Tense Teeth Pull Back Eventually

[tommy's ghost]

So, this is a poem I wrote. Just felt like sharing.

The aponeurotic romance was dissected,
And the tendons that pulled the air stiffened, uncommitted:
The charming fawning has been usurped by a phalanx of fear,
A wave of ceaseless tension now pounds at the evening’s shore.
We have frozen in our positions, mannequins faced with shears.
Our eagerness has been decapitated; its head rolls on the floor.
A relapse would be comforting, but there is no solace.
A papier-mâché kiss of amassed awkwardness is allowed.
The moment is as conventional as a politician’s promise.
My anxiety is stoked, my confidence is bowed.
And then,
My veins vibrate as a vivacious vile of your voice is vented
With tactile needles of schizoid sanctified satisfaction.
It’s the antidote to the horrible heist
Of my hetero heights,
That left my courage staked to a wall of ice,
Covered in goose-bumps the size of malignant moles.
Your hands are a school, and in them I enroll.
A feral climax in a watery paradise
Narrows my irises to arrow slits
That allow me to fire prolific projectiles
At your heart’s chamber
Tipped with roses’ thorns and diary papers
That lead to the panting, consummated pile.

[tommy's ghost]

Feedback would be greatly appreciated. :-)

[fishingthe_sky]

The aponeurotic romance was dissected,
And the tendons that pulled the air stiffened, uncommitted:
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say by an "aponeurotic romance." The image of a romance that is equated to connective tissue just doesn't work.

The charming fawning has been usurped by a phalanx of fear,
A wave of ceaseless tension now pounds at the evening’s shore.
The first line here confusing. The charming fawn? Like, a deer? Or do you mean servile affection? Also, usurped by a phalanx of fear is a bit too wordy. It's using language to sound psuedo-poetic, but is not actually saying anything that necessitates such language.

We have frozen in our positions, mannequins faced with shears.
Our eagerness has been decapitated; its head rolls on the floor.
A relapse would be comforting, but there is no solace.
A papier-mâché kiss of amassed awkwardness is allowed.
Papier mache kiss is like your opening line, in which the metaphor doesn't really make sense.

The moment is as conventional as a politician’s promise.
My anxiety is stoked, my confidence is bowed.
And then,
My veins vibrate as a vivacious vile of your voice is vented
With tactile needles of schizoid sanctified satisfaction.
It’s the antidote to the horrible heist
Of my hetero heights,
Ugh, this is a horrible horrible abuse of alliteration. Seven "v" sounds is entirely too much, and just drips of trying too hard. Alliteration is a great poetic device if used properly, but you have taken it too far. The continued alliteration in the following lines is then ruined because of that first "v" line because you've saturated all of these lines with the same device.

That left my courage staked to a wall of ice,
Covered in goose-bumps the size of malignant moles.
Your hands are a school, and in them I enroll.
A feral climax in a watery paradise
Narrows my irises to arrow slits
That allow me to fire prolific projectiles
At your heart’s chamber
Tipped with roses’ thorns and diary papers
That lead to the panting, consummated pile.
Egh, the rest of this just sort of falls into almost psuedo-poetics, where you're trying to create imagery by yoking words, rather than letting them build naturally. Clearly you have a grasp on poetic language, but you're forcing it to try and sound profound. Parse this down to the heart of what this poem is about, and stop worrying about trying to fit all of this other stuff in until you've gotten it to there.

[tommy's ghost]

The aponeurotic romance was dissected,
And the tendons that pulled the air stiffened, uncommitted:
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say by an "aponeurotic romance." The image of a romance that is equated to connective tissue just doesn't work.

The charming fawning has been usurped by a phalanx of fear,
A wave of ceaseless tension now pounds at the evening’s shore.
The first line here confusing. The charming fawn? Like, a deer? Or do you mean servile affection? Also, usurped by a phalanx of fear is a bit too wordy. It's using language to sound psuedo-poetic, but is not actually saying anything that necessitates such language.

We have frozen in our positions, mannequins faced with shears.
Our eagerness has been decapitated; its head rolls on the floor.
A relapse would be comforting, but there is no solace.
A papier-mâché kiss of amassed awkwardness is allowed.

Papier mache kiss is like your opening line, in which the metaphor doesn't really make sense.

The moment is as conventional as a politician’s promise.
My anxiety is stoked, my confidence is bowed.
And then,
My veins vibrate as a vivacious vile of your voice is vented
With tactile needles of schizoid sanctified satisfaction.
It’s the antidote to the horrible heist
Of my hetero heights,
Ugh, this is a horrible horrible abuse of alliteration. Seven "v" sounds is entirely too much, and just drips of trying too hard. Alliteration is a great poetic device if used properly, but you have taken it too far. The continued alliteration in the following lines is then ruined because of that first "v" line because you've saturated all of these lines with the same device.

