cold and shaded hazy nights,
two less babies in the world
to later play a game
of Hide-and-Seek—
sparrows sweep, geese fly south,
tiny echoes from tiny mouthes
make mothers want to weep
through mornings
all ye, all ye, outs in free
come home, babies, be not alone,
your mothers pray for you as milestones—
sometimes, less noise in the world
is well & good, but afraid of what
happens to earth without you.
Welcome to The Tangled Branch! Join us.
Lullaby
Re: Lullaby
Hey Tim
I found the second and fourth stanzas profoundly moving in their simplicity, imaging and metaphor. The sense of loss is palpable.
On the other hand, the title is a tad generic and so often used . I would also suggest rethinking the opening of the poem with three modifiers to one noun rather a lot to take in. Further, the plural nights appear counter to the specific loss implied by two less babies. I have my problems picturing the line and making it relevant to the rest of the poem. As always maybe a gap in my rendering of the line.
I would also suggest losing through mornings as it weakens the power of weep in the line preceeding. Likewise the poem could live very well, better even, without sometimes, which comes across as a generic fill word IMO. Especially since the babies are the milestones and not time itself.
I do love the word milestones and the echo of the children's game - all ye, all ye, outs in free - a phrase I had never heard before but looked up. A great bridge from one stanza to the other.
All of this to use or lose as you see fit as always.
I found the second and fourth stanzas profoundly moving in their simplicity, imaging and metaphor. The sense of loss is palpable.
On the other hand, the title is a tad generic and so often used . I would also suggest rethinking the opening of the poem with three modifiers to one noun rather a lot to take in. Further, the plural nights appear counter to the specific loss implied by two less babies. I have my problems picturing the line and making it relevant to the rest of the poem. As always maybe a gap in my rendering of the line.
I would also suggest losing through mornings as it weakens the power of weep in the line preceeding. Likewise the poem could live very well, better even, without sometimes, which comes across as a generic fill word IMO. Especially since the babies are the milestones and not time itself.
I do love the word milestones and the echo of the children's game - all ye, all ye, outs in free - a phrase I had never heard before but looked up. A great bridge from one stanza to the other.
All of this to use or lose as you see fit as always.
-
Tim J Brennan
Re: Lullaby
Thanks, Dave.
Deleting "sometimes" makes sense. Not necessarily "filler" b/c I do have a reason for using the word besides "filling" space ;)
Mornings was a nod to mournings. I think you whiffed on this, but maybe not. Maybe I'm the one stretching too much.
Appreciate the read and suggestions. Glad to see the water droplets run off your back like a duck. Others must be afraid of the rain
Deleting "sometimes" makes sense. Not necessarily "filler" b/c I do have a reason for using the word besides "filling" space ;)
Mornings was a nod to mournings. I think you whiffed on this, but maybe not. Maybe I'm the one stretching too much.
Appreciate the read and suggestions. Glad to see the water droplets run off your back like a duck. Others must be afraid of the rain
-
Tracy Mitchell
- Posts: 3444
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:58 pm
Re: Lullaby
Tim --
This is a powerful and largely well-constructed poem. It took me a while to recognize its form as a modern sonnet, going by the definition of 14 lines with no requirement as to meter or rhyme.
The octave is comprised of the opening quatrains. The narrative here is objective, descriptive, third person, and directed toward a general audience. Five of the eight octave lines scan fairly easily in metric feet, four of them occurring in the first stanza. In fact, if a person tried with some measure of forgiveness, the opening five lines could be read to parallel the meter of the children’s song Frère Jacques. Thereafter the poem’s meter becomes a rare observance. Perhaps its fading is intended to reflect the harshness of the subject matter; the loss of what gentle pleasantness that provided is certainly evident.
The sestet includes S.3, 4, & 5, containing 1, 2, and 3 lines respectively. The sestet is spoken second-person voice directed to the dead babies. This is not a cradle song intended to sooth young children, or put infants to sleep. Nor is it simple and repetitive like most lullabies. If the title is apt, it would only be in the most ironic of senses. But then, juxtaposition alone usually does not create irony. The poem is more of a lament for what has been lost, not just the lives of the two babies – loss enough– but also the loss of what their lives would have added to the world.
