11-27-2022, 10:22 PM
Something about this piece feels....off. Like it's all too "aesthetic". If I follow the metaphor right, the tapestry is the scene being described, which seems to be some bit of civilization ravaged by some freaky tide, with the threads of the sheet slowly unravelling being the rivulets of water draining the flood. But "fraying" has negative connotations, while surely a flood subsiding is a good thing, in which case the poem may have a whole "nature reclaiming her own" vibe going on?
And yet....no, yeah, that's what makes it feel off. If the piece means to signify "nature reclaiming her own", it seems to revel in nature's triumph against those unfortunate enough to live somewhere that can flood like that, the kind of people who at the end of the day aren't likely to be so responsible for the disaster they experience. I feel like the scene being described is probably worth describing, it's just the speaker seems to be stuck on the metaphor they started with -- the fraying tapestry -- rather than really focusing on why the scene seems so much like a tapestry or some other work of art in the first place. There's not enough horror or absurdity (it's not exactly strange for waves to break suddenly and violently in a lot of places, for instance) with maybe a bit too much confusion (tents are literally made of fabric).
Also, with the first two stanzas being composed of properly flowing sentences, the very first sentence even being broken into two clauses by a comma, the way the rest of the poem breaks like if I had written this sentence like this --
Also. With the first two stanzas being composed of propely flowing sentences. The very first sentence even being broken into two clauses by a comma. The way the rest of the poem breaks like if I had written this sentence like this. It doesn't work.
-- it doesn't work.
And yet....no, yeah, that's what makes it feel off. If the piece means to signify "nature reclaiming her own", it seems to revel in nature's triumph against those unfortunate enough to live somewhere that can flood like that, the kind of people who at the end of the day aren't likely to be so responsible for the disaster they experience. I feel like the scene being described is probably worth describing, it's just the speaker seems to be stuck on the metaphor they started with -- the fraying tapestry -- rather than really focusing on why the scene seems so much like a tapestry or some other work of art in the first place. There's not enough horror or absurdity (it's not exactly strange for waves to break suddenly and violently in a lot of places, for instance) with maybe a bit too much confusion (tents are literally made of fabric).
Also, with the first two stanzas being composed of properly flowing sentences, the very first sentence even being broken into two clauses by a comma, the way the rest of the poem breaks like if I had written this sentence like this --
Also. With the first two stanzas being composed of propely flowing sentences. The very first sentence even being broken into two clauses by a comma. The way the rest of the poem breaks like if I had written this sentence like this. It doesn't work.
-- it doesn't work.