Was: It's Not Like (revision/untitled/c&c)
Janice
All comments are appreciated. There are still some extremely rough spots here
and I am grateful to those who previously offered crit -- I'm open for more.
Untitled
It's not that I want to have your first born,
nor drape the family crest across both thighs.
When between them, I'd rather your fingertips
work whorish figures as we exhale hallelujahs,
beneath eaves and pane.
Where the Madonna lily,
the alfresco vision is not be-all,
I've known for so long as a dallier in figment.
Known the Edenic-crux. The chimera of believers.
It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms.
I just want to be the tonight's ambrosia.
To make hopeful love. Face-to-eager face.
Always,
Janice E. Ugland
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/softpoetic/jny.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiniap
>Hi,
>All comments are appreciated. There are still some extremely rough spots here
>and I am grateful to those who previously offered crit -- I'm open for more.
Janice,
I much prefer this version. Good job.
My only nit is with the first line. I'm not sure - something is too
wordy about it, especially when set against it's mirror line 'It's not
that I crave your lickerish musk' which is perfect.
I wondered at first if you needed 'to have' but then I see how that
would warp the meaning. Now I feel you might need a stronger verb than
'to have'. Then again, changing 'first born' to 'child' would shorten
the line and not make me feel I was plodding as much...
baah. Like I said, I'm not sure. But past the first line it was a
great read. Thank you for sharing.
Regards
Andrew
Dennis M. Hammes
The "where... figment" grammar is confusingly off, else this really
speaks what it speaks, maybe even sings. Good Stuff, Maynard.
--
----+%
:oD_|
Hey, Mister Taliban,
tally me banana ..|..
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Janice
I'm revising as I type! Your suggestions concerning the first line are
graciously accepted (I agree completely) and am working to iron it out. Again,
thanks so much for the guidance.
Always,
Janice
Janice
I'll take a magnifying look at those lines, and then some. Thanks for taking
the time to comment, and crit, as it certainly helps me to scope in on the
roughest edges. :)
Always,
Janice
George Tolis
Something is drastically wrong with this in my reading. It's the voice -
do you want this to be a song, or a poem? Do you want a kind of paced,
self-reflexive, pensive voice, or a playful bounce-voice with a neat
rhythm? Either way, it's not mixing for me at ALL well. Best example is
the second stanza: the regularity of the first three and a half lines is
completely slapped out of sync and comprehension by the "face-to-eager
face."
If I were to split this into respective voices, this would be the
debris:
1.
> It's not that I want to have your first born,
> nor drape the family crest across both thighs.
> When between them, I'd rather your fingertips
> work whorish figures as we exhale [clearly was "sighs" but became
"hallelujahs"]
> I've known for so long as a dallier in figment.
> Known the Edenic-crux. [needs a continuation of the line here,
probably a "sighs" rhyme.]
> It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
> or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms.
> I just want to be the tonight's ambrosia.
> To make hopeful love. ["in your arms"? I'm guessing at the clichés
you've avoided.]
2.
> hallelujahs,
> beneath eaves and pane.
> Where the Madonna lily,
> the alfresco vision is not be-all,
> The chimera of believers.
> Face-to-eager face.
I don't know if this helps. I think you're trying to utilise these two
voices for some purpose that I can't fathom and I know it's rude of me
to impose such a "Me!" mentality on the poem, when I'm sure you could
get it to work well with a mix after a couple of heavy-handed rewrites,
although I do think the rhythmical section ("1.") could easily be
serviced by a title of "Song".
George.
Janice
I appreciate your comments. I'll work my way down to address your direction.
>From: "George Tolis"
>Hi Janice,
>
>Something is drastically wrong with this in my reading. It's the voice -
>do you want this to be a song, or a poem?
A poem, George, or at least in my wildest dreams.
>Do you want a kind of paced,
>self-reflexive, pensive voice, or a playful bounce-voice with a neat
>rhythm?
