[Carl Copeland]

Thanks for such detailed comments, Alexandra. They’re instructive as always.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

I do know that you’ve been busy as all get out on Translation, where I’ve silently admired your work.

You can be vocally critical as well as silently admiring, you know. Each of us can only do so much, but I just want to make sure you’re not one of those misguided Sphereans who think they have nothing to contribute if they don’t know the language being translated.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

I’m afraid that I didn’t feel confident in my interpretation of the first two stanzas, that the “wrong part of town,” mugger and kidnapper references spring from the child’s imagination alone … my predominant impression was that “wrong part of town” was meant literally.

I knew there was a risk that readers would think this was a dangerous inner-city street. To the extent that you and a few others got that impression, I agree that the poem is less than successful.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

While obviously, muggers can’t be squirrels, in theory, kidnappers could dress to blend in with nativity sets!

I actually thought it was a rather comical image of kidnappers dressed up as shepherds and Wise Men, but it could be read more realistically, I suppose.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

By the end of S2, I’m wondering why the n avoids going down the street if its only threats are imaginary—if they are in fact imaginary (two layers of confusion now). Of course, you’ve not yet introduced the real source of the anxiety. But for me, a strong confusion is set up at the beginning that can’t completely be resolved later. … Once I gather, in S5, that the real fear is of facing sweet memories that cannot be replicated, I’m in profound and painful sympathy.

I don’t mind some initial confusion as long as the real fear comes into focus by the end. The poem is as conflicted and ambivalent as my own feelings.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

Similarly but less intensely, this confusion re-emerges in the working-class-yet-cheery details of S3 and the “plastic-clad sofa” of S5. I find myself wondering if in presenting these, you mean to be disparaging or affectionate or a bit of both.

Definitely a bit of both.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

So based on your comments about this, I’d say it’s important to place a much clearer emphasis on the affection/nostalgia element to make sure this poem is experienced as intended.

A couple commenters suggested that the poem would benefit from being even darker! You’ve understood that “affection/nostalgia” is the real source of my avoidance anxiety, but apparently think others won’t get it. I agree that it’s the other big risk of this poem, and I’ll think on it.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

Although I do see where you’re coming from in your own readings, in L4, I naturally read this as having a headless first foot, with “blend” and “in” both stressed.

So you read “to blend in” as a sort of headless double iamb? That seems awfully complicated to me, but then I’m more of a chanter than a natural reader. When I pick up on a strong meter, I fall into the groove and take it as far as I can.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

Likewise, I perceive the next line as opening with a headless first foot. Part of the reason here, I think, is that the location of stresses on the syllables of “LCD” is not so well defined. While many would accent the last syllable, a lot of other people, I think, give about equal stress to all syllables, since it’s an acronym.

Others seem to be tripping over “LCD” too, so you must be right. I could reluctantly replace it with “The TV.”

Originally Posted by A. Baez

In S5, I’m not sure who the “you” is supposed to be

It’s a generic you: how would you (whoever you are) feel if you, like the unnamed sofa sitter (my dad or maybe me)—glanced up and saw a ghost looking in.