The Leveret (Threnody) (major rev.2)

[serge gurkski]

Eyes dark,
neck broken,
flesh warm,
still he lay.Some may Yoda cry. I think it is fitting. A mere hint of word play which can be plausibly denied
In my arms
I carried
his carcass
to a grave of wet leaves
but could not yet
let slip away
a life lost
so recently. I want to say that this line could say more. As it is, it is a repeat of a cold and chronological commentary. The body is still warm. We know it died recently. It could be pointed. Even "a life lost too soon" would be, perhaps, more salient AND apposite.
Rich was the night. Says nothing additive
The touch of death
was teasing
softly:
follow me!
It's easy.Very you. Very me.Very good....though I miss the "thin bridge to death" reference in the original.
Hi serge,
you tinker with this at your peril but you are no stranger to danger. You have two choices...both will produce an excellent piece. Option 1.Tinker with it some more. Option 2. Leave it alone.
Best,
tectak

Good afternoon, Tec!

Some may Yoda cry. I think it is fitting. A mere hint of word play which can be plausibly denied



I want to say that this line could say more. As it is, it is a repeat of a cold and chronological commentary. The body is still warm. We know it died recently. It could be pointed. Even "a life lost too soon" would be, perhaps, more salient AND apposite.

Agreed!

Says nothing additive

Yes, but ... ,-)
I's a left over from the original. I kept it out of nostalgia. Was a wrong decision.

Very you. Very me.Very good....though I miss the "thin bridge to death" reference in the original.

Thank you! Yes, the thin bridge is missing. really missing. Something else is missing, too:
1. the hunting for fun (double entendre here: chasseurs de rigolade - nuit de rigolade - nuit (= rigolade) perdue)
2. the emotional ambivalence towards the killer dog (to run with the hare hunting with the hounds etc)

I will at least correct the spelling and the 2 grave nits billy has pointed out before and punctuation of the original and post it above rev 1. and may(be) then give it a new try (as explained above).

cheers
serge

---

A belated explanation of :

Après la chasse sauvage
nous nous sommes assis
les chasseurs et leurs chiens We sat down with their dogs?
autour d'un animald'une victime sacrifié?
sacrifié
à la rigolade
d'une nuit perdue I like perdue used this way

After the wild hunt
we hunters and dogs
sat around the victim
we had sacrificed
to a night of laughter
gone by now

my dog had killed the hare I had to bury now
my dog who'd killed the hare she had to bury now
my anger with her licks Are these lines just notes?

Best,
tectak[/b]

We sat down with their dogs?

No. The underlying syntactic structure is :
nous, les chasseurs* et leurs chiens,
nous nous sommes assis ...
"we sat,
hunters and their dogs, ..."
I think without commas it must be "leurs" bc of "les" but with a comma after "chasseurs" "nos" would be correct, I guess: nous, les chasseurs, et nos chiens. Still looks a bit odd to me.
Because: "nous" comprises both: hunters and dogs. But my fault (read on pls).
To avoid triple usage of "nous" in 2 lines I transformed the construction by flip-flopping of clauses, mais parce que j'ai négligé la ponctuation, il est devenu peut-être incompréhensible (lack of pronunciation lead to loss of meaning, perhaps.
---------------------------------------------
* like in moi, le poète.

d'une victime sacrifié?

There is a semantical overlap between victime and sacrifié(e) (with the victim being what is sacrificed, so in the French I wanted to avoid redundancy. (Because French is too posh for slopperies like that, ;-))


Are these lines just notes?

No. It is an anaphoric construction playing with my aforementioned ambivalence toward my dog. She has to lick my face to soothe my "anger". ,-)

cheers
serge