Uneasy Romance with Mayhem (english poetry)

Uneasy1Uneasy2


Anyone attentive to my poetics will realise they have been quite volatile lately, becoming more robust and curated, and perhaps a bit more modernistic. Most of these, I wouldn’t truly call poems, but rather, short essays on sound. This one specifically attempts to melodiously replicate the abrupt awareness that waves with common anxiety.

I work hard to hone my ability to compose, and that also involves a lot of experimenting, along with poems that pave such progress. Right now, my topmost priority is to fabricate sound that can also be transmissible of emotion, a luxury I previously reserved to the verbal content of the composition.

This specific poem uses isolated sound shifts to pause realisation: (sinks!, sinks… sinks —) similarly to an “Oh!, Oh…” commonly used in general communication. Consonant repetition and syllabic cadence are also utilised to a more subtle degree. (also, some lousy enjambement in the second stanza, but I couldn’t fix it properly)

I’m hopeful that you don’t mind my silly experiments, and may continue this poetic quest with me. It can be a bit saturating, but necessary, nonetheless.


JOHNNY

Hoje sou tudo no nada que sou, amanhã serei outro.

24 thoughts on “Uneasy Romance with Mayhem (english poetry)

  1. “Where streams enamour those margins of time’s unrest,” and “a void made of fervency for tomorrow.” Such grand and sweeping lines! Nothing silly about your “experiments.” Every time I read your words I feel like a peasant when I return to read my own! Well done, as always 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dragonfire, you’re incredibly sweet. Such warming embraces of my poems are, in essence, displays of grandeur in-and-of themselves.
      You’re not a peasant of any sort, because your unbound generosity towards my lines is so instrumental, so essential, that the void I describe in my poems would only be wider without your presence.
      Little about my compositions makes me proud, but the only pride I hold, is that individuals of purity such as you, find light in them.
      Thank you; so much.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. When I read your last poem, I thought about how you seem to be bringing proper or traditional poetry to the masses. I like this thought. An offering to those more lay poets of possibly taking their poetry into a more elaborate form while allowing freedom for experimentation. This might be offensive to many elitist poets but, in my opinion, it is a great service to poets of all kinds. Also a joy to experience for poets like me who have no respect for poetic rules. Of course, with your great ability, you can also work on your traditional works for the elitists. Just give a little something to us who enjoy experimentation now and then.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you Alex;
      I must admit, I often struggle with that sensation. Am I too conventional? Am I able to grip someones attention, in an age where Insta-poets and minimalism seem more proper and successful?
      I find solace in the feeling that, despite it, I am as genuine as I can be when I produce. I cannot write differently, because this is my essence, this is how I enjoy writing.
      May I lose love for the craft, not only will it shrivel in magnitude, it will also wear me out.

      Despite technique and rules, I like to think that the core of my poetics is as honest as it can be. The form I present it in, well, that’s just something I like refining, for the sake of occupying my senseless mind.

      Thank you, Alex, your soul is kind, despite any chaos it may haul. Your words attest to that.

      Like

  3. I dig it. I have a thing for the death of the gods and Ragnarok, I guess. There is something about the imagery of these landscapes that I find vivifyingly awakening — it’s not a Game of Thrones sensationalistic and over-simplistic take on Homer’s “midnight covered his eyes as his blood rushed out while he clutched the earth which nourishes us all”; it has cash value for life.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you! — I, for one, think George Martin has an impeccable plot construction and world-building, but a not-so-engaging writing. He lacks the Art of poetic subterfuge in his approach, hindering the fluidity and making an over-exposing text that gives you little sidewalk to cross your own path along his letters.
        He is very good at what he does, but he didn’t make it on my Pantheon.
        It is, however, a great honour to receive such warming compliment. Cash for life is a very Ayn Rand’ish phrase, I love it.

        Like

  4. very fresh, dear johnny. i like this side of you as well–this exploring side. taking chances with your creativity. i do indeed appreciate the musicality of this poem, the repetitive sounds which develop a moving rhythm. i would love to hear this read aloud, in fact, i may have to do just that!

    Liked by 1 person

    • If you’re speaking of the sound generally produced in a composition like this, it slightly resembles the works of Pound, Elliot and Frost.
      Especially Elliot, the most musical of all.

      Of course, I do not come near their mastery of the craft.
      And thank you 🙂

      Like

  5. Your experiments are a pleasure to witness. You take such a unique and gifted perspective towards writing. Also, it is true after reading your pieces, everything else feels.. middleschool stuff, haha. You use a tremendous array of words to portray your emotions. ❤️

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you so much! I must say, despite the tender compliments, I still feel like I’m very much an amateur. I’ve been writing English poetry for maybe four months now, and I haven’t improved as fast as I would like. But still, I do what I can, and I endlessly appreciate the input.

      Liked by 1 person

      • If there’s one thing I would like to tell you to improve would be your choice of words. I don’t think a lot of people would be able to read your poems without having a dictionary by their sides (haha it really isn’t easy because you use words I have never known about which is also kind of cool!). So, if you could, make it more readable for a larger audience. If, of course, you meant to be read. Because I often feel about writing for one’s own self and for that, there must be no boundaries, right?

        Liked by 1 person

      • That would be objectively a non-improvement. You see, I often feel like my vocabulary is very primitive compared to some. Major poets even of present-day use a wide array of rich language, as to be precise about conveyance, guarantee lyricism and oscilate the rhythm. Every word I use is, therefor, calculated with my best capability.
        The expansion of my thesaurus knowledge can only compound my goal of clear — yet beautiful and true — communication.

        I write for others to read, but I expect others to read me with force, as I write to them with every inch of my magnitude.

        It is also a fiddly concept, that of larger audience. A “larger audience” strictus sensos regarding Poetry simply does not exist. The Art is spent and worn out, so to truly garnish those who are yet to discover it, we must craft it as well as we are able, because we own it to the Art itself.
        To say — I am in debt to the Arts in what they have given me, and I must do my best to give back.
        Quality will, in due time, pay-off. But I’m leaps and bounds behind of having work with quality that would result in such eventual pay-off.

        Anyway!, I derive!, thank you!

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.