheartedly with adding more complex words when seeking to replace three to four words, but if the intent was to convey emotion in the raw and not to make it beautiful or refined, then why bother struggling over words when the emotion is already there giving you the words to use. Simple filler words? I laugh at how ridiculous the thought even is. I suppose if you were trying to fit a traditional style they would be necessary, but free verse is free verse for a reason. Enough said on that entire point given you are trying to illustrate that free verse should have structure which I will simply refer you to Shel Silverstein. 

"Since you're doing a half decent job in at least trying to school me in the written word, if you are going to attempt big words too big for you, please spell them correctly.


Aside from that, the above quoted is not something I do not already know. Just to example, I love to write sonnets, but one thing I do not follow all the time is the Shakespearian or Petrarchan rhyme schemes. Instead, I make up my own intricate rhyme scheme(s) while still following the rules of 14 lines, two ending rhymed lines, etc.


You are completely alien to the literary material I produce. So please, stop trying to judge whether or not I break orfollow all rules (you assume) in poetry. I follow only some rules, and the rules I do break I break very well in poetry."

A half decent job? I suppose that isn't bad for half effort. The word isn't too big for me. I simply don't proof read any of my comments because I don't see the point in wasting anything more than a few minutes at most on petty vermin like yourself. A shot for shot? Or did you really want to pull the self righteous bit again? 

I am not alien to the material you produce. You have a poem on sorrow I rewrote because it was absent of any feeling of sorrow, and the love poem of the eagle was rather drab if you ask me. Who shot the eagle? Oh my! Let me know when you start actually writing something worth reading. 

"It seems you mistake me for a fool so easily moved by your failed attempts to mark me up, not knowing how silly that was.


It's been a while, but the last time I used a thesaurus religiously is when my instructor in college encouraged me to do so to help me get through the creative writing course I wanted to take. Mind you, her criticism was far worse than the kinder criticism I gave this author.


I do not actively use a thesaurus when writing comments, and I did not use a thesaurus when looking over this author's poem. Just because I retained everything I learned in college (and on my own,) does not mean I am the thesaurus whore you perceive me to be. Most of the words I used in the modified example of the author's poem didn't even exist in the original poem. In fact, I added to it what I thought was missing in it. However, you are right, some words she used were upgraded to words with a little more power few use in their work, but not through the meticulous use of a thesaurus as you poorly assume."


Failed attempts? Then why respond at all? Never mind. I forgot that in dealing with the elevated crowd I must remember that they forget that a response proves the argument remains. In any case, your attempt at saving grace through the college instructor being more harsh than you, is incredibly adorable. You assume yourself capable of being a college instructor? You assume that is what the author desired? Oh to be so naive. And you can add words? So impressive. Please come rewrite my gallery. I stand in awe of your literary prowess good sir. I am humbled. Schmuck. 


"And who am I to say the things I say? A man who has been through a legion of artistic material, including but not limited to, the memorable literary magnum opuses our ancestors penned, and the work of beginners and aspirers here on d.A., abroad and in person."

You just prove to be everything I am not don't you? I have never looked through writing on deviantArt nor have I ever read through another's work in person. I don't have any schooling nor do I subscribe to reading the works of those in the past. Oh, wait a minute. I did go to school. I have edited nearly fifty works at least a few of which have been published. I did graduate from the third most difficult school in the nation at the time and I am well versed not only in the literary world but also in many other domains. Thank you though professor for attempting to belittle someone who has merely pointed out the confounding nature in which you approached this entire exchange. 


"To the first half of everything you said in the above stated, yea, I already know those things.


Besides five years of college, throughout my entire life from age 7 to 24, I have always been a self-taught artist and writer. More than not, teachers are a joke to me in that I do not agree with them all the time. Again, I do break rules in poetry, and when I do I do it well, yet I still preserve the elegant beauty of poetry whether I write free verse or fixed.


Your above quoted seems to insinuate I have no practice whatsoever in my work, and that I break no rules. Look how wrong you prove to be. Don't feel too bad; I have proved to be wrong too when the author pointed out some things to me, but guess what? At least I know how to let down my shield of dignity and admit my wrongs unlike everyone here barraging me with their interpretations lost in almost everything I have said thus far.


