01-05-2016, 09:41 PM
I preferred the original.
The opening tumbled, now the opening says it tumbles. I liked the staccato dialog back and forth and the isolated
But five drinks in
I think I’m 17 again.
That break between the dialog and the descriptions of the drunk actions (all devoid of any speech or reference to the spouse/significant other) reinforces the sober/drunk/sober motif that the original demonstrates in form with how its written, but gets muddied in the revision.
Having spent a few years living in England and Ireland, "fags" didn't throw me, and I liked how it created a cultural context for the piece, but I understand the desire to sanitize it for American readers.
Trimming out the "and cheek-boned" was fine, and tightened it.
Addition of "with a not so bright future." is completely unnecessary and redundant.
Many argue the whole point of poetry is to show, not tell, and you revised tell into a poem that showed (and implied), which is moving backwards.
It's not too late! Put it back! ;-)
The opening tumbled, now the opening says it tumbles. I liked the staccato dialog back and forth and the isolated
But five drinks in
I think I’m 17 again.
That break between the dialog and the descriptions of the drunk actions (all devoid of any speech or reference to the spouse/significant other) reinforces the sober/drunk/sober motif that the original demonstrates in form with how its written, but gets muddied in the revision.
Having spent a few years living in England and Ireland, "fags" didn't throw me, and I liked how it created a cultural context for the piece, but I understand the desire to sanitize it for American readers.
Trimming out the "and cheek-boned" was fine, and tightened it.
Addition of "with a not so bright future." is completely unnecessary and redundant.
Many argue the whole point of poetry is to show, not tell, and you revised tell into a poem that showed (and implied), which is moving backwards.
It's not too late! Put it back! ;-)