.
It may be more a reflection on me (for a few reasons) than you, but I don't see the satire in this as much as I see what Cameron described as "mysteriously powerful & ambiguous". It feels like the onion being unpeeled. I did like James's suggestion of a third stanza, if for no other reason than to continue the slow stripping of the mystery. I took your explanation as to why that is not possible — "the pen that wrote this ran out of inspirational ink and the titling pen, a dull prosaic one is sluggish in the extreme" — as being a white flag. The triune beast wins : ) Actually, I don't know what more you could say... Maybe you've already managed to synthesize three stanzas into two.
I still think the title handcuffs the poem by denying it the ambiguity that fuels its power. If Cameron's suggestion is to leave it untitled then I like that. I also think Untitled would work.
In the opening line, I wish there was a way to say id, ego, superego slant without direct mention of them. In a way, you do with the second line in S1, but because you've already revealed them by name in L1 it saps some of the power of the vision of the poem away. I think. I'll have to think a bit more, though.
You've gone straight for the jugular with this one. It is a jolt of seeing.
≥
|