[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

The ‘O’ tossed me out Alexandra, which was a shame because I could have appreciated and enjoyed this much sooner.

I still do not like what to me is a needless anachronism but the rest is so well crafted with a wonderful conceit that I can see and feel through your eyes.

Jan

[Alexandra Baez]

Tony, hmm. I do suspect that brevity is a key operating virtue of the poem as it stands. I worry that adding length, like steering too deliberately toward metaphysical profundity, carries a strong risk of destroying the poem's feel and spirit. Also, I do wonder how much the current last line may already hint at those depths and perhaps thus even be sufficient within my felt constraints in this poem. I will have to think about my options in this regard long and carefully. Thanks for sticking with me on this and for giving me something so well worth thinking about!

PS--I hope you saw my comments on your most recent post.

Jan, thanks for weighing in. I was wondering what you'd think of this poem. It's comforting to know that the one thing that bothered you about it is so easily changed, and even more comforting to reflect that it's something I've gone both ways with, even before posting. However, it appears that no matter which way I go on this, I'll be pleasing only roughly half of my readers.

In any case, I'm really happy that you find the rest of the piece well crafted and the conceit compelling--and most of all, that you feel tapped into the narrator's consciousness. All very good news!

[David Callin]

I like this, Alexandra, but particularly the subversive surprise of the ending, of which the exclamation mark is no small part. A terrific way to finish it. (Although, if there is some symbolism going on here, I am missing it. No matter!)

Cheers

David

[Alexandra Baez]

Jim, it’s really encouraging to me that you felt the expansion of meaning was already there. I guess Tony’s point that “capsuled” and “framed” repeat each other is still valid, although I’d hope that the emphasis the second time is different—the frame’s unchangingness is now formally acknowledged and given the focus. I’d never quite seen the window as a “sacrificial” thing, quite, though I see what you’re driving at.

It twines classical-tinged phrasing with an almost free verse-like voice/mentality and fresh imagery.

Such fusion is my dream, so thank you!

As for the “O” that launches the poem, I had a comical thought: What if the poem began instead with “Wow!” (Ok, you can stop laughing now : )) But weirdly it works for me. (Just don’t tell anyone —Ha!)

Ah, but that would be starting the largely iambic poem with a trochee. Oh, wow—wherever did you get that idea?! Well, it would certainly satisfy the anti-archaics!

Is there some reason why the title isn't "March Window"? I do wonder if there might be a better title hiding somewhere...

My thought was that realistically, it wasn’t the window that was “March,” but what it was opening up onto. However, I think you have a worthwhile point about pondering a more meaningful title. This might be a great opportunity to get more traction with the broader metaphorical meaning, too. Thanks for zoning in on that, and for coming back and back!

David, thanks for your vote of confidence on the ending, including the exclamation point. To me, that line just fails to take flight without this punctuation choice. You missed the symbolism? I guess it would hit most strongly for those who have spent time with philosophies that emphasize the ultimately delusive nature of the material world.

[R. S. Gwynn]

lilting sun or wan, enshrouded lisps

I like the general drift of the poem and how it ends, but I worry about the diction. If we work in form we have to beware the past. Now I love Elinor Wylie and hope everyone does, but a lilting sun is a PF, and a lisping corpse is just bizarre. It's just a bit too "poetic" for me. I want to like the ending, but dilapidated (a verbal without a verb) may be too strong. Wouldn't such a frame be incapable of holding glass?

[Alexandra Baez]

Sam, yes, I've been undecided about the phrases that you cited and I was basically just hovering around waiting for a clearer signal (external or internal) as to whether to embrace or change them. You've just given me a cue for the latter. [Update: tentative revision posted.] By the way, what is PF?

As to "dilapidated," I think it's ambiguous as to what extent of disrepair this word refers to, but I understand that it can carry a connotation of dire ruin. I'd meant to convey paint peeling and rust forming, nothing more. I do like having a five-syllable word here and could be happy with one that's less emphatic. I'll be thinking. Thanks for your input! [Update: "illusion-bearing" or even "illusionary" might touch paradoxically into the metaphysical underlayer of this poem, but might be too much of a leap, especially the latter.]

[Jim Moonan]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Baez

As to "dilapidated," I think it's ambiguous as to what extent of disrepair this word refers to, but I understand that it can carry a connotation of dire ruin. I'd meant to convey paint peeling and rust forming, nothing more. I do like having a five-syllable word here and could be happy with one that's less emphatic. I'll be thinking. Thanks for your input! [Update: "illusion-bearing" or even "illusionary" might touch paradoxically into the metaphysical underlayer of this poem, but might be too much of a leap, especially the latter.]

I think you've lost alot by losing the word dilapidated. As to Sam's POV that it is not the right word, I like the expansiveness of the meaning of the word dilapidated. Age dilapidates people and things. I think it works.

However, if you're looking for another way to convey the state of the window, you could go with something that personifies it.

Something like, "your weary-eyed window frame"

just thinking...

.

[Alexandra Baez]

Okay, Jim, thanks for your thoughts. I'll have to percolate all of this . . . it'll probably all become perfectly clear to me eight months from now!

What do you think of my revision to S3 L2?

[Glenn Wright]

I have enjoyed watching this poem evolve, and following your thinking on the revisions. I think you have really strengthened it.
I would vote for a comma after “Oh” in the first line, but I tend to show my boomerishness in my overuse of commas, so take that advice for what it’s worth.
I especially like the change from “dilapidated” > “illusion-bearing” > “illusionary for two reasons. First, “dilapidated” in its Latin roots literally means “with stones falling apart.” Since I don’t imagine this window frame being made of stones, the image is a little blurry. And as Sam pointed out, if it were really dilapidated, it’s hard to imagine it still containing glass. Second, the word “illusionary” is ambiguous in a good way. Does it modify the window frame itself, or is it a transferred epithet (hypallage) modifying the scene it frames, showing in the scene the personality of the speaker like a magic mirror?
Nice work, Alexandra.

[Carl Copeland]

“Oh” does need a comma, but the reason you’ve left it without may be that it’s masquerading as the vocative “O.” I know you’ve gone round and round with this, but “Oh” is a puff of some emotion or other—“Alas” or “Wow” or “Now I get it”—while “O” means “I’m talking to you, window.” When I read it, I get the latter meaning, no matter how you spell it, so (pace the anti-archaists) I still vote for “O” with no “h” and no comma.

I like your move away from the Gothic in S3L2, but I’m with Jim on “dilapidated.” It may be telly, as Sam suggests, but to my ear it paints a picture by sounding dilapidated. It’s also touchingly homely, like an aging friend—all of which is lost with the “illusionary” veer into metaphysics. One also wonders what the illusion is. The window tells the truth; it’s just a limited truth and a different truth each time. You’d need more than that to drive home the point that none of these scenes in itself “embodies the essence of reality.” (Buddhists would say the illusion is in thinking there is such an essence, but that’s neither here nor there.) I’d leave the “metaphysical underlayer” where it was.