your revision kinda kills your earlier style
But it's not all about the style. . .and you are right a poem should absolutely not simply mean. . .it must "be". . .and for me. . .the showing of my hand feels important in an active "be" sort of way at this moment. I do like how you added in that stanza, but it flows too magestically. your older style was static. It's kind of a mash against each other.
in its caress of navel and bloom,
unable to contain the wellspring Those two lines are well flowing majestic lines
And yet perhaps the "mash" does the job of showing what is at odds when losing a child in this manner. . .the majesty of the bloom, the corona of the flower. . .then. . .static. ..no movement, no growth. . . The rest of your poem, except for 2 other lines, is very static. I'd try to make the entire poem static ><
It was warm that day, sunny;
I had shorts on Do you really need this line?? It seems kind of pointless...
Yes. . .it feels necessary. . .but I will contemplate this as I rework the poem. . .I usually do a couple of revisions, then set the poem aside. . .and see how I feel about the work a few months or so down the road. . .sometimes the lines commented on will jump out and I'll go ewww. . .no I don't want that there. . .and sometimes. . .I still say, yes, there is the aura of a reason for it to remain. . .sometimes it's not what it directly says. . .but what is beneath it. as I lay cramping on the couch, Work with this line a bit, it's a bit too long. Cramping doesn't do it justice
Cramping is exactly what it is. . .I had thought about cramped. ..but that implies being pushed into a small space. . .and passivity. . .cramping is active. . .it is "being". . .there is movement in the word. for a princess conceived too late
in a near-barren cove You might want to just say barren cove. Right now it's too flowing. You should really stick with your static style.
Ahhhh. . .but if it were barren. . .there would be no fetus to expel. . .no it is near-barren. . .which I actually like better than desert. . .though there is life in a desert as well. . .though little. . . When I read this new line, it just totally interrupted the entire poem. Well, this line and the two other lines I pointed out above.
where the sand could not remain
on the shore -- This line does not go very well with your new line. Desert went very well with this line for those who could figure out what it meant : ). If you are going to go with cove, I'd change this line as well. Of course, this will get rid of one of your beautiful branches of the poem. Well, you already got rid of it with desert.
There should be little difference in perception of the sand remaining on the shore with cove or desert. . .you liked desert. . .so your perception of this line is different than that of someone who did not like desert. . .however, a cove in an area off the ocean that is somewhat sheltered. . .i.e. a very good connection to the womb. . .where there is some sand left. . .but as the tide rises and falls. . .the sand cannot remain on the shore. . .it is washed away. . .in knowing what a cove is. ..that should be apparent. . .yes? I see that you enjoyed the striking contrasts. . .perhaps the aethetic feeling of going from the ocean to the desert. . .and the dramatic beauty that may imply. . .but while I love to write in a way that people see "beauty". . .it is not what drives me in the writing. . .
if I visualize the ocean against a cove. . .the contrast, the drama is not as significant. . .but going from the cove into the ocean. . .does show a progressive movement of the "being" of the life it seems. Sometimes, a poem might seem more beautiful, but when you really understand it, it's not beautiful. It is best not to directly say something. You're leaning too much on the sea now. When you lean too much on something, it destroys the other messages of the poem and people get lost in that one meaning.
lolol. . .I am of the sea. . .and the metaphor, you must remember, is of a fetus lost. . .so the sea represents both womb and the universal Mother Ocean. . .
It's interesting. . .because there are many who would say that it IS best to say something directly. . .rahter than winding it through metaphor. . .and there are works wherein I do say things directly. . .and works wherein I do not. . .long, extended metaphorical works, where what is said. . .is a ribbon. . .that one must follow. Each "style" has its audience. . .I would say that in most of my work. . .what it seems that I tend to evoke from most of my readers. . .is not the aethetics. . .but visuals that evoke emotive responses. I tend to be a sentient creature. . .so feeling. . .and touch. . .play a big part behind the visuals I project. . . Your original was better, but that new stanza you added would do it more justice if you could get it to your more static style.
I will take it under consideration that your perception was that the original was more to your liking. . .I was never married to a completely "static" style. . .but I will take that under advisement as well. . .as I work through this poem. Thank you. A poem is not all about the meaning
*smile* Too funny. . .once you get to know us better around here. . .you will see that Norm and I, in particular, have discussed and do discuss this very fact. . .a poem must not simply mean. . .it must "be". . . It's about the style you decide to write it in
The meanings it has. Each meaning gives the poem a new mask.
However, I disagree. . .the poem is not about the style I chose to write in. . .the style is only an aid to the writing. . .it is about the living or the dying that pulses beneath the words. . .and how best to bring them into being. . .the words are the vehicle. . .the style aids the words. . .and the mask that the poem wears will change with each reader and how the reader perceives the work. . .
just as a painting is not about the style or period. . .Monet's water lilies are not about Impressionism. . .but rather about the water lilies themselves and how Monet chose with his brushstrokes to present their movement, their life. . .as he perceived it to be. . . It's almost making the roots to a tree. When all the roots come together at the top, you get your tree. The tree spreads out above as well. You can get lost in the beauty above through the rays of the sun. You can also get lost in the meanings below, where you are digging for the answer. Look straight ahead for the true
meaning. =)
I'm a very eathy person. . .roots have great meaning to me. . .everything springs from that which is unseen. . .where the true meaning is. . .hmmmm. . .that could be a long philosophical discussion. . .for sure. It is in perceiving the wholeness of the tree. . .that we see its entirety. . .it is not its roots, no, it is not its top, no, but it is also not the straight ahead. . .trunk. . .it is the Oneness of all the parts. . .and that includes the earth and the sky. . .parts we do not directly attribute to the tree. . .that make up the tree. . .periphery things. . .come in from many angles. . .and Light. . .gives it Life. . .but, as I said. . .I could get into a very drawn out and lengthy discussion here. . .lolol. . .
in the end. . .despite all the aspects that come together to show us. . .we see the tree. . .as One creation. . .one work. . .not meaning. . .but being.
Thank you for your time, your perceptions, ideas. . .and discussion. . .it's been very worthwhile and enjoyable.
~Ren~ 
Pages: 
Laid to Rest (Revised II) (Read 116 times)
