Avant-garde-n

[ChristopherSea]

Chris,

Chris wrote: "Hey, getting back to the poem edit above, what about my explanation for the use of 'dawn's'. Does it wash for you? "

Not really unless Dawn possesses the Canterbury Bells. In this last version I would suggest a comma after dawn, and remove the comma from Bells. As:

"Nearing dawn, Canterbury Bells
with Monkshood shrouding eyes,

back to the possessive dawn.

Are the "Canterbury Bells" not with the "Monkshood" watching false dawn?

Unless "Dawn" is a girl who owns said "Canterbury Bells", I see no way this is possessive. Unless, the "Canterbury Bells" are an attribute of the dawn, as in "the dawn's early light."


Dale

Well Dale, the canterbury bells were to belong to dawn (the morning as a anthropomorphic entity). The Friar has his monkshood shielding his own eyes as he approaches the bells. He will ring the dawn's bells to chime for morning glory. Does that make any sense to you? I don't think what I have now conveys the above message according to your recommendations. Therefore, I changed it back to 'dawn's.' Thanks so much for staying with me on this one./Chris