Paced and pensively conveyed.
>Either way, it's not mixing for me at ALL >well. Best example is
>the second stanza: the regularity of the first three and a half lines is
>completely slapped out of sync and comprehension by the "face-to-eager
>face."
>
George, you're spot-on with "face-to-eager face" and I've both voice recorded
(trying to iron the roughest spots) and revised.
>If I were to split this into respective voices, this would be the
>debris:
>
>1.
>
>> It's not that I want to have your first born,
>> nor drape the family crest across both thighs.
>> When between them, I'd rather your fingertips
>> work whorish figures as we exhale [clearly was "sighs" but became
>"hallelujahs"]
No. Sighs are too demure in description of exhaling such a celebration.
>> I've known for so long as a dallier in figment.
>> Known the Edenic-crux. [needs a continuation of the line here,
>probably a "sighs" rhyme.]
>
In the revision, George, I've extended this line -- thanks so much for pointing
this out to me.
>> It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
>> or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms.
>> I just want to be the tonight's ambrosia.
>> To make hopeful love. ["in your arms"? I'm guessing at the clichés
>you've avoided.]
>
I don't think the act of love-making need be inclusive of being in someone's
arms. I see how the line juts in comparison and will revise.
>2.
>
>> hallelujahs,
>> beneath eaves and pane.
>> Where the Madonna lily,
>> the alfresco vision is not be-all,
>> The chimera of believers.
>> Face-to-eager face.
>
>I don't know if this helps. I think you're trying to utilise these two
>voices for some purpose that I can't fathom and I know it's rude of me
>to impose such a "Me!" mentality on the poem, when I'm sure you could
>get it to work well with a mix after a couple of heavy-handed rewrites,
You've imposed the "you," which I greatly need to consider, and truly
appreciate. You have helped tremendously!
>although I do think the rhythmical section ("1.") could easily be
>serviced by a title of "Song".
>
>George.
I'm considering trimming the length of the lines. I am still not near placing a
title on this piece. I hate to post yet another revision for crit, but I most
likely will and soon. I can't tell you how grateful I am. Thanks!
Always,
Janice
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/softpoetic/jny.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alacrity Stone
"Janice" <softp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011018030937...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> Hi,
> All comments are appreciated. There are still some extremely rough spots
here
> and I am grateful to those who previously offered crit -- I'm open for
more.
>
>
> Untitled
>
> It's not that I want to have your first born,
> nor drape the family crest across both thighs.
Okay. I have been stumped as to why I dislike these opening lines so much.
I just do. They ring false - out of context in a passionate moment.
> When between them, I'd rather your fingertips
> work whorish figures as we exhale hallelujahs,
I really dislike this. "whorish" has only negative connotations for me
and "hallelujahs" suggests some orgiastic fusion of sex and religious zeal -
almost like a preistly molestation or a cultish incident of incest.
> beneath eaves and pane.
Outside, beneath a stained glass window? In a church?
> Where the Madonna lily,
The religious referrences are very disturbing.
> the alfresco vision is not be-all,
> I've known for so long as a dallier in figment.
> Known the Edenic-crux. The chimera of believers.
Are you referring to a painting by Henri Dallier, "admiration" (?)
or do you mean a dallier, as in a "dilly-dallier" or both?
>
> It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
> or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms.
> I just want to be the tonight's ambrosia.
> To make hopeful love.
You use "make hopeful love" after poisoning what promises to be a
deliciously dirty fuck with religious allegory. Strange composition. All and
all, a very disturbing picture of a woman saying she doesn't want what she
actually does want while meaning sincerely that she doesn't want it and
tempting a man to distraction all the while maintaining some lily white
veneer.
Damn good poem, I enjoyed being rattled by it:)
Face-to-eager face.
woops!
R.F.
