Original version:
You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small.
A young trunk made gnarled by force,
sustained by roots grown too big,
too starved, pushing the envelope,
sustaining thin, atrophied limbs,
cut again and again,
never meant to bear fruit.
An experiment,
perfect in its execution,
perhaps good for exposition.
Edited version:
You and me
We are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small. Gnarled
by force, fed by roots too starved,
sustaining atrophied limbs, cut again
and again, never meant to bear fruit.
.................An experiment, perfect in its execution,
............................good only for exposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming the second is the version posted as final edit. The value in this poem is in its pruning, as 1201 mentioned, since the meaning hasn't changed even a smidge from first to last. I have to admit I glossed over most of the comments, but I did see some criticism of the ideas within the poem.
The author began with a complete poem, which I agree was a finished poem, but only accepted suggestions in phrasing; using 'critics' as thesauri and proof readers to her already entrenched idea of the poem. The author didn't quite engage with criticism of the ideas within her poem.
Hence, the unmoved point of retaining too/too where it makes sense in the first version and reads lackadaisical in the last; the loss of sounds, rhymes, best parts of the original poem:
me/tree/seed/things.........thin/limbs
Why is this important? This poet is good at mixing those partial rhymes with prose-ish lines and stanza, so it's disappointing that the mass ensemble pruned that quality.
A hybrid of the first and last version which retains important elements of poetry from the first:
You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things,
planted in a pot too small,
a young gnarled trunk, sustained
by force of starved roots grown too big,
feeding thin, atrophied limbs,
pruned again and again
never meant to bear fruit;
an experiment in perfection
good only for exposition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for actual criticism of the poem and not of its author or critics' actions.
Bonsai aren't cut, they're pruned. Cutting isn't shaping an idea. Bearing fruit is problematic, it's fine that bonsai don't bear fruit or that most are derived from non-fruit trees, but many bonsai are meant to flower and are quite beautiful as a vessel for focus, meditation that finally comes to fruition.
The first poem was finished and nice and said what you wanted it to say, it just needed "pushing the envelope" removed, since the idea is already encased in 'a pot too small/roots grown too big'.
So, was there value for anyone during the long group analysis? Did anyone learn anything as poets or people? Maybe, because there was some actual criticism of ideas, but the poem ultimately lay static from its release and just atrophied and withered with all the inputs.
You're a good poet of one poem, poet. Don't think I had ill intent or took on a snide tone in this text box as I researched your poem's public history.
Last edited:
