Our Lady The Opaque

[Jacob]

Our Lady The Opaque

I will not look at you
your eyes and your face and your hands
I hold them in the blurred periphery 
like the sun and the stars
you glow brighter when I look away

I will not see through you
your face and the mind beyond it
I halt my guessing at your feet
whatever fears or desires pulse therein
you do not need me to draw them from you

I will not touch you
your mind opaque and voice a mist
I know the venom in my hands
and the spines on my tongue
you are fading quick enough without my help

[This is a piece I've been working on for awhile, some lines have resisted all efforts, any input will be appreciated.]

[ellajam]

A strong piece. I like the simplicity of the language vs the complexity of the emotion behind it. I've put some thoughts on my read below.

Our Lady The Opaque

I will not look at you
your eyes and your face and your hands I'm still undecided on the ands. They slow the line well but commas would do the same if you used them and I find out loud I just swallow them.
I hold them in the blurred periphery Strong line.
like the sun and the stars I like the way this line shifts between the one above and below. I'm undecided on the cliched simplicity.
you glow brighter when I look away Interesting.

I will not see through you
your face and the mind beyond it Strong.
I halt my guessing at your feet My favorite line, it sold me on the whole piece, grabbed me.
whatever fears or desires pulse therein
you do not need me to draw them from you Emotionally strong.

I will not touch you
your mind opaque and voice a mist You've sort of said this already.
I know the venom in my hands
and the spines on my tongue Two strong lines, you might consider "of my tongue".
you are fading quick enough without my help You might consider "quickly".

I'm enjoying it, thanks for posting it.

[Jacob]

like the sun and the stars I like the way this line shifts between the one above and below. I'm undecided on the cliched simplicity.
you glow brighter when I look away Interesting.

Thanks for the feedback. 
I am also undecided about the mild cliche of those lines. It's an important image to the poem, works very well thematically, but the whole thing about stars looking smaller when you look right at them isn't exactly an original point. Applying the same idea to the sun might be (the optical effect works the same way, you just can't do it for long) but I'm not sure. I've tried to rephrase it without much success. 
At one point it was "Your glow expands when I look away," which was more precise with regard to my mental image but didn't flow as well.

[billy]

i'm not sure of the title. i'm taking from it that the persona in the poem is a sinner of some kind hoping for forgiveness.

Our Lady The Opaque

I will not look at you
your eyes and your face and your hands
I hold them in the blurred periphery  i like that this creates an image within an image
like the sun and the stars
you glow brighter when I look away

a suggestion; if you is [if] to start the 3rd line, you can shave off [when i look away] i'm minded of coming out of a dark tunnel into the light.

I will not see through you
your face and the mind beyond it  the face again, could something else be used, head, skull?
I halt my guessing at your feet
whatever fears or desires pulse therein are we implying desires pulse at her feet?
you do not need me to draw them from you

I will not touch you
your mind opaque and voice a mist your instead of and?
I know the venom in my hands does this refer to violence? though i'm not sure, i do like the idea of it
and the spines on my tongue i think i understand this metaphor
you are fading quick enough without my help

[This is a piece I've been working on for awhile, some lines have resisted all efforts, any input will be appreciated.]

[Erthona]

Our Lady The Opaque

RE: title. An allusion to another literary piece, or work of art can work well, but it has to make sense.

I will not look at you
your eyes and your face and your hands
I hold them in the blurred periphery
like the sun and the stars
you glow brighter when I look away

What is it you are really trying to say here or are you just being flowery?
It doesn't really make much sense to say "I hold them in the blurred periphery" as it begs the questions of what?
As to L3-4 It may be true that absence makes the heart grow fonder, however this has no correlation to the sun and stars inherent brightness, which with the exception of some specific cases, are constant. So in this case the simile fails.
As this is in mild I will constrain myself to the first stanza, with the exception of mentioning that unless there is a justifiable reason for parting ways with the usual conventions of writing (grammar, punctuation, et al., one should not!). Had you availed yourself of these your stanza would have read much more clearly.

OK a bit of an edit:

I will not look at you.
Your eyes, face and hands
I hold in my sight's blurred periphery.
Like the sun and the stars
you glow brighter when I look away.


Best,

dale

[Jacob]

Re:all regarding the title - For some years I have been entitling many of my love(ish) poems "Our Lady of/the _____." It started when I was attending a catholic university and reading a lot of medieval lit. You can pretend it's a reference to Our Lady of the Flowers if it will make you feel better.

