Half Empty

[Erthona]

Half Empty

I find myself putting away
these things that once were yours
because they remind me of you; then
I find I have brought them out again
because they remind me of you.
Opposites flowing from the same wellspring;
I am crucified between longing and despair.
I hold and caress your old photos & letters,
and smooth a cutting of your soft hair.
All more precious to me than gold,
for nothing more of you will be mined.
If scarcity sets the value of a thing,
I am the owner of a great treasure house,
yet, of you I have only these things.
A beggar’s portion left to hold
the shattered, scattered, pieces of my soul.


–Erthona


©2010-2014

[LorettaYoung]

Seriously, the only thing I would do is leave out house after treasure. I will watch and learn when I see more comments. I can feel the half-emptiness. Loretta

[QDeathstar]

I agree with Loretta about "treasure house"

But i was also wondering about a few other things.

"If scarcity sets the value of things" and "yet, of you i have only these things"

I wonder if you could use a more descriptive word.

Jewels and trinkets perhaps.

If that ruins the meter, I apologize ahead of time.

---

Why the ampersand?

[Jimmy Stark]

I really like the line about the hair. It shows a certain longing that most keepsakes never could. Anyone can keep pictures or letters, but keeping "a cutting of your soft hair" shows a true love and dedication. Beautifully written.

I agree about taking out house as well. Unless you need it stylistically, I personally thought it read better by ending the line at "treasure"

[Isis]

I really like the use of repetition in the beginning of the poem, the way the speaker is torn between putting away these things and then taking them back out again. I think the simple statement works. It hurts. It's easy to connect with this poem even though I haven't experienced this same kind of loss. The focus on the simple motion of putting away and then bringing out again is a really concrete and understated way to show me what the speaker is going through.

I'm also wondering about the use of "thing" towards the end of the poem. "Thing" in poetry gives a writer a lot of leeway, both on the page and in the mind of the reader. Thing is about as broad as it gets while still denoting something tangible. A lot of times a writer will throw down "thing" on the page when no good noun asserts itself, or when no noun is broad enough to talk about all the things the poem is trying to talk about. So when I first see it in a poem I usually think that the poet could definitely make "thing" into something more specific and the poem would be improved. But here? I'm not totally sure. My first response was that the repetition of "thing" was something to edit. But all of the other words I'd change it out for aren't cutting it. I can't come up with a word that implies the value of these objects. But if you can think of one, that might be a good word to think about here, somewhere. I don't know if a word for a specific physical object, like gold or jewels, would get the main idea across - at least, what seems to me the main idea. The things the speaker has go way beyond just commemorative objects. A part of that person is in the old photos and letters, even though the person is gone. Those are physical objects holding something non-physical. At least, that's how I'm seeing it: the things that the speaker holds on to are way more than "just things" as we'd usually think of them. I wonder if there's a way to get at that towards the end. The poem does already, obliquely, because the repetition/self-rhyme of "things" feels very flat. But is there a way to call it out? Beyond "my soul" in the last line? I think it would work best sitting side by side with the understanding of these things as objects, but also as things beyond objects. And I think that including some other word could start calling out all the different meanings of "thing", how it's too much but not enough, how it encompasses every object but doesn't describe any one of them.

[just mercedes]

Half Empty

Hi - I've read this a few times, I like the measured, almost formal tone that to me hides emotion, and the picturing of simple 'things' that we all share as memories of lost loved ones. (Though I don't like the repeat of 'things'.)[/b] They feel imbued with the spirit of their owner, much as relics of saints themselves become holy.

