#Reimagine Happy Sisyphus-es

8 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

sand smelt
#

I need the advice of @slow rapids @scarlet vessel @stoic turret But if you ask me then I think you have complicated it a little to much. And the modifications to the para are also significant but let's wait for others to put forward their opinion

faint halo
#

So,
There is a lot going on in the poem that makes it hard for me to follow. There is a lot of crossouts, different text fonts, a lot of emojis, and a poem that has consistently lost its meaning throughout. The emojis don't really add context at all. They actually take away from the poems' depth & meaning. It would be great if you're indeed using words to pain a picture which I'd like to assume that is what you did here; but i can't seem to grasp hold of the picture.

stoic turret
#

To me it should still be in the mix, but a part of the judging IS how well it keeps the integrity of the original stanza

#

So that is 100% something we should consider when judging

sand smelt
stoic turret
#

That's at least my take

runic ermine
#

Please forgive the bluntness — it’s not meant as arrogance or cruelty, only an honest first impression.

I cannot feel this poem. It doesn’t radiate the emotional honesty that allows a reader to step into its truth and inhabit it for a moment. Instead, it reads like a flashy attempt to grapple with mythic, unending toil — and an unsuccessful one. It reflects a lack of mastery over language, imagery, metaphor, and composition.

Your attempt to narrate the mind or emotions of Sisyphus, as a parallel to everyday life, fails because the poem lacks cohesion and focus. The excessive, erratic typesetting, aesthetic symbols, and emojis create visual clutter rather than emphasis. Archaic phrasing appears, but not in a way that elevates the piece; it detracts from it because it isn’t integrated with intention. Your punctuation feels arbitrary, not used to shape breath, thought, or rhythm. Ellipses sprinkled throughout suggest contemplation, but they aren’t earned by the emotional or philosophical groundwork.

The deeper issue is conceptual. I see the themes you’re reaching for, but they remain multiple opposing, unrealized ideas. Does the speaker feel resigned to being the dung beetle? Accepted? Defiant? Transformative? The poem introduces these possibilities but never develops them. There’s no progression from the idea that “the small daily toils build something meaningful” to any conclusion or emotional destination. The metaphor appears, then disappears, without carrying weight.

If you want the poem to stand, you need to choose a central idea and commit to it. The dung beetle metaphor actually has potential, especially if paired with the notion of living each day fully and letting small efforts accumulate into something larger. But you have to develop it. Right now, the ideas flicker briefly and vanish before they gain literary traction. If this were the foundation of the poem — not the Sisyphus myth — it could be strong.

Be aware that referencing a mythic figure like Sisyphus brings the entire philosophical and literary tradition with it. If you invoke him, you must understand the conceptual weight he carries, or he will overshadow your own ideas instead of supporting them. A focused psychological portrait of Sisyphus could work — but only if the poem’s voice and emotional logic are consistent.

In summary:

  • remove the decorative clutter
  • settle on a single consistent voice
  • sharpen your grammar and syntax
  • choose one core metaphor and build around it
  • guide the reader through a clear emotional or logical progression, from inception to resolution

There is potential here, but only if you refine the craft and discipline the ideas.