I find it interesting, Rob, the 'we' implied; I think I was thinking
of putting the action of what's seen as act, rather than as simply
what's observed, but you need to compare & decide, not me.
Doug
On 15-Jan-09, at 10:59 AM, robert e. watling jr wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:35:24 -0800, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
>
>> isually acute, Robert.
>> although I wonder what would happen if you took out the 'we'....
>
> Douglas,
> I tried your suggestion, not knowing if you meant the first "we" I
> took out all of them and made a couple of other adjustments,
> syllable count bedamned. See what you think...rob.
>
> stars redone
>
> took a blanket into the field,
> dark hot humid summer night, no moon.
> between times watched as the fireflies,
> sharp points stark against the shadowed ridge,
> sparkled, rising to the ridge's crest,
> then merging into the night sky's stars.
> for a time didn't look at them.
> after, watched the moon overtake
> stars, fireflies paling in its wake.
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
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
Oh, goddamnit, we forgot the silent prayer.
Dwight D, Eisenhower
[at a cabinet meeting]
|