Dennis M. Hammes
Alacrity Stone wrote:
>
> "Janice" <softp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011018030937...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> > Hi,
> > All comments are appreciated. There are still some extremely rough spots
> here
> > and I am grateful to those who previously offered crit -- I'm open for
> more.
> >
> >
> > Untitled
> >
> > It's not that I want to have your first born,
> > nor drape the family crest across both thighs.
>
> Okay. I have been stumped as to why I dislike these opening lines so much.
> I just do. They ring false - out of context in a passionate moment.
Depends on how much one can be passionate about in a bunch, dunnit?
I know a few who are downright passionate about firstborns, even
more so about crests, than about thighs. But this is about thighs
(and says so).
>
> > When between them, I'd rather your fingertips
> > work whorish figures as we exhale hallelujahs,
>
> I really dislike this. "whorish" has only negative connotations for me
> and "hallelujahs" suggests some orgiastic fusion of sex and religious zeal -
> almost like a preistly molestation or a cultish incident of incest.
As opposed to worshipping sex, some consider sex as worship; this
does, and rather nicely. A virgin is actually one who hasn't had a
child, making the Vestal Virgins, well, you know exactly what, a
standard Kulchural Phenom in a lot of places for a number of very
good reasons. None of them British reasons, however, nor thus
American Upeast or its descendants.
>
> > beneath eaves and pane.
>
> Outside, beneath a stained glass window? In a church?
Possibly echoing "heaves and pain," but that's reaching a bit.
>
> > Where the Madonna lily,
>
> The religious referrences are very disturbing.
Nah. Mater Dei Magma, and all that. Only one way to acquire the
monicker... Or "Madonna," for that matter.
>
> > the alfresco vision is not be-all,
> > I've known for so long as a dallier in figment.
> > Known the Edenic-crux. The chimera of believers.
>
> Are you referring to a painting by Henri Dallier, "admiration" (?)
> or do you mean a dallier, as in a "dilly-dallier" or both?
One does so want to read "dallier in pigment," which also works
several ways.
>
> >
> > It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
> > or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms.
> > I just want to be the tonight's ambrosia.
> > To make hopeful love.
>
> You use "make hopeful love" after poisoning what promises to be a
> deliciously dirty fuck with religious allegory. Strange composition. All and
> all, a very disturbing picture of a woman saying she doesn't want what she
> actually does want while meaning sincerely that she doesn't want it and
> tempting a man to distraction all the while maintaining some lily white
> veneer.
??? I didn't find any reversals in it at all. But you gotta sling
the lingo, so to speak. That used here worships (?? Well, ya.)
rather a lot more than a deliciously all-out (all-in?) fuck, which
is why it is able to worship /that/.
Luverly triple pun in "lickerish," eh?j
"...the tonight's..."???
"Hopeful" is just the touch of irony, of pain, that rescues the
whole feeling from simple rut to a search for something it doesn't
even know how to say, which is more ironic for its ability to well
say so much else.
>
> Damn good poem, I enjoyed being rattled by it:)
No rattle, but plenty of bite.
>
> Face-to-eager face.
>
> woops!
>
> R.F.
>
> > Always,
> > Janice E. Ugland
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > http://members.aol.com/softpoetic/jny.htm
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
--
>^,,^<
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia. -- Charles Schulz
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Alacrity Stone
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:3BE2A8E1...@arvig.net...
> Piggyback; somehow the orig doesn't show.
>
> Alacrity Stone wrote:
> >
> > "Janice" <softp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20011018030937...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> > > Hi,
> > > All comments are appreciated. There are still some extremely rough
spots
> > here
> > > and I am grateful to those who previously offered crit -- I'm open for
> > more.
> > >
> > >
> > > Untitled
> > >
> > > It's not that I want to have your first born,
> > > nor drape the family crest across both thighs.
> >
> > Okay. I have been stumped as to why I dislike these opening lines so
much.
> > I just do. They ring false - out of context in a passionate moment.