Line 9 [S.3 L.1] is a wonderful and powerful volta– the turning point, the fulcrum of the poem. I was not familiar with the phrase, but understood its use, and wondered why not the more readily recognizable “Olly olly oxen free”. Of course I needed to google the matter, and it was thus resolved. I think that is not too much to ask of a reader, and I was good with the flow with each succeeding reading. Now I think I prefer the chosen phrase as being less colloquial, and perhaps less dated or placed by the lack of that baggage. The change in voice with this line is marked, direct, and effective. It sets the stage well for the final stanza, which is tremendous.
S.1 – the six long-A sounds in the first three lines are pleasing and foreshadow the double EE sounds which follow in S.2. With only six of the fourteen lines containing end-line punctuation and no periods until the last line, I would seriously suggest you consider capitalizing the first word of the poem, as an esthetic matter.
S.1 L.4 – I don’t think ‘hide and seek’ deserves capitalization any more than baseball, bowling and pinochle. Doing so anyway draws too much attention for little benefit to the reader. I also think hyphenation might be optional in this situation.
S.2 L.1 – one of the weaker lines in the poem – ‘sweep’ is generally followed by something indicating which sense of the word is being intended – e.g. ‘birds sweep the forest floor for seeds’, or ‘birds sweep through upper branches like a strong wind”. What ‘sweep’ refers to here is not apparent. The second half of the line – geese fly south – is equally perplexing. Too obvious for words unless performing a specific function, which, on multiple readings still escapes me. Moreover, the line breaks the preceding meter. On the other hand, it presents double EE vowel repeats which bolster the stanza.
S.2.L.2 – mouthes > mouths. I am not sure who has the tiny mouths. I think the suggestion may be that the sounds from the sparrows and geese remind the mothers of the sounds their babies made before they died. But that was not obvious to me.
S.2 L.3 – great sonics in this line with the “m’s”, “w’s” and iambs– it rolls off the tongue tremendously.
S.2 L.4 – nice sonics again, but substantively seems to let some air out of the balloon.
S.4 – the long-O sounds and a return to meter make this a pleasing reading stanza. But the “be not alone” sequence seems forced in order to make the end-rhyme with ‘milestones’. Since the poem is not built with end-rhymes, I am not sure why this one is important. Of more consequence, though, is the notion of praying for the dead babies as milestones. I don’t know what that means. Are the dead babies the milestones? or are the prayers? or are the praying mothers in some sense the milestones? I kind of have a sense that what may be intended is the prayers for the dead babies are like beads on the rosary. But honestly, that’s just a guess.
S.5 – all sense of cadence is gone here, but not needed– the message is too strong. The tension between the apparent callousness of less babies’ noise being a good thing (not exactly stated) and the breath-taking sense of loss to the world. Stunning conclusion – I love it.
But for S.1 L.2, I could have concluded the poem was a lament for babies not reaching term, by reason of miscarriage or abortion- spontaneous or otherwise. But that is not the case. What remains curious to me is why two babies? Is there a back story not being revealed?
The other thing is that there is a strong feeling of theater in this poem – the conveyance of pathos – that it was written to be delivered in a loud, strong, slow voice, growing quieter and thus more frightening at the conclusion.
So, that’s what I got from the poem.
I often print off a poem when it is posted so I can read it over the next few days and try to figure out what I think. I am annoyed that I am called out by you as a coward because I didn’t get this finished and posted by now. I don’t know anyone on this site motivated by fear.
Cheers.
T
This is a powerful and largely well-constructed poem. It took me a while to recognize its form as a modern sonnet, going by the definition of 14 lines with no requirement as to meter or rhyme.
The octave is comprised of the opening quatrains. The narrative here is objective, descriptive, third person, and directed toward a general audience. Five of the eight octave lines scan fairly easily in metric feet, four of them occurring in the first stanza. In fact, if a person tried with some measure of forgiveness, the opening five lines could be read to parallel the meter of the children’s song Frère Jacques. Thereafter the poem’s meter becomes a rare observance. Perhaps its fading is intended to reflect the harshness of the subject matter; the loss of what gentle pleasantness that provided is certainly evident.
The sestet includes S.3, 4, & 5, containing 1, 2, and 3 lines respectively. The sestet is spoken second-person voice directed to the dead babies. This is not a cradle song intended to sooth young children, or put infants to sleep. Nor is it simple and repetitive like most lullabies. If the title is apt, it would only be in the most ironic of senses. But then, juxtaposition alone usually does not create irony. The poem is more of a lament for what has been lost, not just the lives of the two babies – loss enough– but also the loss of what their lives would have added to the world.
