Around the Table...edit 2.00001 knot,duke

[tectak]

Hi tectak.

Around the Table...
Title, plus ellipsis, then the same phrase immediately repeated
in L1. Reads a bit oddly to me.Agreed. Credited
Around the table sat my father and his father, too.
Given its prominence, I'd like some sort of description of the table.
Or, failing that, a location.I do not know why you feel that the table is consequencial but here goes It was of glued and pinned construction and of light oak with an inlay of walnut...polished and laquered. It had four legs but was expandable by drop-down leaf on both ends. Each leaf was  a million miles long and capable of further extension as required.
There were others gathered there, strangers that I felt I knew;
I like the image, but the phrasing seems unnatural, forced to fit the meter.
Were all the others 'strangers'? And why did N 'feel' that he/she knew them?Read on.
but looking older than the yews that black and haggard grew
nice
by graves, weak limbs held up by props
(Pity you couldn't get 'aloft by props' for the sonics)I will look again at this
'graves' is a bit explicit I think - though I do like
how it works with 'from the ground'.
to lift and raise them from the ground.
'lift and raise' is redundant given 'props' (also, lift and raise? Same thing?)
This was my memory.
When?Why...I mean why is it relevent?

Around the table sat my friends, and some whom I had lost to time.
'some whom' - are these more 'strangers'?Oops. The "and" is confusing. Good catch.Credited.
'lost to time' is too clichéd (in the context), why not 'some of whom, in time I'd lost'?No. Inversion is not an escape. It's moot.
They talked to me and laughed with me, we told old tales, we all spilt wine;
Shouldn't this begin 'We...'? (as does the following line).Why?
Or, if they are around the table (all hail fellow, well met) then where is N?
we looked to see our father’s eyes, for all their fathers sat with mine,
but only saw the loving smiles
upon the faces of the proud.
Hate to do it but...where else would their smiles be?Only on the proud faces...not on the others...emphasis on only.
We were their memories.
Are rather than 'were'?Depends if its a Tuesday or not

Around the table, husbands, wives, some with children by their side.
We were their fathers, daughters, sons, brothers, sisters…all who died;
as all must die and so become
isn't this all a bit too obvious?As with a whole heap of obvious things...we just don't see them. At least, that's why this is here.
a temporary loss to some,
'temporary' - really ugly phrase.Agreed...will change.
until again we meet to be
someone else’s memory.
This verse feels too repetitious (and rambling) - does it really add anything
to the first two? I think it the second verse offers a stronger finish.Disagree...will keep.

Best, Knot.

Thanks knot.
Keep watching.
Best,
 tectak