Hi, David. I really like the overall feel and the evocative language of this. There’s a ton of metrical variations in it, even in terms of feet, but the sense is very rhythmic, and I never like debates about categorization to distract from substantive critical assessment of a poem whose flow basically “works.”
“Leases of a stride’s length” is interesting. I like the soundplay of “intermeddle” and “petty,” “petty” and “parlay.” And I like the animistic presentation of the various natural interferences described.
It does seem a bit strange to me, though, that you begin describing a lack of encumbrance and then, starting with “although,” you proceed to describe various encumbrances as though they still somehow fall under the umbrella of non-encumbrance—as though a person can will non-encumbrance into being simply by persisting through it. But there’s a difference between being unencumbered and being undaunted. It wouldn’t be hard, probably, to clear up this seeming disconnect. On a technical level, there’s a comma splice before “although” in L4, and because of it, I didn’t realize that this word begins an independent clause until L8’s “keep on.” Perhaps placing a semicolon there instead seemed unattractive to you because you’re trying, after all, to convey a lack of encumbrance (or dauntedness). But if so, I’d argue that for me, at least, the confusion here is an encumbrance and a daunting element of its own.
For a greater sense of narrative flow, I think the poem would benefit from a stanza break after L8, although I question whether what follows is really “scrambling out of the metaphor.” This poem can easily be read literally, but if it is read as a metaphor, aren’t Ls 9-14 more of a development of that metaphor than a shift away from it?
“The staring tarn in which/the sky has washed its shining face/and stands around you” is a wonderful imaginative image, a great way to end the poem. I wonder if you really need “unenclosed” after that--if you have not already evoked that sufficiently, and more artfully, in the preceding description. Also, this last word, especially without a period after it, was so jarring to me that I actually wondered for a moment if the rest of the poem had accidentally been cut off. Of course, I get your intent in omitting the period—to convey a lack of enclosure--but if you do keep “unenclosed,” I think it would go down more easily if it were not presented as a new “sentence,” but followed a comma instead--that would be less "enclosed," too! Still, ending this line a bit “early” metrically by dropping this word entirely could convey a sense of unenclosure, as well, and you might drop the period after “you” for added effect.
|