"It means something now (if you live in the UK) but probably won't
in the future." Sorry to paste in but I find this a really interesting
comment. Having something topical can be strong at the expense of future
clarity. But where do we draw the line? Could we or should we avoid refs
that won't be understood in a hundred years? Quite often I read poems from a
hundred years ago. Topical refs are definitely a hindrance.
(Not expecting answers so much as expressing an interest in the
issue.)
Colin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christina Fletcher [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 10:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: new sub : Winter Tips (response to David Anthony's
> "Warming")
>
> I like the idea but the poem doesn't quite come off for me: the idea has
> more teeth than the way you've chosen to write it. I'm not sure about the
> third line of the first stanza. It means something now (if you live in
> the UK) but probably won't in the future. Also not sure that the bulbs
> need to be desperate. But, in essence, I don't think the very strong
> di-dum-di-dummery does the content justice.
> bw
> christina
>
>
>
>
>
> Winter Tips
>
>
>
>
> He planted manic daffodils
> one dark December day;
> mental ISAs these desperate bulbs
> to light his way to spring.
>
> Light green tips now point through soil
> as solstice calmly comes
> investment paying off each day
> a tip he must pass on
>
>
>
> Tony Hillier responding to David Anthony's "Warming"
>
>
>
>
|