|
By Veronica_Milvus
|
|
07 June 2008 |
The companion piece to "Apart" posted a while ago.
A love poem for two voices.
TOGETHER
The only sound in the softest darkness
the rain, lashing angry on the window.
For a while, we are spared, safe against storms
raging outside. For now, there's only us,
sweet touch and talking and a honey taste.
Caught between our meeting and our parting,
we ask only for time stood still.
If time was gracious enough to stand,
for all our talk and love,
and promised us to never end;
it would not be long enough.
|
Written by Phil (6730 comments posted) 7th June 2008 | I like this a lot, Veronica. No dreadful angst - I think you've got that licked! 
Two definite parts - one plain but beautiful - the other, a probably universal fleeting feeling - well put.
Just read this again: like it even more.
Just one question. I wonder why the line breaks are where they are in the first part? For me, it reads with more natural rhythm with them in other places.
Phil |
Written by CharlieDee (8 comments posted) 7th June 2008 | | I agree with Phil on the line breaks. Otherwise a beautiful poem, especially the last four lines. | the problem
Written by patterjack (1196 comments posted) 7th June 2008 | | Just read on past my stumble lol
Written by patterjack (1196 comments posted) 7th June 2008 | The problem for me is in the first four lines. They seem like a kind of cryptic Imagism , and for me would be better placed in another order.
But that is your choice to make -- a rhythm that suits you may not suit others . It could be read quite dramatically in quite different ways -- I have been practising
No argument with the sentiments -- the oldest of all poets' problems -- time and love.
patterjack
|
Written by Robru (219 comments posted) 8th June 2008 |
This is an excellent companion piece to 'Apart" I agree with Phil that some pauses could be changed to give a better flow. Having saud that it is really just my opinion. Its very good as is. I enjoyed reading it singly and in concert with 'Apart'. Great writing.
Cheetrs
Bob |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3362 comments posted) 8th June 2008 | As a non-poet I was a bit puzzled by this. For me it seemed a perfect expample of less is more. The first part was perfectly adequate and well expressed but the second part seemed to be the essence of the first and said it again but so much more succinctly and with such eloquence.I think you only need those last four lines.It makes the earlier verse seem almost clumsy by comparison but I'm sure I'm wrong here as the others like it all
cheers
jane |
Written by Brett (785 comments posted) 8th June 2008 | An interesting concept this one, V, and very enjoyable.
Whilst Jane may have a point that the two 'voices' may be saying the same thing, I think the point is that they say it differently - not only in words but also in metre, which I think was very cleverly done.
Upon reading this a couple of times I felt the first speaker nervous (?) the metre and line breaks almost like the racing of a pulse, whilst the second calmer yet resigned.
Perhaps you should do a longer conversational piece!
Enjoyed very much.
Cheers |
Written by Veronica_Milvus (637 comments posted) 8th June 2008 | Thanks all for the reviews.
These really are two poems in different forms, stitched together because they talk about the same event.
The first bit (for the benefit of those who like to understand form in prosody) is in roughly iambic pentameter, blank verse, and the phrasing is as it is to retain the pentameter, but uses some enjambment, maybe not so successfully.
Second bit is in rhymed tetrameter, therefore different in tone and rhythm; that's why I said "for two voices".
I agree that in many ways the second stanza is more effective, but it possibly makes a little more sense after the more specific description in the first stanza... | Time?
Written by Katanga (1229 comments posted) 9th June 2008 | Loved it, Veronica, and like some others, I feel the second, four-line stanza has more simple, eloquent power and beauty than the first (not that I'm knocking the first, which I love also)
I'm just wondering whether time merits a capital 'T',
since (s)he is personified in being potentially 'gracious' and able to 'promise'?
And would Time be male or female? Male I 'spose, due to Old Father Time?
Just a thought!
Thoroughly enjoyed - respect!
Yo!
Cheers!
John |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