P.S. I will not be replying to anyone else anymore except the author. It is foolish for me to continue trying to make sense to those who cannot make sense, and likewise anyone trying to make sense to me because I prove your sense to be nonsense by making sense of it first. That is why (to my best guess) Shakespeare once said, “…but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.” because the handicap of the wise is the need to make sense to a world full of fools and ‘half theres' who think they know themselves to be wise."

"Yea"? Intriguing choice of words but sure. You are so incredibly narcissistic that it makes me sick. Self-taught artist that breaks rules and does it well while preserving the elegant beauty of poetry whether free verse or fixed? Who knew such a man existed? Get off of your high horse and realize that you are not unlike anyone here and that your opinion is not weighted anymore than any other nor does anyone give two blinks of an eye at your background. You have a background. Great. We all do. And here is the kicker, it is probably in art. What?! I know. It is insane. 


I don't feel bad because your work is boring and dry. It lacks any livelihood and stands on so little merit I am beginning to wonder if you aren't just lying about this assumed talent you speak of. I admit my wrongs, when I am wrong. The issue here, is that not only is there another reader who disagrees with you, but the author themselves has said you were way off base. Congratulations on being a lone voice crying for order when the intent was always chaos. 


As stated at the beginning, I encourage you to run along and insist on not replying as I can only imagine this has been a rather difficult day for you. You have been called on all of your bluffs and made a fool, so I am one hundred percent certain you will write some incredibly dry sonnet about how sad you are without ever using any other word that insinuates sadness other than "sorrow" as you have already done. It is one thing to write my dear, it is another thing to feel. You are half good at one of them, which means you are only a quarter of the picture. Checkmate baby. 


Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2013  Professional Writer
Pardon the formatting of my last reply to you. I don't like how d.A. formats texts. It used to be push you push enter two times and it will submit like that. It should have submitted to be spaced out.
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2013  Professional Writer

KhazDA said:

I have to admit that it is always a pleasure to see an ignorant whelp decide he has had enough of his own game and throw in the almighty "I will not respond" card. To this day I don't know what it is that makes people feel so incredibly self-righteous when they play that hand. Let us recount a few things since you feel the need to make this an intellectual debate and go through quote for quote.”

What does that make you? It makes you an incorrigible fool for continuously arguing with who you think is a fool. You cannot disprove that. True self-righteousness admits no wrong(s) or foolishness. Meanwhile, you admit to no wrong(s) or foolishness. As a result, you confess your own ignorance proving you have no business calling me self-righteous. Checkmate back at you, always, no matter what you reply with from now on because of the inevitability in the opening line(s) here.

The “I will not respond” card is used by me only when I feel it most necessary to do so, not because I surrendered in my last comment — like you poorly assume(d) by thinking I could not possibly explain myself or support my claims in another comment — but because you still remain an ignorant fool to me. Let this reply be proof I still got fight in me, and always know that anymore derisive comments you send are nothing I am not capable of shaming, refuting, or disproving, and let the venom in these said words here be a prime example as I demonstrate real cruelty vs. my original comment given for the author to think about.

Now that you know the true use of the “I will not respond” card, yea, I will not hesitate to use it just once more. Know that my reason for using it is that you have become a complete waste of my time. Then again, everyone has an addiction; mine is the need to indefinitely make sense to those (including you) who cannot make sense of sense, common or not common. While trying to make sense is often wasted time, argument does have its benefits, per se, great practice for writing.

You see, the avid practice of writing through online debate is no different than two theoretical physicist’s side-by-side in a duel on the drawing board to see who can come up with the next earthshattering mathematical equation. The only discrepancy between the written word and numeric math is the written word is phonetic math to see whose sense adds up more than another man’s sense until agreement can be made on an explanation or viewpoint minus the nonsense in old thinking.

Pardon me for the incapability to keep these words to myself (I really tried!) but the profoundness of your ignorance compelled me to respond. I was a complete idiot replying to you all those times then, but I will not be twice an idiot to respond again, and again.

Just because someone has solid comebacks full of answers you do not like to everything you say or anyone else says against that person, does not make that person arrogant / self-righteous. The only thing that just said says about the person you are disputing with — who has answers for everything you say — is that they have been through their share of sit-down conversations and debates to uphold their reasoning and claims.

In this case, I am that person. You are not speaking with someone whose logic is a songbird in a cage that never met an open discussion. If that’s the delusion you entertain, you are far more ignorant than you claim me to be.

