Reading the first part, I felt like saying "Okay, I'll step here, but why am I doing so? To what purpose?"
Did you mean for the sole/soul doublish meaning?
The second half didn't seem so poetic as prosaic. And wouldn't the ink become a moon? Like you said previously, the ink would be held by the earth and warmed by the sun, going by the logic of the first stanza, to create a moon. Or are you saying that a moon is a world?
I did think that this line was pretty: "Cradled by the earth, lit by the sun. " I just think that you might be looking in one direction too many?
Reading the first part, I felt like saying "Okay, I'll step here, but why am I doing so? To what purpose?"
If I answered that question any more, I think I'd be going off in too many directions. The lines after answer, to some degree.
Did you mean for the sole/soul doublish meaning?
Maybe. Maybe there's a connection there, maybe there isn't.
The second half didn't seem so poetic as prosaic. And wouldn't the ink become a moon? Like you said previously, the ink would be held by the earth and warmed by the sun, going by the logic of the first stanza, to create a moon. Or are you saying that a moon is a world?
The two halves of the poem are very different by design. The ink isn't the sun. It's sunlike in its role, but it's still something else. The world is moonlike, true. Readers are supposed to take that conclusion, yes. Remember, one is two, two is one. Two stanzas, one poem. I'm not going to answer all the questions for you. You might think of it this way. Think of the poem as a bit of earth, and the reader as some sunlight. Put some light into it, and make it into the moon you think it means to be. It's a short poem, but it's really not a simple one, and I don't intend for it to be self-explanatory.
I did think that this line was pretty: "Cradled by the earth, lit by the sun. " I just think that you might be looking in one direction too many?
Maybe I'm looking in one direction too many, or perhaps in a single direction that summarizes many smaller ones? Or, possibly, it's in the same direction from slightly different angles?
Good questions. Thanks for the review. If you want to discuss the poem more or offer more suggestions/replies, PM me, so that we don't clutter this topic overmuch.
I am a bit confused by this poem myself. Like Amel I enjoy the line "Cradled by the earth, lit by the sun" but other wise the meaning alludes me and I find your answers to Amel's questions allusive and more baffling than conclusive. When I first read it I had a completely different interpretation than what was semi provide.
"Look in the mirror and what do you see? A shallow reflection that means nothing to me"
The rhythm in the beginning is beautiful, beloved; the flow is absolutely perfect. Usually a full stop at the end of each line would be a complete turn-off, but it works here. I also love the sole/soul thing; if it's a play on words, it's a good one, and if it's not, it's a fantastically powerful image, with loads of interesting connotations and possible meanings to explore. ^^
I wasn't so sure about this part:
Step beneath their daughter, the moon. Cradled by the earth, lit by the sun.
The progression from celestial body to celestial body has been done so often, and though I love how you insinuate that the moon is the daughter of the "two/one," there's just something off about it--now that I really think about it, it's that second line, actually. The verbs are certainly indicative, but they're seen relatively often in connection with those nouns. Maybe choose something more powerful? Switch it up a bit?
"We are moons." I love that line. Love love LOVE. It's such a powerful image, and it really does add a great deal of complexity to the poem, in a very simple package.
Regarding the second stanza: the image here is, as per usual, very well-crafted and gorgeous. The writer's often portrayed as a creator of worlds, but this is such a unique way to look at it, putting him in context of his surroundings, that it works beautifully. Maybe a colon at the end of the first line, though? And your verbs here are a little on the bland side; this image could be even more powerful if you chose stronger synonyms. I do like dripped; but "stood," "warmed," and "became" just seem a little too colorless for such a gorgeous image.
There is a fundamental difference between poetry and prose, and it's this. Writing a novel, or even a short story, is rather like driving a car. You may drive a straight road with few turns, or make many turns and take many exits, perhaps come across obstacles like police, detours, potholes, accidents, invading aliens, obstinate cows . . . Any number of interesting things may happen on the road, but the point is this: When driving, you set out to go to a specific somewhere, to get from where you've started to the place where you're going. Poetry is not like driving a car. Poetry is like riding a hotair balloon. Nobody takes a hotair balloon as an effective, serious means of travel or destination. The point of a hotair balloon ride isn't where you're going, how fast you'll get there, the obstacles in between; in short, hotair balloons aren't about plot. The point of riding a hot air balloon is to ride it. It's perfectly reasonable to get into your car and drive to where you're going. But taking a hot air balloon is entirely baffling to any sensible person. And yet, people take them. Novels, in general, sum themselves up. That's a bit reductive, I realize, but you get what I'm saying. But poems are different. Poems are open. If my poem left you puzzled, left you asking questions, as it did the other reviewer, then that's a good thing; in effect, it did what I wanted it to. If you want me to spell out what it means for you, I'll do it in a PM, but not here. That would spoil it for other readers.
Fand: Thanks for the review. The sole/soul thing is, of course, a play on words, but for other than obvious reasons. Now, finally someone who gets it. I think you've used the best word possible, not just about my poem, but about any. Novels explore themselves; readers are generally more along for the ride (though good novelists can change that). But poems require more from the reader, usually. Passive reading isn't something I encourage (just look at my favored authors, and you'll know that's true). Exploration is probably one of the best words I could imagine when talking about poetry . . . then, second to that, is hot air balloons. In my opinion, anyway.
Yeah, there are some pretty lame verbs here . . . I was trying to keep the language simpler, since the cosmology of symbols is already (maybe annoyingly) complicated enough, as it were. I guess I packaged simple with lame, eh? I'll give it some thought. Thanks for the advice.
