11-23-2015, 12:39 PM
@Plato - Thank you for the observation. I guess it could go either way. I was picturing the image you described, but I like what it became too.
So, as I see it, a true flower is one that bloomed naturally. Petals would be "qualities", I guess. And "force" is not simply influence, but direct force. But saying it that way didn't sound good in the poem, nor do farmers and their growth techniques come to my mind. Sorry for not being informed.
The inspiration for me was a relationship, not sex. As the cliche would be, the woman is the rose. She is too young and not ready for what's involved in a serious relationship. The man should know better, but he is impatient and pushes the young girl to become involved. Because of this, she fails to reach her personal goals and grow as an individual. As I saw it, she lost the very thing that made her so attractive in the first place. Therefore, she feels remorse. The man did not have bad intentions and really wanted a successful relationship, but his impatient actions (and maybe fear of losing her) made what could have been ideal in the future nothing but a lost dream. He feels remorse over what was lost.
That said, I found the mystery part of the fun in writing it. I guess I'm not logical enough to think about these kind of things though. Maybe that's why I don't understand a lot of poetry...
Thanks for the questions.
(11-23-2015, 11:18 AM)billy Wrote: just one point for me, a question; what is a true flower? and what is force? i ask because most plants, including roses can and often are forced. okay now i have another question? can a rose feel remorse? as a metaphor i still struggle with it, i'm guessing the rose intimates the female genitalia and the petals are the lips. if this is so, i don't think fannies feel remorse if it's not a metaphor then i don't get it.@billy - I am a simple person. I really don't spend my time thinking about how farmers influence the growth of plants. But I know that if I go up to a rose and try to pry it open, while I may not rip its petals off, I'll certainly damage it. The original idea I had is a flower that is grown but not blossomed. The impatient man, wanting it to bloom already, uses his hands to tear it open, damaging the delicate petals and scarring its potential beauty. Can you call what's left over a flower anymore? Maybe, but not in my view. A flower cannot feel emotions, but if it could, maybe it would regret losing the very thing that identifies it as a flower.
So, as I see it, a true flower is one that bloomed naturally. Petals would be "qualities", I guess. And "force" is not simply influence, but direct force. But saying it that way didn't sound good in the poem, nor do farmers and their growth techniques come to my mind. Sorry for not being informed.
The inspiration for me was a relationship, not sex. As the cliche would be, the woman is the rose. She is too young and not ready for what's involved in a serious relationship. The man should know better, but he is impatient and pushes the young girl to become involved. Because of this, she fails to reach her personal goals and grow as an individual. As I saw it, she lost the very thing that made her so attractive in the first place. Therefore, she feels remorse. The man did not have bad intentions and really wanted a successful relationship, but his impatient actions (and maybe fear of losing her) made what could have been ideal in the future nothing but a lost dream. He feels remorse over what was lost.
That said, I found the mystery part of the fun in writing it. I guess I'm not logical enough to think about these kind of things though. Maybe that's why I don't understand a lot of poetry...
Thanks for the questions.