Here you are slinging an equal amount of mud back at me, but you don’t see me calling you ‘arrogant’ for doing so in that I could illogically argue the same thing by saying just because you have a response to everything Isay, and just because you think you have won this debate (not me,) you are self-righteous!

Stop pretending to be the idiot you know yourself not to be. Is that just stated a truth, or are you second-guessing yourself? Let’s be honest and admit this is what it is: I say your logic is very weak against mine, yet you believe the same thing in yourself my logic is weak against yours. Does that make us arrogant? No. It is a matter of one viewpoint conquering another viewpoint, a philosophy winning over another philosophy.

Furthermore, the “arrogance” card is the most common, most-used card in the deck in dispute, indicating silent defeat when the person using that card has nothing remarkable to come back with. Using the “arrogance” card has as much affect as someone who uses the “F%$# everything!” card. Much like the “arrogance” card, the “F%$# everything!” card does nothing for you. Using those two cards in public only surrounds you with people who laugh at and witness your defeat and downfalls in life or in argument.

This is how arrogant / narcissistic I am: I am only right until proven wrong with doubtless, devastating reasoning when someone comes along to finally get my brain in a lock-up where my words will always fail no matter what I may say next. The narcissism you assume of me is not what angers you; what angers you is my ability to give answers to everything you say. Why? Because there is an answer to everything. You (and everyone else coming at me) has failed to really set me straight. Let the still-standing presence of every word I have placed here against your claims, assumptions, misunderstandings, and falsifications of my said words (previous and now) be certain proof of that.

From my receiving end coming from you, I don’t see arrogance; worse, I see ridicule riddled with worthless, unsound judgment failing to support the claims you make regarding me.

KhazDA said:

“The point of the comment was that you are attempting to strip away the emotion of the piece and force the author to conform to your predetermined ideas of correctness. Not exactly a smart move to make when commenting on a piece submitted to a free art site that promotes everything from emotes to fanfics, but, I never took you for the intelligent type.”

Humph, really? So that makes you the intelligent type? You have not (yet) said one worthwhile line of text or comeback. You think you may have but you haven’t. Say at least one thing to me or against my claims I have not already heard, and make it spectacular by loading each syllable in whatever that is you say with C4, each one detonating in my head into a cosmic-sized explosion when my mind receives it that will whoa! me. Until then, don’t expect me to say, “You got me!” or, “Hey, you know what, you’re right . . .”

Aside from the above said, there you go again with your assumptions. I cannot help but relate you to a newborn child who has not yet learnt how not to speak gibberish, who, when trying to enunciate words, says, “buh“, “buh“, “buh“…” while drooling at the mouth. Newborn children cannot help it, but it sounds completely stupid coming from a man such as yourself since you should be able to support your claims minus all the drivel you continue to include in all your comments.

Did I just go there? Yes I did. The above, sir, is true nastiness. I said it to demonstrate the difference between what I gave the author to think over vs. the whiplashes of dirty criticism I am saying to you because you’re so empty-headed (purposely or certainly) to see the difference between true cruelty and assumed cruelty I have already preemptively apologized for in my very first comment here in case I was too harsh to the author.

Again, and again, read the second long comment I wrote after my original comment. Where do you see I ever forced the author to do anything? I encouraged change and gave suggestions to the author to do so, not forced change on the author. Stop acting like the complete fool you think you know yourself not to be and ‘get it’ already.

KhazDA said:

”That whole first paragraph agrees with me and then goes on to completely disregard every common rule for sentence structure known to the English language, and as such, I shall leave it untouched.”

Whoa. It’s about time you truly came to your senses to make sense of something. You had me worried about! I thought your judgment was forever impaired.

Moving on to point out the rest of your irreparable ignorance . . .

KhazDA said:

I agree wholeheartedly with adding more complex words when seeking to replace three to four words, but if the intent was to convey emotion in the raw and not to make it beautiful or refined, then why bother struggling over words when the emotion is already there giving you the words to use.”

In case you haven’t been paying attention (clearly you do not,) I told the author, OK, while I understand you’re pleased with what originally comes to mind with little to no revision, I cannot bring myself to be satisfied with good enough, or what is otherwise known as something I call ‘napkin poetry,’ OR poetry in the moment without touching it when it’s over.

