I always thought that poetry ought <br />To transcend bounds of time: <br />I realize I archaize — <br />I sometimes even rhyme. <br /> <br />And if my style you think is vile <br />Read someone else's verse; <br />Than Sally Clarke, or Jarman, Mark, <br />A critic might do worse. <br /> <br />Suggestion is, where I wrote ''tis' <br />I should have written 'it's' — <br />For then my style would be less vile <br />And satisfy the 'crits'. <br /> <br />That word you heard was quite absurd; <br />I wanted rhyme for 'it's' — <br />So to fulfil poetic will <br />For 'critics' I wrote 'crits'. <br /> <br />My licence poetic may not be aesthetic- <br />'lly pleasing to the Pastor <br />Who a critical note on my poetry wrote <br />Like unto a Great Master. <br /> <br />If he would take the time to scan some of my rhyme, <br />And my non-rhyming poems as well, <br />He might very well find my poetical mind <br />Does not always antiquity tell. <br /> <br />For at times I might write a colloquial light <br />Unembellishéd manner of speaking, <br />But whatever I may I endeavour to say <br />While I'm always for poetry seeking. <br /> <br />In such verses, if he would endeavour to see, <br />He might find many an 'it's' if he tried; <br />While in classical writing, postmodernism smiting, <br />I'll in nowise archaism hide. <br /> <br />(Saturday,5th November,2005.)<br /><br />David Mitchell<br /><br />http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/response-to-a-criticism-by-michael-shepherd-who/
