The Gift Of The Empty Hand (edit #3)

[ellajam]

Hello ellajam,

What I like about this is that it is a uniquely positive take on loss.  What I find a bit confusing is the reference to the person in the poem who left without his things.  From what I gather a storm event involving the ocean took the contents of the closet.  Was the man taken during this event or afterward?  Or was it during and his spirit came to comfort you over the loss of things?  What about the loss of him?  I really like how you listed contents of the closet and created the take that now the narrator's arms are empty for holding...but I am a little confused by the man being gone.  Perhaps these questions could be answered in the poem?  I can see by the revisions that it has been evolving.

Hi, Casey, thanks for taking the time to read and comment. You are at least the second or third to be confused by this and I have neglected to clarify through any of the edits. I will have to think seriously about it, my aim is to have confidence in the reader without expecting them to read my mind and it seems I've failed.

I was counting on the eighty years added to the opening line to bring the reader to death, yanno, you can't take it with you. Then the spirit returns in comfort and wisdom when his stuff has to get trashed, helping us let go. Yes, this must be done in the poem. Thanks for giving me the challenge of thinking about whether or not I can do this better.

Your response is much appreciated.

Casey wrote:

I think it took me a bit to process...indeed the narrator's arms are full of empty...empty of things and the man in the poem. I had a delayed reaction. And I suppose it doesn't matter when the man was last (during or after the storm). Sorry I was a bit slow.

Nope, that's okay, it's good for me to see what doesn't come across clearly, you were not alone.

[rayheinrich]

Well.

It's gratifying to see how much effort's been applied to this poem; it deserves it.
And not without results: Many a good point has been raised and competently dealt with.

This poem moved me to inaction at the first; it still does.

And while not to belittle all this effort, I must say I still find the original more appealing.
Being an analytical person and all, and one prone to endless editing, I have come to
appreciate the slight roughness, the irregularities of first impressions. And no, I do not
approve of novices who spout that "virgin is better" excuse for not putting in the effort
to think about their poem and take the time to do a decent edit. But... when a writer
has practiced, read, become proficient in their art/craft, there's a certain argument to
be made for fresh words delivered directly from the subconscious, for those little
irregularities that let us participate in the creation of the work, the feel (however fanciful)
that we were there when it happened. The Navahos, when they weave their sublime rugs,
always include a defect, an irregularity in the otherwise perfect symmetry of their composition.
"It's to let the evil spirits out", it's explained. For me, it has to do with the sin of pride;
the quest for perfection that dulls what the poem attempts to say, and leaves us with what
it looks like.

Ha, well, I like all the edits, really, just over-thinking as usual,
Ray

P.S. Beautiful poem, there's really no way it could be harmed, only helped.

[ellajam]

Well.

It's gratifying to see how much effort's been applied to this poem; it deserves it.
And not without results: Many a good point has been raised and competently dealt with.

This poem moved me to inaction at the first; it still does.

And while not to belittle all this effort, I must say I still find the original more appealing.
Being an analytical person and all, and one prone to endless editing, I have come to
appreciate the slight roughness, the irregularities of first impressions. And no, I do not
approve of novices who spout that "virgin is better" excuse for not putting in the effort
to think about their poem and take the time to do a decent edit. But... when a writer
has practiced, read, become proficient in their art/craft, there's a certain argument to
be made for fresh words delivered directly from the subconscious, for those little
irregularities that let us participate in the creation of the work, the feel (however fanciful)
that we were there when it happened. The Navahos, when they weave their sublime rugs,
always include a defect, an irregularity in the otherwise perfect symmetry of their composition.
"It's to let the evil spirits out", it's explained. For me, it has to do with the sin of pride;
the quest for perfection that dulls what the poem attempts to say, and leaves us with what
it looks like.

Ha, well, I like all the edits, really, just over-thinking as usual,
Ray

P.S. Beautiful poem, there's really no way it could be harmed, only helped.

Thanks for stopping in, Ray, and for taking the time to comment, I hear you.

That perfection thing is in quilting also, I've heard it said because only god is perfect and one shouldn't be so proud as to think one is equal to god. I never really worry about it because I am never that close to perfection that it is an issue. Nor do I think a god would give a hoot.

That said, I do sometimes edit the life out of a piece but usually when I resuscitate it it's better than the original. I still don't really have full faith in this one and remembering the poem I linked to earlier in this thread makes me think the work I put in here may lead nowhere in regards to a keeper, but I'm enjoying the process, the craft and the interaction, and that's my only goal here. It's certainly not unusual for me to have to dial back, that's one of the beauties of working with words, takes no time at all restart from an earlier point, if only I can figure what that point is.

So thanks, Ray, my next read through of the edits will keep your comments in mind.

