10-03-2017, 06:58 AM
hello,
this is quite a brutal revision. maybe there is something in the original worth keeping, but it is nice that you have cut it back to its root.
i am not sure what the consensus is on titles being read as an integral part of the grammar of a poem, but personally i could live without it. i’d prefer to maybe keep the title but also use it as the first line, old school style.
the last stanza is a weak point. pointing out that something isn’t meant in a literal sense in a poem, of all things, seems a little bit redundant. better would be simply:
not joan of arch
but flames.
also, the em dashes are entirely superfluous.
this is quite a brutal revision. maybe there is something in the original worth keeping, but it is nice that you have cut it back to its root.
i am not sure what the consensus is on titles being read as an integral part of the grammar of a poem, but personally i could live without it. i’d prefer to maybe keep the title but also use it as the first line, old school style.
the last stanza is a weak point. pointing out that something isn’t meant in a literal sense in a poem, of all things, seems a little bit redundant. better would be simply:
not joan of arch
but flames.
also, the em dashes are entirely superfluous.