I Love Her Still (cross post)

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

MoonShadow
Senior Member

since 2001-08-02

Posts 943
Dark side of the Moon.

0 posted 2006-12-29 02:25 PM

   I cross post this poem from open poetry, to invite comments of your impressions and your analysis.

          "I Love Her Still"

    They call her name, Moonshadow,
        although she makes it shine.
    So smooth with every swallow,
        full bodied and so fine.

    Her kisses leave lips burning,
        and steals your breath away.
    A taste leaves much more yearning,
        and wishing she will stay.

    Her arms embrace so sweetly,
        surrender all your will.
    She holds you most completely.
        Oh how, I love her still.

Russell8624
Member

since 2006-11-28

Posts 99
Minnesota

1 posted 2006-12-29 10:58 PM

Interesting at best. Do I sense a sexual undertone in the first staza?

Regards.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

2 posted 2006-12-29 11:51 PM

Fun and clever.

Wish we had more of these to be honest.

MoonShadow
Senior Member

since 2001-08-02

Posts 943
Dark side of the Moon.

3 posted 2006-12-30 05:20 AM

Russell... Indeed you may.. just below the surface... but read and dig a little further and you may find much, much more. Thank you for your interest.

Brad... Hoping this seemingly innocuous piece might inspire some analytical insight from this section. Perhaps you would share the impressions that brought you to your conclusion "Fun and Clever". Although I am quite pleased with it... and its intended purpose.. I will reserve explanation for later.

MoonShadow

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

4 posted 2006-12-30 09:43 AM

Ah, but you show only one side of a much deeper, often much darker, relationship. It is, indeed, fun and clever. But is it True?

Enchantress
Member Empyrean

since 2001-08-14

Posts 35113
Canada eh.

5 posted 2006-12-30 09:51 AM

"She" reads like a taste of fine red wine Ken.
Well done!

Skippyrick
Member

since 2006-05-16

Posts 150
Rohnert Park

6 posted 2006-12-30 12:58 PM

so:

You want a title more.

I dont see the reason for the centering.  It reads the same if it was alined too the left.

I don't do end rhymes much so I cant comment on that.  Except that you did a good job with them.

mmmm:

who are they?  Do they call her by her name or does her name mean Moonshadow?
Makes it shine?  What is shineing her name or the moon?
What is being swallowed?  The name, the moon, or is it the taest of her? Or it is the wine?  (sorry about that smile)

HAD ENOUGH?

Just the questions that I asked as I read this.

thanks for the great read

MoonShadow
Senior Member

since 2001-08-02

Posts 943
Dark side of the Moon.

7 posted 2006-12-30 06:28 PM

Skippyrick... the questions you ask are those that I would ask of you.. your impression.. your analysis.

   Is "she" the personification of an inanimate on one hand... or the allegorically metaphoric comparison of a heady romantic interest on the other... Is "she" an intoxicating illusion (woman)... or is "she" an illusion of intoxicant(Alcohol)? Thus the hidden allegory remains unspecified even unto the end.. in the final line (and the title) by the intentional use of the homographic paranomasia (pun), making the meaning truly in the mind and eye of the beholder.

    Thank you for the discourse.

                  MoonShadow

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

8 posted 2006-12-30 06:56 PM

You mean double entendre, right?

MoonShadow
Senior Member

since 2001-08-02

Posts 943
Dark side of the Moon.

9 posted 2006-12-30 08:57 PM

Correct Brad. In the Title... as well as the closing phrase, both meanings of the double entendre are there, although neither is suggestive or ribald. Either is acceptable equally, depending upon your view or preference. Thank you for your astute comment.

MoonShadow

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

10 posted 2006-12-30 09:03 PM

Actually, no. In order for this poem to work as it does, preference is not an option. Both have to be understood and accepted.

Anything less is a different poem.

MoonShadow
Senior Member

since 2001-08-02

Posts 943
Dark side of the Moon.

11 posted 2006-12-30 09:16 PM

    If one read/percieved only a woman and the writer continued to love her without end inspite of anything (still)..... would this not be acceptable if that reader never percieved or accepted that the writer could have loved her alcohol manufacturing aparatus (still. Would the poem be any different if only accepted or percieved one way, whether by preference or inability to see beyond the obvious?

             MoonShadow

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

12 posted 2006-12-30 09:45 PM

The blue screen would be the same, the black marks would be the same, the words would be the same. The poem, or text if you will, would be different.

I would go so far as to say that it would look different to the reader once it was explained.

I forget the name of the painting, but think of the one where you see the old and young woman depending on what you focus on.

If you only see one, you aren't seeing that painting.

MoonShadow
Senior Member

since 2001-08-02

Posts 943
Dark side of the Moon.

13 posted 2006-12-30 10:16 PM

Brad... I see your point. Thank you so much for your analysis and comments. Your analogy of the optical illusion was perfect to convey your meaning. You are right, for once you have seen the two representations, it is difficult to think of one without the other. I congratulate you for your astute knowledge and insight. I also want to thank you for your kind discourse of my work as it was most enjoyable to me.

MoonShadow

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

14 posted 2007-01-01 11:59 AM

I think it is an obvious weakness if a direct revelation and discussion about what is being referred to shall ruin the whole poem. If it shall so, it doesn't stand on very strong substance.

What's the virtue of this poem and why does it need to be ambiguous?

cynicsRus
Senior Member

since 2003-06-06

Posts 591
So Cal So Cool!

