I'm sorry but the original comment came just came off as inflammatory. which is why it seemed more like trolling. you just tore something down and left without giving them the tools to rebuild. why couldn't you have just dropped off a helpful piece of advice before leaving. why not tell them the words you found too repetitive, or tell them a way to make their constructions less repetitive. it's like someone critiquing an art piece and going "there's something wrong with the background" well thanks for that, that was helpful. want to be more precise or shall I just stab around in the dark until I get what's wrong with it.
I believe the Crux of what you wish to know is why I was not nicer, and the shortest Answer is that this Piece did not deserve such Forbearance; the Author misclassified this Work, and I have 'called him out' on it, as have some others who have not been duped by its Nonsensicallity into thinking it is really something profound when it is of a Depth rather lower than the Puddle an Icecube might leave upon hot Pavement. Leaving a 'helpful piece of advice' would not have addressed the true Problem with the Work, and that is that it is, in the literal Sense of the Word, not Poetry. Until this is Acknowledged, there is nothing I can do to help this Author, as he does not even known what he is writing. I will make no Apology for what I have said, and neither would I need to even had I simply said 'lol no', as you originally accused, for that Response would have been nowise unwarranted.
"Leaving a 'helpful piece of advice' would not have addressed the true Problem with the Work, and that is that it is, in the literal Sense of the Word, not Poetry. Until this is Acknowledged, there is nothing I can do to help this Author" hmm really, oh reeeaaallly. that's what you're going with. you could have just said that you didn't agree with the way to piece was categorized and then left it at that if that was your intention. no one would have been offended. but no you had to add "which appears to suffer from a rather inelegant repetition of certain Words and Constructions so what was the point of that if not to antagonize the author. If you don't believe you can do anything to help the author improve then why state your opinion at all, why not just keep it to yourself. you were quite obviously posting that comment with the intent of offending the author which is exactly what trolls do.
It is not that I 'disagree' with the Categorisation of the Piece, it is that it is patently incorrect, and saying so was bound to offend somebody; do you not grasp the Fact that I do not care if this offends anybody, and, further, that I find your Objections and Accusations entirely asinine — a Troll inflames for the Sake of Inflaming (I shall here remind you that it is unclear to me whether or not I have actually offended the Author, as he has not answered me directly, and neither does he appear to intend to; if you know him personally and are speaking for him, then you ought to have said so). The Mention of the stylistic Inelegance was meant to be, if not 'Food' for Thought, perhaps a mental Snack — something on which to chew if the Author ever got his own Ideas for how to improve his Work, either as an actual Poem or a more coherent Story; I may, after all, be in Error regarding the Salvageability of this Piece of Writing, and the Author may transform it into something worthwhile, however unlikely that seems at this Point.
If you wish to take Issue with any Point I have made regarding the Work itself, you are free to do so; I will not, however, discuss myself further here.
If you wish to take Issue with any Point I have made regarding the Work itself, you are free to do so; I will not, however, discuss myself further here.
I do not often check my account here and was not aware there was anything to respond to.
Regarding the categorization, I follow contemporary convention. If you go to the library, you will see writers like Dana Gioia (a formalist) shelved alongside writers like Zachary Schomburg (who writes in a style vaguely reminiscent of the above piece). Certainly there was a time when such a work could not be called poetry, but language changes over time. Open to a random page in the Oxford English Dictionary and you will see many entries attesting to this. Call this piece what you will - poetry, prose-poetry, flash fiction. Personally, I do not give a damn, only if I had categorized it as flash fiction there are others who would have raised an eyebrow.
Regarding the piece's incoherence, I am well aware that the narrative does not add up to a clear or linear story. This is intentional. It is (what is frequently referred to as) language poetry, inspired by writers such as John Ashbury and James Tate. I mean to give readers an experience with language that is emotionally impactful while being vague in its significations. Reading all the comments now, it seems to offer this to some readers, while others (most, no doubt) are indifferent and a few (apparently) are offended. This is as much as I could have hoped for.
Regarding the piece's grammar, again I am aware that it does not adhere to conventional syntactic constructions, and again this is intentional. For example, by omitting the determiner in the phrase "dead animal can swim" I intend to invoke a sense of language in a more primordial state; the phrase uses the sort of syntactic form you might hear from a toddler.
Your insistence on traditional grammar and an outdated use of the word "poetry" is what linguists contemptuously refer to as prescriptivism. However you are also resisting history, and there is always something admirable about that. I suggest that you be aware of what exactly it is that you are resisting and why. You are not as educated as you think you are. I only say this because I suspect you may be intelligent, perhaps even talented. A serious writer of literature these days must be well-read in philosophy, but particularly in the Philosophy of Language, writers like Wittgenstein, Davidson, Grice, Kripke, Chomsky, and at least a couple dozen others. If nothing else, it will put firmer ground when you offer such criticisms as you offer here.
In Libraries, Books are, if I am not very much mistaken, generally classified according to what the Publisher says they are; Publishers are not, however, infallible, and the Convention you claim, by whomever it may be used, is still based in Error. It does not matter who calls it 'Poetry', the simple Facts are that you have a Piece of Prose which has the various Elements which unambiguously make up a Work of Fiction, and, as it is Prose, and as it is Fiction, it is therefore Prose Fiction. To call it anything else is inadmissibly illogical.
Consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, and leaving out Definitions which are any of recursive, obsolete, or figurative, as none of these are at this Moment relevant, Poetry is 'Composition in verse or some comparable patterned arrangement of language in which the expression of feelings and ideas is given intensity by the use of distinctive style and rhythm; the art of such a composition' and, further down, 'The product of this art as a form of literature; the writings of a poet or poets; poems collectively or generally.' What you have written is neither of the above, and the further Definitions given in the Entry are all extended or figurative, or else Compounds. This is what Poetry is, as a Square is a Shape with four equal Sides and four equivalent Angles. You may draw a Circle and call it a Square, but it will remain a Square, and you are either mistaken, or else simply lying, and would be called out for it, as you are now.
