05-22-2025, 12:48 AM
I've fallen in love
with a bomb, disguised
by glittering diamonds. - "disguised / by glittering diamonds" is not idiomatic. it would generally mean "glittering diamonds disguised the bomb" rather than "the bomb is disguised *with* glittering diamonds", but having "with" repeat here probably doesn't work either.
Every time I misstep - it feels wrong here to include a word---misstep---which, while working in the context of the extended metaphor, is also a commonly used idiom for what the speaker here probably means.
it ominously rumbles, - "ominously" is unnecessary. bombs rumbling is always ominous.
the light slowly fading away. - at this point, the poem starts to fall apart, since 'light fading away' just seems to disconnected from an otherwise interesting central idea.
In blindness, I failed to recognize it - missing some punctuation here.
now in idiocy, I keep it close.
I need the diamonds to live, - this line doesn't really connect with the next one, for me. the speaker may have been initially drawn to the bomb by its disguise, but now that they know the gems are just a disguise, surely they understand that they are not integral to the bomb, that they could just prise the diamonds away. at the same time, didn't the speaker fall in love with the bomb, not with its disguise? so why should they care about the diamonds so much, unless they're not actually in love with the bomb at all, only with the attendant stones?
but the bomb will surely end me. - this whole line is unnecessary. it's a bomb.
My health lays abandoned - the way this is unidiomatic reads more intentional than the offness of the previous lines. the wording is unusual enough, without intruding on the metaphor at large.
as I cradle this explosive, - we return here to something of a proper extended metaphor, though one that's quite a bit wonkier than before, not only because of the intrusion of 'light fading away' and 'needing diamonds to live', but also because the idea of cradling an explosive, as opposed to just being in the general vicinity of it---"misstep" made me think of a landmine---is just too unnatural, too unusual. better to start with the idea of cradling an explosive, if you're gonna keep it, than to introduce it so late.
desperately trying out of love - "out of love" is unnecessary. no other motivations have been given for why the speaker would try to save the bomb, perhaps aside from greed, but love here could be just another term for greed.
to save this bad omen. - rather bathetic ending, for me. calling a bomb a bad omen is like calling a typhoon an overcast sky or sepsis a light fever.
I like the central idea, but it needs to be elaborated on with more care, with more focus. Trying to rework it myself, I have something like
I've fallen in love
with the jewel-encrusted
bomb hanging from
my neck. Each slip
I make it rumbles
but after that, I'd have to start inventing, since the rest is either unnecessary reiteration or just too confused to keep.
with a bomb, disguised
by glittering diamonds. - "disguised / by glittering diamonds" is not idiomatic. it would generally mean "glittering diamonds disguised the bomb" rather than "the bomb is disguised *with* glittering diamonds", but having "with" repeat here probably doesn't work either.
Every time I misstep - it feels wrong here to include a word---misstep---which, while working in the context of the extended metaphor, is also a commonly used idiom for what the speaker here probably means.
it ominously rumbles, - "ominously" is unnecessary. bombs rumbling is always ominous.
the light slowly fading away. - at this point, the poem starts to fall apart, since 'light fading away' just seems to disconnected from an otherwise interesting central idea.
In blindness, I failed to recognize it - missing some punctuation here.
now in idiocy, I keep it close.
I need the diamonds to live, - this line doesn't really connect with the next one, for me. the speaker may have been initially drawn to the bomb by its disguise, but now that they know the gems are just a disguise, surely they understand that they are not integral to the bomb, that they could just prise the diamonds away. at the same time, didn't the speaker fall in love with the bomb, not with its disguise? so why should they care about the diamonds so much, unless they're not actually in love with the bomb at all, only with the attendant stones?
but the bomb will surely end me. - this whole line is unnecessary. it's a bomb.
My health lays abandoned - the way this is unidiomatic reads more intentional than the offness of the previous lines. the wording is unusual enough, without intruding on the metaphor at large.
as I cradle this explosive, - we return here to something of a proper extended metaphor, though one that's quite a bit wonkier than before, not only because of the intrusion of 'light fading away' and 'needing diamonds to live', but also because the idea of cradling an explosive, as opposed to just being in the general vicinity of it---"misstep" made me think of a landmine---is just too unnatural, too unusual. better to start with the idea of cradling an explosive, if you're gonna keep it, than to introduce it so late.
desperately trying out of love - "out of love" is unnecessary. no other motivations have been given for why the speaker would try to save the bomb, perhaps aside from greed, but love here could be just another term for greed.
to save this bad omen. - rather bathetic ending, for me. calling a bomb a bad omen is like calling a typhoon an overcast sky or sepsis a light fever.
I like the central idea, but it needs to be elaborated on with more care, with more focus. Trying to rework it myself, I have something like
I've fallen in love
with the jewel-encrusted
bomb hanging from
my neck. Each slip
I make it rumbles
but after that, I'd have to start inventing, since the rest is either unnecessary reiteration or just too confused to keep.