15 posted 2007-01-01 04:35 PM

S2 has some slight irregularities in syntax which really should be addressed.
Most peculiar to me though is the panegyric level of excitement caused by a less than exciting piece. From a metrics standpoint, such a piece might normally attract only casual writers of light verse. Case in point:

I kept trying to recall where I had heard this particular Trimetric pattern. Then it came to me: Munchkins on "The Wizard of Oz," in thanking Dorothy, after her house landed on the wicked witch.

quote:

(Munchkin 1)
We thank you very sweetly
for doing it so neatly

(Munchkin 2)
You've killed her so completely
That we thank you very sweetly

Additionally; in comparing these rhymes with the lyrics in Oz, then considering the other rhymes as well, this piece would be considered overall, clichéd.

Sid

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

16 posted 2007-01-01 05:40 PM

Essorant,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

But like 'abated breath', this employs misdirection. Given the nature of the poetry often posted here, it would be a lot of fun to have more of these.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

17 posted 2007-01-01 08:43 PM

I meant the author ought to be able to unlock and openly declare the substance of his/her poem and be willing to discuss it and explain it to those that may have difficulty "getting it" (like me). I don't agree with the "keep guessing" approach, or the "your poem is ruined if you tell us what it is really about" approach. I think those are just ways of getting around dealing with something directly, helping readers deal with questions or uncertainties they may have about a poem like this, and also questioning the virtue of what is being said.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

18 posted 2007-01-01 11:16 PM

Oh,

I agree with that as well. The only thing is that there is a form of pleasure derived from people discovering this stuff on their own -- or even deriving an entirely different 'reading'. The only reticence here for me and I suspect for MB is that we somehow deprive them of that kind of fun.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

19 posted 2007-01-01 11:37 PM

But no one is forcing readers to look down at the comments below the poem to find a discussion that may include the answer to the uncertainty if they didn't find it on their own and aren't ready. The reader should read the misdirectness as long as he may to try to figure it out. But if he can't figure it out, the discussion by all means should be able to adress the "answer" of such ambiguity, and the virtue of what the poem is trying to say thro it.

MoonShadow
Senior Member

since 2001-08-02

Posts 943
Dark side of the Moon.

20 posted 2007-01-02 11:58 AM

CynicsRus... of course it is simplistic from a metrics standpoint. So are some other genre such as 'lymrics' and, I might add, cliched. However, for those who prefer lymrics or 'tongue in cheek' phrases, this piece fits the bill. Not all poetry needs be a Homeric epic snd light verse has its place. To discount the depth of a so called 'nursery rhyme' because of its simplistic style and cliched phrases would be closed minded. Perhaps the significance lies not in the simplistic style... but the allegorical implications.

Essorant... The need for ambiguity is to allow the reader to see or recognize one of two meanings,depending upon the way you view (read) it. As is the purpose of an allegory, whether in poetry, story or song. As far as the 'Virtue' I am not sure I understand what you are referring to.

MoonShadow

cynicsRus
Senior Member

since 2003-06-06

Posts 591
So Cal So Cool!

21 posted 2007-01-03 11:45 AM

No implication was made that this needed to be a Homeric epic, or for that matter anything beyond light verse. As too often happens on this forum, the piece seemed to be lauded as a finished work without any substantive critique offered early on. Thus, I chose to focus on where it was failing by pointing out deficiencies in syntax, rhyme and meter. Perhaps my critique would have had more credibility if I had praised it as well?
I'm usually inclined to believe that whenever an author spends half the thread attempting to clarify the meaning of his work, or give reasons why it works, then it may not be working quite as well as he thinks. This may be one of the things Ess was alluding to. Although I personally feel the premise itself does work, you give away more than necessary in your replies.

Sid

If you must carp: Carpe diem!
ICSoria

[This message has been edited by cynicsRus (01-03-2007 12:16 PM).]

MoonShadow
Senior Member

since 2001-08-02

Posts 943
Dark side of the Moon.

22 posted 2007-01-03 12:31 PM

CynicsRus... your points are well taken. No argument from me. Perhaps I should have saved my responses until the last... but who could tell when that might be? I thank you for your inputs throughout.

MoonShadow

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

23 posted 2007-01-03 01:24 PM

"This may be one of the things Ess was alluding to."

Yes, but I was saying that I don't really agree with the approach that suggests discussion to clarify things in direct terms and indepth explanations indicates a weakness in the poem. Most, if not all, the best and most famous works, also have a long trail of scholarly literature behind them trying to explain and clarify those works. In truth there seems to be more evidence to suggest a strong poem is likelier than a weak poem to stir up compelling discussions and attempts to explain and clarify things about it.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

24 posted 2007-01-04 06:07 PM

quote:
Yes, but I was saying that I don't really agree with the approach that suggests discussion to clarify things in direct terms and indepth explanations indicates a weakness in the poem.

Who said that?

Ron brought in a social issue. I tried to clarify a misunderstanding of Aristotelian logic. Russ wanted to focus on structure. There were many things going on in this thread that at least implied the strength of the poem, not its weakness.

Still, we have to remember our audience here. Most people simply don't have the time for an in depth, scholarly approach. I don't mean that we should write for that audience so much as let the audience do what they will.

As an aside, one of the things I've always wondered about is whether a poem is considered great and then a lot of people write about it or a lot of people write about it and then it is considered great.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.