Sturgeon's Law

An editor commented on a recent rejection of my work, and part of what the editor said was "the intellectual accomplishment of your poetry is obvious, but I think you might benefit from considering the emotional effect of your verse more closely."

This is interesting, because my early poetry would have gone completely the opposite way: very emotional, not at all accomplished. Looking at the submission I sent to this place, I agree with the editor on four of the five pieces. They're much more muted emotionally than that early work, and also more interested in the mechanics of what they're doing and in making one think.

I also, though, disagree with the editor on a major point: I think I have considered the emotional effect of the verse and found this not-so-blatant approach worthwhile. I'm still trying to evoke an emotional response as well as an intellectual one--it's just not something so naked and heavy as "This poem makes me want to weep" or "This poem expresses transcendent joy" or even "This poem pisses me off." I would describe the intended emotional impact of three of the five poems this way: "This poem provides a sense of amusement but leaves the reader with a vague feeling of unease, of being uncomfortable with the amusement."

It may just be a semantic difference between what the editor meant and what I mean, but I believe we ought to keep in mind that just because a poem's emotion is muted or not immediately obvious doesn't mean the poem isn't working or the author needed to think about the emotion more. Maybe these poems of mine should have more emotional impact, or maybe they're not even having the different emotional impact I intended. Nonetheless, I was considering that impact--this is sort of like the workshop "guideline" of "Critique the poem, not the poet."