I find myself putting away
these things that once were yours mementos of you?
because they remind me of you; then
I find I have brought them out again
because they remind me of you.
Opposites flowing from the same wellspring; I want to read 'flow' rather than 'flowing'
I am crucified between longing and despair.strong image
I hold and caress your old photos & letters, I know what you mean here, but 'hold and caress' feels a bit clunky - maybe a single word like 'cradle' would work better
and smooth a cutting of your soft hair. I like the rhyme here
All more precious to me than gold,
for nothing more of you will be mined. need this?
If scarcity sets the value of a thing,
I am the owner of a great treasure house, I own a great treasure'?
yet, of you I have only these things. only this? (A beggar's portion is singular)
A beggar’s portion left to hold
the shattered, scattered, pieces of my soul. for me you don't need both adjectives - and I prefer 'scattered'


–Erthona


©2010-2014

[Truerenigma]

Half Empty

I find myself putting away
these things that once were yours
because they remind me of you; then
I find I have brought them out again
because they remind me of you.
Opposites flowing from the same wellspring;
I am crucified between longing and despair.
I hold and caress your old photos & letters,
and smooth a cutting of your soft hair.
All more precious to me than gold,
for nothing more of you will be mined.
If scarcity sets the value of a thing,
I am the owner of a great treasure house,
yet, of you I have only these things.
A beggar’s portion left to hold
the shattered, scattered, pieces of my soul.


–Erthona


©2010-2014

Honestly, crucified beyond longing and despair rings a bit empty in the abstractions, and scattered shattered soul is begging for a real metaphor.

[Erthona]

Isis, QDS, Jimmy Stark, Loretta,

Since most everyone mentioned it, here is my rationale on the "thing" things. I'm not saying it is correct, it is simply my rationale for doing so. I will thank everyone beforehand for noticing it, as it forces me to defend my choice. So here is my "thing" rationale. First I will say I am not overly fond of "thing" and "things" appearing so close together as though they are a rhyme. They are not, but I also do not wish to give the appearance of such. OK, on to the rationale. Taking the second first:

"of you I have only these things."

This refers to the line

"your old photos & letters, and smooth a cutting of your soft hair."

So whatever word I use has to speak to these disparate objects as a group. I suppose "items" could work, but it seems too technical. I do not think the person would think like this. Such words as "mementos", "keepsakes" et al seems to Hall-Markish. Someone mentioned "treasures" or "jewels", as I have already used "treasure house" (I'll answer that later) it would be no less redundant.

OK thing one, and treasure house.

"If scarcity sets the value of a thing,
I am the owner of a great treasure house"

I could use item here for thing which I would consider a workable possibility, and as it is part of the phrase, it has less to do with what the speaker might think, that is to say it is "referential" and so not constrained by his dialect. So, yes, that would be a change I would make, as it gets rid of the double "thing".
Now "treasure house". A treasure house is two things, well guarded, and the repository for more than one treasure. So even were I willing to remove the allusion that is associated with "treasure house", it could not be replaced with "treasure" singular, as it is referring to more than one treasure (as already noted), and so the plural "treasures" would need to be used. However to do so would introduce unnecessary awkwardness, as:

"If scarcity sets the value of an item,
I am the owner of great treasures".

It is both awkward rhythmically, and in terms of word usage, as it defeats the purpose of the line to group all of these things, "photos, letters, and hair" within a single package to to speak, as this package will later be referred to as something, although inadequate, in which to hold the remains of the speakers soul. This is not just artifice, but reality. We as human beings use certain things as a method to define ourselves. Someone who has been married for many years cannot help to identify themselves as part of the couple, and so in a very real sense, the soul, or sense of self is very much shattered. The question then becomes how can I put the pieces of this now, half-couple back together, what will be the container in which to "hold" it. For the speaker, the answer is this "treasure house" which also contains these other treasures. So for me "treasure-house" serves a very real purpose, that non-container ideas can not do. It does not matter that this is a mental construct, since our sense of self is also a mental construct.

So there are my rationale for why I used what I did. I think changing either of the "thing" with item(s) would be workable, however I would lean towards the first "thing" in the line

"If scarcity sets the value of a thing"

to

"If scarcity sets the value of an item"

Thoughts? Rebuttals? All are welcome.
_________________________________________________________

Sorry, QDS, almost forget "Why the ampersand?"

My rationale for that is equivalence, both linguistically and visually. The ampersand for me looks like the fulcrum on a balanced beam. It is also probably a holdover from reading so much Blake, as he used it often for the same reason, such as "Los & Enitharmon. Together they represent the male (Los) and female (the emanation of Los) parts of Urthona. Using the "ampersand" demarcates a line between two equal halves of a whole. Unlike "a chicken and an egg". For the speaker, "letters" and "photos" have an emotional equivalence although different media.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read this and offer your critiques of it.


