08-28-2016, 01:23 PM
Edit 1:
"The face's dual spark"
So it is one face that is providing a singular spark? The spark itself consisting of two different parts?
I'm not sure if it should be, 'face's' or 'faces' But that conclusion may just be because I suck at rules of grammar and need to go back to school!
"Keeps a swift lark."
But if I analyzed this correctly, Then the dual spark is the only thing keeping the swift lark between the two?
The lark being a symbol of merriment and happiness of spirit, I'm assuming only comes around when both are together, as they seem to be happiest that way.
I can appreciate this sentiment.
"That flits between us:"
Yet the lark is swift, so the two people must only be together for a fleeting moment, or maybe they are knowingly rushing the intimate moment simply to scratch the itch and be done with it? If so, I think that was very clever. I can conjure up an image of the lark flittering between the two faces as sparks fly haphazardly in the air. Don't know if that's cliche, but it just says more about me than it does about you. I envisioned blue sparks, by the way.
"To scratch an itch,"
Honestly, I don't like the scratch an itch, bit. maybe because the rhyme only barely touched, Their connection forced, which works against what I believe you're trying to achieve, Because The beginning tone of the piece seemed to give off a lightness, and a feeling of being in flight. Adding the itch part, suddenly rips me out of the air and grounds me. It just seems misplaced, or simply unneeded. not sure if you just liked the way it sounded, But it fell a bit flat for me.
Also
["That flits between us:
To scratch an itch,
To give feelings to affirm
and break our prison walls."]
This portion together, has the word 'To' in it far more than I personally would like.
It just reads clunky in my case. Maybe revise that part? It makes the flow become choppy.
Now a note on the meaning of the words
"To give feelings to affirm
and break our prison walls."
I get lost around this point. Is the lark giving affirmation? or is it the feeling of some sort of unity giving affirmation that happens when both people are together as one, making them complete and without doubt of self? What is breaking the prison walls? The lark? the feeling of affirmation or is it because the two people are intimately invading each other in a good way, In a trusting way?
I am asking all these questions because this part is extremely lacking in clarity.
"A pupil's dark middle,
Shines a light and a warmth,"
This comes across like you're really trying very hard to evade using the word
'eyes'. Maybe in an attempt not to sound overdone like the many, many love poems already in existence. But sometimes, the simplicity of a stripped down and naked word is what translates best.
However, I do like the second line.
"Shines a light and a warmth," it gives a feeling of being by a warm hearth, the comfort and assurance of its heat, lulls the gazer into a smooth moment of almost perfect contentment.
"And the invisible discourse
Promises a common source."
I don't understand discourse being invisible. Usually discourse is an open struggle of communications, two differing parties that express their misunderstandings in a frank, matter of fact way. Discourse is not invisible at all. at least not to me. Even if the discourse seems passive, or possibly unspoken, It still manifests itself through body language, It can fill a room and become an entity of flawed movement using us as vessels no matter how small the discord, It always has a face.
The second line read to me to be a filler line, only existing for the sake of rhyme.
Something that sounded nice in thought and tone, but added nothing to the poem
Actually both lines by themselves, Are very jarring and are disruptors that snuck inside this poem as if you had a break in thought, Somehow the two lines have become examples of discourse for the entire piece. Had they not been there, this poem would be more cohesive and make more sense, Especially in regards to how you decided to end the poem.
I just don't think that you are intentionally setting out to show a representation of discourse in way of subtext? That's just how I perceived it as a reader
"If we stare into a stare
Or glare into it,
We'll all be laid bare
By the split-second intimate."
This section shows me just how important your theme of connection is, The eyes always taking lead role. And why not? Eyes are brilliant communicators. They provide a connect with people on a 'deeper level'. Everyone knows this. That is why it can be easily cliche. It's something I still do all the time.
But I did very much enjoy this small bit of severe abstraction that holds a place in this poem. It is actually my favorite part. It may feel too overworked for some, but I like the inception you have going on. It gives the feeling of falling deeper and deeper into the gaze of a lover, perhaps. This is the part of the poem where I don't mind falling, Because it works wonderfully with the overall theme and feel of the piece. It ties in perfectly with the beginning.
"By the split-second intimate."
Is where I think the poem should have ended. It does well in referring back to that dual spark, And validates its importance. I do wonder, If in doing so, This poem may end too abruptly? If you feel the same, I would try to rework, or even throw away:
"Yes eyes swear.
I swear it.
When I look into your eyes
I feel the lark alight."
With this last bit, I'm very aware that you may have felt the need to bring the lark back around in an attempt to give this poem a sense of completion. The lark, In my opinion, already did its part. I don't feel it should make a second appearance, Especially with the lines speaking of discourse. It no longer belongs until you show a reconciliation in the poem, And I don't think you did that.
If you did, I wouldn't have that concern. It would even be interesting to explore
further how the lark, Not being the driving device which serves to move this poem,
(Made evident by he title and eyes/stares being a recurring theme.) could play an equal role.
I think you have some good ideas here. But many of them don't flow well when
attached to each other. I would experiment a bit more.
Sorry If this critique was more than you wanted or needed. Still not sure if it's considered an appropriate critique for this section of the forum.
