Belated thanks to Doug and earlier responders.
I always seem to run to superfluous syllables and even phrases.
It's a case of admiring the concise and being unable to do likewise.
But some revision MUST happen... soon.
Max
Quoting Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]>:
> I understand your & Randolph's little worry, Mark, but I rather liked
> 'or further,' which could be an euphemism, except it's so damned
> clear. And I can take it without the 'spiritual' tang some would hear
> there, so I think it works.
>
> Which is an interesting example of how different people will read
> differently (we do often agree). I can see, Max, taking time to look
> through the whole & see if there's some judicious cutting you can do....
>
> Doug
>
> On 2-Mar-10, at 4:39 PM, Mark Weiss wrote:
>
> > Agreed. Especially the euphemism "or further." The poem seems to
> > seeking closure and not finding it.
> >
> > I'm not sure that just lopping off the last line would do it. Maybe
> > just changing "or further" to "or died," if the repetition isn't too
> > troublesome. If one of the dieds needs to go, perhaps the
> > first--"how recently we'd lost..." maybe.
>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
> Latest books:
> Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> Wednesdays'
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-
press_10.html
>
> It is ink
> on paper love
>
> Frank O'Hara
>
------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
|