Dawn to Dusk

Little girls dance barefoot
under an audience of stars,
curtseying beneath the broken
back of the moon.

Their small feet skipping
down the straight and narrow
crest of moonlight,
the night bleeding out upon
the backs of clouds.

The aging moon often wanders
in his forgetfulness, but
by morning, he will have
rebuilt the world backwards:
treetops to stems,
and conjured sleeping
girls into wakefulness.

The first stanza was beautiful with the imagery of the little girls. I don't like it much though because you mix moon, and sunshine, so I can't really tell which time you are signifying here. Also you use the word "back" twice, which stood out to me.

In the second stanza, I want to pull apart your punctuation. Your stanzas are all one sentence in length, when really I would rather have them be multiple sentences. Making it all one sentence just makes it really... I'm not sure of a word for it. It's just too long and rambly. I would rather write it like this:

Each day the dawn rebuilds
the world backwards:
treetops to stems.
The day recedes back into
the deep peak of dusk’s hairline.


To me, this reads much smoother.

I like the last stanza, it seems meaningful. Almost like the quote I saw a bit earlier, "Not everyone who wanders is lost." Either way, the sun will come back.

I think this is a nice start of a poem, but I really want more imagery and less confusing, long, rambly sentences. I want to see the sun, see the moon, and think "wow". But your sentences get so long and choking, it's really hard to get to that. But you're on your way. ^_~

I like the last stanza, but true you could remove it and not lose anything. It has a nice message, but does it offer anything beyond that? If you're considering removing it, why not first try to consider how you can add imagery into it. I want to save the liked stanza. ^_^

I'm not really sure what to think of it, Cameron. I enjoyed the imagery, but as far as I can tell, this poem has little or no point. It displays your talent for imagery and sounds, but it jumps from little girls to the world rebuilding itself; the former was unnecessary and cliche, while the latter was much more interesting.

I think you could definitely do something with that last stanza, but this poem as a whole doesn't do much.

Better luck next time.
-Colleen

While still rough, perhaps this is a decent alternative. Also, not all poetry is meant to instruct Colleen, and beauty without meaning is beauty nonetheless. What is the point? I'm sure I couldn't tell you. It is simply my creative rendition of a moment, meant to be appreciated for its interpretation and not its moral fibre. All the best,

Cameron

I liked this more, because at the end you brought back the girls.

Their small feet skipping
down the straight and narrow
crest of moonlight,
the night bleeding out upon
the backs of clouds.

Grammatically, this stanza upsets me. It's a good stanza but the verbs make it go no where. The first part of the sentence is like an introduction, but the second part goes no where... (not to say it isn't beautiful.)


I noticed this played more on the moon, with almost no mention of sun light. Perhaps the title should be redone?

I'm not sure what I think of Colly's remark. I do believe poetry should have a meaning, but then also your statement of "beauty is still beauty" does hold true. Everything doesn't need a meaning.... hm. I think your imagery completely makes up for the lack of meaning/point, because it's just an appreciation of nature, which is good poetry. Somtimes they have meaning, but they don't always need it.


I still like it. ^_~

Cameron wrote:While still rough, perhaps this is a decent alternative. Also, not all poetry is meant to instruct Colleen, and beauty without meaning is beauty nonetheless. What is the point? I'm sure I couldn't tell you. It is simply my creative rendition of a moment, meant to be appreciated for its interpretation and not its moral fibre. All the best,

Cameron

I have to disagree. Beauty without meaning seems shallow; the beauty pageant contestant with the blank smile, face covered by makeup; the thousands of photographs of sunsets. Sure, it looks nice, but it doesn't make an impression. It isn't memorable. It doesn't make me think. I can appreciate your imagery as imagery. But a poem cannot be made by imagery alone unless those images imply something--it doesn't have to be huge or incredibly important, but I ought to take something away.

I agree in that "poetry is not meant to instruct" and I didn't say it had to. It doesn't have to have a specific "point"--I have yet to write something I can actually explain coherently.
I forget who said it..."A poem should not mean, but be." What we call the "meaning" of the poem is not the "moral-of-the-story"--it is created, delicately, by the subtleties in the cooperation of words, images, and emotions. The "meaning" of the poem can never be put in any other words than the poet put it in. It can only be paraphrased.

Erm...I digressed just a weensy bit there. It's a bit late at night for me to be expressing what I'm trying to express. What I'm trying to say is that, personally, I disliked this poem because I took away just a few pretty pictures. For the most part, it's an exercise in imagery. The only way you really hint at something is in the moon's age and apparent disability, the night bleeding.

That's why I suggested you go with what you had in the third stanza. The world being rebuilt backwards is a fascinating image and a fascinating idea.

-Colleen

That's why I suggested you go with what you had in the third stanza. The world being rebuilt backwards is a fascinating image and a fascinating idea.

Seconded! Even though I think it is a currently amazing poem, perhaps you can write a second poem on that just to see where it goes? You can really only go up from a certain point, yes?

I do terribly love you Colly. ^_^ I only have to say that one cannot compare words to women in makeup and call it even. True, if he tacked a meaning onto his words they would be that much more powerful, but as they stand they still work for me. Opinions and reader preferences, yes?

I have to think I've swayed over to her side. If you added a meaning, a purpose, it wouldn't kill what you currently have. It could only make it better. Consider it, at the least? We are not saying the poem is bad (by no means! Your imagery is amazing) we are saying you could make it even better. Which is what all writers strive for, isn't it?

Suzanne wrote:I only have to say that one cannot compare words to women in makeup and call it even. True, if he tacked a meaning onto his words they would be that much more powerful, but as they stand they still work for me. Opinions and reader preferences, yes?

I totally can compare words to women in makeup...well, no, I can't, but running on caffeine and the looming due date of my physics homework set I can.
I was trying to make an analogy to show the difference between shallow beauty and real beauty. Both are nice, but I enjoy real beauty more, and I believe that real beauty has depth--meaning--behind it.
But yes, it is a matter of preference. I'm clearly not the intended audience here; I'm sure that you'd get different opinions if only people other than Suz and me would comment (monopoly much?).

Suzanne wrote:I have to think I've swayed over to her side. If you added a meaning, a purpose, it wouldn't kill what you currently have. It could only make it better.

Well said.

-Colleen