I loved this right away, David. This has bite, like many of my favorites of yours. But a happier bite, haha. Speaking of Larkin, yeah, unfortunately Mark I think was right that the original was a little too close (with the “enormous” there). Which sucks because the way it was put seems to be so your voice. “unconditional” is flat in comparison, imo.

I’m not sure about hubble bubble, especially if you are referring to the actual technical term (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_bubble_(astronomy)? (I still don’t understand what the hell that is…) But probably this is just an expression that I’m unfamiliar with...? In the end, like others, I’m not sure how bothered I am with the original, though I too would probably be tinkering with other possibilities. These small issues aside, again, I think this is terrific, and love the close.

Thanks James. You've driven me back to the drawing board. The hubble bubble universe was a failed experiment, and I've embraced (and acknowledged) the Larkin phrase. How could I not?

Really pleased you like it. Hope I've moved it a little closer to its ideal form.

Cheers

David

"Congruence in an out of kilter universe" is perfect.

The reference to Bechet is now at two removes. I doubt I would pick it up at first reading and probably not even if I googled him. You could replace Bechet with Larkin. But maybe it doesn't matter. It may be enough just to signpost that a reference is being made.

David, clever without being obvious about it, and refreshing to have jazz and Larkin paid tribute with – what seems to me – perfect pitch. All that said, I miss some of the details in V. 2. The hubble-bubble universe has a wonderful sound, a great pun that hit me only later and an image of galaxies wheeling and expanding like great vamping and improv by a master.

Thanks for that, Rob. At first I thought that I had remembered "hubble bubble" from Macbeth but, alas, no. (What I was remembering was a Manfred Mann single from 1964, which is quite a different thing, and quite without the resonance I was after.)

Cheers

David

For my money, the first revision is superior to the second revision. The first revision's language is much more interesting to my ear.

A.B.

Wonderful poem. I prefer the second revision, overall, except that I didn't understand the Bechet reference until I read through the thread. I would probably go with "is an unconditional yes" (do you need the "like" in that line?) but would keep the rest of the most recent revision as you have it.

Thanks Joe! Sorry, I missed your comment when replying to Rob.

And thanks, Ashley and Hilary. Duly noted. I now can't make up my mind which the best version is.

Cheers all

David

Yes
 

Hi David,
I like this, especially the first two stanzas, with reservations. I don't know who Al Bowlly is, so that was distracting. Of course I could research him, but I wonder if you can expect your readers to do that.

I'm suspicious of the rhymes, because it's my understanding (could always be wrong) that any kind of sound effect must happen in the stressed syllable of a word; many of yours seem to be happening on unstressed syllables, and that just seems weird to me.

Hope this is helpful--
Barbara

David--
This is thrilling. I enjoyed every version and reading the comments of others deepened my appreciation. If I had a vote, I'd vote for "acceptance" over "congruence" as I feel that fits better with the Pilgrim (who is being accepted into his reward). But overall just a terrific poem in all the versions.