>
> Depends on how much one can be passionate about in a bunch, dunnit?
> I know a few who are downright passionate about firstborns, even
> more so about crests, than about thighs. But this is about thighs
> (and says so).
Really? This poem is about everything contained within it, Dennis, else it
wouldn't be there.
> >
> > > When between them, I'd rather your fingertips
> > > work whorish figures as we exhale hallelujahs,
> >
> > I really dislike this. "whorish" has only negative connotations for me
> > and "hallelujahs" suggests some orgiastic fusion of sex and religious
zeal -
> > almost like a priestly molestation or a cultish incident of incest.
>
> As opposed to worshipping sex, some consider sex as worship; this
> does, and rather nicely.
Sure. And sex has its own sacraments, its own guttural prayers. The
imposition of ritualized vocalizations on the carnal spontaneity of a truly
sexual union rings false.
A virgin is actually one who hasn't had a
> child, making the Vestal Virgins, well, you know exactly what, a
> standard Kulchural Phenom in a lot of places for a number of very
> good reasons.
Objection your honour: Relevancy? What the fuck is a "Kulchural Phenomenon"?
None of them British reasons, however, nor thus
> American Upeast or its descendants.
" however, nor thus American Upeast or its descendants"???
Talk to me.
> >
> > > beneath eaves and pane.
> >
> > Outside, beneath a stained glass window? In a church?
>
> Possibly echoing "heaves and pain," but that's reaching a bit.
> >
> > > Where the Madonna lily,
> >
> > The religious references are very disturbing.
>
> Nah. Mater Dei Magma, and all that. Only one way to acquire the
> monicker... Or "Madonna," for that matter.
For me they are. A statement that you cannot possibly refute. Don't mistake
a comment on my gut reaction for a criticism.
> >
> > > the alfresco vision is not be-all,
> > > I've known for so long as a dallier in figment.
> > > Known the Edenic-crux. The chimera of believers.
> >
> > Are you referring to a painting by Henri Dallier, "admiration" (?)
> > or do you mean a dallier, as in a "dilly-dallier" or both?
>
> One does so want to read "dallier in pigment," which also works
> several ways.
Yes. I quite like these lines.
> >
> > >
> > > It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
> > > or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms.
> > > I just want to be the tonight's ambrosia.
> > > To make hopeful love.
> >
> > You use "make hopeful love" after poisoning what promises to be a
> > deliciously dirty fuck with religious allegory. Strange composition. All
and
> > all, a very disturbing picture of a woman saying she doesn't want what
she
> > actually does want while meaning sincerely that she doesn't want it and
> > tempting a man to distraction all the while maintaining some lily white
> > veneer.
>
> ??? I didn't find any reversals in it at all.
"It's not that I want to have your first born,
nor drape the family crest across both thighs."
and near the end:
"It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms."
While the first denial is questionable for the simple reason that is
represented in the poem, the second is most certainly false. As a reader, I
must then consider them both to be false to find any coherence. Thus, your
inability to find a mixed message or "reversal" is a wonder to me.
But you gotta sling
> the lingo, so to speak.
That used here worships (?? Well, ya.)
> rather a lot more than a deliciously all-out (all-in?) fuck, which
> is why it is able to worship /that/.
Is my browser not reading you, or is this the gibberish it appears to be?
> Luverly triple pun in "lickerish," eh?j
Yes. Quite "Luverly".
> "...the tonight's..."???
> "Hopeful" is just the touch of irony, of pain, that rescues the
> whole feeling from simple rut
Rutting is not simple, making love is. A human can make love to inanimate
objects, but can only rut, experience truly animal passion, with a limited
number of partners for a limited period of time. Despite statements to the
contrary, this poem vibrates with the bells of a biological clock whilst
retaining the involuntary hip movements of an adolescent rut. That's my take
and you can't "take" it away from me:)
to a search for something it doesn't
> even know how to say, which is more ironic for its ability to well
> say so much else.
