[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Baez

Carl, Matt, and anyone else who hasn’t yet weighed in on the following—How do you feel about “changeling” vs. “witch-kid”?

I preferred "witch-kid lot" which for me had nicer, and more dramatic, sounds -- three successive short vowels each followed by alveolar plosives (/t/ or /d/), plus the assonance of "witch" and "kid" -- compared to "changeling lot".

On first read I wasn't 100% sure of the sense of it, as there's something slightly unstraightforward/indirect about it that takes some unpacking. In the sentence, "witch-kid"/"changeling" modifies "lot", but actually applies to the N, right? The N, since she has visions, is the witch-kid/changeling. So: I stack up all the visions I had, the whole lot of them, and I am a witch-kid/changeling, so these are my witch-kid/changeling visions.

I did wonder about "stack up my witch-kid's lot", even though it changes the meaning of "lot". Not necessarily saying it's better. It just seemed to be hovering behind "witch-kid lot".

I like the sound of “and twists the night” (or maybe “that twists the night”?), but would this make it clear enough when I say “I bulge, I leak,” that the moon is twisting me (as one inhabitant of that night)? I think so, so I’ll adopt your suggestion at least for now, but I just feel I should note that your original argument was that “It tightens like a screw” plus “I bulge, I leak” would make it clear that the moon is tightening on me, whereas your suggestion complicates that calculus a bit. However, I think not too much.

Yes, I think the calculus is still clear. In fact your version just lengthens the simile, so nothing changes in the causal sequence. With "and" in place of "that", you get: It tightens like a screw. It twists the night. I bulge and spew. Either the tightening causes both the twisting and the bulging and spewing, or there's a chain: the tightening cause the twisting which causes the bulging and spewing.

I prefer "and twists the night" because it seems more immediate and dramatic. With "and" you have two things happening: The screw tightens. The night twists. (And the former causes the latter). With "that" instead of two thing happenings, you have one thing happen plus a simile. So you lose some action: It tightens. And the way it tightens resembles a screw that twists the night. Arguably the night doesn't actually get twisted.

[quote]I can’t cut L2 without disrupting both the meter and the rhyme scheme (the latter being every other line [or 5 feet] being an “ew” rhyme aside from S3). Such disruptions would lack any rhetorical motive, and a metrical variation here would lessen the impact of the purposeful disruption of the meter that occurs a bit later in S2L3.[quote]

Ah, but the moon causes wild and crazy things to happen, and disrupts patterns, no? Also the rule, "every other line [or 5 feet] being an “ew” rhyme" isn't that strict a rule, since, as you note, you already break it in S3. And it would be a purposeful -- at least, defensible -- use of form matching function. The screw tightens and compresses the line. The screw tightens and the rhymes get closer. Anyway, it was just a thought I had when I realised the original L2 seemed unnecessary, so I thought I'd float it. I don't mind it sinking.

Okay, you’d seemed confused before about what was swallowing the Perseids and why—it sounds like I did clarify that in my revision, but you now find this too clear. I do like the dramatic value of these meteors’ great light being overwhelmed by the light of the supermoon, but I see your points, too, about how a different, more mythological type of drama might be harnessed. How do you feel about the line switch in this stanza? I did it to help clarify the Perseids line—sounds like that worked for you, although again, maybe too much? “The searing Perseids get swallowed whole"—it’s a thought, but I’m not sure about it. I’ll keep pondering this line. [Update: how about "It gulps the searing Perseids and swallows."?]

I think changing the line order definitely helped, because it made it clearer the swallowing was cause by the outflow of moonlight light, rather than say, the dog or the nebulae. My main objection to the change was more to the loss of image than to it having become too clear. I think your new line also makes things even clearer with an actor, "it", and I like that it's now an active construction, which seems to better suit the poem's energy.

-Matt