[Susan McLean]

I like the nuance and the contrasts between the two characters in the two parts of the poem. Her caution in part 1 shades into anxiety in part 2, while his adventurous risk-taking in part 1 turns into confident reassurance in part 2. As in most relationships, the two roles are counterweights, correcting the tendencies of either to go too far. In part 2, "somber" and "solemn" sound a bit too similar. Maybe something like "sleepy mumble" or "hazy mumble"?

Susan

[Hilary Biehl]

Thanks for pointing that out, Susan. I have changed it.

[James Brancheau]

Hi Hilary—I was very happy to see this bumped up again.

When I first read this, I liked it a lot, but I wasn’t sure about the close. It made for a good way to wrap up, show the dynamics of the relationship (and how it has possibly evolved), but I felt the guiding star thing a little less than fresh. As I have a kind of guiding star (or a star that doesn't do much guiding) in my most recent poem, maybe I was projecting, haha. However, I didn’t see how the poem was using it to contrast with part one’s sun. It’s so (deceptively) simple and beautiful, and, now, not only do I like it, but very much admire what you’ve done here. My only thought is that I wonder if other readers had difficulty making that connection and whether or not the sun should be a little (just a little) more emphasized. (Driving into the sun is intensely annoying...) Probably it’s just me coming late to this realization. Or perhaps my assumption that you’re using the sun/star as a metaphor is wrong in the first place. I hope not because I like it sooo much—it does so much for the poem, imo. Very fine, inspirational work.

[Hilary Biehl]

Thanks for commenting, James. It's helpful to know your initial reaction and your response now. I wonder whether other readers noticed the sun/star parallel. Maybe you are correct that it needs to be more overt, though I am not sure at the moment how to emphasize the sun more. I will think.

I sensed when I was writing it that the whole second part was a risk, and I wondered if it tiptoed too close to sentimentality and cliche. I'm still not sure.

[James Brancheau]

With that parallel, it is most certainly not too sentimental. I think it does something that's pretty amazing. But I do think that the sun may be taking too much of a back seat.

[Matt Q]

Hilary,

One thing that confuses me a little in the first poem/part: "he knows she's right -- they should go home".

My assumption was that they are already going home, albeit he's chosen a longer, more scenic route. So, should he do differently, since they're already going home? Does it mean that he should turn off the road and take a different, shorter route home? Or turn back and regain the usual, shorter route? If so, I wondered if maybe the line should say that instead. Perhaps "they should go back" might be clearer. Maybe back to the original branching point, or maybe back home. Or they "should turn back" or "turn off" or "reroute" or "change course" or something.

Hmm, or maybe "they should get home" which (maybe) implies getting there faster / mode directly than they are currently going.

best,

Matt

[Hilary Biehl]

Thank you, James. In my earlier drafts of part 1, the sun was actually more prominent. It was a casualty of some necessary cuts. I need to think about it more.

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Hmm, or maybe "they should get home" which (maybe) implies getting there faster / mode directly than they are currently going.

Well, this is what I meant, so now I'm curious if there is really a significant difference in meaning between "they should go home" and "they should get home." I would love to hear others' input on this as well. It would be an easy change.

[Joe Crocker]

A vote for "get home" as in the "we should really be getting home" excuse to acquaintances you have been talking too long to or a diversion that you have indulged yourselves in. To "Go home" feels a bigger decision, something you consider when you are a long way from home

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Hilary Biehl

I would love to hear others' input on this

a vote for "get"
As Matt says, this implies a more direct route. Whether they should go home isn't in question.
FWIW.

[Hilary Biehl]

Thanks Matt, Joe, and Max, for your input on "go" vs "get." I have changed it accordingly.