POET'S WOMAN

[waxwings]

Your smile

is much better than sunlight

for chasing away all my fears.

I envy the flowers

because they might

get much more

than their share

of your tears.

 

Your lips

are not merely a pillow

for resting

my restlessness on.

I envy each cloud,

each slight billow

whose shadow falls there

while I’m gone.

 

Your love

is an ever-warm arbor

full of unexpected delights

where the bird of my song

regains ardor

for his countless

fancyful flights.

 

I apologize to, Larsen Callirhoe, for calling him Frank in the original posting. WW

Edited May 4, 2010 by waxwings

[Lake]

Hi waxwings,

 

A delicate, tender write. I like the form of the three parallel stanzas: your smile, your lips, your love.

The first stanza brings a love story to my mind where the girl buries and weeps over the fallen flowers.

I'm learning how to critique from you and here's a couple of thoughts:

Your smile

is much better than sunlight ------Is there a better way to express it?

for chasing away all my fears.

I envy the flowers

because they might

get much more

than their share

of your tears.

 

Your lips

are not merely a pillow

for resting

my restlessness on. ------ "restlessness" is a kind of mouthful.

I envy each cloud,

each slight billow

whose shadow falls there ---- I can't tell why but just felt that "there" is a bit weak here.

while I'm gone.

 

Your love

is an ever-warm arbor ------ Isn't "arbor" a shady place? If so, it brings a sense of coolness not warm.

full of unexpected delights

where the bird of my song

regains ardor

for his countless

fancyful flights.----"fancyful", a typo? fanciful.

 

My apology sor calling you, Larsen, by the wrong first name. Waxy

 

And who is Frank Calirhoe that inspired you?

 

Regards,

 

Lake

[waxwings]

Hi waxwings,

 

A delicate, tender write. I like the form of the three parallel stanzas: your smile, your lips, your love.

The first stanza brings a love story to my mind where the girl buries and weeps over the fallen flowers.

I'm learning how to critique from you and here's a couple of thoughts:

Your smile

is much better than sunlight ------Is there a better way to express it?

for chasing away all my fears.

I envy the flowers

because they might

get much more

than their share

of your tears.

 

Your lips

are not merely a pillow

for resting

my restlessness on. ------ "restlessness" is a kind of mouthful.

I envy each cloud,

each slight billow

whose shadow falls there ---- I can't tell why but just felt that "there" is a bit weak here.

while I'm gone.

 

Your love

is an ever-warm arbor ------ Isn't "arbor" a shady place? If so, it brings a sense of coolness not warm.

full of unexpected delights

where the bird of my song

regains ardor

for his countless

fancyful flights.----"fancyful", a typo? fanciful.

 

 

Regards,

 

Lake

 

Not yet being sufficiently familiar w/ all here I confused Larsen w/ Frank who responded to this poem before me.

 

I much appreciate your critique, Lake. I find that technique you have adopted effective when it is important to have, for better understanding, a close proximity between words/phrases/ notions I comment on and do so w/o spreading apart the lines of the poem to where the charm of the core poem is lost/diluted.

 

But that works only when my comments can be kept brief and to the point. If not, I find recouse by lengthier numbered footnotes.

 

An honest critique deserves a response. The commentator/critiquer (not a criticizer) is at least partially opinionated because he/she has no way of seeing the poem as fully and thoroughly as the author does.

 

I will now respond to points you make in the order you made them.

 

1) Not sure, but to me sunlight seems to be metaphoric for things that comfort me when I am in distress, and my woman's smile seems even better.. You are mos welcome to make suggestions what a better way of saying that may be. Don't be afraid to say how you would do it. As far as I know, I do not have a patent on the perfect way on saying anything, while you may indeed see something I have missed.

