A Cosmic Predicament

[chmpman]

A Cosmic Predicament

That temptress Fate
In her supple embrace
Leaving radiant circles of Love
Has led in her deviant manner
To suddenly simple exchange.

Ah, how that thoughtless witness
Shall pursue such a righteous victory
In naming the sample done.
Will the Law prevail that random
Encounters of spiritual marriage
Carry through to the end?

Or will Fate’s sentinels
Shine lowly her meaningful reproach
To despairingly alter the course?
The future unknown to man
Has mighty wings of an alter ego
And in a shadow lurks to pounce.



This was written under the quick inspirational light and I would appreciate any and all criticism.

[Virgil]

I like some of your language, chmpman. Very original way of describing the uncertainties and apprehension of what I take to be some sort of important decision, like marriage. The poem is vague in the specifics, and that's not a criticism; interesting language without specifics can be poetry. But I think then that the logic of everything you say has to hold together better than your typical poem. And so I do question something in the first stanza: fate leaves "radiant circles of love" but yet has a "deviant manner". I can't quite logically put that together. Perhaps that's me and I may be missing something. Let's see if others agree.

I like the second stanza very much. The rhyme in the center done/random gives the poem such gravity and firmness. I love the whole sentence with the question. However, "rightous victory" is a cliche and you can do better there I think.

I'm not crazy about the third stanza. "Fate's sentinals"? I'm not sure what that is, are you? Plus it sounds so medevil. I absolutely hate the word "lurk." So overused and so melodramatic. Perhaps that's a personal thing with me.

Also I'm not sure I like the title. Very dramatic for such a short poem.

[Charles Darnay]

I really enjoyed it, what an amazing use of language! That being said, I agree that the third stanza does not flow as smoothly as the other two

One question though - perhaps I am just missing it - but what do you mean by the last line in the first stanza?

[chmpman]

Well first of all, thank you for reading and providing your thoughts. I can't say I disagree with the criticism provided so far, especially that about logic. I try to remain vague to give people something to think about, but this doesn't really work if it doesn't at least partly come into some tangible whole.

Maybe this will help. The poem is about an encounter with a woman, casually, and wondering the ramifications of the act. "Of Love" in the first stanza is not about pure love, more lust called love. The suddenly simple exchange is supposed to represent attempts at conversation between two people who may have done something they'll regret (think I need to expand this idea?). Also "spiritual marriage" is meant to be sort of tongue in cheek about the affair, or rationalization.

Hopefully my explanation didn't ruin the poem for anyone.

[chmpman]

Does anyone else care to comment? It makes sense to me, so I'm a bit curious if others share Virgil's sentiment that it could be logically tightened. That's not really what I was going for when I wrote it, but I do want it to make sense.

[Dirt McKert]

i liked it.
i even liked the flow.

i like an off-kilter poem. and this one is it.
great use of the english language.
i, personally, don't like to use uncommon words
just because i like to keep things simple in my poetry
but you have mastered the art of using these words in this poem.

[chmpman]

Wow, you think I use uncommon words, read one of Riesa's poems. :D

[Dirt McKert]

nono. i just use simple words, you know.
words used in common everyday speach.

i also like your sentence structure. it's just well-writ in my opinion.

but i'm sure i'll check out one of her poems.
i do love poetry

[chmpman]

Well, thank you for your comments, and you should check hers out.

[Dirt McKert]

i couldn't find any posts by her - i even searched.

is that her screen name?
and you're welcome, btw ;)

[chmpman]

I would appreciate feedback on these minor revisions.

A Gambler’s Predicament

That temptress Fate
In her supple embrace
Leaving radiant circles of Love
Has led in her deviant manner
To suddenly simple exchange.

Ah, how that thoughtless witness
Shall pursue such justified capture
In naming the sample done.
Will the Law prevail that random
Encounters of spiritual marriage
Carry through to the end?

Or will Fate’s merchant
Shine her meaningful reproach
To despairingly alter the course?
The future unknown to man
Has mighty wings of an alter ego
And in a shadow lurks to pounce.

[Virgil]

It's nice chmpman. I don't know if Fate's merchant is any different for me than Fate's sentinels. It's one thing to personify Fate, but I don't understand why that personification requires a deputy. What is the difference between the personification and the deputy? If you have something in mind, then keep it. Otherwise why not just say "Fate/Shine her..."

[jackyyyy]

'Fate's merchant' works for me, conjures up a dirty fellow, selling off the future. And why is Fate feminine? I cannot write poetry, but I like to read it. It feels unlikely to critique someone else's work, like its not right, but I feel like being wrong for a moment: I much prefer this title, in fact its what makes me look at it. I have to say, I have an aversion to the word 'supple' for some reason; I can't quite say the word, and if I tried to use it, people would look at me odd. How about, 'addictive embrace'? Or, maybe others can say this word, I don't know.

[chmpman]

Addictive doesn't quite conjure up the feeling of Fate's femininity like I want. Of course Fate is feminine, could it be otherwise?

[Dirt McKert]

i must agree that fate is feminine. it just is.

[Mililalil XXIV]

It's nice chmpman. I don't know if Fate's merchant is any different for me than Fate's sentinels. It's one thing to personify Fate, but I don't understand why that personification requires a deputy. What is the difference between the personification and the deputy? If you have something in mind, then keep it. Otherwise why not just say "Fate/Shine her..."
While I see the strict logic you are speaking from, I see it this way:
Fate is also Fate's merchant:
Fate is more than just merchant, but, to take on a personified participation in a subject's life, accomplishes a particular form of participation in a corresponding manifest role. We see GOD also called HIS own MESSENGER in the Hebrew Scriptures, and Chmpman seems to have an insight here into a going forth of an entity to fulfill his/her/its own solicitation toward a personal appeal that parallels in form that of GOD. (I do not mean he saw this parallel - I mean only that the workable self-agency he did see as possible accords well with what is said of GOD elsewhere.) I am a man, not just a courter, but, if I act as courting a future wife, I lay aside all else of my concerns and duties in that capacity and show myself a courting lover, a man representing of himself an aspect of his whole self - though that aspect runs through the whole of all I be.

I quite like this writing, Chmpman. I have some personal poems that have a similar structure: as it were, of a few stories, stacked one upon the next, as a house that fits together from top to bottom in a manner dissimilar from one level to the next, yet still squaring up. Even a completely different-shaped roof finishes off a house pleasingly.