Oblivious

[jtrom1010]

This isn't bad for a love poem, altho0ugh I could do without the explanation at the beginning. I agree with everything Tom (tectak) says. So some supplementary comments.

"Poetry is born from a delicate dance,"

This seems unnecessarily awkward why not "Born from a delicate dance..." We already know it is poetry that is being talked about from the previous line.  

"intertwining with the ardor they created"

This may simply be me, but the word "ardor" has been so overused, not to mentioned satirized in movies. I'm sure I remember in at least one movie, it may have been "Robin Hood, Men in Tights," where there is a silhouette of robin with his sword looking like his penis and someone comments that "Robin's ardor is showing." Personally I would go with "fervor" myself. It basically means the same in this context and it is less a cliche.  

"when sensory experience and raw emotion"

I'm wondering if there is a point to be made that compensates for the awkwardness of adding sensory to experience. As most experience is a combination of sensory input processed in the brain, one could make the case that all experience is sensory experience, or based on sensory experience. Otherwise it is a perfectly good image, especially the "resonates from the tip of a pen" image. Very good. I would end with a period.

"It is a conflagration;"

Not only is this awkward in the mouth, it is also cliche. I could much more easily stomach bonfire, inferno, or wildfire. Although what follows seems to confuse the point. This is where you seem to fumble a bit.

"It is a conflagration;
its kindling is the gentle kisses of tides on the shore"

It is a fire whose kindling (this is inexact, as kindling used this way can mean either the small pieces of wood, or wood shaving use to start a fire, or the ignition that starts a fire) are kisses of waves (tides are the lowering and rising of the waves) onto the beach.  For me this seems a bit of a mixed metaphor describing fire by water.

"the peaks that puncture the ceiling of clouds above,  
the lingering scent of romance on empty sheets,"

What is/are "the peaks"? "the lingering scent?" Is this somehow meant as an extension of the "conflagration". These lines sound very well, but on closer examination they seem to have little substantive. I think you get by with them simply because of the two lines that follow them are so good, even though they also are not really connected in any way to the rest of the stanza. I am nowhere near sold on the whole stanza, yet I do understand what you are trying to say:

Love = fire = kisses = peaks = scents = lips = sparks.

I think the problem occurs when you begin with a fire image and then try to define it with a water image. It breaks down at that point and does not really carry on to the rest, although I think the peaks through clouds would need a volcano image to make that one work. That is the only the only thing related to fire that would make sense in this context.

"But you haven't the slightest clue "

Do you really need the "but". I'm sure she has a nice one, but, I'm very certain you could do away with the one at the start of the line.

"You haven't the slightest clue
that you are that spark"

Doesn't seem to lose much.

If you change out "ardor" then probably "fervent" needs changing also, although I would see some version of "fervor" used in both places than see "ardor" used, but that is purely personal, even if I do think it would improve the poem. A difficult choice as any word that is similar is pretty much a love poetry cliche. Passionate, impassioned. It is possible to appropriate a religious word in the name of love, Rumi did it all the time. It's possible that "devout" could work here, as in a devoted worshiper of love. I would just suggest taking the time to examine possible substitutes if you haven't.

"fervent enough to set ablaze this city"  "devout enough to set ablaze this city"

It does lend an interesting twist to it... Your poem, not mine.

I'm not sure I understand the thinking, or rather I do understand, but why be so overly practical in this line

"and engulf the world in smoke."

Yes, I get that only one town is burning, and so only the smoke could cover the earth. However if one thinks about it logically, even that idea is senseless as smoke from a single town could not cover the whole earth. So why not:

"and engulf the world."  Since you are equating fire with love, not smoke.

"exist only because your lungs breathed life into my landscapes,"

do you really need "lungs"? Maybe there is a good rational for using it, but I don't see it. For me the lungs thing sounds a tad creepy. I'm all for earthiness, but really not thrilled about singling out particular organs. Of course that's my problem not yours.

"exist only because you breathed life into my landscapes"

All in all a fundamentally sound poem, generally avoiding the usual cliches of love poetry, with a fresh approach toward the subject, extra points for that. With a fair amount of editing work, this could be a publishable piece.

As Tom says, Well done,

Dale





 

thank you so much for the feedback! I am going to be using a lot of yours and the others as well, but specifically, question for you on the stanza you were having issues with.
The metaphors in there were actually not SUPPOSED to be metaphors for love. My idea was that the "kindling" of the fire of poetry was all of the things listed, majestic peaks, the ocean, love, etc. But that they're nothing without the spark of inspiration to light them.
Any suggestions on how I may be able to more clearly get that across? It's something I struggled with and it seems as though you picked up on that haha