 

2) Yes. It is a mouthful, but I am restless (uneasy) at times and the -ness is the noun describing my state. I believe that, as it is for me, that word rolls easily off the tongue of a native speaker or one who has sufficient time to absorb that ability. The poem is marked by a cadence/rhythm in which seach stressed syllable is oft separated from another by two, or at lest one unstressed syllable. It is not something I plan to do, not since my early years of trying to create poetry.

 

3) It may be so. What I meant "there" to refer to is a place, her lips, that I wish no shadow (sadness?) to fall on, like the shadow of a billow, the part of a cloud, when I am not there to comfort her.

 

4) An arbor gives shade and, therefore, at least seems to be cooler than the surroundings which are quite hot and humid (as summers in Minnesota tend to be). I too have wondered if this is a good way of saying what I felt when I wrote this, and I am quite likely to change that, if I can thing of a different but semantically and emotionally equal way. I do not think any of my poems are ever totally finished or sacred, but so far, most of them have gone on beyond help.

 

I certainly would love you to comment further. It is the thinking we do,on poetry,that is beyond poems which makes us to grow better at writing.

 

Sincere thank you. WW P.S. Yes, I do make typo's. :icon_redface:

Edited May 4, 2010 by waxwings

[dr_con]

A warm, wonderful whimsy- tightly crafted- wistful and loving in its delivery- as it stands it is quite good!

 

However:

 

An honest critique deserves a response. The commentator/critiquer (not a criticizer) is at least partially opinionated because he/she has no way of seeing the poem as fully and thoroughly as the author does.

 

I must respectfully, agree to disagree... The reader has clearer 'sight' than the author, i my opinion- because the author thinks they know what they have written (and they may or may not succeed) but the reader is free of bias other than what they bring to the piece- a successful poem in my opinion conveys a sense which we can all relate too- If not either A. The poem and the commentator are not well matched at that moment (most of my poems! :D ) or the author has failed to communicate what he intended ( The rest of my work ;-) ). The biggest exception to that rule is commented elequently on by Robert Creeley here

 

Where he says:

RC: Oh, who am I to say? [Laughter] I only work here, I don't know... It seems to me absurd, frankly. But I only wrote the poem.

 

Which seems to be a universal theme in many of the great modern poet's opinions of their own work- In other words: What the author sees clearly when writing is not the same once it is released in the wild....

 

Besides dear Ikars- I can find a list on this sight where you have lovingly and with good intention reversed that role-- where the commentator absolutely sees better than the author :D- I mean that in an appreciative way, since you have helped everyone refine their poems- But there is an assumption that your vision is filled with greater clarity/grammer/syntax than the authors which belies the above statement...

 

I very much enjoyed the poem and had much fun ribbing you on the response...

 

Many Thanks Ikars for a great write!

 

Dr. Con & Juris

[waxwings]

A warm, wonderful whimsy- tightly crafted- wistful and loving in its delivery- as it stands it is quite good!

 

However:

 

An honest critique deserves a response. The commentator/critiquer (not a criticizer) is at least partially opinionated because he/she has no way of seeing the poem as fully and thoroughly as the author does.

 

I must respectfully, agree to disagree... The reader has clearer 'sight' than the author, i my opinion- because the author thinks they know what they have written (and they may or may not succeed) but the reader is free of bias other than what they bring to the piece- a successful poem in my opinion conveys a sense which we can all relate too- If not either A. The poem and the commentator are not well matched at that moment (most of my poems! :D ) or the author has failed to communicate what he intended ( The rest of my work ;-) ). The biggest exception to that rule is commented elequently on by Robert Creeley here

 

Where he says:

RC: Oh, who am I to say? [Laughter] I only work here, I don't know... It seems to me absurd, frankly. But I only wrote the poem.

 

Which seems to be a universal theme in many of the great modern poet's opinions of their own work- In other words: What the author sees clearly when writing is not the same once it is released in the wild....

 

Besides dear Ikars- I can find a list on this sight where you have lovingly and with good intention reversed that role-- where the commentator absolutely sees better than the author :D- I mean that in an appreciative way, since you have helped everyone refine their poems- But there is an assumption that your vision is filled with greater clarity/grammer/syntax than the authors which belies the above statement...