My philosophy in writing (whether prose or poetry) is to say so much in so little, not so little in so much, that should too much be said at once, make every line of quotable quality. That is also the reason why I look for better words than what my immediate emotion tells me. In my findings after reading boatloads of literary material, I have learned that when your audience only quotes you on just one or two parts in a piece of prose or poetry, you quite possible went wrong somewhere in that the other parts of your work are lackluster, often failing to captivate readers.

I do not write for a hobby, and I do not write for myself. Writing is my life, and I write for the world, exhausting my whole self in a society that really doesn’t give a damn, waiting for the world to change while the world just stays the same.

It is evident most writers (and artists) don’t care about quality, but I do. When I write, I am not only my worst critic, but I am always reviewing my old work with new eyes until every line I compose is of a quotable quality, or of such quality to where someone may say, “Omg, I wish I owned those words!” I personally don’t want to leave this world without leaving something remarkable behind, because at the end of the day, a life wasted in labor alone is a life completely wasted. If all a person lives for is making money, I feel bad for them, even if one cannot help it.

Anyway, not that you really care, but there’s the little backstory of how I am going to go about dying happy by knowing I left something behind others can read and share. God-given or not, I will exhaust my brain completely before I depart this realm.

KhazDA said:

Simple filler words? I laugh at how ridiculous the thought even is.

Let the quoted remark from you in the above be proof of your silly, empty reasoning.

Do you know what’s funnier? You misquoted me. You (again) saw only what you wanted to see by the arrangement of and/or the omission of my words in your mind to support your flawed assertions. Did you really think you were going to get away with that for your benefit?

*Laughs heartily* Unlike you, I don’t skip things people say in arguments. I put that in bold to encourage you to pay very close attention to every word in this comment so you don’t continue to pan yourself over the head with your own stupid statements again, and again.

Here is what I did say, “…or by adding effective, simple filler words to help even out the line lengths in your stanzas.”

Not only did you misquote or misread what I said, you laugh only because you have a very hard time making sense of things. You continuously fail to understand the thought(s) from me you mock. Or, you do understand everything I have said yet purposely choose not to in that you seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, I am trying to piece your delusions together into understanding what I am really saying opposed to what you want to believe I said. There is a difference.

KhazDA said:

”I suppose if you were trying to fit a traditional style they would be necessary, but free verse is free verse for a reason. Enough said on that entire point given you are trying to illustrate that free verse should have structure which I will simply refer you to Shel Silverstein.”

I know free verse is free verse, and had you been paying any mind, I clarified I knew free verse was free verse in my previous comment when saying, “I know free verse poetry is free verse (like this author's poem,) but..” later followed by, “…then again, my point is the same elegant quality explained above can be included in free verse, too.”

Note the fact I said can be not should be as you purposely assumed (or so it seems.) This will be brought up again.

The above said things assumes the author is an avid writer with a strong love for language, but not all writers have that kind of devotion or love for language. (I get it, but that doesn’t mean I am not entitled to voice my opinion(s) on an author’s work, liked or not liked.)

KhazDA said:

“A half decent job? I suppose that isn't bad for half effort. The word isn't too big for me. I simply don't proof read any of my comments because I don't see the point in wasting anything more than a few minutes at most on petty vermin like yourself. A shot for shot? Or did you really want to pull the self-righteous bit again?”

I am not alien to the material you produce. You have a poem on sorrow I rewrote because it was absent of any feeling of sorrow, and the love poem of the eagle was rather drab if you ask me. Who shot the eagle? Oh my! Let me know when you start actually writing something worth reading.</b>

*Laughs hard* Your above said is evidence of complete defeat. Instead of proving me more a fool than yourself, you instead say the most hateful things you can possibly dream up without a good reason for doing it, and at the same time, acting like the person you assume(d) me to be.

Right, your reason is this: you have no better remarks. Meanwhile, my unkindness was for demonstrative purposes only throughout this entire comment so you can compare my original comment to the author to this comment.

I appreciate the comment that I am at least worth some of your precious time you will never get back, meanwhile, you’re no longer worth anymore of mine, especially when this is over.