Billy - Thanks for your thoughts. The "Therein" is meant holistically, but I get the confusion. I'm curious if this is the general impression, was this a side note for you or did it really seem like that was what was meant? The "venom in my hand / spines on my tongue" is talking about violence, but not necessarily the physical sort.

Dale - I am not just being flowery. You can go ahead and assume that nothing I post here is me just being flowery. If you are legitimately curious about the meaning of this poem I am happy to explain it, but I was under the impression this was a workshopping forum and not the "Jacob's mushy feelings hour." The "what" of holding in the blurred periphery is the object of the previous line (eyes, face, hands). I feel this is fairly obvious. Those lines in the first stanza have nothing to do with absence making the heart grow fonder, they are a reference to the optical effect wherein bright objects appear brighter when not looked at directly, as I more or less explain the narrator is doing. My justifiable reason for parting ways with the general laws of grammar, here meaning punctuation (since apart from that it's fine), is my belief, plagiarized from Cormac McCarthy, that extraneous marks clutter up a page. In simple pieces like this I enjoy doing without them entirely. If the punctuation was added the stanza would look like this,

I will not look at you:
your eyes and your face and your hands,
I hold them in the blurred periphery;
like the sun and the stars
you grow brighter when I look away.

[Achebe]

quick inputs:
1)'venom in my hands....fading quickly' is conflating two very different metaphors, and gives the impression that you're just resorting to quick verbal shorthand - laziness being the chief impression, not studied economy. it helps if you stick with a single metaphor, at least for a couple of lines, and develop it.
2) "voice a mist" doesn't work as a metaphor for me because a voice is something I hear, not see. I can guess that you're trying to develop the concept of opacity by introducing this mist, but the 'voice' is misplaced.
3) desires pulsing at your feet - for me that creates a funny mental picture of popeye's feet with varicose veins, probably not what you intended.
4) in in the end, i am puzzled by what you are mean by 'venom' and 'spine' - is it that you are a player who's going to basically use your hands and tongue on the lady of the opaque and regret it afterwards? that's what i thought, and didn't like the mambo no. 5 lou bega sentiment. if it was intended and i didn't like it, too bad for me. if it wasn't, then that's something you might want to look at.
5) do stars look brighter when you look away? i don't think so. a period after 'stars' would address this issue, unless you really are saying that.

[billy]

Billy - Thanks for your thoughts. The "Therein" is meant holistically, but I get the confusion. I'm curious if this is the general impression, was this a side note for you or did it really seem like that was what was meant? The "venom in my hand / spines on my tongue" is talking about violence, but not necessarily the physical sort.

i saw the spiny tongue as a metaphor for nasty talk. venom in your hands didn't work too well for me as it reads less like a metaphor and more like a physicality. though i do see it as a metaphor for beat.

it wasn't a side note. for me it read like something was pulsing in the feet.

[Jacob]

The pulsing feet thing is unfortunate. Those are both really important sentiments for the poem and they are not supposed to be that directly connected. I'll have to think about this.
Would exchanging "within" for "therein" help?

I had thought the thing with stars was common knowledge, but it's explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision

a question of etiquette - I'm new to this site so I'm still figuring out how this community works, it is generally considered useful to explain why you are going to discard people's suggestions, or should I just ignore what isn't useful? It seems like I often have solid artistic reasons for disagreeing with people that, if this was a real conversation, I would explain, but here I'm just worried that it'll sound defensive.

[ellajam]

The pulsing feet thing is unfortunate. Those are both really important sentiments for the poem and they are not supposed to be that directly connected. I'll have to think about this.
Would exchanging "within" for "therein" help?

I had thought the thing with stars was common knowledge, but it's explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision

a question of etiquette - I'm new to this site so I'm still figuring out how this community works, it is generally considered useful to explain why you are going to discard people's suggestions, or should I just ignore what isn't useful? It seems like I often have solid artistic reasons for disagreeing with people that, if this was a real conversation, I would explain, but here I'm just worried that it'll sound defensive.

Each member does what they are comfortable with. Some just say thanks for your time and what they do with the crit is their own private matter. Personally I like to discuss a point if I'm unclear about something the critique questions or I think explaining what I was aiming for will help members help me. When I edit I read through the comments, often multiple times, and decide for myself which suggestions I think will help the poem and try to work with them. I've already thanked each poster for their efforts, no need to explain why I used some suggestions and not others.

