What you were once

Some great images here, particularly the lines: 'as you watch the day appear/like birds carving up the sky' and the whole end of the first stanza after 'you procrastinate these days with feeling'.

Repetition of 'ever' in 'ever passing' and 'as ever I am catching' feels a bit awkward, maybe you could replace 'as ever' with 'as always'? The line immediately after 'but this kind of anxiety' also felt like it needed an extra syllable in there somewhere.

These minor criticisms aside though I thought this was a really good poem, the ending was particularly striking. Thanks!

I enjoyed this poem. Particularly the lines: So the evening leaves light only at its edges. Also liked thinking about days when waking was effortless for me. I wouldn't change any of it, I belive what you wrote at the time was what that poem was meant to be. It was natural, flowing. Apart from spelling and grammar of course.

Thanks Capoeiragem...and you're completely right - hadn't noticed that, will change it and look at extra syllable. Also thank you Law of the One - and ha ha re spelling. Do you really believe that what someone writes as a poem is what it was meant to be? That you shouldn't tweak the odd word or line to improve it? I disagree, I think, but need to think that idea over as it's an interesting one.

an intriguing poem, very nicely phrased. as for the other question: i think if a poem is good enough it can change even the author, so naturally, as a changed person you want to change the poem but i dont think you should. on the other hand Leonardo reworked the mona lisa throughout his life, and look at the result....

Tweak novels, plays and essays but poetry is instant, onto the page straight from your mind. You're not "improving" it by changing the odd line or word, you're betraying the essence of what you did.

Again, I think this is an interesting idea, but I think it depends why you're writing a poem and how you're writing it. I think you're imbuing a poem with something I'm not or at least something I'm prepared to manipulate on reflection to use a more appropriate word or rephrase or remove a line for whatever it is I want to convey. I think an idea or a point can be conveyed with greater power if the poem is worked on - if it needs working on. Why tweak novels, plays and essays and not a poem?

Sounds like a very Kerouac/Ginsberg approach to poetry LawOfTheOne, indeed Kerouac insisted in some of his later novels that even with prose the only thing that should be edited out of a first draft is the spelling mistakes.

However I think this approach can sometimes be used as an excuse to avoid re-engaging with the work. Sure what you commit to the page initially will often contain the most inspired flourishes, but writing is after all a craft, and tweaking is often vital in provding some semblance of structure and coherence to a piece. Rather than betraying the essence of a piece of work, editing and tweaking represents an attempt to augment and strengthen the essence of the original sentiment, and as such can often be the difference between a great poem and a disjointed collection of great lines and ideas.

Having said that I agree that poetry, more so than prose, does sometimes come fully-formed and in a way writes itself, and so in these instances overthinking structure or syntax can be detrimental.

There's a great quote from Lorca to this effect:

'Intelligence is often the enemy of poetry, because it limits too much, and it elevates the poet to a sharp-edged throne, making him forget that ants could eat him or a great arsenic lobster could fall on his head'

Essence can't be strengthened, that's the point of it! I do love Kerouac and many other beat writers. "On The Road" is one of my favourute novels ever.

Perhaps this is just my idealistic youth coming out and with age I'll tinker and tamper with my poetry more.

Nice quote. Never heard of Lorca before.