You see, I’m not as bad a guy you think / thought, that just because I am able to put you down (for good reason) does not mean I am the piece of fecal matter you assume me to be. You and I are exchanging nasty words only because of the misconception on everyone else’s part (including yours) that I was overbearingly offensive to the author in the original comment I made. You didn’t have to say anything; I already preemptively knew that some of the things I said were going to come off harsh, and apologized before the idea of me being harsh could affect anyone’s feelings.

On another note, you should also know that while I’ve been here on deviantArt only a year, the two works you read from me are garbage child’s play at best. Those old pieces were penned when I was 11 and 14 years of age. Mind you, I am still in the process of going over most of my own work anyway, new and old. Remember, I am my own worst critic. I am not disheartened in anything you say against my work because I am far stricter on my own self than anyone can possibly be toward me. Furthermore, I am not even satisfied with most of my best work.

Meanwhile, you cannot even begin to shame your own self as I do regarding your own work, new and old (I may look into.) However, unlike you, I won’t be sifting through your Gallery for the trashiest material you produced I can find and prey only on that as you’re trying to do with my work in my Gallery.

Overall, good try to bring a tear to my eye, but your words still fail to chink my armor.

KhazDA said:

“Failed attempts? Then why respond at all? Never mind. I forgot that in dealing with the elevated crowd I must remember that they forget that a response proves the argument remains. In any case, your attempt at saving grace through the college instructor being more harsh than you, is incredibly adorable. You assume yourself capable of being a college instructor? You assume that is what the author desired? Oh to be so naive. And you can add words? So impressive. Please come rewrite my gallery. I stand in awe of your literary prowess good sir. I am humbled. Schmuck.”

The above is evidence of how poorly you retain information given to you. I already told you before why I continue to reply. I continue to reply because my addiction is the need to make sense to idiots like you, pouring myself into people who are only half there. The other reason I continue to reply in debates is for writing practice. (Consult the beginning of this comment.)

And no, I do not make foolish assumptions like the ones you do in that I know it takes 12-15 solid years (sometimes more, it depends,) to become a college professor in a university. Entry level is roughly around 8-9 years to become a community college professor. My 5 year’s time going to college was only for the sake of brush-up purposes for my writing.

My time spent in college only came up during this debate. It was not mentioned in my original comment to the author, or the thought, entertained in that I did not assume like you assume I assumed that I figured because I fancied myself a college professor (you are very wrong,) I thought the author would like my input because of what you assume I assumed. No. Instead, sometimes (not all the time) I do rewritten versions of people’s material only to example what I mean in any of the tips I give authors.

Did you really think I cared whether or not you were astounded by my stature, rewards, accomplishments etc.? Think again. I only brought those things up because you threw something in my face I gave you back.

KhazDA said:

”You just prove to be everything I am not don't you? I have never looked through writing on deviantArt nor have I ever read through another's work in person. I don't have any schooling nor do I subscribe to reading the works of those in the past. Oh, wait a minute. I did go to school. I have edited nearly fifty works at least a few of which have been published. I did graduate from the third most difficult school in the nation at the time and I am well versed not only in the literary world but also in many other domains. Thank you though professor for attempting to belittle someone who has merely pointed out the confounding nature in which you approached this entire exchange.”

Yea, in a way, I do. I have room to speak just as much you feel you have room to speak because you won’t shut up no more than I will. I mean, not that you believe anything I say no matter what I say anyway, even if proved true, but I have to ask, what have you proven to me I have not already put to shame thus far? Ah, right, you don’t have to prove yourself to anyone, and frankly, neither should I, but for writing practice purposes I felt the need to give this just one more go. You must also understand it was your choice to embarrass yourself by continue to argue with the assumed idiot you continue to argue with, just as it was my choice to be an idiot to continue trying to make sense to one. Do you see where this is going? You got it!

As for the rest of what you said, good for you, good for me too, but let’s be honest: you don’t really care about where I’ve been, what I’ve done, what I’ve accomplished, etc. and neither do I really care about where you have been, what you have done, and what you have accomplished. However, granted everything you said is true, that’s great, since the rest of the people in this new generation (more than ever) are investing their lives in drugs and every do not they were ever told by friends or family.

KhazDA said:

"Yea"? Intriguing choice of words but sure. You are so incredibly narcissistic that it makes me sick. Self-taught artist that breaks rules and does it well while preserving the elegant beauty of poetry whether free verse or fixed? Who knew such a man existed? Get off of your high horse and realize that you are not unlike anyone here and that your opinion is not weighted anymore than any other nor does anyone give two blinks of an eye at your background. You have a background. Great. We all do. And here is the kicker, it is probably in art. What?! I know. It is insane.”