[rayheinrich]

... if only I can figure what that point is.

    Yes, writers and all... death won't come so hard to us as we'll be so busy
    figuring out where the point is to notice it.

[Xctv]

I find the message of the poem truly inspiring. The emotion that was given to these personal possessions embodies the human nature of always holding onto past memories. Good or bad.
The poem suggests that there is nothing better than having a clear state of mind. And memories are now just "things" that no longer carry any significance to our futures.

I personally feel like edit No.2 is better than edit 2.1. The brevity that is found in the latter edit strips the suspense and climax away from the poem. By keeping the longer list of household items such as "rescued vacuum cleaners". The brevity found in the updated version strips the universal message of the poem of its personal tone. I personally think that is the ideal version. The adjectives carrying neutral connotations that are found in the original version also create the same lack of connection with the reader. The adjective "rescued" suits the message of the poem better than "fixable", for example. I think edit No.2 works perfectly for these reasons outlined above.

[ellajam]

I find the message of the poem truly inspiring. The emotion that was given to these personal possessions embodies the human nature of always holding onto past memories. Good or bad.
The poem suggests that there is nothing better than having a clear state of mind. And memories are now just "things" that no longer carry any significance to our futures.

I personally feel like edit No.2 is better than edit 2.1. The brevity that is found in the latter edit strips the suspense and climax away from the poem. By keeping the longer list of household items such as "rescued vacuum cleaners". The brevity found in the updated version strips the universal message of the poem of its personal tone. I personally think that is the ideal version. The adjectives carrying neutral connotations that are found in the original version also create the same lack of connection with the reader. The adjective "rescued" suits the message of the poem better than "fixable", for example. I think edit No.2 works perfectly for these reasons outlined above.

Thanks so much for letting me know that the poem is starting to work. I appreciate your view of the formatting and your support of "rescued".

Welcome, I hope you enjoy working (and playing) with the members of this site as much as I do.

[ellajam]

Dear Ellajam,

Lines dropped in edit 2, which I especially liked from edit 1:

each with one article you couldn't trash.  - Why did you change this? I think this line draws such a nice picture of the personality you are talking about.

and almost working vacuum cleaners, - I know you have been taken up on that one, but I especially liked it. It is NOT working, the thing actually most likely needs chucking out, but there is this chance somebody knows where exactly to kick it, to make it work again. It is, so to say, almost working, and cannot be not thrown out.

When the ocean took it all you came, - I can see how it is hard to carry on from here, but I prefered the way these words sound to the surge.


All in all, just by dropping these lines, I even like edit 1 more, even though everything else reads better in edit 2.


My arms are full of empty,
free to hold today.

These are my favorite lines. Not only in this poem, but ...propably EVER.

A million apologies, Pyrra, I don't know how I missed your comment but I am so glad I found it. You express the reasons for your preferences beautifully and make me realize that the cut lines really could work because you got it. You have pushed me into thinking about a new edit to regain what the poem may have lost.

Thank you so much for coming by and making the effort to let me know. Invaluable.

[rayheinrich]

        Pyrra's channeling the real stuff.  

[Pyrra]

I am really looking forward to your new edit.

[Akira]

There's so much feedback, I almost afraid to comment, so I will keep to a few quick points:

You left without your things.

Eighty years of salvage shelved 
beside Cayce, Twain and Eliot;
issues from the weekly deluge 
of Archeology, New Yorker, Science   [Archeology, Science, New Yorker,] vocalizes a bit smoother
and annotated testaments 
the rest of us would never read.
Closets harbor picnic baskets     With "deluge" above I see you are going for the water motif, but I really stumbled on "Closets harbor"; if there was a stanza break it might work better.
and rescued vacuum cleaners;
Polaroid cameras in their striped boxes;
photos of your youth, and ours.

When the ocean took it all
your grin appeared and whispered: [appeared, whispering:]
They're just things.      [even though it is admittedly so far away, I wonder about the repetition with line 1 of the word "things"]

My arms are full of empty,
free to hold today.

You seem to be (nicely) comparing the reaction of him/her with the reaction of [narrator] you. Is the idea that the gathering/accumulation was done of one mind, but the loss revealed the divergence? I am also bothered by the opening seeming to refer to the end of the relationship, but the loss of stuff caused by (seemingly) a random weather event. Is it some big coincidence? Or am I miss reading this?

There may be more to mine there.

[ellajam]

There's so much feedback, I almost afraid to comment, so I will keep to a few quick points:

You left without your things.