Dale

---

TE

TrueE wrote: "Honestly, crucified beyond longing and despair rings a bit empty in the abstractions, and scattered shattered soul is begging for a real metaphor."

It's actually "crucified between longing and despair". It is "between" , not "beyond". If it were "beyond" I would agree with you.

As to the "scattered shattered" , I'm not overly fond of that, I have simply not yet found something to replace it that I like any better, especially as it refers to a previous line.

Thanks for the comments,

Dale

[QDeathstar]

Honestly, crucified beyond longing and despair rings a bit empty in the abstractions, and scattered shattered soul is begging for a real metaphor.

Yeah, but its not beyond, its between. I can feel the feeling of being ripped apart. I love that line myself.


Also, thanks for explaining the ampersand.

[Erthona]

JM,

Hey sorry I missed your critique somehow. I am rushed at the moment, but will respond shortly. Thanks for the critique.

Dale

[Truerenigma]

Honestly, crucified beyond longing and despair rings a bit empty in the abstractions, and scattered shattered soul is begging for a real metaphor.

Yeah, but its not beyond, its between. I can feel the feeling of being ripped apart. I love that line myself.


Also, thanks for explaining the ampersand.

actually, since there is no actual place located either beyond or between longing and despair, it makes no difference.

Saying I'm crucified between two abstract locations makes no sense. "I'm crucified" makes no sense. If you were already crucified you might be dead. If you are going to be crucified between longing and despair then you are longing to be crucified and expecting to live on in despair afterwards. If you are being crucified between longing and despair then that is some strange geography.

[QDeathstar]

In this case longing and despair are the nails holding her on the crucifix.


Everything doesn't have to be literally literal.

[Truerenigma]

In this case longing and despair are the nails holding her on the crucifix.


Everything doesn't have to be literally literal.

Nothing ever has to be literal. So we have nails flowing from a wellspring. Okay. What else should I know?

[Erthona]

"actually, since there is no actual place located either beyond or between longing and despair, it makes no difference."

Actually there is a place, it is a mental image/construct of two opposing emotional states. A more trite, but similar expression would be torn between love and duty. The statement says that the speaker is experiencing two distinct emotional states. Longing for what he has lost, and despair that she will not return. Longing carries with it the aspect of "hope", so it makes these two emotions somewhat antithetical. When one is crucified, the muscles in the arms eventually become so weak that the person cannot get a breath without pushing upward with ones feet. At some point the muscles give out and the person suffocates. So crucifixion exemplifies the back and forth the speaker is feeling between these two emotions. This is a metaphor, and all metaphors are ultimately false, but useful in describing non-physical events.

Another point, as English is largely an idiomatic language we rarely speak in anything but abstractions.

"What's up?
"How's it going?"
"You feeling OK?"
"I will die if I don't get this job."
"I'm so mad I could rip off his head and shove it down his throat!"
"You're gonna be late."
"trueenigma, you would argue with a fence post".

and the ultimate abstraction: "Cogito ergo sum!"

I would like to dissect this longer, but it's late and I still owe Mercedes a response, which will already have to wait, but thanks for the dialogue.

Dale

[Isis]

Isis, QDS, Jimmy Stark, Loretta,

Since most everyone mentioned it, here is my rationale on the "thing" things. I'm not saying it is correct, it is simply my rationale for doing so. I will thank everyone beforehand for noticing it, as it forces me to defend my choice. So here is my "thing" rationale. First I will say I am not overly fond of "thing" and "things" appearing so close together as though they are a rhyme. They are not, but I also do not wish to give the appearance of such. OK, on to the rationale. Taking the second first:

"of you I have only these things."

This refers to the line

"your old photos & letters, and smooth a cutting of your soft hair."