The crit is really there so that you can understand how different readers experience your piece, totally your business whether it makes you think about it differently or you choose to just silently reject it and move on. It's the poem, not you, that has to explain itself.

edit: And, no, I don't think of the star thing as common knowledge. It may be in your circle, but I doubt if most in mine have considered it, and most have not studied astronomy or ophthalmology.

[rayheinrich]

Sorry, no detailed crit. but:

I pretty much got "Our Lady The Opaque" right off though I think it would be clearer
if it was "Our Lady of the Opaque". The "of" is what really connects it.

The averted vision thing used to be fairly common knowledge. I remember my dad
showing me how it worked when we were out camping. It helped when you needed
to follow trails in the dark.  When firing a gun in low light, you never look straight down
the sights, but at the upper right side of the site. You also need to close your aiming eye
just as you fire or the muzzle flash will ruin your night vision. None of this is that useful,
what you really need is a night vision device.

But nowadays, light pollution and city dwelling having become so prevalent,
I guess it isn't common knowledge.

But even knowing this well, I didn't understand that you were referring to it in the poem.

"like the sun and the stars
you grow brighter when I look away."

Mentioning the sun was what threw me off, averted vision is used in low light situations.
Almost anything with eyes that evolved on this earth does not look at the sun.
It's instinctive, we don't even have to think about it.

No matter what you write, you really do have to decide who your audience is. The averted
vision metaphor is confusing to almost everyone (even me and I knew about it) and needs
to be changed.

I did like the poem, by the way, it's not wanting for lack of effort.
Ray

[billy]

often it does sound defensive and some times ungrateful to some. after a while you'll get to know who likes what :  thank you goes a long way as does the willingness to workshop the poem if it's needed. from experience, if something needs to be explained; it may be because it's more obscure than you think. most people i know think the dog star was lassy or ole yella.  we feel the poem belongs to the poet and they chose or not whether to use none, any or all feedback given.   we're pretty forgiving if you leave feedback elsewhere though

The pulsing feet thing is unfortunate. Those are both really important sentiments for the poem and they are not supposed to be that directly connected. I'll have to think about this.
Would exchanging "within" for "therein" help?

I had thought the thing with stars was common knowledge, but it's explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision

a question of etiquette - I'm new to this site so I'm still figuring out how this community works, it is generally considered useful to explain why you are going to discard people's suggestions, or should I just ignore what isn't useful? It seems like I often have solid artistic reasons for disagreeing with people that, if this was a real conversation, I would explain, but here I'm just worried that it'll sound defensive.

[Erthona]

Quote Jacob

"Dale - I am not just being flowery. You can go ahead and assume that nothing I post here is me just being flowery. If you are legitimately curious about the meaning of this poem I am happy to explain it, but I was under the impression this was a workshopping forum and not the "Jacob's mushy feelings hour." The "what" of holding in the blurred periphery is the object of the previous line (eyes, face, hands). I feel this is fairly obvious. Those lines in the first stanza have nothing to do with absence making the heart grow fonder, they are a reference to the optical effect wherein bright objects appear brighter when not looked at directly, as I more or less explain the narrator is doing. My justifiable reason for parting ways with the general laws of grammar, here meaning punctuation (since apart from that it's fine), is my belief, plagiarized from Cormac McCarthy, that extraneous marks clutter up a page. In simple pieces like this I enjoy doing without them entirely. If the punctuation was added the stanza would look like this,
I will not look at you:

your eyes and your face and your hands,
I hold them in the blurred periphery;
like the sun and the stars
you grow brighter when I look away."

"I am not just being flowery"  Yet to me, flowery it seemed. This is legitimate critique. This seemed especially true with the title as it is. How am I the reader to know the significance of what that title means, or to do other than to take it at face value?

In terms of averted vision, I'm quite familiar with this from astronomy. I find it interesting in your quote for your argument that you leave off the first line "I will not look at you".
I find it difficult to justify claiming "averted vision", when at the outset the speaker says he will not look at the other person.

"My justifiable reason for parting ways with the general laws of grammar, here meaning punctuation (since apart from that it's fine), is my belief, plagiarized from Cormac McCarthy, that extraneous marks clutter up a page."