Eighty years of salvage shelved 
beside Cayce, Twain and Eliot;
issues from the weekly deluge 
of Archeology, New Yorker, Science   [Archeology, Science, New Yorker,] vocalizes a bit smoother
and annotated testaments 
the rest of us would never read.
Closets harbor picnic baskets     With "deluge" above I see you are going for the water motif, but I really stumbled on "Closets harbor"; if there was a stanza break it might work better.
and rescued vacuum cleaners;
Polaroid cameras in their striped boxes;
photos of your youth, and ours.

When the ocean took it all
your grin appeared and whispered: [appeared, whispering:]
They're just things.      [even though it is admittedly so far away, I wonder about the repetition with line 1 of the word "things"]

My arms are full of empty,
free to hold today.

You seem to be (nicely) comparing the reaction of him/her with the reaction of [narrator] you. Is the idea that the gathering/accumulation was done of one mind, but the loss revealed the divergence? I am also bothered by the opening seeming to refer to the end of the relationship, but the loss of stuff caused by (seemingly) a random weather event. Is it some big coincidence? Or am I miss reading this?

There may be more to mine there.

Thanks so much, Akira, for giving your time to this. Since it seems I've accidentally deleted the new edit I'm working on   you post is most timely. I will work on the sonics of the magazine list, possibly drop the "of" also, thanks for your suggestion, possibly

issues from the weekly deluge:
Archeology, Science, New Yorker

then some version of the article line from the previous edit that seems to be a loss here.

I want to keep the contents confined to one stanza but I will try to think of some other way to smooth the stumble of "closets harbor", thanks for pointing it out.

The repeat of things is intentional and my attempt to let it go was not successful. I'm pretty sure I'm keeping that but I am most concerned with the opening line not getting across what I intend. Your closing comments are on the money until you seem to not know why those things were left, and then kept. You are not alone in your confusion. I am being stubborn in not making the poem clearer, I will think about it again (and again and again ).

Never be afraid to comment, each critique is a gift, much appreciated.

[Akira]

Now I am curious--  but let me take a stab and see if I am getting closer:

First, there is an off-hand chance the this is about a parent who died. The eighty years of salvage potentially suggests that, and other than someone very down to earth, or a mendicant or a Buddhist, losing that much stuff would normally get a rise unless the person was older and learned the perspective of age — they are after all, just things. 

But, that said, I am going to hold to the couple theory and say She (narrator) He (hoarder) for convenience.

It seems the divergence of views on “things” and life revealed by the loss triggered the questioning of perceived identity and outlook that either terminated the relationship or opened up other things (pun pun, can't resist) that then terminated the relationship, or, in other words, the old “Who the hell are you and what did you do with the person I thought I was living with all these years?”

I am picking up a "If you didn't care about stuff, why the hell have I (we?) spent so much time and energy maintaining your accumulation of it." This would be clearer if you were more consistent in whose stuff it is. You assign the first load of crap to him, but the closeted-harbored stuff mostly could belong to either of you. That it is his desire/drive to save the ancient/antique crap could be intensified a touch, and would reinforce the odd contradiction of the hoarder not caring about the loss, and the person with little care for the stuff while it was there being floored by the loss. Consider maybe adding a descriptive image memory of the experiences of his collecting of the crap to break/ameliorate the list-like nature of S2 that other commentators were bothered by (didn’t bother me too much, but more meaningful images usually can’t hurt).

I think what threw me initially is that the opening suggests a choice: you left all your stuff, which is now is here with me. But the poem then goes to show that it wasn’t left by choice, but destroyed: He didn't leave it (physically) — it was gone, lost at sea. The leaving of the things is clearly metaphorically true for both of them as she is still mentally crushed by it, and he's skipping and humming away. While I like that idea of the things as a metaphor (and perhaps it is multi-layered, referring also to other aspects of the relationship, though as is the text may currently be a bit thin to properly support such), but the opening line being followed by such a detailed physical list of items throws off the reading, creating that problem I initially had. 

It may even be worth at least playing with the idea of a foreshadowing of the destruction at the start/before the list to clue in the reader that there is something else going on. This is just a crude illustration to make the point, but:

You left without your things.

All lost to the storm:
Eighty years of salvage shelved 
beside Cayce, Twain and Eliot;
issues from the weekly deluge 
of Archeology, New Yorker, Science
and annotated testaments 
the rest of us would never read.
Closets harbor picnic baskets 
and rescued vacuum cleaners;
Polaroid cameras in their striped boxes;
photos of your youth, and ours.

When the ocean took it all
your grin appeared and whispered: 
They're just things.

My arms are full of empty,
free to hold today.

[ellajam]

><  Akira, I would hug you if I could. By describing your read so well you may have given me the key to this and you've certainly explained what seems to be leading readers off track. Some response below.