Yeah? If I am so narcissistic, then that makes a practiced assumptionist, believing where you want to believe instead of looking at what’s actually in front of you in a discussion. The only form of assumption often excused (more than not) is the assumptions people make worldwide that go into trying to solve perplexing mysteries, the wonders in our universe, etc. Why? In those things there is no true answers; there is only pure speculation. However, your assumptions are so absurd and profound that even what’s in front you whether explanation, proof of reason, validity (of anything,) etc. you just disagree just to disagree, or you’re that dumb because you continue not to get it.

So tell me, what is the purpose of your argument if not to prove yourself more right than me, if not to get me to kowtow to your reasoning I have proved nonsense? Mine is to clear things up in that all along, I wasn’t the bad guy everyone made me out to be toward the author. Some of the said things we exchanged got off topic, yea, but if the purpose in your argument is not to prove I am more wrong than you are, then what it is?

According to what you seem to contend, I guess all of us (including myself and yourself) think we have it all figured out, etc. that just because someone thinks (including you and me) they are right or prove to be more right than someone else, they are automatically self-righteous / arrogant. Calling someone arrogant because of that is the oldest, easy-way-out remark toward someone in the book when your retaliations have run dry toward the person you’re speaking to.

If you haven’t noticed, that term does not work on me.

KhazDA said:

”I don't feel bad because your work is boring and dry. It lacks any livelihood and stands on so little merit I am beginning to wonder if you aren't just lying about this assumed talent you speak of. I admit my wrongs, when I am wrong. The issue here, is that not only is there another reader who disagrees with you, but the author themselves has said you were way off base. Congratulations on being a lone voice crying for order when the intent was always chaos.”

Don’t be so full of yourselves in that the three of you guys disagreeing with me accounts for the entire world here. You also lie through your teeth (and you know it) to call all my work dry and boring when not even I have said such things to you or this author. So please, quit with the ‘I hate you, therefore, no matter what you say, do, or have created, I am going to hate you and everything you do, anyway’ insults. Sit down and shut up. I’m quite sure even as much I despise you right now there is at least a few works that are good in your Gallery.

Your ignorance is on a completely different level than mine will ever be. The only reason you’re saying what you’re saying is that it is through anger toward me. Not even I can stoop that low to call everything in your gallery complete lackluster garbage as you have.

KhazDA said:

”As stated at the beginning, I encourage you to run along and insist on not replying as I can only imagine this has been a rather difficult day for you.

Is that what you thought? Think again.

KhazDA said:

You have been called on all of your bluffs and made a fool, so I am one hundred percent certain you will write some incredibly dry sonnet about how sad you are without ever using any other word that insinuates sadness other than "sorrow" as you have already done.

Saying people have called me on my bluffs is one thing, but actually calling me on my bluffs is another. In your next reply, dissect my claims and reasoning and let’s see how hard you fail in trying to do so. And let’s be honest, any poem can be reduced to its barebones no matter the word use, tone, rhymes, things being expressed, etc. The poem you are scrutinizing doesn’t just insinuate deep sadness. It is in memory of someone close to me that died, entails good semantics (etc.) sense of surrounding, and finely details the connection between the man and the woman in the picture. If all you see is ‘sorrow’ in that poem, you need to go back to school and learn how to read. Furthermore, the revision of that poem is not complete. I am still touching it up little by little. I was in the process of doing that anyway before you said anything or any of this started.

KhazDA said:

”It is one thing to write my dear, it is another thing to feel. You are half good at one of them, which means you are only a quarter of the picture. Checkmate baby.”

How do you know how much I feel or don’t feel when writing the things I do? You cannot even begin to imagine what things run through my head when I write. Quote me I said the author lacked emotion in all her work. Just because that’s what you assume that’s what you thought I said toward the author, does not give you the right to call out all my work as lacking emotion just because you have a problem with me (not my work.) I didn’t say the author’s work lacked emotion; I just said her word use came off drab and cliché in some areas. There is a difference. I was moved, actually — considering I thought her words could be better — by the strong character of the woman and the emotion put into it. I did acknowledge that.

