I'm not familiar with the form but it's easy enough to see it require repeating first line of each stanza on the last line in inverted form. The title works well in describing the return of something cyclic (in this case spring). The chosen form leaves little to talk about as far as 1st and last lines of each stanza goes. Hence I can only say well done with those.

Now as to the other lines :
stanza 1, l-2 try with all colors of the artist's brush ( sounds a bit more natural in my opinion)
.................l-3 Replace flies with all (more inclusive)
stanza 2, l-2 try then fly away and light with ease.........I don't know why though lol
................l-3 replace "a' with new....reinforces renewal of spring and also describes more than one life ( I want to replace "numbers with another word but have no suggestion)
Last stanza...line 3 :try with rich incense to feed the nose.......again sounds a bit more natural to my ear

The rhymes were spot on and the imagery accurate. The only illiteration which popped out was "bloom to blaze" and it was unforced. As far as rhythm, I'm so often off with it myself that the fact that I found few if any stumbles is no surprise lol.
But all in all this is an enjoyable poem in an unsual (for me) form.........................stan

If so I shall never be able to write one. I liked this vers

Although detailed in many aspects, I feel that the critique used too much personal notation (inclusive of examples). I don't disagree with examples or offering personal suggestions, however, I do believe that we must remain objective in attempting to help the poet move forward with their work. Too many personal remarks against a poem in my opinion, just says it was something i wouldn't write.

And it's only a thought.

When I was directing stage shows (in my wayward youth as opposed to my wayward dotage), I took great care NEVER to actually "say" a line for an actor as a means of explanation of what I wanted. Actually speaking a line for an actor causes the individual to mimic me which I consider a detriment. One casts an actor for their personality and skill. To push them into "parroting" something eliminates this personality superimposing mine.

I believe this is true for a writer. I prefer to use description to guide a poet toward what I feel might improve their work. Now, this doesn't mean I don't use actual lines to demonstrate this, but I will generally use it only with a poet I know well and have worked with previously.

This includes Rula and Stan. Stan has in the past much improved pieces of my large poem by offering very detailed changes; actual line alterations and Caco is filled with Stan (much appreciated old man).
This means of course that I approve of his use of "actual line changes" in his critique when considering the relationship we have with one another here at Neo.
But were I to critique, for example eightmenout, I would not be willing to describe a tangible change as I don't know how seriously (or not) the poet will take my suggestion. After so much time it is easier to tell Stan or Rula that "this doesn't work... do it this way", for I know they will accept the offer with salt and have no fear of insulting me (or me them).
Just a thought.

I also missed the discussion of content, but can sympathize as I also tend to get wrapped up in how the poem "sounds" (meter, rhyme, form in general) and not focus on the point of the poetry which is content.
As for cliche... I think of it as a tool to be used, but it needs to be used up front. Meaning it must be delivered in such a way that both writer and reader know it is cliche, but that it is particularly appropriate in its present use.
To return to the stage, the single most difficult lines to speak in any dramatic form is cliche. To be able to say- "Oh Marla, is it really you?" and do so with conviction is a bitch, but it can be done.
Some day I hope to write a poem where each line is cliche and still (somehow) make it compelling. Probably not in this lifetime.
The critique is sound as far as it goes, but (contrary to what Stan professes) I would have liked to have read a far more in depth analysis. Stan's biggest problem I think is that everyone here knows he has something intensely useful to offer.

I am a content whore. I crave a critique of content here not because I want to see the poem ripped to pieces but because it allows us to understand the unique perspective of the person writing the critique. When you have to analyze someones work and explain how it made you feel emotionally it gives us a peek into the gears and cogs that make up your own imagination. There are rules for mechanics and literary devices and seeing your ability to guide someone with them is entirely worthwhile and necessary...but scribbler has a chance to inspire the writer and us the readers by taking some risks. But that is rooted in my own selfishly determined hierarchy of what makes poetry worth crafting.

_Danny

I have read and understood what those of you who participated in the critiques of Rula's poem and I must say, I disagree. I looked at it and felt it at the level of a haiku or Tanka. The imagery is beautiful by its' own means regardless of the rest. Sure there have been many works written about flowers, the beauty of nature, etc. However this doesn't stop the subjects themselves of being remarkable and worthy of recording. Rula's piece to me had a Zen purity.

Ron

This workshop is now ended.

Please give me feedback, either on the workshop thread
http://www.neopoet.com/workshop/show-and-tell-intensive-critique-workshop
or by PM, as to how you benefited from the workshop, criticisms and ways future workshops could be improved,