Now I am curious--  but let me take a stab and see if I am getting closer:

First, there is an off-hand chance the this is about a parent who died. The eighty years of salvage potentially suggests that, and other than someone very down to earth, or a mendicant or a Buddhist, losing that much stuff would normally get a rise unless the person was older and learned the perspective of age — they are after all, just things. 

Ha, this idea that you've dismissed because the rest misleads you is where I was aiming, and obviously missing.

But, that said, I am going to hold to the couple theory and say She (narrator) He (hoarder) for convenience.

It seems the divergence of views on “things” and life revealed by the loss triggered the questioning of perceived identity and outlook that either terminated the relationship or opened up other things (pun pun, can't resist) that then terminated the relationship, or, in other words, the old “Who the hell are you and what did you do with the person I thought I was living with all these years?”

Not this, but I will sift through to try to eliminate anything that might have led you here.

I am picking up a "If you didn't care about stuff, why the hell have I (we?) spent so much time and energy maintaining your accumulation of it."

LOL, yes to this.

This would be clearer if you were more consistent in whose stuff it is. You assign the first load of crap to him, but the closeted-harbored stuff mostly could belong to either of you.

Ding, ding, ding, this a problem. Now I understand why you suggested a strophe break here, I think the closet moves the location and therefore the poem, goodbye closet and possibly picnic basket, which may have a feminine feel to some and may lead readers down a dead end. A million thanks.

That it is his desire/drive to save the ancient/antique crap could be intensified a touch, and would reinforce

the odd contradiction of the hoarder not caring about the loss, and the person with little care for the stuff while it was there being floored by the loss.

yes this, crazy isn't it?  

Consider maybe adding a descriptive image memory of the experiences of his collecting of the crap to break/ameliorate the list-like nature of S2 that other commentators were bothered by (didn’t bother me too much, but more meaningful images usually can’t hurt).

I think what threw me initially is that the opening suggests a choice: you left all your stuff, which is now is here with me. But the poem then goes to show that it wasn’t left by choice, but destroyed: He didn't leave it (physically) — it was gone, lost at sea. 

The poem is clearly not doing its job here, he left his stuff long before it was destroyed. I will try to do better, thank you for explaining your confusion.

The leaving of the things is clearly metaphorically true for both of them as she is still mentally crushed by it, and he's skipping and humming away.

lol Right on the money.

While I like that idea of the things as a metaphor (and perhaps it is multi-layered, referring also to other aspects of the relationship, though as is the text may currently be a bit thin to properly support such), but the opening line being followed by such a detailed physical list of items throws off the reading, creating that problem I initially had. 

It may even be worth at least playing with the idea of a foreshadowing of the destruction at the start/before the list to clue in the reader that there is something else going on. This is just a crude illustration to make the point, but:

You left without your things.

All lost to the storm:
Eighty years of salvage shelved 
beside Cayce, Twain and Eliot;
issues from the weekly deluge 
of Archeology, New Yorker, Science
and annotated testaments 
the rest of us would never read.
Closets harbor picnic baskets 
and rescued vacuum cleaners;
Polaroid cameras in their striped boxes;
photos of your youth, and ours.

When the ocean took it all
your grin appeared and whispered: 
They're just things.

My arms are full of empty,
free to hold today.

[ellajam]

Well, I've tried to keep some improvements and regain some of what I'd lost. A mountain of thanks to all of you who have helped.

[Tiger the Lion]

Well, I've tried to keep some improvements and regain some of what I'd lost. A mountain of thanks to all of you who have helped.

A fine edit. I'm a little attached to this one.  ><

[ellajam]

Well, I've tried to keep some improvements and regain some of what I'd lost. A mountain of thanks to all of you who have helped.

A fine edit. I'm a little attached to this one.  ><

Oh, thank you, I really didn't expect anyone to come back. I'm glad you like the edit, it's been sitting a while, thought I'd give it a go.

[jameso]

looks like theres been a lot of work on this. I personally like something about the simplicity of the original version. but i really much prefer this line :

religious tomes in languages
the rest of us couldn't read;

I much prefer it to the 3 lines about magazine articles. to me that seems a more trivial subject, religious tomes in other languages paints a far richer character with an interesting life. I feel like mainstream magazine articles are a sacrifice to mass appeal

[ellajam]

looks like theres been a lot of work on this. I personally like something about the simplicity of the original version. but i really much prefer this line :

religious tomes in languages
the rest of us couldn't read;

I much prefer it to the 3 lines about magazine articles. to me that seems a more trivial subject, religious tomes in other languages paints a far richer character with an interesting life. I feel like mainstream magazine articles are a sacrifice to mass appeal

Thanks so much for giving your time for this, it wouldn't be the first time I did more harm than good editing. i'll certainly take another look at that line, thanks for pointing that out.