QUOTE(Moshi @ Sep 8 2006, 12:11 PM) [snapback]644931[/snapback]
We used to be 1 -
a strong, entrenched flagpost on an Iwo Jima.
Self-contained,
irreducable 1, indivisible, under god-of-integers.
Then something happened --
defying explanations and in clear violation
of eternal laws, --
one
became
two (a wh0re of a number, clinging shamelessly to every breathing numeral).
And we were
square-rooted into irrationality,
forced to seek even-numbered happiness
with any willing partner.
But memories of being One still hang over our heads,
we are but
1/2
of each other.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't know if it works, just something I was thinking about this morning. It also dawned on me that it might be a sub-conscious rip-off of WW's very good 0s and 1s poem. I apologize.
Art is beautiful in how it moves through one person to the next; and thus triggers something in them that in turn produces even more beauty. It's the influence of the muse (which I dream of having once again) demonstrating the trickle-down effect not just through this period in time; but throughout time. I used to be a member of an elite writing group of young and brilliantly talented poets who will all be well-known one day. We would feed off each other and nothing was more beautiful than to see it bloom across the board like a meadow of flowers opening up to the sun. So I would worry less about the negativity of influence and focus on the beauty of the positive it produced.
I wish we had more of that here; inspiration from each other. This forum would bloom with such beauty.
You're good, Moshi.
Few things that niggled me initially, but would like to take a day or so mulling it, are the 'god-of-integers' (i personally (please don't take as such) would like just 'under god'). I'd also lose the, "clinging shamelessly to every breathing numeral)" because it kills the effect of "wh0re (great use of numerical THERE) of a number". That is a brilliant line because it desecrates the "one" to nothing = 0; which is the dagger you want to drive: the essence of the piece. And the numerical expression vs. spelling out the word 'one' etc. You have spelled out two and one in some lines, which doesn't lend to the
consistency of the flow (to me). And of course, it's more than likely just me (being from an old school); but reading numericals (there are exceptions such as the use of 0 in wh0re) seems like reading a heart-felt poem as this with expressions such as, "r u real?" Or, "me 2". I wish I could explain it better. The ending is excellent in concept but uncertain in execution:
But memories of being One still hang over our heads,
we are but
1/2
of each other.
The first line disturbs me; sounds too cliche' for the climax of the ending. Let me mull this because it's well-worth the consideration.
But at any rate, Moshi, you're good.