The use of punctuation has proven itself through many hundreds of years as a helper of clarity, so it is hardly accurate to say it "clutters up the page". The inverse is the truth; doing without punctuation clutters up up the clarity of the poem as is the case here. There are many people myself included in my younger years who had neither a strong foundation (read lazy) in grammar or punctuation and were more than happy to do away with  it. Other's were under the delusion it made the poem on the page look more like a poem. I find the idea here that these "extraneous marks clutter up a page", simply another attempt to appear unique when no such uniqueness exists. The bottom line (yes I know a cliche, but this isn't poetry), the practice of omitting punctuation should be consigned to the same realm as center justify and starting each line with a cap, that is the graveyard of affectations.  

Best,

dale

PS Your use of the word "plagiarize" is incorrect as you quote the source. Better to use the word borrow.

[Jacob]

Rayheinrich - Thanks for your thoughts. I’m more than a little confused by how that first stanza is unclear but it seems to have been unclear to everyone so… I guess I’m the crazy one here. What’s funny is that I thought the problem with those lines was that the sentiment is a little cliche.
Side note regarding the sun: it’s possible my understanding of the science here is flawed, but I have noticed what I assumed was the same effect with the sun, where if you look at it directly for a second or two you see a small white circle, whereas held in your peripheral vision, like you usually do, it looks larger and brighter, with indistinct edges.

Dale - Isn’t there some quote about analysis being more profitable when you assume that the writer knows what they are doing? Whatever, if you want to accuse people of writing crappy poetry, that’s your prerogative, although I would disagree about it constituting “critique.”
The logic of your second paragraph is a bit beyond me. Since averted vision is a form of not looking at something, I don’t see the contradiction. No one appears to have gotten the reference anyway, so I’m not sure why I’m arguing about this.
I think that being really exacting about grammar and punctuation is appropriate for prose but not always for poetry, being that poetry is more about the music of language than the mathematics. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about this one.

[ellajam]

Rayheinrich - Thanks for your thoughts. I’m more than a little confused by how that first stanza is unclear but it seems to have been unclear to everyone so… I guess I’m the crazy one here. What’s funny is that I thought the problem with those lines was that the sentiment is a little cliche.
Side note regarding the sun: it’s possible my understanding of the science here is flawed, but I have noticed what I assumed was the same effect with the sun, where if you look at it directly for a second or two you see a small white circle, whereas held in your peripheral vision, like you usually do, it looks larger and brighter, with indistinct edges.

Dale - Isn’t there some quote about analysis being more profitable when you assume that the writer knows what they are doing? Whatever, if you want to accuse people of writing crappy poetry, that’s your prerogative, although I would disagree about it constituting “critique.”
The logic of your second paragraph is a bit beyond me. Since averted vision is a form of not looking at something, I don’t see the contradiction. No one appears to have gotten the reference anyway, so I’m not sure why I’m arguing about this.
I think that being really exacting about grammar and punctuation is appropriate for prose but not always for poetry, being that poetry is more about the music of language than the mathematics. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about this one.

My bold. A critique here is a post addressing what the poster finds are weak or strong points of the piece during their read. No one is accusing the poet of anything here, members are addressing the poem at hand. Not every poem will work for everybody, just pick up any book of poetry and count how many times you say "meh". These workshops are for hearing the experience of the poem from readers who are members of this site, with all their varied tastes, backgrounds and perceptions.

If anyone has a personal beef with someone please take it to the Arse, where anyone can freely accuse anyone of accusing them of anything. The workshops are not the place for personal sniping. Thanks, ella

[Erthona]

Jacob,

"Dale - Isn’t there some quote about analysis being more profitable when you assume that the writer knows what they are doing?"

I think you misunderstand this critique thing. I could care less who wrote a poem. The poem must stand on it's on. I do not take the writer into account at all. If I am guilty in my critique it is of not using the less personal "one" instead of you. I apologize for that, sometimes I get lazy. I don't believe I have ever said, well at least not in a critique, that this poem was "crappy poetry". I do try and point out what to me appear to be problematic elements. In terms of "averted vision" which I did not think was in play from the start because you said, "I will not look". But, averted vision is "Averted vision is a technique for viewing faint objects which uses peripheral vision. It involves not looking directly at the object, but looking a little off to the side..." Wiki. Notice, " but looking a little off to the side"

I interpreted " blurred periphery" as tears. I do not think think this is an entirely off the wall interpretation. It may have not been what the writer was shooting for, but whose fault is that? There are plenty of people out there who blame the reader for a problem in the poem, they reside at the hundreds of vanity sites. I've yet to find a problem in any of my poems, especially in terms of clarity that were not my fault.

