[Impressions]

[HalfOpenArms]

[Impressions]

I

A melody implied
by the rustling of leaves:
the hem of your dress
sweeps across the forest floor.

II

No, we'll walk with the mist
at our backs. I don't trust you
not to disappear.

III

In that cool, pulsating darkness,
every random passerby
bears your face.
But your eyes are yours alone.

[tectak]

[Impressions]

I

A melody implied
by the rustling of leaves:
the hem of your dress
sweeps across the forest floor. Wistful start but contextually, even at this early stage, isolated in meaning and intent. If you open a poem with this degree of unconnected imagery you MUST show intent in what comes next, otherwise the piece will just dissolve before the readers eye, like a wet sugar cube, leaving nothing of the original form.

II

No, we'll walk with the mistWet sugar cube. Again, so disconnected that only your own synapses are firing. Did someone ask something which required a yes/no answer? Is there a stanza missing. How did I/we/the narrator get here? This "poem", this rhymeless, meterless, pointless (to me, the reader) piece of pros is so personal that I feel excluded....and it is your fault. You are not inviting me to share the plot...consequently, I do not get it.The roman digitising of the stanzas is now irritatingly necessary, as if without the guidance one could easily forget what the order of stanzas may be..as though it matters.
at our backs. I don't trust you
not to disappear.I could not fail to disagree with you less.Do you mean by this double negative howler that you DO trust her to disappear?

III

In that cool, pulsating darkness,
every random passerby
bears your face.
But your eyes are yours alone. Wot? Sure beats the shit outa me. Her eyes are her eyes?You see her face on strangers...in the dark? What does it all mean. I must lie down.

Hi
I tried but failed.Is that clear? Good. This is an overpoetic attempt to write poetry which ends up looking like an overpoetic attempt to write poetry...so a result, I guess.
You choose to muse. For this crit, in this forum, it is not amusing.Needs purpose and connectivity.
Best
tectak

[bena]

Something very large is missing. A point. A connection to the reader. When you wrote this, did you chose to divide into sections for a reason? I get that it is pieces of a larger picture, but you're going to have to defend starting S2 with "no," as if the reader should know why we jumped in mid-thought. Does that make sense?

The first S is almost impressive (no pun) but it needed just a bit more fleshing out. If you did that, it could stand alone as a minimalist piece. The concept behind 2 is good, but I see it as a stanza in a much longer poem. S3 just reads like hogwash to me. Trying too hard to sound poetic, or trying too hard to be ambiguous and vague--either way you've lost this reader in the subtext that isn't supplied.

Keep working on it. I always say revision is the best way to learn how to reach your intended audience. Good luck!

mel/bena

[Leah S.]

[Impressions]

I

A melody implied
by the rustling of leaves:
the hem of your dress
sweeps across the forest floor.

II

No, we'll walk with the mist
at our backs. I don't trust you
not to disappear.

III

In that cool, pulsating darkness,
every random passerby
bears your face.
But your eyes are yours alone.

Don't think I don't agree with the previous critiques. However, I like the II stanza, if only because I got a vivid image of a lurking mist into which the mysterious and untrustworthy person you walk beside might silently escape. I can't decide whether to recommend that you junk the whole thing, or build a different poem around the mist and your reluctant companion. Your choice. Carry on. Leah.

[Anne]

Ok, a really nice poem start here.  Absolutely keep going, do not scrap it.  It has great bones and needs to be fleshed out.

[Impressions]

The title is too vague.  A good title is supposed to let the reader in as to what can be expected in the poem.  Use the title as an important line in your poem.

I

A melody implied
by the rustling of leaves:
the hem of your dress
sweeps across the forest floor.

In the above stanza I would ditch the Roman numeral (all three in fact) as it serves no purpose unless you're implying three little vignettes.  I think the opening line is good in setting a tone by the implication of sound and place (we're outside in nature).  And then in the second line, you reveal this sweeping scene.  All that is good for openers.  Now what?  I think you need to offer up a bit more information so the reader is pulled in a bit more and can relate to what this is meant to be about.  I get the sense that it's some kind of love scenario by the tone.

II

No, we'll walk with the mist
at our backs. I don't trust you
not to disappear.

How did we get from the sweeping gown to mist?  Give us a bit more, then "the mist at our backs," can possibly work.  A few lines could help so much.  I must say that I am intrigued.  The "I don't trust you" is great, full of suspense but give me more to work with.  Just a smidgen.    

III

In that cool, pulsating darkness,
every random passerby
bears your face.
But your eyes are yours alone.

Ok, now you've taken a huge leap.  How did we get out of the trees and to a place where the speaker is alone and sees the other person in everyone else's face?  It feels like a love scenario to me where the lover doesn't trust the other yet can't get her out of his (her) head.

Try taking out the numbers, adding a few key lines and submitting it again.  Keep revising.  There's some mystery here.

[Erthona]

I would think the title "Impressions" is one of the most generic titles there is. It can be applied to almost anything, yet tell us nothing about a piece. Are these impressions? Of course, but they are also writings. Would the writer also use the title "writings"? Roman numerals. Unless the poem is long enough that the reader will get lost as to where he is in the reading, there is really no need for such a division, anymore than a short story needs chapters. Any other use is just affectation, but especially as we are dealing with only five sentences: in light of that it is simply absurd.


[Impressions]

I

A melody implied
by the rustling of leaves:
the hem of your dress
sweeps across the forest floor.

I do like the image here, but I must agree with Tom (tectak), it is an image in isolation. So no matter how beautiful it might be, there is no way for the reader to connect to it emotionally at this point, and thus no reason to care, so the response is, "Oh, that's nice." The reader must be able to have some kind of investment in the character and as the character is barely acknowledged here, that is impossible.



II

No, we'll walk with the mist
at our backs. I don't trust you
not to disappear.

Still no connection. We have simply moved from the unknown "you" (her), to the unknown "we" (Narr. and her). For the reader to care about what is happening (distrust, fear of loss), the reader must first care about the narrator (as he has become the primary actor at this point), but the reader knows nothing about him, or his love (assumed) interest.

III

In that cool, pulsating darkness,
every random passerby
bears your face.
But your eyes are yours alone.

And once again, there is little to connect to. Only if I were able to be the narrator could I form a emotional connection. To use an analogy, it is like a scientist detailing the characteristics of a butterfly. Everything describe is factual to a fault, yet those things that humans are most concerned with wonder, awe, and beauty are not covered because they cannot be broken down into their constituent parts, and so as Wordsworth said, you have "murder(ed) to dissect". One of your reviewers (Anne I think) said you had the bare bones. Not to be argumentative, but to look at it from a different perspective, I would say what you have is the embellishment and it is the bare-bones you lack. Give me the context to place these events in so that I care.
Of course this is a difficult endeavor as love poetry along with religious poetry is the most difficult poetry to write. Generally I recommend that if a person has not been actively writing poetry for 5 to 10 years they should not even attempt to write love poetry (of course I expect to be ignored and thus another ill conceived drop in the ocean of bad love poetry is dump on us all). Of course any poet worth the title knows never to attempt love poetry when in love, unless he just likes being humiliated. Then there is the 125 words to never use in love poetry: love, heart, ache... you get the picture.

Anyway, good luck on the re-write look forward to seeing it (it is a part of the condition of posting in this forum you know ).


Dale