Thank you, Andrew,
>...I could see it as a section of a poem in six or
>seven sections, all utilising the same modus operandi...
Interesting proposition. I'll keep that thought open then. I do work in
series so find your suggestion a natural next move, especially if there was
some sense of continuing that urged my overstep. At the same time my
original impulse was to end where the poem first ended (in a heart/beat in/a
beat). I knew what was happening there and stepped away from "the canvas".
Step away again now.
Les Murray's advice is right on. Another I've heard is to remove the last
line and make it the poem's title (if you really have to have it). For me
the best editor is time. The more distance I get on a poem, the less
emotional investment, the better able I am to be happily ruthless. Once I'm
able to objectify the writing I can red-line and rearrange according to the
lines of energy that really do function. Often I may be left with only
interesting fragments!
The poem you liked is a combination of two spanning 15 years. Who'd of thunk
it?
And I don't mind being a catalyst for discussion of what matters. Not at
all. I really appreciate your thoughts!
best
:fp
***************
Frank Parker
[log in to unmask]
http://now.at/frankshome
I believe I heard language through my mother's
belly both violent and sweet and wanted
to get to it
- Robin Blaser
|