It's all about meter. White's is iambic tetrameter--iambs all the way through: 4-4-4-4. Pound's is 3-3-4-2. Yours is 4-4-4-2. Lots and lots and lots of iambs.
The evenness of White's makes it smooth reading. Pound's and yours are a little more jarring, focusing attention on the flowers. Whit's doesn't do that with meter, only with the words themselves. But he wrote it back in the day when things were shoehorned into fitting. And, to be honest, he did it pretty well.
I'm not sure you've improved on Pound's, but I think both of yours' are better than White's.
White’s is original smooth and even. I’m all for variations with a twist and enjoyed Joe’s, but I vote for White’s.
It's all about meter. White's is iambic tetrameter--iambs all the way through: 4-4-4-4. Pound's is 3-3-4-2. Yours is 4-4-4-2. Lots and lots and lots of iambs.
The evenness of White's makes it smooth reading. Pound's and yours are a little more jarring, focusing attention on the flowers. Whit's doesn't do that with meter, only with the words themselves. But he wrote it back in the day when things were shoehorned into fitting. And, to be honest, he did it pretty well.
I'm not sure you've improved on Pound's, but I think both of yours' are better than White's.
Any changes you'd suggest?
There once was a man from Seoul,
Quite in love, but he lived on the dole.
He went out of his head
And sold half of his bread
To buy orchids to feed his love's soul.
An excellent companion poem! I'm going to add that to the post above.
;-)