Line 9 [S.3 L.1] is a wonderful and powerful volta– the turning point, the fulcrum of the poem. I was not familiar with the phrase, but understood its use, and wondered why not the more readily recognizable “Olly olly oxen free”. Of course I needed to google the matter, and it was thus resolved. I think that is not too much to ask of a reader, and I was good with the flow with each succeeding reading. Now I think I prefer the chosen phrase as being less colloquial, and perhaps less dated or placed by the lack of that baggage. The change in voice with this line is marked, direct, and effective. It sets the stage well for the final stanza, which is tremendous.
S.1 – the six long-A sounds in the first three lines are pleasing and foreshadow the double EE sounds which follow in S.2. With only six of the fourteen lines containing end-line punctuation and no periods until the last line, I would seriously suggest you consider capitalizing the first word of the poem, as an esthetic matter.
S.1 L.4 – I don’t think ‘hide and seek’ deserves capitalization any more than baseball, bowling and pinochle. Doing so anyway draws too much attention for little benefit to the reader. I also think hyphenation might be optional in this situation.
S.2 L.1 – one of the weaker lines in the poem – ‘sweep’ is generally followed by something indicating which sense of the word is being intended – e.g. ‘birds sweep the forest floor for seeds’, or ‘birds sweep through upper branches like a strong wind”. What ‘sweep’ refers to here is not apparent. The second half of the line – geese fly south – is equally perplexing. Too obvious for words unless performing a specific function, which, on multiple readings still escapes me. Moreover, the line breaks the preceding meter. On the other hand, it presents double EE vowel repeats which bolster the stanza.
S.2.L.2 – mouthes > mouths. I am not sure who has the tiny mouths. I think the suggestion may be that the sounds from the sparrows and geese remind the mothers of the sounds their babies made before they died. But that was not obvious to me.
S.2 L.3 – great sonics in this line with the “m’s”, “w’s” and iambs– it rolls off the tongue tremendously.
S.2 L.4 – nice sonics again, but substantively seems to let some air out of the balloon.
S.4 – the long-O sounds and a return to meter make this a pleasing reading stanza. But the “be not alone” sequence seems forced in order to make the end-rhyme with ‘milestones’. Since the poem is not built with end-rhymes, I am not sure why this one is important. Of more consequence, though, is the notion of praying for the dead babies as milestones. I don’t know what that means. Are the dead babies the milestones? or are the prayers? or are the praying mothers in some sense the milestones? I kind of have a sense that what may be intended is the prayers for the dead babies are like beads on the rosary. But honestly, that’s just a guess.
S.5 – all sense of cadence is gone here, but not needed– the message is too strong. The tension between the apparent callousness of less babies’ noise being a good thing (not exactly stated) and the breath-taking sense of loss to the world. Stunning conclusion – I love it.
But for S.1 L.2, I could have concluded the poem was a lament for babies not reaching term, by reason of miscarriage or abortion- spontaneous or otherwise. But that is not the case. What remains curious to me is why two babies? Is there a back story not being revealed?
The other thing is that there is a strong feeling of theater in this poem – the conveyance of pathos – that it was written to be delivered in a loud, strong, slow voice, growing quieter and thus more frightening at the conclusion.
So, that’s what I got from the poem.
I often print off a poem when it is posted so I can read it over the next few days and try to figure out what I think. I am annoyed that I am called out by you as a coward because I didn’t get this finished and posted by now. I don’t know anyone on this site motivated by fear.
Cheers.
T
-
Tim J Brennan
Re: Lullaby
Tracy,
I appreciate your detailed analysis. Never even thought about writing a sonnet. Never crossed my mind.
I have two sons. Both of my daughters-in-law suffered a miscarriage within a year of each other.
Having never had a daughter, I was unsure how to respond aside from a hug. So I wrote a poem about it.
I don't think much about sestets or voltas, etc. when I write. I do do my best to say something about stuff I don't understand.
Tim
FYI: I don't scare anybody. Never have. Doesn't work too well on me either.
My only purpose at any poetry forum is to receive a decent read by people who consider me a peer writer. Don't we all? Shouldn't we?
There are people here who don't think this way. And if you re-read my FB posts to you from a year ago last January, and compare those same sentiments to the ones I have made in this thread, you will notice that NOTHING has changed.