So whatever word I use has to speak to these disparate objects as a group. I suppose "items" could work, but it seems too technical. I do not think the person would think like this. Such words as "mementos", "keepsakes" et al seems to Hall-Markish. Someone mentioned "treasures" or "jewels", as I have already used "treasure house" (I'll answer that later) it would be no less redundant.

I think "an item" or "items" doesn't work as well rhythmically as "thing", in either line where it appears, and I think that the slight jarring of the repetition of "thing" is better than "item", which somehow sounds kind of technical. And I definitely see the rationale for "thing" over a number of other word choices. It was informative for me to read your thought process, at least.

I wonder if there's a slightly more connotative or metaphorical choice for the second use of "thing", like fragments, pieces, clips ... reading the poem again, that's what jumps to mind. But I wonder if that strays into Hallmark territory as well.

That's all I got - I think all the discussions going on in this thread are interesting, even though I don't have a whole lot to add at this point.

[John Galt]

I find myself putting away
these things that once were yours
because they remind me of you; then
I find I have brought them out again
because they remind me of you.
Opposites flowing from the same wellspring;
I am crucified between longing and despair.
I hold and caress your old photos & letters,
and smooth a cutting of your soft hair.
All more precious to me than gold,
for nothing more of you will be mined.
If scarcity sets the value of a thing,
I am the owner of a great treasure house,
yet, of you I have only these things.
A beggar’s portion left to hold
the shattered, scattered, pieces of my soul.


On the plus side the angst of the narrator comes across, and transfers to the reader.

On the minus side is the cliched use of " Hair" "Photos" "Letters" which are the standard staple of such poems, as are the modifiers "Soft" before hair. "Old" before photos, and "great" before treasure.

The poem could be finished with line 13. The rest is superfluous for me, and was all said in the preceding lines.

These 2 lines below did not work for me within the poem, too melodramatic.
"All more precious to me than gold,
for nothing more of you will be mined."

Thank you. JG

[tectak]

Half Empty

I find myself putting away
these things that once were yours "the things" as you are speaking definitively and with complete awareness of emotional intent. I like the simple truth in the opener. Funny how the supply of emotive gestalts never runs out but seem rare whenever encountered. Good thinking, Batman.
because they remind me of you; then
I find I have brought them out again
because they remind me of you. Simply wonderful phrasing. Suitable is the word
Opposites flowing from the same wellspring;
I am crucified between longing and despair. If you refer to yer actual cruci-fiction of yer man Jesus then an assumption of personification leaps out of the "between" image...otherwise Longing and Despair need no capitals and so maybe you don't. In which case "between" is an odd word choice.
I hold and caress your old photos & letters, No ampersands here, please. We are British...small issue but abbreviations seem misplaced in sombre thoughts
and smooth a cutting of your soft hair. Definite chance for a semicolon, here
All more precious to me than gold,
for nothing more of you will be mined. Hmmm. A little mechanical metaphor seems misplaced here. Even "found" might be better than "mined".
If scarcity sets the value of a thing,
I am the owner of a great treasure house, A pragmatic period here, methinks
yet, of you I have only these things. No comma then line end colon but see next line
A beggar’s portion left to hold This is difficult. The line above says "these". This line begins with "a". If the line above is referencing the lines above that, then the colon idea of mine is wrong BUT the last two lines do not a sentence make. Your poem.
the shattered, scattered, pieces of my soul.


–Erthona


©2010-2014

Loving it. Seriously considered thoughts are often the most difficult to convert to words. It is as though the thought rejects semantics as being the wrong medium. You have gone a long way to remedying this stand-off and I congratulate you for it. Still unsure about "crucified".
No doubt you will explain yourself.
Best,
tectak

[ellajam]

Half Empty

I find myself putting away
these things that once were yours
because they remind me of you; then
I find I have brought them out again
because they remind me of you.
Opposites flowing from the same wellspring;
I am crucified between longing and despair.
I hold and caress your old photos & letters,
and smooth a cutting of your soft hair.
All more precious to me than gold,
for nothing more of you will be mined.
If scarcity sets the value of a thing,
I am the owner of a great treasure house,
yet, of you I have only these things.
A beggar’s portion left to hold
the shattered, scattered, pieces of my soul.


