Wind Fantasy - edit2, title change

[dukealien]

Thanks to both (so far) of my highly valued critics.

@RiverNotch - That comma's an interesting question.  Not to be defensive, but if this were blank verse I'd leave it off, the pause being eforced by line break; as it is, I think I'm trying to prevent a run-on enjambment.  Which, perhaps, I should be trying to encourage, instead.  Hmmm.  And more panache needed!

I'm pretty sure you have something much deeper in here, but right now the environmentalist/naturalist/really, humanist in me writhes with this ending, so much so that I can't actually get into that something deeper. Gosh dang, the poem almost made me shout to the speaker to get an education ---------- although maybe the title gives a clue? I really didn't expect a tonally serious pome with that title.

But really, I'd appreciate its message, if fundamentally not anti-environment, if it had handled its message with a wee bit more, er, panache -- say, wind is fickle, so coal is better, the smoke be damned! the world's damned anyway, or what have you. But really, considering the poem's current airs, as inconstant as the wind may be, the world itself becomes much more inconstant (and with an unnatural quickness, too) with that hard-mined coal, and ultimately without said panache, the piece just comes off to me as irresponsible. Yes, poets can and should write about anything they want, but in their works they should at least be shown, even through hints, as knowledgeable, as knowing and considering everything first and just picking a side. But again, the first paragraph: maybe the writhing's just distracting me.

Your writihing (though not carried to the point of reeling or fainting in coils   ) shows - as the saying goes - "Message received and understood." 

Too many words in the spoiler

I am, indeed, a skeptic [Br. Eng. sceptic] in the matter of anthropogenic global warming; the whole concept lacks humility and reeks of hubris.  It is also, on the basis of available actual evidence (not dishonestly homogenized observations and the output of models designed to produce scary graphs) bad science.  Engineering-wise, wind's inconstancy not only tears up wind turbines by the score (it's not cost-free), it also wrecks the carefully controlled grids its partisans assume just require some kind of simple junction-box to accept it.

In less prosaic terms, to ensure a supply of energy from coal you must find it, dig it up, and burn it when needed:  effort is rewarded.  You cannot ensure a supply of energy from wind because no effort anyone can make will cause the wind to blow.  It's the difference between work and fatalism, marriage and patronizing hookup bars.

@Erthona - Sorry to disappoint your hopes of a fart poem.  A title change is indicated.

I find this poem inconstant. The poorly chosen title "Wind Passes" implies that wind power was once used, but it has been supplanted, yet the line "arrest its gusts in windmill manacles to power each home’s snug establishment" seems to belie that idea.  Meant to imply that use of wind was once necessary, but its use today is mostly a fad.  I believe the Dutch polders are now kept dry with electric pumps, and electric grist mills are also the rule.  Should be made clearer.

The rhyme "particles" --> "manacles" just seemed strange to me, don't really know why, but it caused me to pause in my reading.   Agreed, it's a weak rhyme.

"Today we see mere random particles" "mere" is obviously a filler word, and to be completely objective "we" do not
see " random particles", at least I do not. And even if true, to what point?  I respectfully defend "mere" - wind was once a gestalt, not just a trend in Brownian motion.  "We" is, of course, the point at which I try to sneak in speakership for people beyond myself and the mouse in my pocket; should be accomplished more subtly.

Good critiques!  Thank you kindly.