As for your Intentions, they seem to fail when met with somebody who has a reasonable Degree of Intelligence and an Understanding of the Workings of Poetry and Language: what is here presented is a Collection of possibly-interesting Ideas with which nothing meaningful has been done, rather like exhibiting Cans of open Paint -- a Material rather than an artistic Product -- in an Art Museum.
Attempting to Invoke Language in a more 'primordial' State is linguistically-unsound, though by 'primordial' you appear to mean 'infantile' (please be clear about what you mean, Malapropisms can make Matters confusing and lead to Misunderstanding): though Grammars may become simpler or more complex through natural Evolution, their Grammars always have their own internal Rules and Logic, and have as long as Language has been attested, and likely for some Time before.
What you are attempting to do in distorting a Word out of its natural Meaning is what most People contemptuously call 'Lying', and is a Thing that, when they see it, they tend to resent. People have been fancying unrhythmical or even nonsensical Works as Poetry for some Time, I am aware, but this does not mean they are; sometimes the Works in Question are excellent Pieces of Writing christened under the wrong Name, while others, like this Piece in Question, are Drivel which are meant to sound Profound while having slightly less-depth than an evaporated Puddle. Look very hard at the positive Comments you have received — many imply liking it because they imagine this out of their Depth, or else have been infected with ridiculous Fancies about what Poetry is.
Consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, and leaving out Definitions which are any of recursive, obsolete, or figurative, as none of these are at this Moment relevant, Poetry is 'Composition in verse or some comparable patterned arrangement of language in which the expression of feelings and ideas is given intensity by the use of distinctive style and rhythm; the art of such a composition' and, further down, 'The product of this art as a form of literature; the writings of a poet or poets; poems collectively or generally.' What you have written is neither of the above, and the further Definitions given in the Entry are all extended or figurative, or else Compounds. This is what Poetry is, as a Square is a Shape with four equal Sides and four equivalent Angles. You may draw a Circle and call it a Square, but it will remain a Square, and you are either mistaken, or else simply lying, and would be called out for it, as you are now.
As for your Intentions, they seem to fail when met with somebody who has a reasonable Degree of Intelligence and an Understanding of the Workings of Poetry and Language: what is here presented is a Collection of possibly-interesting Ideas with which nothing meaningful has been done, rather like exhibiting Cans of open Paint -- a Material rather than an artistic Product -- in an Art Museum.
Attempting to Invoke Language in a more 'primordial' State is linguistically-unsound, though by 'primordial' you appear to mean 'infantile' (please be clear about what you mean, Malapropisms can make Matters confusing and lead to Misunderstanding): though Grammars may become simpler or more complex through natural Evolution, their Grammars always have their own internal Rules and Logic, and have as long as Language has been attested, and likely for some Time before.
What you are attempting to do in distorting a Word out of its natural Meaning is what most People contemptuously call 'Lying', and is a Thing that, when they see it, they tend to resent. People have been fancying unrhythmical or even nonsensical Works as Poetry for some Time, I am aware, but this does not mean they are; sometimes the Works in Question are excellent Pieces of Writing christened under the wrong Name, while others, like this Piece in Question, are Drivel which are meant to sound Profound while having slightly less-depth than an evaporated Puddle. Look very hard at the positive Comments you have received — many imply liking it because they imagine this out of their Depth, or else have been infected with ridiculous Fancies about what Poetry is.
Though often tempting, I find it ultimately rather silly for an artist to argue over the merit of his own work, so I will not engage with you on that level. Let me leave it behind by saying I appreciate your reading and considering what I have written, and I find your distaste for the piece understandable.
Regarding whether or not this is poetry, again I personally do not give a damn how it is labelled, and I readily admit that it does not fit with the usage of the word poetry amongst certain persons or anyone's usage of that word before recently. You do not understanding how language works, particularly it's diachronic nature. The meanings of words change over time - they expand, contract, shift. Gradually people might start using the word 'square' to refer to shapes in general, at which point it would be correct to say a circle is a square. I do not have the patience to further try and convince you of this point, but I encourage you to read up on modern linquistics and philosophy of language, particularly Wittgenstein, Quine, Putnam, Davidson, and Grice.
Your ad personam Attacks reveal a great Deal of Ignorance on your Part; I know well enough what Diachronics are — I took my Citation from a Dictionary which lists Definitions based upon them — and well enough what Poetry is, which is the Purpose of this Discussion, and not whether or not I know what semantic Evolution (which is not the deliberate misapplication of Words) is. The Word 'Poetry' originally meant 'Creative Written Works', but to say it means that now is, like your Piece of Fiction, entirely ridiculous. Were the Word 'Poetry' to take on its former Meaning, this Discussion would be irrelevant, however, it has not, and is highly unlikely to, and the only Reason People even think to apply it to 'Works' such as this is the absurd Fancies of a Few who have distorted it from its natural Meaning, in Defiance of all of Sense, Logic, and the Lexicographers. The only Reason the 'Masses' do not defy you is because they believe the Sense or poetic Nature of such mislabelled or misbegotten Things to be beyond their Understanding. Because something is 'modern' does not, alone, make it correct — many falsehoods were taken for Fact at one Time, and many new ones will be invented in the Future and be believed to be true until proved False, though few will likely be created as this Misapplication of the Word 'Poetry' — and the modern Vogue for what might be more correctly called 'Permissivism', while it has some Basis in Fact, is really itself quite absurd.