P.S. IF you just give better explanation on how I am the bigger monstrosity and fool here, I would remove myself from my position, completely or a little bit depending on the effectiveness of your next move. Until then, this is not going to end with you standing over my body with your foot on my neck.

As for your other comments not yet answered, I have things to say toward those, too, but I am not going to waste anymore of my time with you.



Have fun chewing on this for a while.

VicariouSoul

Reply
:iconkhazda:
KhazDA Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Let me part with a few simple facts that should ease your ill begotten madness. 

First, the writer didn't ask for a critique nor does she feel you are in the right mindset to offer one given your rewrite was so far off base she openly laughs about it in conversation.

Secondly, I would like to state that your rewrite was copyright infringement quite blatantly. I am not quite sure how you feel so beyond the constraints of the law, but infringement is infringement. 

Lastly, despite every instance of you trying to derail the conversation I can stand back and reread everything that was posted by either side and feel content that I know where I stand, where the author stands, and where other like minded individuals that enjoy this work stand. Your comment, while suggestive, took a definite tone that demanded change and an effort to become what you assumed as proper. It doesn't matter if you say "With all due respect" before you rip someone apart, you still ripped them apart. Your commentary was not asked for, wanted, or beneficial to anyone involved and stands as another stain of filter and moderation going beyond the scope of inciting creativity, but rather deafening the soul. I don't need an essay to tear apart your arguments, because it doesn't matter how many words it takes, it matters the message. 

Form is great for those who want it. This was free verse for a reason. Take your critique of a work that didn't want it, your desire for form in a work played out in free verse for a purpose, and your suggestions that air on the side of demands from someone who doesn't care what you think, and enjoy the small world you have isolated yourself onto. I bid thee well sir, but you have much to learn of the ways of the world and the ways of good conduct. 
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2013  Professional Writer
If an essay (as you put it) is too long, here are three words to sum up you and your comment(s) and anything else you say: foolish assumptionist defeated.

Whoa! whoa !whoa! Pump your breaks; don't read any further unless the underlying evidence I am about to provide regarding the above said breaks the casing of your petty heart! (I know, right? It's put so simple since magniloquent guys like me aren't capable of simplicity, right? You're wrong again!)

Anyway . . .

Don't be a hypocrite and throw in my face the value of good conduct when you have clearly went through my Gallery and degraded several works of mine because you have a problem with me (not my work.) You are acting like the person you assumed me to be when that is not who I am. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I shouldn't have to use old adages to get common sense into your head. I only commented on one work from this author.

I know, I know, don't tell me, "Persistent fool to respond again! Liar to your word not to respond again!" I promise I will stop (perhaps after this, I am trying) but there are a couple more things you should know.

And just to be clear, while there is a Thesaurus for words (I do not actively use here,) there is no Thesaurus for comebacks and one's own logic without leaning on someone else's say, past or present. You can know all the words in this world, but if you don't know what to do with them, what good are they? Answer: no good at all.

First it was arrogance, and now it's ill begotten madness. *Laughs* You cannot tear apart my argument(s) because you cannot do it, just as I said you would fail to do whether in very few words or a lot. You also know (as I have forewarned,) that no matter what you say I will disprove your claims, etc. which is another reason you forfeited to disprove the things I said in my last comment. Words like arrogance, madness, and whatever other words soon to come you will throw in my face are very weak assaults in this argument. I explained how they are weak. You also secretly admit I was right when I said using the 'ignorance' card was a foolish move throughout these spats by instead using the 'ill begotten madness' card. What other cards will I burn you will pull from the deck next?

So go ahead, scream! arrogance and madness all you want over and over, but always remember arrogance is not arrogance if the person is not wrong so long they uphold their reasoning by proving someone else's reasoning to be nonsense. Instead of getting at what I'm meaning or meant in my original comment, you instead find your own meaning by leaning on your own understanding through mere assumption, that which I have proven had the wrong impression all along. 

You think I came here to tear this author apart when I did not.

IF I offend anyone, at least I can say I apologize(d), and at least I can say this world's a book anyone can easily close shut when you've become offended by it and its characters, including but not limited to, me. Otherwise, keep the book open with toleration, burn the illustrated and said things you dislike from your muse and its pages, and take from it only the said and illustrated things you like that share commonality with your disposition and outlook.