–Erthona


©2010-2014

Hi, Dale

I'm with you until "I am crucified between longing and despair." I have no problem with crucified, it's between that bothers me. Longing and despair stroll hand in hand here, if the cross is made from longing and despair the narrator is hanging from them bleeding, not between them. I think it may be that longing is not the exact word you want.

My other problem is "the shattered, scattered, pieces of my soul." Aside from feeling like I've read that line fifty times before, how is a soul scattered? It is at this very moment being tormented within his body. He walks around with it every day. This tender poem deserves better.

JMHO
Opinion based on ceding the narrator has a soul.

[tectak]

Isis, QDS, Jimmy Stark, Loretta,

Since most everyone mentioned it, here is my rationale on the "thing" things. I'm not saying it is correct, it is simply my rationale for doing so. I will thank everyone beforehand for noticing it, as it forces me to defend my choice. So here is my "thing" rationale. First I will say I am not overly fond of "thing" and "things" appearing so close together as though they are a rhyme. They are not, but I also do not wish to give the appearance of such. OK, on to the rationale. Taking the second first:

"of you I have only these things."

This refers to the line

"your old photos & letters, and smooth a cutting of your soft hair."

So whatever word I use has to speak to these disparate objects as a group. I suppose "items" could work, but it seems too technical. I do not think the person would think like this. Such words as "mementos", "keepsakes" et al seems to Hall-Markish. Someone mentioned "treasures" or "jewels", as I have already used "treasure house" (I'll answer that later) it would be no less redundant.

OK thing one, and treasure house.

"If scarcity sets the value of a thing,
I am the owner of a great treasure house"

I could use item here for thing which I would consider a workable possibility, and as it is part of the phrase, it has less to do with what the speaker might think, that is to say it is "referential" and so not constrained by his dialect. So, yes, that would be a change I would make, as it gets rid of the double "thing".
Now "treasure house". A treasure house is two things, well guarded, and the repository for more than one treasure. So even were I willing to remove the allusion that is associated with "treasure house", it could not be replaced with "treasure" singular, as it is referring to more than one treasure (as already noted), and so the plural "treasures" would need to be used. However to do so would introduce unnecessary awkwardness, as:

"If scarcity sets the value of an item,
I am the owner of great treasures".

It is both awkward rhythmically, and in terms of word usage, as it defeats the purpose of the line to group all of these things, "photos, letters, and hair" within a single package to to speak, as this package will later be referred to as something, although inadequate, in which to hold the remains of the speakers soul. This is not just artifice, but reality. We as human beings use certain things as a method to define ourselves. Someone who has been married for many years cannot help to identify themselves as part of the couple, and so in a very real sense, the soul, or sense of self is very much shattered. The question then becomes how can I put the pieces of this now, half-couple back together, what will be the container in which to "hold" it. For the speaker, the answer is this "treasure house" which also contains these other treasures. So for me "treasure-house" serves a very real purpose, that non-container ideas can not do. It does not matter that this is a mental construct, since our sense of self is also a mental construct.

So there are my rationale for why I used what I did. I think changing either of the "thing" with item(s) would be workable, however I would lean towards the first "thing" in the line

"If scarcity sets the value of a thing"

to

"If scarcity sets the value of an item"

Thoughts? Rebuttals? All are welcome.
_________________________________________________________

Sorry, QDS, almost forget "Why the ampersand?"

My rationale for that is equivalence, both linguistically and visually. The ampersand for me looks like the fulcrum on a balanced beam. It is also probably a holdover from reading so much Blake, as he used it often for the same reason, such as "Los & Enitharmon. Together they represent the male (Los) and female (the emanation of Los) parts of Urthona. Using the "ampersand" demarcates a line between two equal halves of a whole. Unlike "a chicken and an egg". For the speaker, "letters" and "photos" have an emotional equivalence although different media.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read this and offer your critiques of it.


Dale

---

TE

TrueE wrote: "Honestly, crucified beyond longing and despair rings a bit empty in the abstractions, and scattered shattered soul is begging for a real metaphor."

