06-18-2014, 03:12 PM
billy--I should've said, and will go ahead and say now,
I want to give this poem a think before I come back for a full edit. In the meantime, it'd be helpful to my remarks, and potentially would help me tailor them to your benefit, if I knew what form you're using. Your response to LorwttaYoung makes me think you have one in mind. That isn't an attempt to set an expectation that you're following a form, but perhaps LorettaYoung's comment was premised on this same inquiry. If you don't have an answer, that's cool, and I'll base my edit on a WYSIWYG take. Much obliged,
crow
Also, fwiw, my normal edits are pages long. I was asking sincerely bc it'd help me to know the answer.
Proofer's edit:
Old wrinkled fingers stretched and curled[,]
--consider a comma between old and wrinkled
tenderly grasping the tiny toddler’s hand,
but the tell was the sparkle that was ever-so evident
in the eyes of the elderly man.
As my father and son walked hand[-]in[-]hand[,]
--I believe "hand in hand" is a predicate nominative
my heart swelled with overwhelming joy[.]
I was certain I was watching how the man who raised me
cherished me as a little boy.
--this is borderline as a proofing comment, but "cherished me as a little boy" contains an ambiguity, if not an outright error. Compare "I cherish this Bloody Mary as a soup, but not as a drink."
My memory can’t remember back that far,
though I know he loved me throughout his life,
I’d like to think I provided him with the joy
that I can now see in his eyes.
A father is a care-giver who is forever imprinted
--"care-giver" is likely best rendered as "caregiver"
--"who is forever imprinted" is wrong. Birds imprint on the first thing they see; the first thing they see isn't imprinted on them.
on the hearts and minds of the children he raised,
a person who lives beyond the number of his years
--this is a dangling modifier, or at least here there is a potential read as "the children he raised are a person"
in stories in which he is praised.
Line-by-line:
Old wrinkled fingers stretched and curled
tenderly grasping the tiny toddler’s hand,
--prefer the active "grasp"
--"tiny toddler" is probably redundant. I think your effort here is to say, "vulnerable child," but it reads as though the toddler has a deficiency of HGH
but the tell was the sparkle that was ever-so evident
in the eyes of the elderly man.
--the notion of a tell is that there's a lie that's signaled by an idiomotor effect. Here, the literal meaning isn't what you want and demands a rewrite. Specifically, as written, this reads, "he tenderly grasps the toddler's hand, but the sparkle in his eye belies that tenderness, such that I understand his true intention is anything but tender."
--"ever-so" is an idiom used by satirists to signal pretension. I would avoid it for that reason alone, but, additionally, it does no work here. And, continuing on that note,
--"evident" is one of those words that should almost never be used. Very rarely is it anything more than an inert-but-smart-sounding version of "to be." Here, it seems to mean even less than that. That is, if the line were "the sparkle was in his eyes," I would think that his eyes sparkled. But if, as here, the "sparkle was evident," I'm left thinking that the eyes, even though they didn't sparkle upon observation, could be inferred to sparkle based on evidence.
As my father and son walked hand in hand
--"my father" references "the elderly man" intuitively, but not literally. Compare: "The elderly man walks, and then my father jumps." This has been termed "inelegant variation."
my heart swelled with overwhelming joy,
--this line is diffuse. Contrast: "my heart swelled,".
I was certain I was watching how the man who raised me
cherished me as a little boy.
--"I was certain" does no work here
--"the man who raised me" is another instance of inelegant variation. As an aside, it is not saved by the title, which leaves open, and in fact invites, the idea of many fathers in different relations to the speaker
--"I was certain I was watching" is diffuse. Contrast: "surely, my father cherished me this way when I was a little boy"
My memory can’t remember back that far,
though I know he loved me throughout his life,
--it's weird to imagine a child remembering his father's entire life, and this assertion therefore needs revision
I’d like to think I provided him with the joy
--weak. By straddling the middle ground between "trying to think" and "can't imagine," you saddle thereafter with the question of whether you provided joy, and the reader has not been given enough facts to support either position, let alone one position over the other
that I can now see in his eyes.