 

I very much enjoyed the poem and had much fun ribbing you on the response...

 

Many Thanks Ikars for a great write!

 

Dr. Con & Juris

 

Dear & Juris,

 

I much appreciate your reaction to my poem and your interesting comments you have made re my response to Lakes critique of it. I also appreciate your ribbing of the latter and have decided to straighten you out some.

 

To begin with I think it is lack of time that makes me hurry and not reread much of what I write. Consequently, I have confused you. Let me simplify. What a reader sees written on the page is not different from what the author writes (as you seem to think), but what the reader ‘sees’ is, because of the author’s insufficiency as a writer to clearly depict in words what he ‘sees’.

 

I know, (through many critiquing seminars) that I often fail to fully ‘see’ from her/his writing what the author ‘sees’. Some of it, however, is due to my biases/opinions and gets rectified upon rereading the same text after the author has a chance to respond to questions/comments a critiquing class members have.

 

Of course, the one writing a critique better know grammar, syntax, usage and much about the historical, political, scientific, religious, artistic aspects/background of the work at hand and limit comments only to those parts she or he are competent in. You will notice I have exemted her/him fro having to have greater clarity than the author.That is different than just saying I like this poem or not.

 

Of course, I have seen very few poems I do not like even if I am disappointed they do not live up to what I expect on basis what is in writing. Yes, writing is an art per se and as you note there are poets (self-styled or otherwise) who have poetic talent but not enough of a one for writing per se.

 

I respect Greeley, but that poem does not impress me beyond being cutely intriguing. In my face-to-face experiences and reading, there seems to be a consensus among poets that all readers are most unlikely to all like a given poem or another literary work. I must have time to study the link you have given. I really need to know your background to converse with you effectively and fruitfully. Till such time, I am sincerely yours. WW

[Larsen M. Callirhoe]

wow waxwings,

 

I'm very impressed. You captured the way I write and think perfectly. I'm in love with your poem. I didn't comment before because I thought it was written to frank lol. Anyway my birth name is Victor Michael Lashewitz. I write using 2 pen names because I am Jewish, and there are some people who hate my family. Larsen M. Callirhoe is my original pen name. I use Anne Benn when I post short stories.

 

 

I had a new antibiotic given to me last week and my strength is renewed. I feel great again. I have been ill for several months. I have had cellulitetis 3 times in that time span and 4 bladder infections.

 

I'm posting a new poem called Terrorist and would love feedback in it.

 

I like lake's line of reasoning but it is your poem.

 

Blessings!

 

Victor

[tonyv]

A great discussion taking place here. This is a lovely, lyrical, dedicated poem, Ikars. I love it when members dedicate works to each other. :D It's always a meaningful gesture. Feel free to also add this to the DEDICATED forum. Or I could transfer the entire topic there after it has spent some time here on the main page. In "Dedicated" it'll have more "staying power," as it will be less likely to drop off the first page in a hurry. Let me know if you would like me to do that.

 

Juris, thanks for the link to the Creeley interview. I'll add it to the LINK ARCHIVE.

 

Tony

[Lake]

1) To make it more clear, I'm fine with sunlight. I guess what I am expecting is how "smile" and "sunlight" are compared. Or to make it even more clear, I think "much better" is kind of too easy to say. But this is just me, others may find it just fine.

 

I find that technique you have adopted effective when it is important to have, for better understanding, a close proximity between words/phrases/ notions I comment on and do so w/o spreading apart the lines of the poem to where the charm of the core poem is lost/diluted.

 

The commentator/critiquer (not a criticizer) is at least partially opinionated because he/she has no way of seeing the poem as fully and thoroughly as the author does.

 

Of course, the one writing a critique better know grammar, syntax, usage and much about the historical, political, scientific, religious, artistic aspects/background of the work at hand and limit comments only to those parts she or he are competent in.

