Head & Heart

[verbal galleon]

@hybrid sorrel has sent a notification! - @halcyon breach @rugged sinew @left gulch

[hybrid sorrel]

😭 i got no followers, ouch

@elfin aurora @hybrid sorrel @golden hound @ionic sapphire @lavish flax

@cinder badger @nimble sinew @hybrid sorrel @silent pine

@blazing hull @carmine tendon @vale heath @fiery elk @shell cargo

[carmine tendon]

ouc

[hybrid sorrel]

@odd robin @hybrid sorrel @woeful robin @harsh pawn

I've just briefed it

[verbal galleon]

@carmine tendon is now following @hybrid sorrel.

[hybrid sorrel]

In terms of archaicism

Whether thou canst, and whether thou should, art

If you use auxiliary pronounc endings it would be shouldst too

@sonic robin @mortal fjord @brazen moon

And art is are because it isn't 2nd person anymore

[hybrid sorrel]

r u sure?

Should is an auxiliary pronoun

It should be shouldst along with canst

Because still 2nd person

[hybrid sorrel]

i see

[ionic sapphire]

le?

also

[hybrid sorrel]

but that will eff the rhyme up, gah

And the are is 3rd not second, because it is no longer talking to 'thou' but it is talking about 'questions'

can i rhyme good with shouldst @hybrid sorrel

[hybrid sorrel]

It's annoying isn't it 💀

[ionic sapphire]

I gave 7 people sodas in the last few days, yours being the longest one I have done yes, 12 pages of analysis

[hybrid sorrel]

nah nah, dw

just read it

no analysis needed

lmk ur thoughts tho

[hybrid sorrel]

I wouldn't but, you could get away w/ it

Lemme look through it properly

Those were just my 2 quick notices

[ionic sapphire]

analysis and feedback, the soda is sacrade my brother

[hybrid sorrel]

or maybe i can ditch the archaism for that stanza completely

[ionic sapphire]

But okayyy

[hybrid sorrel]

Also is the mixing of you and thou on purpose?

[hybrid sorrel]

yeah

head= archaic, heart = modern

As in you as a singular— the modern form

man with head = archaic, man with heart = modern

third person omniscient = modern as well

I am gonna need some commas 😭

😭

Wait no I get it

Okay, makes sense

I CAN'T REMOVE THE ARCHAISM FOR THE HEAD 😭

eff it, im rhyming good with shouldst

[hybrid sorrel]

yeah? how's the poem overall

@gleaming escarp

I'll look when I'm home

I just briefly checked it

[odd robin]

I’ll look when I’m home aswell bc I’m at school rn 😓😓

It’s finals 💔

[shell cargo]

I love your use of language and vocabs what the hell!

[hybrid sorrel]

thank you Jane 🙃 it's my first real use of archaisms in a poem

[hybrid sorrel]

sure, go thru it whenevr u can

[shell cargo]

I appreciate it, I used to entwine archaisms in my own poems before!

[hybrid sorrel]

Rifht

Right

Let's get into this then

Okay so

It is brilltastic

[carmine tendon]

https://tenor.com/view/me-atrapaste-es-cine-its-cinema-cinema-esto-es-cine-gif-12869046600151364058

[hybrid sorrel]

All I would say is the third-person (who I think is called 'Wisdom' due to the capitalisation on the terminatory line) uses spake (archaic) then spoke after twice

I assume the third-person is called Wisdom bc of this capitalisation

Archaic language tends to capitalise nouns in general (but, that is like 16th century archaic, not 17th/18th)

So, I assume you are personifying Wisdom, as you are Man, Head, and Heart

[hybrid sorrel]

nononononono

forget the capitalisation 😭

You do use -est for 2nd person main verbs, so I would assume this is a more 16th century version

no personification, i just capitalised wisdom coz wisdom feels like wisdom with a capital W

plus this is a poem i wrote when i was 14 💀

i just touched it up today

[hybrid sorrel]

Ohhh

Well I took it thus:

The 3rd person omniscient is the literal personification of wisdom, being called 'Wisdom'

Then the head & heart are called, literally, 'Head' and 'Heart'

And man, the one who interjects, seems to be literally called 'Man'

Anyways, the message is brilliant

I love it

It is actually a poem I would read

[lavish flax]

Its an intresting poem, since it starts with the heart and mind fighting and ends with them realizing they need each other. Yep thats all the feedback i can give. I usually dont like those poems that use thou and thee but it wasnt so bad here

[hybrid sorrel]

(Bear in mind that I am quite parochial insofar as I pretty much only give my eyes Romantic Era poetry)

So that is big compliment

For archaicism, I would recommend the way I do it tho

Because of Romantic Era, I tend to usd 17th/18th century archaic

That means they used you/your/yours for all plurals (as opposed to 16th century using Ye for the plural subject)

Also it means, in their poetry (not everyday), they would use thou/thee/thy/thine & archaic words

Also it means, in their poetry (not everyday), their auxiliary verbs would be archaic

So not main verbs

i.e. are, art, are
shall, shalt, shall
do, dost, doth
will, wilt, will
&c.

