To learn more about tWR Critiques You!, check out the first blog entry of the project HERE.
Previous articles in the series:
Please consider faving
the articles to get our writers more exposure. 
Critique: “cherry-sweet” by unenglishable
The first piece that I'll thoroughly critique (and hopefully, usefully) is unenglishable's submission to tWR, cherry-sweet.
Before I get to the nitty-gritty stuff, can I say how refreshing it is to critique a short verse poem. Short verse poetry is fantastic. I'm going to use this opportunity to also suggest the groups, TheSimulacrum and minimalit, if you weren't aware of them already, as they're excellent groups focused on short verse and minimalist poetry.
Right, to critiquing!
The first point of consideration I'd like to bring up: the title. Usually, titling a poem after the first line is fine, but I really think you could use the title to more effect here. The length of your poem draws attention to the first line, which you'd presumably want to stand alone and not be repetitive in order to have the most impact.
I'm not going to suggest alternate titles, because there are so many ways you could go with this. However, having an alternate title could make your message clearer, if you feel that the readers aren't understanding the message you want to convey. A different title could also further enhance / complicate what is already there.
Now, I'm going to use a method of critiquing I've used before (thanks again to SilverInkblot for coming up with it), which essentially boils down to my annotating parts of your poem and then explaining what I have to say about those particular parts. (I'll consider the poem as a whole in the answer to your second question, below.)
cherry-sweet1,
feel your desire melt2.
plunge2, 3 (back)3 into humanity4.
1 I like this. Again, I think it would work better if the title wasn't the same as this first line, but I enjoy how you've played around with the construction of the first sentence and the two lines.
2 I enjoyed the connection and similarity between these two verbs: both of them are liquid-based imagery, which I thought was a good choice and helped bring the poem - and its thematic integrity - together, so well done!
3 I really like the word 'plunge', though I'm always a bit wary of parentheses in poetry. Parentheses are used as either explanations or afterthoughts; they either build on an idea or enhance it. However, I understand the use of it here (the addition of 'back' makes the action that, without it, would seem sudden, become more cyclic, perhaps even repetitive), and I think it works. What I would suggest is to use enjambment to your advantage to further emphasise the intent, for example, with something like
plunge
(back) into humanity.
The enjambment there has a greater effect on the word plunge and also changes how the poem is read, by the reader. Of course, that's not the only way to go about it, and there are numerous different ways of structuring the line which would have subtly different effects. I'd suggest you play around with the enjambment there, and see what works best for you. Check out SparrowSong's article on it; it's a great resource:
4 I'm not too fond of the word-choice here, especially in comparison to the rest of the poem. Previously, your poem has been very sharp with its specific word choice, creating a very clear, focused image, but here it broadens, and I'm not sure that works to your poem's advantage. I like the implication here - the relationship of desire with the world, and the resulting to-and-fro connection thereof, but catch-all words like 'humanity' (e.g., 'freedom', 'life', 'death', etc) ought to be used carefully, in all poetry but especially in short verse poetry. Every word has to count.
I think the use of it here detracts from your poem, and I would suggest changing it to something more narrow. A more focused word might also serve as a contrast between the broad implications of the verb 'plunge'. For example - as I know critiques like "I don't like the word-choice" seem a bit weak without specific suggestions - you could continue that liquid imagery and have something like 'the current' instead of humanity, which would not only be thematically fitting, but also wordplay, due to the multiple meanings of the word 'current'.
That's all I have to say on the details of the poem, I think. I hope it helped you and that it was useful! Feel free to ask me anything if you want something clarified / have questions / etc.
Now, to answer your questions…
This poem was originally much longer and much more verbose. What is your opinion on this poem in terms of those qualities?
Length alone isn't something I judge a poem by - what matters to me more is the content of the poem and how necessary it is to the poem's impact. It's simply that with short verse poetry, every word, punctuation mark, and structural choice immediately becomes more important to what the poem is doing.
If you felt what was originally there in the poem didn't need to be there and didn't help the poem, removing it is often the best option. Verbosity is (usually) no one's friend (except maybe satire's).
What is your impression of this poem? I'm not sure if this conveys the same thing I originally intended, but that's okay. Interpretation is probably more worthwhile.
I don't know about that - though interpretation is definitely worthwhile, what you want conveyed is an important factor in the construction of the entire poem. The interpretations of readers is something you can use as a measuring tool for your poem: where you wanted it to be (your writing of your message), where it is now (the readers' interpretation of that message), and what you want it to be now (your evaluation of the readers' interpretation).
However, as I said, it read to me as a comment on the relationship of desire with the world, and the resulting to-and-fro connection thereof, due to the complications between the innocence implied by 'cherry'. It was an interesting read, thank you for that!
Do you think this poem is still too obvious or verbose? (Why?/Why not?)
I don't think the poem is either, no, because you've clearly avoided verbosity by whittling the poem to its most basic, as well as skirted clear of the obvious, particularly through that first line. However, as I said, it read to me as a comment on the relationship of desire with the world, and the resulting to-and-fro connection thereof, due to the complications between the innocence implied by 'cherry'. It was an interesting read, thank you for that!
Do you think this poem is still too obvious or verbose? (Why?/Why not?)
unenglishable’s evolution through the years
science is a piece from late 2012; I can definitely see a difference in your recent works compared to earlier works. Though there are similarities: your experimentation with punctuation is obvious. However, there's a lot more telling rather than showing in comparison to, say, cherry-sweet; what's stated is very obvious and there's not much left up to interpretation.
I like the title of this one! Coffee-fueled Rage is from early 2013, and your experimentation with form is really interesting here. There's definite improvement: while there's still some lines and choices I'm not too fond of (for example, the last stanza is not the strongest part of the poem), you've moved away a little from the telling and begun to show more through sheer implication. The second stanza is particularly good, and I also enjoyed the title here.
There's a lot of improvement here. nightly was written in the later half of 2013, and I really think your grasp of metaphor, imagery, and punctuation has improved noticeably - "the warm rays of / anyone.", for example, is probably the line I'm most fond of in that poem. I'd still question the use of the parenthetical ending: "the warm rays of / anyone." makes such a stronger ending, so much so that I would either remove the last two lines or place it elsewhere, for example, between the lines 'waiting' and 'to bask [...]'. Still, an enjoyable poem and a fantastic example of how your writing has improved and evolved through the years!
Conclusions
unenglishable has shown a great ability to experiment with various facets and techniques of poetry (and prose, as well, I think, though I haven't touched on the prose in this critique!) throughout the years, and continuously shown an improvement in their writing. There's still room for improvement - there always is, for everyone - but I'm sure it's nothing unenglishable will flinch at. Keep at the wonderful writing.
Do you, as a member, have any deviation that you have submitted to us more than a week ago and hasn't received enough feedback? Would you want the admin team to give you some in-depth constructive criticism on it, and check out your gallery for a chance to show not only the community how much your writing has evolved since you joined here, and what are its strong and weak points?
C'mon, now. It's not even really a question, is it? Leave a comment in the upcoming tWR Critiques You poll, with a link to a deviation you need more feedback on. You might be featured next time!
>>All hail GinkgoWerkstatt for this beautiful skin.