 

Because of what you mentioned above, I usually dare not, to put it more accurate, I am not capable of giving in depth critique. Most of my responses are just my first impression, they may well be off the mark or shallow.

 

I enjoyed reading this poem nonetheless.

 

Lake

[waxwings]

1) To make it more clear, I'm fine with sunlight. I guess what I am expecting is how "smile" and "sunlight" are compared. Or to make it even more clear, I think "much better" is kind of too easy to say. But this is just me, others may find it just fine.

 

I find that technique you have adopted effective when it is important to have, for better understanding, a close proximity between words/phrases/ notions I comment on and do so w/o spreading apart the lines of the poem to where the charm of the core poem is lost/diluted.

 

The commentator/critiquer (not a criticizer) is at least partially opinionated because he/she has no way of seeing the poem as fully and thoroughly as the author does.

 

Of course, the one writing a critique better know grammar, syntax, usage and much about the historical, political, scientific, religious, artistic aspects/background of the work at hand and limit comments only to those parts she or he are competent in.

 

Because of what you mentioned above, I usually dare not, to put it more accurate, I am not capable of giving in depth critique. Most of my responses are just my first impression, they may well be off the mark or shallow.

 

I enjoyed reading this poem nonetheless.

 

Lake

 

I'm not sure what an in depth critique would be like. Your, or any other fellow poets-in-making, first impressions are valuable to me. I certainly am open to some rewrite to get around that "better than sunlight" bit. I may be, due to personal involvement and feelings I try to express in that poem, totally blind to other good or bettter ways. I encourage you to think up something.

 

There are levels of critique about which I may have to start a separate topic. There is a general rule that may be hard to meet, and that is to say two appreciative comments for each one comment that questions if some part or line could not have been made better in the literary and/or linguistic sense.

 

The items that are mentioned most often are: 1) the appropriateness/effectiveness of the title, 2) effectiveness of the opening lines, 3) an evaluation of the comparable strength/quality of parts/stanzas, 4) mention of the good/better lines 5) how satisfactory the closure is, 6) how well the line breaks work and 7) possibly other features__among them (that may or may not weigh as heavily), such as punctuation, capitalization, spelling errors, and minor grammatical boo-boos, like tense, number and case mismatches.

 

I did note your impressions and thought them apt, in vieww of the fact that I could not expect all readers to have total and full insight of what feelings drove me to write as and what I did.

 

Thank you much for responding., waxwings.

[waxwings]

A great discussion taking place here. This is a lovely, lyrical, dedicated poem, Ikars. I love it when members dedicate works to each other. :D It's always a meaningful gesture. Feel free to also add this to the DEDICATED forum. Or I could transfer the entire topic there after it has spent some time here on the main page. In "Dedicated" it'll have more "staying power," as it will be less likely to drop off the first page in a hurry. Let me know if you would like me to do that.

 

Juris, thanks for the link to the Creeley interview. I'll add it to the LINK ARCHIVE.

 

Tony

 

Larsen Callirhoe posted something I thought lovely and worthy of being noted. The poem is not specifically dedicated to him, but is one not most recent I had just revised. With that proviso, tony, you may move it if you think it is proper. Of course, I still do not know enough about the mechanics of posting to do it myself.

[Aleksandra]

Very nice poem, waxwing, and a nice debate also.

I liked the sound in this poem, and I love lyrical poems.

 

Your lips

are not merely a pillow

for resting

my restlessness on.

 

... that is a wonderful and powerful expression.

 

Thanks for this lovely poem.

 

Aleksandra

[waxwings]

Very nice poem, waxwing, and a nice debate also.

I liked the sound in this poem, and I love lyrical poems.

 

Your lips

are not merely a pillow

for resting

my restlessness on.

 

... that is a wonderful and powerful expression.

 

Thanks for this lovely poem.

 

Aleksandra

 

Glad you like it. I wrote it for my wife and all the women who love poets, you included.