Seagull

[Humbert]

A seagull soars still against opposing winds,
stuck in the sky like glitter on glue.
Not moving an inch – how long has it been?
It looks like a check on a backdrop of blue.

Will it try to move on, has it some place to go?
Or does progress stand still, and in stillness progress?
The swarms of us bustle and hustle below,
Bumping and shoving and pushing: distress!

Bound to the ground, we do what we can:
We walk and we run and we sift through the sand,
while that fellow up there could fly over the seas
but takes a small moment to revel in the breeze.

[heslopian]

A seagull soars still against opposing winds, "Soars" and "still" create a jarring effect, as they're opposites, but that may be the effect you're going for. Still, because we don't know the poem's premise yet it creates an odd syntax.
stuck in the sky like glitter on glue. I really like this simile. It's simple and effective, not too fancy, like a well-made shepherd's pie
Not moving an inch – how long has it been?
It looks like a check on a backdrop of blue. Would "tick" be more precise than "check"?

Will it try to move on, has it some place to go?
Or does progress stand still, and in stillness progress? Really good line. Ruminative, thoughtful, but not in an overly "arty", superficial way.
The swarms of us bustle and hustle below,
Bumping and shoving and pushing: distress! Very good rhythm in this and the previous line.

Bound to the ground, we do what we can:
We walk and we run and we sift through the sand, "Sand"? "Bustle and hustle" made me think of a sidewalk.
while that fellow up there could fly over the seas
but takes a small moment to revel in the breeze.

This poem feels like it could be about a painting, where both bird and strollers are static, the latter implied by "bound to the ground". I recognise that it's probably just about a seagull, though Critique is JMHO. Thank you for the read, Humbert!

[shemthepenman]

A seagull soars still against opposing winds,
stuck in the sky like glitter on glue.
Not moving an inch – how long has it been?
It looks like a check on a backdrop of blue.

Will it try to move on, has it some place to go?
Or does progress stand still, and in stillness progress?
The swarms of us bustle and hustle below,
Bumping and shoving and pushing: distress!

Bound to the ground, we do what we can:
We walk and we run and we sift through the sand,
while that fellow up there could fly over the seas
but takes a small moment to revel in the breeze.

There is something about this poem which is quite pleasant. And as has been mentioned in a previous comment (not sure if I can refer to another comment and all that business, but as the wise man said to the fool, fuck it) it does have the feeling of a painting.

The the glitter glue line was a problem, purely because I am a simple creature and the similie used two different preposition and I went all confusedface.

Also, I found it difficult to see the connection between the first set of questions on the first line of the second stanza, and the second set of questions on the second line of the second stanza. I mean the disjunctive just seems to add an unecesssry element, and seems to me to make both lines (together) meaningless (or, even worse, pretentious.

Also, anthropomorphic stuff can be great. But a seagull 'taking time to revel', I don't know...

Regardless, there is definitely something here, nice concept, and it gives one the over all feeling it is driving at.

Thanks.

Just a ps. When I said about the two different preposition being a problem, I obviously know that a simile can be anything... But for some reason something IN the sky being like something stuck ON glue doesn't seem right. It maybe something to do with the texture. Funnily enough, the opposite sounds ok to me "stuck on the sky like glitter in glue"... Go figure but still, I think "stuck in the sky like glitter in glue" is best (and I cannot help liking the 'glitter in/glittering' pun). Only my opinion, of course

[Humbert]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm having a hard time with the edits on this poem for some reason. I am starting to warm up to the idea of consistent prepositions in L2; thanks for the suggestion

Indeed, the poem's first line creating a "jarring effect" is part of the theme. As for "tick," I really meant more to describe a check mark, the way the silhouette of a bird looks in a sky, how a child might attempt to draw a bird. I'll try to make that more clear.

As for the sets of questions shemthepenman, they are related in that "to move on" implies progress, and the seagull is not moving as it soars against opposing winds, making it still. The last line of the poem is intended to answer these questions, though you found a seagull's reveling to be questionable. Thanks a lot for the feedback! I have some things to mull over

[shemthepenman]

Hello, just a side note to your comment about the two lines of questions being connected. And yes, my initial comment was overly harsh. I was a bit grumpy. Because of course there is a connection (and to be fair, whenever meaning or sense is concerned, I think people can be over pedantic about 'it doesn't make sense' or, as with what I said, 'I can see no connection'; because, most of the time one does see the connection or understand the sense, but because it doesn't follow a rigid logic it is flagged as an error. And I am possibly guilty of this, in this case. But, because the lines are quite conceptual, the confusing language doesn't help. And by confusing language I mean specifically the disjunctive 'or'. I suppose my problem is that you go from a concrete physical type question (a question about a specific bird in the sky and its intentions) to an abstract question about the general principle of progress via a disjunctive which doesn't seem logically consistent. If looked at in a logical form it would sound something like this 'either the bird has some place to go or progress stands still' which is a very strange and bold proposition, but a proposition I do not think it was your intention to make. But that is just what I thought.
I heard some film critic once reviewing a time travel film and he said he was constantly questioning the plausibility of time travel, such as 'how could he be there if he came back and who is in that place while this happened...' Etc. and then it hit him, if he is watching a two hour film and all he can do is nitpick about the plausibility of time travel, then there must be something else wrong with the film.