--this references back to "the tell."
--"now" is understood
--"see" is understood
--"can" is understood
--contrast: "in his eyes."
A father is a care-giver who is forever imprinted
on the hearts and minds of the children he raised,
--imprinting is a quick event that implies the notion of "forever"
--"forever" is a so-called "atomic flyswatter" in this context, as notions of immortality have not been suggested so far
a person who lives beyond the number of his years
in stories in which he is praised.
--the idea that all fathers are definitionally "persons that live in stories told after their deaths" is almost offensive. Many fathers are horrible, and others may be discrete background players who aren't the subjects of manifold stories.
Macro:
I have a difficult time understanding this as a poem. Here's why: there seems to be a lack of poetic device. You have an abcb rhyme scheme that's slanted in both the first and third stanzas, and beyond that, I can't discern a meter or even a rhythmic pattern.
And I wouldn't mind if the thoughts were comprehensible.
Let me explain.
The poem says this, as I understand it: watching my elderly father care for my son provides me with evidence that he also cared for me.
Problematically, when someone says "I know my father loved me because I have indirect evidence," the reader will naturally question the narrator's credibility. That is, when a person says, "watching my father be kind toward a toddler, I know he loved me," it's as if they're saying, "even though I don't think my father loved me, watching him fawn over someone else, I know he really did."
Then, finally, we're told that "father" means "a person that raises children and lives on in recollected narratives." This notion has almost nothing to do with the ideas proposed in stanzas 1 to 3.
What are we left with? A series of well-intended statements that rhyme only by virtue of where the lines are broken, and even then only half the time, and those well-intended statements are rife with internal contradictions, nonseqs, and bare assertions that would border on offensive of they had any emotional heft, but that just kind of make me think, as they are, "oh, here's a dad that likes his dad bc his dad's not physically assaulting a child, even though he wants to." So, maybe LorettaYoung was wrong in saying that this isn't a poem, but not by much.
Fwiw, I have the same problem, too.
I want to give this poem a think before I come back for a full edit. In the meantime, it'd be helpful to my remarks, and potentially would help me tailor them to your benefit, if I knew what form you're using. Your response to LorwttaYoung makes me think you have one in mind. That isn't an attempt to set an expectation that you're following a form, but perhaps LorettaYoung's comment was premised on this same inquiry. If you don't have an answer, that's cool, and I'll base my edit on a WYSIWYG take. Much obliged,
crow
Also, fwiw, my normal edits are pages long. I was asking sincerely bc it'd help me to know the answer.
Proofer's edit:
Old wrinkled fingers stretched and curled[,]
--consider a comma between old and wrinkled
tenderly grasping the tiny toddler’s hand,
but the tell was the sparkle that was ever-so evident
in the eyes of the elderly man.
As my father and son walked hand[-]in[-]hand[,]
--I believe "hand in hand" is a predicate nominative
my heart swelled with overwhelming joy[.]
I was certain I was watching how the man who raised me
cherished me as a little boy.
--this is borderline as a proofing comment, but "cherished me as a little boy" contains an ambiguity, if not an outright error. Compare "I cherish this Bloody Mary as a soup, but not as a drink."
My memory can’t remember back that far,
though I know he loved me throughout his life,
I’d like to think I provided him with the joy
that I can now see in his eyes.
A father is a care-giver who is forever imprinted
--"care-giver" is likely best rendered as "caregiver"
--"who is forever imprinted" is wrong. Birds imprint on the first thing they see; the first thing they see isn't imprinted on them.
on the hearts and minds of the children he raised,
a person who lives beyond the number of his years
--this is a dangling modifier, or at least here there is a potential read as "the children he raised are a person"
in stories in which he is praised.
Line-by-line:
Old wrinkled fingers stretched and curled
tenderly grasping the tiny toddler’s hand,
--prefer the active "grasp"
--"tiny toddler" is probably redundant. I think your effort here is to say, "vulnerable child," but it reads as though the toddler has a deficiency of HGH
but the tell was the sparkle that was ever-so evident
in the eyes of the elderly man.
