07-06-2019, 03:56 AM
A long time ago I had a poem up somewhere, and several people remarked how it had struck a chord because they'd had a similar experience; and each one related their experience. Funny thing is, not only were their experiences of different natures, none of them were along the lines of which I'd been thinking. What I took away from that is the opinion people will fill in the blanks in a way which relates to them, if we leave them an opening. By editing out the unessential, people will personalize the poem. A critiquer won't, as much, but a reader will; and, for my purposes, the nature of the catastrophe is unessential, although there are hints along one thread of possibility. But if someone devises their own, I don't think it interferes with the allegories. By me naming it, it fixes one thing firmly in place and eliminates personal possibilities.
Just my take.
Also [I'm hoping] the changes I made in S1 open up other possibilities on the literal level, but clean up some misgivings I had on the allegorical. Originally 'we' ate the bread and drank the wine, but now it doesn't specify that - leaving open the possibility N is the only one eating and drinking.
Just my take.
Also [I'm hoping] the changes I made in S1 open up other possibilities on the literal level, but clean up some misgivings I had on the allegorical. Originally 'we' ate the bread and drank the wine, but now it doesn't specify that - leaving open the possibility N is the only one eating and drinking.
There is no escape from metre; there is only mastery. TS Eliot