Anyways, it was amazing

Quite an enjoyable read

Strong writing 🫡

[hybrid sorrel]

thank you, fam

that means a lot coming from you :)

[hybrid sorrel]

thanks again ;)

[hybrid sorrel]

😂 thank you

[hybrid sorrel]

I thoroughly enjoyed it!

[brazen moon]

wassup

[gleaming escarp]

I think the archaic language fell off a little in the 2nd 3rd and 4th paragraphs on the second page

[blazing hull]

I will read it when I am free, I like to appreciate things by giving them the time and respect they deserve

[woeful robin]

I dont know anything about archaic english
But i am lovin the message and personification

[hybrid sorrel]

as i mentioned earlier- it's a stylistic thing

[hybrid sorrel]

@gleaming escarp

[hybrid sorrel]

did you read it?

[hybrid sorrel]

:) glad you enjoyed reading it, homie

[hybrid sorrel]

sure, whenever you're free

[woeful robin]

[gleaming escarp]

Oh that's cool

didn't notice that

[hybrid sorrel]

just one of those little details

oh damn lmao, this got stars pretty fast

[broken minnow]

An interesting one. Very head-centric, if you excuse my parallel

Some dialogue is a little wordy. Not inappropriate generally, but nonetheless... explains too much.

I will be back with more in-depth review in due time

[blissful river]

Second draft?

[broken minnow]

Let's start with the meter

 /    -   /  - /    -      /    <-- turned is focefully destressed; no closing syllable
When the sky above turned dark

 /  -    /     -    /    - /  -   <-- closing syllable is present
Leaving naught but start o'erhead

 -     /    -   /   -    /   <-- suddenly, iambus
Then spake the Head and Heart 

 -   /   -   /   -   /    -    /   <-- emphasis on 'is' feels awkward
This is the tale of what they said.

 /     -    /    -    -  /      /     <-- suddenly, choree. implied emphasis on O is even worse.
Spoke the grave Head "O feeble Heart

 -    -  /      /  -    -    /  -    <-- this is just... don't do this
That deceives, weakens and misreads

 /      -    /     -  /   -   /   <-- extra stressed syllable
Hark! Thou play'st a fateful part

 -  /     /  -    -   -    - /     <-- and here it has broken down completely
In Man's weakness and his misdeeds

This is indicative of the whole poem.
As per our conversation, I advise you to train yourself in stressing words so they don't sound out of flow. I hope this breakdown helps in that.

---

Moving on, a quick overview.
This poem is built around dialogue; it is a valid way of constructing you work, but be careful: this brings a risk of exceeding the attention span of an average reader (hell, even mine). Simply put, it doesn't respect their time.
Rhymes are quite unimaginative. dark head // said, heart // part, life // strife. Fine on its own, combined with the aforementioned flow stutters, this creates an uncanny, unsettling feeling, which surely was not your intention.
As well, a lot of energy was put into making the language seem archaic, that it loses touch with what would make it actually pleasant.

Language also oscillates between elevated, and, frankly, plain. It is not enough to put ye olde endings into your poem, it is also necessary to reflect how people of that time wrote, and you do, for the most part; blemished, however by lines such as learns from past mistakes, strives to correct them. Not "acquires sap of knowledge" — just learns from mistakes. clever Head is important too — not "quick-witted head bears heavy weight". Which is an unfortunate whiplash.

Now, to the central conflict. Reason against Sentiment is a very old trope. Which isn't to say, that it can't be done interestingly, but your reading of it seems to me rather pedestrian. This is something that is so common sense, that I struggle to believe the whole thing was given more than fifteen minutes of thought. Your conclusion boils down to "both are good — head for thinking, heart for feeling". And you've spent 15 stanzas coming to it. This is padding.
The external resolution labeled as "man", feels like a cope out. Truth isn't found in the complex interplay of arguments, it is dictated from above by the actor, that is, ostensibly, just a sum of both collocutors.

Romantic poetry, which you are inspired by, is very rich in metaphor and parable. However in here we found very little of it, which makes the experience lamentably unengaging. This poem is, rather, two people of middling interest talking at each other, without much consideration of how the conversation would evolve. Sure, they respond to each other's talking points, at least in the beginning, but don't do anything interesting with them, just introducing their own, in a disjointed squabble.

The ending is very anticlimactic. Each content with their own, they just stop without any strong feelings, which leaves the reader to boot at best lukewarm about it.

I hope you don't regret urging me to review this piece, but my overall feelings are of disappointment with the whole thing.

Sorry if it isn't what you were looking for, Sirruthf.

[broken minnow]

I would like a break. Reviewing every single one is not my intention