The Amputee

[dukealien]

The hand stewed
in fever blanket sweat
for months after the operation.

A tingle lingered in its vacuum like the eyes you mean the gaze of a stranger (the so-called ESP effect) - good analogy
of a stranger, and a breeze could chill
the bones in the fingers, sending a hush
upon the itch. this may be a jump too far for the reader, talking about sensations in the phantom hand.  could "the" be "their," to refer back to "fingers?"  Also forward reference to the next stanza's closing.

When the wind died
and the bristles in the trees
grew still, I’d think about
their movement.  nice ambivalence, tree needles or phantom fingers?  Introducing a viewpoint at this late point is a little jarring.

I like this so much after figuring out what's going on in it that it's hard to critique.  The only global problem that comes (instantly) to mind is that the poem is incomprehensible without the title.  There's nothing *wrong* with that, the title is right there.  The only alternative would be to get the reader to figure out the situation from clues within the poem, which would call for more detail and explanation.  Explanation provided by the title is free, right?

In the first stanza, we come to realize the subject is the phantom hand, and congratulate ourselves (the readers) on our perceptiveness.  In S2, "sending a hush upon the itch" is nice alliteration, but you haven't mentioned the itch before and the phrase is a little clumsy - you mean hushing the itch, which is almost as alliterative.  Readers who know something about phantom limbs will recognize the reference, but what about those who don't?

In S3, we learn that it's the amputee speaking.  Well, of course, who else would know?  Which is a somewhat profound thought in itself, but also a jarring contrast with the very objective, apparently third-person descriptions in previous stanzas.  Is the amputee *trying,* unsuccessfully, to objectify the missing hand and so dismiss thoughts of it - and hopefully, perceptions from it, hence become reconciled to its absence?  Does the "I" finally separate from the "it" here, with the reader as witness?   Or should the narrator/amputee be brought in earlier?

Usually, a good place to start with edits is placing every "the" under suspicion.  That may help here, allow for more originality than (for example) "the wind died" - but early in the poem "the" is almost essential to the objectifying process worked on the hand.

There's a lot in these few words; the one thing, oddly, that they don't engage is the reader's sympathy - only a bit of self-congratulation in having figured them out.  A fault in the work, or in (this) reader?

Dynamite read.  Thanks!