If I were you I'd find different moderators and make a go of it. The ones you do have (did have) either leave or have an ego that doesn't allow them to see out of the tunnel-vision world they live in.
And so I repeat something I've said on more than one occasion: That's too damn bad b/c you are a good writer and passionate about your craft.
I appreciate your detailed analysis. Never even thought about writing a sonnet. Never crossed my mind.
I have two sons. Both of my daughters-in-law suffered a miscarriage within a year of each other.
Having never had a daughter, I was unsure how to respond aside from a hug. So I wrote a poem about it.
I don't think much about sestets or voltas, etc. when I write. I do do my best to say something about stuff I don't understand.
Tim
FYI: I don't scare anybody. Never have. Doesn't work too well on me either.
My only purpose at any poetry forum is to receive a decent read by people who consider me a peer writer. Don't we all? Shouldn't we?
There are people here who don't think this way. And if you re-read my FB posts to you from a year ago last January, and compare those same sentiments to the ones I have made in this thread, you will notice that NOTHING has changed.
If I were you I'd find different moderators and make a go of it. The ones you do have (did have) either leave or have an ego that doesn't allow them to see out of the tunnel-vision world they live in.
And so I repeat something I've said on more than one occasion: That's too damn bad b/c you are a good writer and passionate about your craft.
Re: Lullaby
Tim --
This is a Site Warning to you.
1. Don't use your posts to disparage other writers, moderators, and users of this site.
2. You state -- "My only purpose at any poetry forum is to receive a decent read by people who consider me a peer writer. Don't we all? Shouldn't we?" Actually, at this site the answer is no. We expect participants to engage with the community -- a give and take, not just take. And to do so in a cooperative, congenial spirit.
3. You state-- ". . .if you re-read my FB posts to you from a year ago last January, and compare those same sentiments to the ones I have made in this thread, you will notice that NOTHING has changed." What I see Tim is that your attitude and disposition have not changed.
4. The participants on this site whom you disparage are the folks who regularly and consistently take the time to read, think about, and reply to your poems. You owe them the courtesy of engaging with their work as well. My quick review, double-check yourself if you want, is that you have commented on only two of Colm's more than 20 poems in the last year, two of Dave's, one of Indar's, and none with respect to those of Indar and Gyppo, and perhaps 7 or 8 for all other poets combined. I know that's fine at Poetry Circle -- I was stunned when I first started there to find that reciprocity and give and take are not required -- that is the only site where I know that to be true. And it is not true here.
5. Please go back to the Etiquette thread and re-read it. I would sincerely love to have you participating on this site. But keep in mind that we are not a free poem-review service where you are free to give nothing back and then whine about the quality of the feedback that your poems receive. If you can get into the give and take of this site, then wonderful, and we are glad to have you.
6. This Warning is public rather than private as is the practice here because you have repeatedly denigrated other site members in public posts.
This Thread is locked.
This is a Site Warning to you.
1. Don't use your posts to disparage other writers, moderators, and users of this site.
2. You state -- "My only purpose at any poetry forum is to receive a decent read by people who consider me a peer writer. Don't we all? Shouldn't we?" Actually, at this site the answer is no. We expect participants to engage with the community -- a give and take, not just take. And to do so in a cooperative, congenial spirit.
3. You state-- ". . .if you re-read my FB posts to you from a year ago last January, and compare those same sentiments to the ones I have made in this thread, you will notice that NOTHING has changed." What I see Tim is that your attitude and disposition have not changed.
4. The participants on this site whom you disparage are the folks who regularly and consistently take the time to read, think about, and reply to your poems. You owe them the courtesy of engaging with their work as well. My quick review, double-check yourself if you want, is that you have commented on only two of Colm's more than 20 poems in the last year, two of Dave's, one of Indar's, and none with respect to those of Indar and Gyppo, and perhaps 7 or 8 for all other poets combined. I know that's fine at Poetry Circle -- I was stunned when I first started there to find that reciprocity and give and take are not required -- that is the only site where I know that to be true. And it is not true here.
5. Please go back to the Etiquette thread and re-read it. I would sincerely love to have you participating on this site. But keep in mind that we are not a free poem-review service where you are free to give nothing back and then whine about the quality of the feedback that your poems receive. If you can get into the give and take of this site, then wonderful, and we are glad to have you.
6. This Warning is public rather than private as is the practice here because you have repeatedly denigrated other site members in public posts.
This Thread is locked.