"The face's dual spark"
So it is one face that is providing a singular spark? The spark itself consisting of two different parts?
I'm not sure if it should be, 'face's' or 'faces' But that conclusion may just be because I suck at rules of grammar and need to go back to school!
"Keeps a swift lark."
But if I analyzed this correctly, Then the dual spark is the only thing keeping the swift lark between the two?
The lark being a symbol of merriment and happiness of spirit, I'm assuming only comes around when both are together, as they seem to be happiest that way.
I can appreciate this sentiment.
"That flits between us:"
Yet the lark is swift, so the two people must only be together for a fleeting moment, or maybe they are knowingly rushing the intimate moment simply to scratch the itch and be done with it? If so, I think that was very clever. I can conjure up an image of the lark flittering between the two faces as sparks fly haphazardly in the air. Don't know if that's cliche, but it just says more about me than it does about you. I envisioned blue sparks, by the way.
"To scratch an itch,"
Honestly, I don't like the scratch an itch, bit. maybe because the rhyme only barely touched, Their connection forced, which works against what I believe you're trying to achieve, Because The beginning tone of the piece seemed to give off a lightness, and a feeling of being in flight. Adding the itch part, suddenly rips me out of the air and grounds me. It just seems misplaced, or simply unneeded. not sure if you just liked the way it sounded, But it fell a bit flat for me.
Also
["That flits between us:
To scratch an itch,
To give feelings to affirm
and break our prison walls."]
This portion together, has the word 'To' in it far more than I personally would like.
It just reads clunky in my case. Maybe revise that part? It makes the flow become choppy.
Now a note on the meaning of the words
"To give feelings to affirm
and break our prison walls."
I get lost around this point. Is the lark giving affirmation? or is it the feeling of some sort of unity giving affirmation that happens when both people are together as one, making them complete and without doubt of self? What is breaking the prison walls? The lark? the feeling of affirmation or is it because the two people are intimately invading each other in a good way, In a trusting way?
I am asking all these questions because this part is extremely lacking in clarity.
"A pupil's dark middle,
Shines a light and a warmth,"
This comes across like you're really trying very hard to evade using the word
'eyes'. Maybe in an attempt not to sound overdone like the many, many love poems already in existence. But sometimes, the simplicity of a stripped down and naked word is what translates best.
However, I do like the second line.
"Shines a light and a warmth," it gives a feeling of being by a warm hearth, the comfort and assurance of its heat, lulls the gazer into a smooth moment of almost perfect contentment.
"And the invisible discourse
Promises a common source."
I don't understand discourse being invisible. Usually discourse is an open struggle of communications, two differing parties that express their misunderstandings in a frank, matter of fact way. Discourse is not invisible at all. at least not to me. Even if the discourse seems passive, or possibly unspoken, It still manifests itself through body language, It can fill a room and become an entity of flawed movement using us as vessels no matter how small the discord, It always has a face.
The second line read to me to be a filler line, only existing for the sake of rhyme.
Something that sounded nice in thought and tone, but added nothing to the poem
Actually both lines by themselves, Are very jarring and are disruptors that snuck inside this poem as if you had a break in thought, Somehow the two lines have become examples of discourse for the entire piece. Had they not been there, this poem would be more cohesive and make more sense, Especially in regards to how you decided to end the poem.
I just don't think that you are intentionally setting out to show a representation of discourse in way of subtext? That's just how I perceived it as a reader
"If we stare into a stare
Or glare into it,
We'll all be laid bare
By the split-second intimate."
This section shows me just how important your theme of connection is, The eyes always taking lead role. And why not? Eyes are brilliant communicators. They provide a connect with people on a 'deeper level'. Everyone knows this. That is why it can be easily cliche. It's something I still do all the time.
But I did very much enjoy this small bit of severe abstraction that holds a place in this poem. It is actually my favorite part. It may feel too overworked for some, but I like the inception you have going on. It gives the feeling of falling deeper and deeper into the gaze of a lover, perhaps. This is the part of the poem where I don't mind falling, Because it works wonderfully with the overall theme and feel of the piece. It ties in perfectly with the beginning.
"By the split-second intimate."
Is where I think the poem should have ended. It does well in referring back to that dual spark, And validates its importance. I do wonder, If in doing so, This poem may end too abruptly? If you feel the same, I would try to rework, or even throw away:
"Yes eyes swear.
I swear it.
When I look into your eyes
I feel the lark alight."
With this last bit, I'm very aware that you may have felt the need to bring the lark back around in an attempt to give this poem a sense of completion. The lark, In my opinion, already did its part. I don't feel it should make a second appearance, Especially with the lines speaking of discourse. It no longer belongs until you show a reconciliation in the poem, And I don't think you did that.
If you did, I wouldn't have that concern. It would even be interesting to explore
further how the lark, Not being the driving device which serves to move this poem,
(Made evident by he title and eyes/stares being a recurring theme.) could play an equal role.
I think you have some good ideas here. But many of them don't flow well when
attached to each other. I would experiment a bit more.
Sorry If this critique was more than you wanted or needed. Still not sure if it's considered an appropriate critique for this section of the forum.