Jan, I should clarify that part of what I meant by “not well read” is that of the things I’ve read, I often seem to forget supposedly unforgettable details, as was the case here with “Prufrock” and the spoons. Part of being well-read must be assimilating well what one has read, or at least rereading the material until good assimilation has occurred. But I was enthralled by “Prufrock.”
Now you have changed things so that the first two and the last stanzas contain one rhyming pair each, of the same rhyme sound for both, while the third and fourth stanzas have between them an identity rhyme in the second and first lines, respectively, and a rhyme in the last lines. This is an even less clear rhyme pattern than the original’s.
It seems to me that “close to closed” would be the more correct form, grammatically—otherwise, a reader must assume an unspoken article before the second “close.”
I hadn’t realized that about the owls. Your reference makes your allusion much more apt—but how many will be aware of this reference?
Quote:
|
I so often hear the ‘kaffeeklatsch’ (lol) regurgitating undigested knowledge in some form of ‘oneupmanship’
|
Oh, dear—yes, it’s quite true!
Quote:
|
The last two stanzas are my shift of thrust I believe the subtext to be far more than ‘telly.’
|
Okay; it doesn’t feel like much of a shift of thrust to me. I simply hear you saying here that the men have returned to a state like childhood and that and the factual details they remember have been separated from their original psychological significance. These concepts, while not explicitly stated earlier in the poem, are well enough implied by it, I think. To me, this part would come most alive and feel most new and compelling if delivered as illustration.
Linear Mode
