[Alexandra Baez]

I really enjoy this poem, Michael. The language is imaginative and visceral, and the meter is self-assured, raising only one uncertainty for me, below. The rhyme structure is interesting—the envelopes create an apt sense of resolutions being held in abeyance, while the repeated rhymes underscore the sense of the sea’s inexorability, and the couplets bring an air of slightly distanced commentary to the first and third stanzas, while in the second one, they maintain more of the active feel of the bulk, which seems fitting in this middle position. And yes, of course, the evocation of the mentality of the n is compelling.

Coming in late, I have the luxury of scraping the text for anything remaining to nit about. This might be one:

But now it’s stripped, and we watch fearfully

I’m not sure that the double trochee (as I perceive it) at the end of this line is the most effective use of language. My first reaction was to trip over the meter. My second reaction was to argue with myself over whether this trip enhanced the meaning somehow, or had an endearingly colloquial feel. I almost--but not quite--convinced myself that this variation did one or both of these things.

It’s interesting how just as you say

exposed the past - an ancient scow now rears
its head, and trapped between huge rocks appears

I feel as if I’m being tossed into the 19th century by the language itself. I love it!

I also like the double iamb in the second of these lines.

However,

to grapple to repress a jagged grin

sounds a bit weird to my ears because I’ve never heard the construction “grapple to.” I’m accustomed to “grapple with,” and Merriam-Webster’s usage example is one of this sort.

We’ll pile massive block on block as high
as gulls can fly to stifle and repel
the crush of tides, the awful dead fish smell.

Would you consider adding a comma after “fly” here? Without it, one could momentarily mistakenly take this passage to mean that the gulls will be flying in order to stifle and repel said things themselves.

But again, I really like this.

[Michael Cantor]

John - thanks for the encouraging input - glad you like it.

Alexandra - you may be coming in late, but your comments were - as usual - helpful. I'll take the easy one first: I agree with the comma after "fly", and will add it.

Re the awkward ending in S1L3, it's tempting to say it was deliberate - and it does kind of work - but the truth is I was just sloppy. I'm going to replace that line with "But now it's stripped: we look on hopelessly". It smooths the meter, and I like the way the colon signals an abrupt change in tone. My only concern is that it may be too loud too soon. I'll change it and sleep on it.

I'm happy with "grapple to" and it has a kind of old-fashioned feeling that works in that passage - but your comment got me thinking. I wonder if "struggle" might work better. Made the change, and will sleep on that one as well. And thanks for the help.

I've indicated the recent changes in red, to keep you on your toes.

[Alexandra Baez]

I like the new sharpness of L3, complete with your apt shift at the colon. I hope your sleep blesses it.

"Battle" seems fine, although I think I might prefer "struggle." It's true that the pleasant sound of the original passage initially beguiled me into overlooking the unconventional "grapple" usage. And I actually think it would be great if English could embrace the construction "grapple to." It doesn't even fly in the face of "grapple"'s definition, after all. (But how do such linguistic innovations become accepted? Does some brave writer or speaker always initially have to offer himself up to the hounds of misunderstanding and protest?)

[Michael Cantor]

Alexandra - I think I choked on a thesaurus. "Struggle" is much better, I indicated I was going with "struggle", and then I typed in "battle". Go figure. I changed it to "struggle".

[Alexandra Baez]

😃Michael, yes, I'd been primed first by my own idea and then by yours for "struggle," which left me feeling muddled by bias when it came to "battle," a bias that I was grappling with and which left me voicing lenience for "battle." But after a good sleep, I can confidently agree with you that "struggle" is much better.

[Matt Q]

Hi Michael,

I preferred the couplets of the first two stanzas in the order you had them originally.

For me, the first couplet didn't tip your hand. I'd say the poem can be read either way until the very last line. Basically we get an embattled N who's at the mercy of worsening storms and seas, who correctly sees that something's deeply wrong here. But it's not until the final line that poem that we see what he's not seeing.

We might gather from the Fox/rocks couplet that building a wall is ultimately an futile measure, but that doesn't give away the poem's turn/resolution: even if you fully accept climate change and it's man-made causes, you'd still likely build a sea wall higher if that would protect your house for longer.

Also that N names Fox may mean he watches it uncritically and is a climate denier, but it might not. Maybe he names for Fox for the irony (a climate-denying channel reporting on the result of it), or he may be saying "we" to indicate his community without sharing their views. Basically, he may be saying "Fox" knowingly, or not. He may be being self-critical, or not.

Anyway, I think in the original order or couplets there's a deepening that suits the progression of the poem. Or maybe another way to say it is that S1 is more specific (this cottage being taken by the sea), which seems to fit the more specific watching this on TV couplet. S2 seems more general (a summary of changes that have taken place over time) and hence better supports for the more encompassing "our universe" couplet.

Matt

[Michael Cantor]

Alexandra - "struggle" it is.

Matt - thanks for coming back on this - you make some good points, but on balance I think I'll stay with the current placement of the closing couplets of S1 and S2. I like separating the neighbors cottage from the interview on Fox - in actual fact, it was Fox that was broadcasting from a relatively new beachfront
home (securely anchored to pilings extending halfway to China) more than ten years ago when a series of less formidable houses slid into the sea - but I also (internally) link Fox to the ignorance at the end of S3. It's a close call, but I prefer the present structure.