Best,

dale

[rayheinrich]

Rayheinrich - Thanks for your thoughts. I’m more than a little confused by how that first stanza
is unclear but it seems to have been unclear to everyone so… I guess I’m the crazy one here.

You're not crazy, you just happen to be the only one who knows where it's buried.

What’s funny is that I thought the problem with those lines was that the sentiment is a little cliche.

It's not uncommon for lines to have more than one problem.

Side note regarding the sun: it’s possible my understanding of the science here is flawed, but I have
noticed what I assumed was the same effect with the sun, where if you look at it directly for a second
or two you see a small white circle, whereas held in your peripheral vision, like you usually do, it looks
larger and brighter, with indistinct edges.

Just checked, it turns out the cone to rod sensitivity differential is only significant at low light levels.
And, while purely anecdotal,  I will still relay to you that I just went outside and tried to verify this for
myself. As far as I'm concerned, the damn sun is MUCH brighter when you look at it directly. Maybe we
could search the literature and come up with some definitive double-blind studies that would provide us
with some insight here. I'd do it right now if I was able to see my screen.

Isn’t there some quote about analysis being more profitable when you assume that the writer knows what
they are doing?

I'm not aware of any such quote. Critics, as a rule, are given to assume the writer is a mad monkey.  
I think the quote you're alluding to is about accepting critique. Here are a few I found that seem apropos:

"The assumption of right precludes reflection; that of error, enhances it."  - Simone de Beauvoir

"What benefit a student who assumes no teacher?" - Yunmen Wenyan

"You must embrace ignorance; assuming your critics are in error only reinforces your own prejudice."  - G.B. Shaw

And the Bible:

These are from Proverbs 16, substitute "Critic" for "Lord":

"All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits." - Proverbs 16:2

"Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established." - Proverbs 16:3

"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:18

I think that being really exacting about grammar and punctuation is appropriate for prose but not
always for poetry, being that poetry is more about the music of language than the mathematics. I
think we’ll have to agree to disagree about this one.

While it's quite reasonable to write poetry without using punctuation marks
(most of my own poetry is done in this manner), the poem must still contain punctuation
of other sorts and must be written with this in mind. Just removing the punctuation marks
from an existing poem will create a jittery mess that's not only hard to understand, but rather
tedious to read as well.

Looking forward to your re-emergence.
(Hopefully the desert won't be so arduous the second time 'round.)
Ray

[REW]

Hi,

I just joined and have not mastered the system.  I copied and pasted your piece and added some comments, but I couldn't see how to bold my words to differentiate them from yours.  Anyway,  this is an intriguing piece.  The title implies a sense of worship for the subject, yet the words in the poem do not.  The opaque lady appears negatively.  Yet by the end the fault is with the narrator.  Are you saying the narrator is the reason why the lady is impenetrable in the first place?  The first stanza is excellent.  Then the meaning becomes a little opaque.  Perhaps this is your intention.  I do think your piece has great potential, but could use a little tweaking for the sake of clarity.

Our Lady The Opaque

I will not look at you
your eyes and your face and your hands
I hold them in the blurred periphery
like the sun and the stars
you glow brighter when I look away (I like your first stanza, especially the holding in the blurred periphery and the glowing brighter when the speaker looks away)

I will not see through you
your face and the mind beyond it (maybe get rid of and here and substitute with to or into)
I halt my guessing at your feet
whatever fears or desires pulse therein (this part is a little confusing...being at the feet implies a sense of worship, but
you do not need me to draw them from you that doesn't appear to be the case here.  Her desires do not pulse in her                       feet.  I would try to convey what you mean differently here for clarity.)

I will not touch you
your mind opaque and voice a mist (you already referenced the opaqueness of the mind earlier in previous stanza.)
I know the venom in my hands (Okay so the speaker is somehow toxic.  But why would she be fading quick enough without the speaker's help?)
and the spines on my tongue
you are fading quick enough without my help



Hi Casey, thanks for a solid start to your critiquing.  You will find tips on how to use code for bold, italics etc here or alternatively, if you click the REPLY button in the bottom right of the thread it will open up a Word-like screen where you can just mouse-select and format.  (My REPLY button has blacked out for some reason and I've only just noticed, I'm not sure if it's the same for everyone, but if it is then it's the tiny little black box at the bottom right hand corner of the thread).  Regards/ Admin

[Magpie]

I kind of wished that I hadn't read all the comments on this page because they have definitely took me in certain directions, whether this is detrimental to my critique is yet to be seen. Hopefully not.

