Because I think she underestimates herself as a potential poet for no good reason.

Let me give you an analogy. There are a lot of pretty decent musicians out there (my late mother having been one of them) who are "tone deaf", requiring the backup of an instrument to stay on pitch. I don't have that problem; I'm my own pitch pipe. It's other aspects of music that I have trouble with, and for which I have to compensate. I'm a lot weaker at the technical things one must do in the "here and now", "time on target", in order to be really skilled as a musician.

One can draw direct analogies with the creation of poetry and other kinds of literature. There as elsewhere, it's not so much how smart you are as how you are smart. Understand that (one way or another) and unexpected possibilities unfold. One may be good at some things and not good at others, but there are "workarounds" that one can find for the "not good" things. MaryAnn's limerick above used a workaround (a framework using capital letters) that helped her stay on rhythm, and its euphony and subject matter were not at all bad. One could discuss all that, as NoStar did, and suggest improvements for future efforts.

At the end of the day, I'm a believer in human potential. But I can't make up anyone's mind to try for him or her. I can only suggest.

Time presses; I might not be able to make a further reply here. We'll see.

Comme d'habitude, chere poete,
wr ()()