It's actually "crucified between longing and despair". It is "between" , not "beyond". If it were "beyond" I would agree with you.

As to the "scattered shattered" , I'm not overly fond of that, I have simply not yet found something to replace it that I like any better, especially as it refers to a previous line.

Thanks for the comments,

Dale

So we can look forward to ampers&
tectak getting in Tuscany mood.

[Erthona]

Tom, ella, mercedes

Yes I agree, I am not happy about "the shattered, scattered, pieces of my soul." At best a place holder until something better comes along.

ella "how is a soul scattered?" The same way the will is broken, a mind is blocked, thoughts are jumbled. Here is my answer from earlier, although not a direct answer to your question, I think it answers it.

"We as human beings use certain things as a method to define ourselves. Someone who has been married for many years cannot help to identify themselves as part of the couple, and so in a very real sense, the soul, or sense of self is very much shattered. The question then becomes how can I put the pieces of this now, half-couple back together, what will be the container in which to "hold" it. For the speaker, the answer is this "treasure house."

"I'm with you until "I am crucified between longing and despair." I have no problem with crucified, it's between that bothers me. Longing and despair stroll hand in hand here, if the cross is made from longing and despair the narrator is hanging from them bleeding, not between them."

Here is my answer from eariler:

"Actually there is a place, it is a mental image/construct of two opposing emotional states. A more trite, but similar expression would be torn between love and duty. The statement says that the speaker is experiencing two distinct emotional states. Longing for what he has lost, and despair that she will not return. Longing carries with it the aspect of "hope", so it makes these two emotions somewhat antithetical. When one is crucified, the muscles in the arms eventually become so weak that the person cannot get a breath without pushing upward with ones feet. At some point the muscles give out and the person suffocates. So crucifixion exemplifies the back and forth the speaker is feeling between these two emotions. This is a metaphor, and all metaphors are ultimately false, but useful in describing non-physical events."

So as you can see I don't believe that "Longing and despair stroll hand in hand here". They are two distinct and disparate emotional states and cannot exists simultaneously. This is well documented in terms of the grief process and a person can and does go back and forth between these two states. As I said, to be able to long for something, one has to have hope that it is attainable. Despair is the state where the realization comes that there is no hope of returning to a previously state, or of ever possessing what one has lost. A person in the grief process continually bounces back and forth between these two states.

Tom,

I agree with all but two of your assessments.

"All more precious to me than gold,
for nothing more of you will be mined. Hmmm. A little mechanical metaphor seems misplaced here. Even "found" might be better than "mined"."

Mined relates to the usage of gold in the above line. Gold is valuable partly because it is scarce. If the experience of her is cut off due to death, no more experiences of her will be forth coming. If such experiences are equated to "gold", then I think mined is a perfectly apt metaphor.

"Still unsure about "crucified". No doubt you will explain yourself." Hopefully I have.
_____________________________________________________________________________
mercedes

Most of your comments I agree with, at least provisionally.

Re: "Opposites flowing from the same wellspring; I want to read 'flow' rather than 'flowing'"

I have no answer for that, other than preference. It is somewhat the difference between a snapshot "flow" and an ongoing event "flowing". That is the only rationale I can offer up as to why I prefer one over the other. I think one could use either. I like to have something a little more concrete to hang my hat on than just stylistic preference, but in this case that's all I have. Regardless, it is a nice distinction you point out.

"A beggar's portion is singular" Yes. In this sense it acts as a container. Such as, you have several different foods in you sack. The "beggar's portion" is the sack that holds these mementos, "letters, photos, hair". Out of one hundred sacks, I have one sack that contains these three items, thus a "beggar's portion". does that make sense? I know what I mean to say, but I am not sure I am being clear. let me know.

Tom, ella, Mercedes,

Thanks for taking the time to provide more critique, it is helping me fine tune my decision on several possible changes. As always you each provide insightful and useful comments.

Thanks,

Dale

---

Tom,

"So we can look forward to ampers & tectak getting in Tuscany mood." Just for you I'll remove the "&", even though I am not British! As for "Tuscany mood", you'll have to provide your own bottle(s) of White Zinfandel.


dale