/lit/ - Literature

>>9325808
As if poetry wasn't already unbearable enough for the contemporary mind.

This woman does not follow rules, nor does she break rules with any amount of creativity. If poetry is about pushing our language to the limits, she has utterly failed.

It's hard to express what there is to criticize when all order and structure have been dismantled (which was very much the postmodern intention, to avoid legitimate criticism).

Let's begin by separating the two parts of this poem (which Rupi separates into four, but by no discernible reason of rhyme, syllable count, syntax, or theme). The first three "stanzas" form the first part, and the last one forms the other.

The first part details the action of the poem's story. A man says something, and some sort of conclusion is drawn by the poet (who is not the target of the quotation). There is no emotion, nor even a vague connection between stanza 3 and stanzas 1 and 2, save the word "but," which acts as a negation to the man's request (if it is even a request. It might be a journal entry for all the poet tells us). There is no complexity, no sense of beauty or linguistic aesthetic, not even much of a message. The characters are completely interchangeable without risking the core meaning or emotive tonality being changed. The metaphor of "house" seems quite a bit off; the woman would only really be supplying a social benefit to the man if she allowed him to sleep next to him. If he had wanted to fuck, we could see the house being for his cock, but even then, there are a million better words to put here.

The last part is another sort of forged truism by the poet, but it relates in no way to the first part. The comparison of "hurricane" to "rain" is one of intensity and wind/movement, two themes that are not illustrated in the first part whatsoever (one could argue that the "sleep" vs. "fuck" tension serves this role, but this exists entirely within the context of the man, not between the man and the women). This entire stanza is unnecessary, and most likely detracts from the first poem (not that the poem without the fourth stanza would be *good,* but it would be an improvement). Frankly, it reeks of the poet's self-importance and arrogant feel for the female gender, and her refusal to either choose more apt rhetoric or explain the kind she's used seems more like an insult to any serious reader than any sort of artistic triumph.

Really, it's par for the course of RoastieCore "literature" that women buy only to take pictures of themselves reading for their instagram. And if it sells, can't really blame the publishers or the authors.