Half Empty

[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.