Frank,

Indeed, I'm keen on a bit of scene setting. Also the muscularity of the man
in S1 is meant to oppose the invincibility of the swan later
on................. and in the blue corner  we have.....  and in the red
corner..........

Thanks for the crit and keep it coming,



BW

Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Faust" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: newsub/Queen's Bird


> Hi Colin,
>
> I think I'm inclined towards soime previous comment that S2 is where the
> tale really starts, though I'm very concious that I sometimes use an
opening
> S for a particular purpose - scene setting or whatever, and this may be
what
> has happened here, so I'm reluctant to push the line too hard. Is that
what
> you had in mind?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Frank
>
>
> > The Queen's Bird
> >
> > They say that a swan in anger
> > can break a man's arm with its wing.
> > Watch pond visitors withdraw
> > when one swan comes. But I'd back
> > the human every time. Just consider
> > a man in his twenties with deft feet
> > and palms hardened by axe and shovel
> > against neck, so like a jug handle,
> > in snowy circumference a hand's length.
> >
> > Three chicks bob to the shore, bread bound
> > till they topple in foam, wet wing fronds and stand,
> > ovals of down only, cloud-grey,
> > a mouthful each for the tod fox
> > that lingers in willows, and watches.
> > Their father is swift on still water.
> > Through wing's arc I see air and shore beyond,
> > his neck like a serpent, the chisel bill and head
> > held proudly, the breast that none dares touch
> > for any swan is the queen's bird.
> >
> > My four year old son fed cygnets
> > with fingers so soft that the flaked bread dropped
> > and so bent to urge the crumbs further.
> > The curve of his skull approached as the chicks pecked.
> > I heard the aggressive hiss, saw plumes spread,
> > a hard cob, threatening my boy.
> >
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> > PS Does anyone know more about the law in question and/or think I should
> say
> > more about it as a foot note?
>