My problem with the POV is that it's implausible that the wife of the man who was the boy who slipped the coin into his sleeping father's hand many years ago is going to have such a vividly sensory memory of the event as in lines 1-3. It comes across as a fantasy on her part, consequently, & is misleading for the reader.
Re. the sentence fragments in lines 4-8: line 4 works well with the implied predicate "it was," but the next two strike me as somewhat clumsy, especially with the unspecified antecedent (not immediately obvious who is being referred to).
"father's" in L9 is a nice, reader-friendly clue to what's going on, but in context, where the preceding line had "he," one would surely expect "his." It is clumsily expository. I would consider reworking lines 5-9 as a single complete sentence with the identity of "he" more felicitously introduced.
Small point: I think "into" would work better than "in" in the penultimate line. More idiomatic, & of course echoing the title.
Content-wise, a wonderful poem. If it were my poem (which it ain't) I would try simplifying the concept by dropping the wife out of the equation. The wife does add a dimension of meaning but also creates aesthetic problems. The poem is not a convincing "dramatic monologue" of a wife, rather an omniscient narrative implausibly attributed to a wife. At least, that's how I see it... (I think I am making a point similar to one of John's, not sure...)
|