Our Lady The Opaque

I will not look at you
your eyes and your face and your hands -- I am also unsure of the repetition here. Also the choice seems very specific. By mentioning 'face' most would assume this included 'eyes', so I'm thinking there is a reason for mentioning three things... Trinity related perhaps??
I hold them in the blurred periphery -- I really like 'blurred periphery' here, although my first thought was also 'viewed through tears'
like the sun and the stars
you glow brighter when I look away -- This lines seems at odds with the first line

I will not see through you -- Again this line seems to contradict the very first line. In some ways it makes sense for you will not see through someone if you don't look at them, but I feel that this is not your intention
your face and the mind beyond it -- The use of face here seems odd unless you are implying that there is an inner face that is unseen
I halt my guessing at your feet -- Excellent line and possibly the key to the whole poem if my interpretation is somewhere near being correct
whatever fears or desires pulse therein -- This line is confusing... On first read it comes across as the 'fears and desires' are in her feet but then logic says that you must mean mind???
you do not need me to draw them from you

I will not touch you -- This line threw me at first. My first thought was 'physically touch' but I think your intention is more in the sense of 'affect/taint', although there could be a double meaning here that doesn't fit in with my interpretation (detailed below)... however I may be wrong.
your mind opaque and voice a mist -- 'your mind opaque' is already implied in the previous stanza
I know the venom in my hands
and the spines on my tongue
you are fading quick enough without my help

I do really like the poem and some of the images and it seems that in certain places you have chosen words very carefully for the sake of having the perfect word in the right place. However other parts of the poem don't seem to have had the same amount of attention to detail.

The title for me implies the Virgin Mary which is who 'Our Lady' refers to in Catholicism, but then you threw me by mentioning something about "Our Lady of the Flowers" in one comment. I take everything at face value and am easily tricked sometimes. Anyway sticking with the Catholic path, the book of Revelations has a passage singularly applicable to Mary.

"And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and being with child, she cried travailing in birth",

and this would fit in with the sun and stars you mention in the first stanza. Also the Virgin Mary would account for the specific reference to "eyes, face and hands" as she is often depicted in iconography as having light radiating from these places which fits in with the last part of the first stanza which is all about light. I'm not sure how to take this stanza with the use of 'opaque' which apart from meaning impenetrable also means dull and not radiating light, I think it works but could be tweaked slightly to emphasise it. As regards the 'averted vision' debate, I didn't pick up on it when I first read it even though I am well aware of it. I agree with others that the first line contradicts any ideas of averted vision. Also my knowledge of averted vision in astronomy is that it is only used for faint objects such as nebulas, if you had mentioned nebulas I would have probably got it, if I had never studied astronomy I would never have got it. To convey this idea I think you would need to rewrite the first stanza (except the middle line, keep it, it is excellent). You can mention nebula in a certain way that keeps your star reference... Pleiades perhaps, which is mentioned in the bible three times (handy trinity reference), but also be careful not to confuse everything by involving Greek or other mythology.

Some statues and paintings of Mary depict her with a serpent or snake beneath her heel. She is also referred to as 'The New Eve' and is first prophesied in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis,
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.",

'Woman' being both Eve and Mary, and this is how I interpret your poem; as it seems to fit.

'I halt my guessing at your feet', which I think is an excellent line in the context of my interpretation. The serpent was crushed under the heel of Eve/Mary and also in this line is an example of you using the perfect word choice in 'halt', when it could have been so easy to use 'stop'. 'Halt' also meaning 'lame' in an archaic sense and it also seems to relate to 'heel'. Is this also possibly the reason for why you can't look directly at face, eyes and hands? Because you are under her heel.

Also, this is why I was confused by the first line of the third stanza, 'I will not touch you', because physically you are touching and also in the mental sense of touching as in 'affecting' this is also true... that is if it is Eve and the serpent that tempted her with the apple.

I've said way too much here for mild critique so I better wrap up quick because I'm bound to get a bollocking from Mod City. If my interpretation is anywhere close then perhaps you are on to something, but it certainly took me a hell of a lot of work to get there and I probably would have got nowhere near had I not been brought up Catholic for my sins; all original of course. If I'm wrong, then hey, it was a fun journey.

Cheers for the read,
Mark

Dear Mods, sorry for writing too much, I honestly thought it was in Serious 

It is a little wordy for mild, but I'm often guilty of the same thing. Solid critique. dale/mod