|
|
| Author |
Message |
arianna
|
|
unitled ~Erinn~
| 
Oct 1 17:51 UTC 2000 |
When you read these words,
remember that I have made them for your voice.
When you speak these words,
remember that I gave them your eyes
and give them, in return,
the sound of a thing rushing to freedom.
|
| 12 responses total. |
lumen
|
|
response 1 of 12:
|
Oct 2 03:23 UTC 2000 |
ooohh.. tickles my minimalist preference.. that is, it's short, sweet,
and pithy. But I'm not sure how to respond to the ending.. it rolls so
nice and then finishes in something so open-ended and abstract.
In other words, "a thing rushing to freedom"? I don't get it.
|
freedom
|
|
response 2 of 12:
|
Oct 2 17:55 UTC 2000 |
I agree..Idon't like the word "thing"!! .
|
arianna
|
|
response 3 of 12:
|
Oct 2 21:49 UTC 2000 |
<shrug> eh. it's not a great word, maybe not *elaborate* enough. But the
*sound* of the word was why I used it. This, like most of my stuff, is to
be read aloud. If you have any other ideas for "thing," I'll consider them.
|
flem
|
|
response 4 of 12:
|
Oct 4 18:43 UTC 2000 |
Was it deliberate that you paired reading with the voice, and speaking with
the eyes? I can't quite decide if I approve of the reversal or not.
|
arianna
|
|
response 5 of 12:
|
Oct 4 19:54 UTC 2000 |
I didn't compare anything.
> When you read these words,
> remember that I have made them for your voice.
That's pretty self-explainitory. I put these words together to be
spoken aloud. "You" being non-specific; to whomeevr is reading.
> When you speak these words,
> remember that I gave them your eyes
iow, keep in mind that I chose to show you these words --
> and give them, in return,
> the sound of a thing rushing to freedom.
-- and in return let them be as honest and unrestrained as I was
in giving them to you. (well, there's something else in there, but I
don't know how to explain it properly; it's personal.)
There. Now that I've ruined the poem by disseminating it (well,
ruined it for myself, I guess), does it make more sense? Quite honestly,
I think the only people who should understand it are those that do/did.
(And if that number was zero -- oh well. not everything can be for public
consumption.)
|
flem
|
|
response 6 of 12:
|
Oct 4 20:04 UTC 2000 |
I guess what I meant is that I was wondering why you did it that way, as
opposed to this, or something like it:
When you read these words,
remember that I have made them for your eyes.
When you speak these words,
remember that I gave them [to?] your voice
and give them, in return,
the sound of a thing rushing to freedom.
All I did was swap "eyes" for "voice", and vice versa. I'm not sure
which one I like better, this way or the way you did it. So, I was
wondering why you did it that way as opposed to this way. :)
Hmm. As I'm looking at it again, I find myself wishing that
some other word were in the place of "thing" in the final line.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 7 of 12:
|
Oct 5 15:10 UTC 2000 |
Actually, the main thing I like about #0 is that it's not the poem in #6
(sorry, flem). I think it's a little more interesting to pair each verb with
the sense that it doesn't normally apply to.
In particular, I like the fact that read/voice _could_ be a straightforward
pairing, since "read" can also mean "read aloud," but speak/eyes is very
definitely _not_. So the unexpectedness builds over the first four lines.
I agree that the last 3 lines are ambiguous. "Gave them to your eyes" or
"Gave your eyes to them"? What does "them" in line 4 refer to -- eyes, or
words? What sort of "thing" are we talking?
(Although I'm just as much at a loss as to what word you should replace
"thing" with here. Maybe that one's a good piece of ambiguity).
|
arianna
|
|
response 8 of 12:
|
Oct 5 21:15 UTC 2000 |
<throws a grateful look at dan>
I'm considering replacing "thing" with "stream" or "river" -- I'm trying to
make either the vowel or the consonant accessable to the rhythem of the poem.
It's the sound, the voice, that I'm trying to bring out; either "stream" to
match the "ee" in "rushing" and "freedom," or "river" for the alliteration
of "river rushing" (I also like the "v" sound, it's soft).
The addition of this water image, while to me personally is very appropriate,
adds an unfinished twist, IMO. I used "thing" because of its sound, but its
meaning was ambiguous enough to finish the poem (I know, that's bass-ackwards,
but it makes sense to me).
We're analyzing something that didn't arrive on the page through analysis.
jenna used to do this to me, make me change words in order for the poem to
be consumable by others, but sometimes it feels like... an intrusion.
<ducks her head> <shrugs>
I agree with flem on the inclusion of "to" in that line he nitpicked, it
clarifies what I'm trying to relay.
|
flem
|
|
response 9 of 12:
|
Oct 10 20:57 UTC 2000 |
No apology necessary, Dan. For me, too, the first thing that stood out about
#0 was that it wasn't #6. I was just trying to ask whether the difference
was deliberate or not, and if so, why.
Coming to it again a few days later, I'd agree that #0 is better than #6,
and the reasons in #7 give an approximation of why.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 10 of 12:
|
Oct 11 01:12 UTC 2000 |
I like 'river rushing to freedom.' Stream/free is a bit too obvious, maybe?
I dunno. I like river more.
|
arianna
|
|
response 11 of 12:
|
Oct 11 13:16 UTC 2000 |
<grins> I feel rather like you two are talking around me rather than with
me. [:
"river" was my first pick, too; I like the alliteration and syncopation of
the two together, "river rushing"...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 12 of 12:
|
Oct 11 21:37 UTC 2000 |
Nice to see we agree. You clearly have good taste :)
|