The Voyeur and the Harpy

[tectak]

you ask to see all of meThis is dangerously thin ice on a deep pool. Leads to the "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" badinage. This may or may not set the wrong tone. Wrong if it is a Persephone-plex but right if it is about shopping trolleys in lakes.

perhaps you imagine yourself as the breeze
whose finger will stir colour from the brooding lakeHmmm. Brooding Lake. I must try to forget who you are. Who are you, by the way? No. I have to come clean. Brooding and Lake do not gel...therefore it ain't aspic...and so the metaphorical finger is also amputated by the lac de lake. The language is fruitful, leanne, but I get the uneasy feeling that this is too easy for you. This stanza seems simplistic and formula. For others that would be a compliment
and paint it into clouds

silent in the silt there are
twisted skeletons of shopping trolleys,
half a Datsun, someone’s dream of bliss in a wrought-iron bedhead...there are....half a Datsun...and there are I? Technicalities, some say
and I, who will need more than the six seeds you offer
to slough this season’s skinHmmm. So it IS about trolleys in lakes. Persephone would turn in her gro-bag Nah...it's not about her at all. Can't be.

breezes do not reach the pipes that breathe
excreta into algal blooms, red as the storm that rends
mother from child This stanza did not request permission to land. Where did it come from. It is a scrap of paper that is born on the wind and gets stuck when wet. Oh I know, capitals and commas can be dispensed with if so inclined, but rather than "why bother including?", I have to ask "why bother omitting?". Breathing excreta is also tough to swallow...if you can decant my metaphor

you ask, but you
have no desire to discover
that here is no fire to purify,Something not right here. "...you have NO desire to discover that there is NO..." Is this the same as you HAVE the desire to discover that there IS? This boolean talk is non-copacetic. I can not fail to disagree with you less. Hrmmmmph!
only eternal decay"Only" followed by "and" is often problematic. You just get away with it here because of the huge dissimilarity of terms...decay/ideas. Nonetheless the danger is there. ONLY external decay, AND ideas, AND tesco trolleys, AND half-Datsuns, AND...AND...AND.
and someone else’s idea
of how to shape a life

Hi leanne,
There is something off message with this one. It is terse but tearful. Regret mixed with anger. Allusion with reality. Over-simplification with over-complexity ( Note...not simple and complex That's for whimps)
Best,(but not yours)
tectak