What have you to say against that? The difference with me is I am not a coward to close the book so easily, nor am I offended by anything you or anyone else says against me because I will always have something to say in response, and only I know the truth in all my good intents you do not see because you see only what you want to see.

It's also very funny to you are so comfortable with the idea you (and a few others) account for the entire world that disagree with me. Here is a tip: not everyone is going to like a particular work, or, not everyone is going to have something agreeable to say regarding your work or someone else's work. There will be scrutiny (far worse than what I gave.) The sooner you realize that, the better off your ignorant self will be. And just because majority like-mindedness says something, does not always mean it's right. A lot of times the minority is what comes out on top, is most memorable, and most notorious. Why? Because the minority is bold enough (still continues to be) to prove the majority wrong.

Furthermore, you again have said nothing remarkable I haven't already heard in your latest reply. I even dared you to do so and you still prove to be incapable of doing it.

P.S. I see you like to play the, "The author did not ask for your opinion(s) or a critique, therefore, you have no business saying anything." card. To which I openly reply and will gladly contend, "The comments section is not for praise alone. The comments section is open to what people want to say and will say. That is what it's for. To expect everyone to say only what you want to hear all the time is equivalent to foolishly expecting the same thing everywhere you go in this world."

You also have no business talking about the small isolated world I have put myself into when your imaginary world clearly says, "You're not allowed to voice your opinion(s) if they are not asked for." Tell me, is that what the real world tells you, or is that what the small world you have put yourself into tells you?

Hmm? What's that? All I can hear from you is, "Humph, humphhumph, err, humphhumph." Come on, say something already that discredits what I say. Make up some spectacular bull$#%! if you need to, I mean, at least try.

On another note, no one yet (I wonder why? No I don't . . .) has stepped forward to debate the the comment I wrote regarding copyright infringement because I infringed nothing. However, you would have everyone here believe otherwise because you have no better punch to deliver to my face. Blatant infringement is how I describe it in my comment talking about copyright infringement. There, you will learn the true meaning of blatant copyright infringement.

Call me any name in the book all you want, but don't accuse me of something I did not do without intending to do it in the first place.

What's the matter? Do you feel that strong urge to say something? Good. Now you know why I absolutely had to say something back once more.
Reply
:iconvicariousoul:
VicariouSoul Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Professional Writer
When I am finished with supper, I will be back with thorough explanation to fix your misconceptions so there is better understanding in what I am meaning and saying.
Reply
:iconthegalleryofeve:
TheGalleryOfEve Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Congratulations on your well-deserved DD!!! :iconflyingheartsplz::iconlainloveplz::iconflyingheartsplz: :clap::clap::clap:
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013
Thank you very much, I appreciate you
taking the time to read it!
Reply
:iconmoved-acc:
moved-acc Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013
What a cold hard kick to the heart and mind that was!
Great job!
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013
Thank you ^_^
I prefer to shuck off
the flesh and grind the
bones of my mind at
times. Then these kinds
of poems happen and
I wonder if I've gone
completely insane.
Reply
:iconmoved-acc:
moved-acc Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013
It's ok, we're all mad here
Reply
:iconblackstar707:
blackstar707 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Intense, disturbingly good, and beautifully written. :clap: Excellent work! The daily deviation is well deserved!
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013
Thank you very much for taking the time
to read my poem.
Reply
:iconinfinite-variations:
Infinite-Variations Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013
This is incredible. <3
It conveys such intense emotions, and the imagery is just... morbidly beautiful.
I love it.
What a well deserved DD! 
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013
Thank you very much. I am glad you
found it a worthy read :heart:
Reply
:iconthemoltendragon:
TheMoltenDragon Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Honestly, this is terrifying, but still intriguing. This is a fantastic poem and you seriously deserve that DD!
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013
Thank you, I appreciate you thinking so.
Morbid is my forte :heart:
Reply
:iconthemoltendragon:
TheMoltenDragon Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
That is obvious :)
Reply
:iconczzyfan6url:
CzzyFan6url Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wow... ;o; :clap:
Reply
:iconttbloodlusttt:
ttbloodlusttt Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013
:heart:
Reply
:icongrimface242:
GrimFace242 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013   Writer
You're very welcome.  I'm just happy ~SolidMars suggested it or I'd never have found it
Reply
Add a Comment: