[James Brancheau]

This poem came very fast, at light speed for me, and I was very suspicious of that. So I wasn’t surprised that what was clear for me, wasn’t so much for others. I also haven’t written a poem quite so short and condense for some time. When I first started writing, this was pretty much all I did. They are demanding.

Thank you, Trevor, for your thoughts on this. Hopefully the first stanza is a little more interesting now.

Yeah, David, that’s about all I know as well. Physics was never my bag (or science in general). I like that you associated the poem with “Let there be light.” Though making such an association is not essential, it is most certainly relevant. Your very thoughtful response was helpful. Thank you muchly.

Hey Hilary- Thank you for coming back. I’m happy that you liked this, even if you’re not quite grasping it. Which, of course, is on me. A particle that acts like a wave is what I was thinking, but, not being scientifically inclined, I had to believe that that description is too simplistic and therefore my image inaccurate. I simply don’t know. One of the things that I like about using the science, that description of light, is that a particle can imply an insignificance. I have restored the break after “broke.” Maybe killing your babies is even more difficult to do in a short poem, ha. I’ll continue to refer to your comments as I revise. Much appreciated.

Thank you very much as well, Alex, for returning. Your comments have been invaluable as I try to sort this one out. I’m glad that you see some improvement, especially in terms of clarity. I don’t mind some ambiguity in the close. It would be nice if readers detect a sad bitterness there. I’d also be pleased if readers came away with the sense that the innately human can be divine in itself (among other related ideas), which is a greater leap, perhaps. But it would be nice. And that’s one of the reasons I’d like to keep “own.” I’m still mulling over your other comments re refining the poem. Can’t thank you enough for the time and attention you’ve put into this poem. Greatly appreciated.

I’m chuffed that you found this evocative, Matt. I probably posted this a little too hastily, which I don’t ordinarily do. Another few days of looking at it probably would have done some good. I wanted the “it” to refer to the lighthouse, which ideally would also serve as a metaphor. And, yes, that strange line break. I’m going back and forth on that. I haven’t decided whether or not it benefits the poem, or, in the end, is just a little too cheeky. I hope some of your other concerns were cleared up by the revisions, and thanks a bunch for your input.

Of course any other thoughts on this poem would be very welcome. Thanks all!

[John Riley]

James, I read this over and over, looking for something helpful to say, and came up empty-handed. It's finished in my opinion.

My one critique is don't overwork it.