--the notion of a tell is that there's a lie that's signaled by an idiomotor effect. Here, the literal meaning isn't what you want and demands a rewrite. Specifically, as written, this reads, "he tenderly grasps the toddler's hand, but the sparkle in his eye belies that tenderness, such that I understand his true intention is anything but tender."
--"ever-so" is an idiom used by satirists to signal pretension. I would avoid it for that reason alone, but, additionally, it does no work here. And, continuing on that note,
--"evident" is one of those words that should almost never be used. Very rarely is it anything more than an inert-but-smart-sounding version of "to be." Here, it seems to mean even less than that. That is, if the line were "the sparkle was in his eyes," I would think that his eyes sparkled. But if, as here, the "sparkle was evident," I'm left thinking that the eyes, even though they didn't sparkle upon observation, could be inferred to sparkle based on evidence.
As my father and son walked hand in hand
--"my father" references "the elderly man" intuitively, but not literally. Compare: "The elderly man walks, and then my father jumps." This has been termed "inelegant variation."
my heart swelled with overwhelming joy,
--this line is diffuse. Contrast: "my heart swelled,".
I was certain I was watching how the man who raised me
cherished me as a little boy.
--"I was certain" does no work here
--"the man who raised me" is another instance of inelegant variation. As an aside, it is not saved by the title, which leaves open, and in fact invites, the idea of many fathers in different relations to the speaker
--"I was certain I was watching" is diffuse. Contrast: "surely, my father cherished me this way when I was a little boy"
My memory can’t remember back that far,
though I know he loved me throughout his life,
--it's weird to imagine a child remembering his father's entire life, and this assertion therefore needs revision
I’d like to think I provided him with the joy
--weak. By straddling the middle ground between "trying to think" and "can't imagine," you saddle thereafter with the question of whether you provided joy, and the reader has not been given enough facts to support either position, let alone one position over the other
that I can now see in his eyes.
--this references back to "the tell."
--"now" is understood
--"see" is understood
--"can" is understood
--contrast: "in his eyes."
A father is a care-giver who is forever imprinted
on the hearts and minds of the children he raised,
--imprinting is a quick event that implies the notion of "forever"
--"forever" is a so-called "atomic flyswatter" in this context, as notions of immortality have not been suggested so far
a person who lives beyond the number of his years
in stories in which he is praised.
--the idea that all fathers are definitionally "persons that live in stories told after their deaths" is almost offensive. Many fathers are horrible, and others may be discrete background players who aren't the subjects of manifold stories.
Macro:
I have a difficult time understanding this as a poem. Here's why: there seems to be a lack of poetic device. You have an abcb rhyme scheme that's slanted in both the first and third stanzas, and beyond that, I can't discern a meter or even a rhythmic pattern.
And I wouldn't mind if the thoughts were comprehensible.
Let me explain.
The poem says this, as I understand it: watching my elderly father care for my son provides me with evidence that he also cared for me.
Problematically, when someone says "I know my father loved me because I have indirect evidence," the reader will naturally question the narrator's credibility. That is, when a person says, "watching my father be kind toward a toddler, I know he loved me," it's as if they're saying, "even though I don't think my father loved me, watching him fawn over someone else, I know he really did."
Then, finally, we're told that "father" means "a person that raises children and lives on in recollected narratives." This notion has almost nothing to do with the ideas proposed in stanzas 1 to 3.
What are we left with? A series of well-intended statements that rhyme only by virtue of where the lines are broken, and even then only half the time, and those well-intended statements are rife with internal contradictions, nonseqs, and bare assertions that would border on offensive of they had any emotional heft, but that just kind of make me think, as they are, "oh, here's a dad that likes his dad bc his dad's not physically assaulting a child, even though he wants to." So, maybe LorettaYoung was wrong in saying that this isn't a poem, but not by much.
Fwiw, I have the same problem, too.