That left my courage staked to a wall of ice,
Covered in goose-bumps the size of malignant moles.
Your hands are a school, and in them I enroll.
A feral climax in a watery paradise
Narrows my irises to arrow slits
That allow me to fire prolific projectiles
At your heart’s chamber
Tipped with roses’ thorns and diary papers
That lead to the panting, consummated pile.
Egh, the rest of this just sort of falls into almost psuedo-poetics, where you're trying to create imagery by yoking words, rather than letting them build naturally. Clearly you have a grasp on poetic language, but you're forcing it to try and sound profound. Parse this down to the heart of what this poem is about, and stop worrying about trying to fit all of this other stuff in until you've gotten it to there.

Search for aponeurosis on wikipedia and the third sentence should explain what I was going for. Fawn as in "to fawn over". Papier mâché is the substance that holds papier mâché crafts together, I always viewed those kinds of crafts as very messy and sloppy; the metaphor there was that the kiss was something that helped keep the moment from falling apart.

However, thank you very much for the rest of your criticism. I do get awfully wordy at times...

[fishingthe_sky]

Search for aponeurosis on wikipedia and the third sentence should explain what I was going for. Fawn as in "to fawn over". Papier mâché is the substance that holds papier mâché crafts together, I always viewed those kinds of crafts as very messy and sloppy; the metaphor there was that the kiss was something that helped keep the moment from falling apart.

However, thank you very much for the rest of your criticism. I do get awfully wordy at times...
As a matter of legitimacy, you shouldn't use Wikipedia as the source you cite for meaning. And even still, with that description in mind, it's so totally obscure that the whole image is rather worthless unless people know exactly what sentence to look for. Fawn over, as in the second definition? You need to know what it is the phrase actually means if you're doing to use it. So is it safe to assume you mean charming ass-kissing (I'm being sarcastic of course, but that's basically what the word means)? I know what papier mache is, but you're speaking of the process and not the product, the latter of which is hard and firm, and which is also the more immediate image. Consider that the image has two very conflicting ideas behind it, both of which are readily available in the line and neither of which is necessarily indicated as the correct meaning.

[tommy's ghost]

As a matter of legitimacy, you shouldn't use Wikipedia as the source you cite for meaning. And even still, with that description in mind, it's so totally obscure that the whole image is rather worthless unless people know exactly what sentence to look for. Fawn over, as in the second definition? You need to know what it is the phrase actually means if you're doing to use it. So is it safe to assume you mean charming ass-kissing (I'm being sarcastic of course, but that's basically what the word means)? I know what papier mache is, but you're speaking of the process and not the product, the latter of which is hard and firm, and which is also the more immediate image. Consider that the image has two very conflicting ideas behind it, both of which are readily available in the line and neither of which is necessarily indicated as the correct meaning.

I'd like to assume that if the reader hasn't a clue what the word means, they will research said word to identify the context in which it is being used.

Fawn: an attempt to show affection.

I can't very well convince you into liking the metaphor, I was simply stating why I used it.

[fishingthe_sky]

I'd like to assume that if the reader hasn't a clue what the word means, they will research said word to identify the context in which it is being used.

Fawn: an attempt to show affection.

I can't very well convince you into liking the metaphor, I was simply stating why I used it.
There's that, yes, but you directed me to a sentence on a Wikipedia page. Most readers won't go to Wikipedia for a word definition, they'll go to a dictionary. And the fact that you had to refer me to one specific sentence in order to understand the image guarantees that 99% of readers won't ever arrive at the intended meaning. You're being unrealistic in assuming that readers will naturally arrive at that one sentence in order to produce the image. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of other less obscure ways to get that image across.

Okay.

I'm stating why it's an ineffective metaphor for what you are going for. It's all well and good in its intention, but you need more to it in order to get what you mean across, as per the reason I said before.

[tommy's ghost]

There's that, yes, but you directed me to a sentence on a Wikipedia page. Most readers won't go to Wikipedia for a word definition, they'll go to a dictionary. And the fact that you had to refer me to one specific sentence in order to understand the image guarantees that 99% of readers won't ever arrive at the intended meaning. You're being unrealistic in assuming that readers will naturally arrive at that one sentence in order to produce the image. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of other less obscure ways to get that image across.

Okay.

I'm stating why it's an ineffective metaphor for what you are going for. It's all well and good in its intention, but you need more to it in order to get what you mean across, as per the reason I said before.

Haha, I guess my poems should come with instructions... Or footnotes.

[fishingthe_sky]

Haha, I guess my poems should come with instructions... Or footnotes.
Haha I hope it's not a footnote to Wikipedia.