Yes, but "hopeful love" is a reversal you couldn't seem to find.
> >
> > Damn good poem, I enjoyed being rattled by it:)
>
> No rattle, but plenty of bite.
I'm rattled by bites. Shall we dule?
R.F.
Janice
I've accomplished another revision, and will now work my way back to reply to
the comments that have been so graciously given. Thanks -- Janice
[Still Untitled]
It's not that I want to birth your first born,
nor drape the family crest across both thighs.
When between them, I'd rather your fingertips
work whorish figures as we exhale hallelujahs,
beneath eaves and pane. Where the Madonna lily,
the alfresco vision, is not be-all. Not at all near
what I've known for so long as a dallier in figment.
I've known the Edenic-crux, and spun comeliness.
I've been the chimera... the cast about believer.
It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms.
I just want to be the tonight's ambrosia.
I just want to make hopeful love.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/softpoetic/jny.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis M. Hammes
Yeh. The periods fit better, and I think it now makes it own
point. Some elbows and knees trying to get in the way, still, but
don't they always?
Janice
I've responded to your comments below.
>From: "Alacrity Stone"
>"Janice" <softp...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> Untitled
>>
>> It's not that I want to have your first born,
>> nor drape the family crest across both thighs.
>
>Okay. I have been stumped as to why I dislike these opening lines so much.
>I just do. They ring false - out of context in a passionate moment.
>
Hmm... could it be that you're viewing the opener as a passionate moment,
rather than what's possibly mundanity?
>> When between them, I'd rather your fingertips
>> work whorish figures as we exhale hallelujahs,
>
>I really dislike this. "whorish" has only negative connotations for me
>and "hallelujahs" suggests some orgiastic fusion of sex and religious zeal -
>almost like a preistly molestation or a cultish incident of incest.
>
It's relating the verve, just as complex yet simple as it is.
>
>> beneath eaves and pane.
>
>Outside, beneath a stained glass window? In a church?
>
Window, but with a twist. :)
>> Where the Madonna lily,
>
>The religious referrences are very disturbing.
Madonna lily (noun)
First appeared 1877
: a widely cultivated lily (Lilium candidum) with bell-shaped to broad
funnel-shaped white flowers
There's nothing religious here, Rick, a very generic flower.
>
>> the alfresco vision is not be-all,
>> I've known for so long as a dallier in figment.
>> Known the Edenic-crux. The chimera of believers.
>
>Are you referring to a painting by Henri Dallier, "admiration" (?)
>or do you mean a dallier, as in a "dilly-dallier" or both?
>
I mean a dallier in make-believe.
>>
>> It's not that I crave your lickerish musk
>> or jaws' hard-line cradled in my palms.
>> I just want to be the tonight's ambrosia.
>> To make hopeful love.
>
>You use "make hopeful love" after poisoning what promises to be a
>deliciously dirty fuck with religious allegory. Strange composition. All and
>all, a very disturbing picture of a woman saying she doesn't want what she
>actually does want while meaning sincerely that she doesn't want it and
>tempting a man to distraction all the while maintaining some lily white
>veneer.
>
It's entirely about wanting from afar, whether man or woman. Again, no
religious intent.
>Damn good poem, I enjoyed being rattled by it:)
Rick, glad you enjoyed it. I am continually working this one -- it's got that
hold over me, so setting it aside hasn't come easy.
>
>Face-to-eager face.
>
>woops!
>
It's a long-goner.
>
>R.F.
>
Appreciate your comments.
Janice
I've recorded this piece -- trying to get over the stumbling blocks. It's
available at the URL(RealAudio file):
http://members.aol.com/softpoetic/untitled.rm
By chance anyone chooses to listen. I will respond to your comments, which are
very telling, tomorrow. The morning simply came too soon. --Janice
>From: "Dennis M. Hammes"
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/softpoetic/jny.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------