Carl, first of all, I was not familiar with iStorage when I came to this, so I imagined it could be some Apple data storage product. Am I the only one who could possibly have such a confusion?
I like the liberties you’ve taken with the traditional ghazal form in terms of its usually repeated end words, and dropping the second-to-end-word rhymes. The result combines some of the litany-like sense of the ghazal with some of the musicality of the lyric--a spunky and contemporary-feeling mix. You do maintain some sense of the ghazal’s staid order by ending and beginning with the same words, and I like the repetition of the end word in the first sher—it works well with the onerous sense of drama you’re trying to create.
Throughout, you create a palpable and consistent mood in a fairly high register, which I like.
As both a belongings gatherer and a gardener, I had a bit of a hard time equating collecting beloved clothes with nurturing a special rose, although I acknowledge that there are some similarities. Still, it cannot be gainsaid that belongings of the sort you represent are neither alive or singular like a rose. I get to wondering to what degree you might have been piloted toward this metaphor by the half-rhyme of “growing.” In addition, you mix metaphors in this sher, an approach that tends to weaken the overall effect of writing generally.
By the end of S2 I’m wondering if you’re talking only about garments, or also other belongings. It might be nice to clarify.
I appreciate the emergence of a leitmotif in S3 in the form of “petaled faces,” echoing the rose in the previous sher. But what are these petaled faces—some of your belongings? If so, that seems a bit of an odd metaphor—I can get on board with belongings as petals, but not as faces. I presume that the “poem groaning” is this very piece—this self-reference is nice. I got a bit confused by this sentence, though, due to the comma you felt a need to place after “sand” (and I do see why you felt that need). It tends to make me perceive “drift petaled” as a compound adjective, although that doesn’t make sense. Consequently, I perceived the whole sentence as incomplete (yet I know that isn’t your style).
So, wisdom cutting the losses of itself--is this really what you are referring to in the next sher? The phrase seems a bit of an awkward construction. Can wisdom really be lost--or only misplaced? Or are you talking about other losses that have occurred as a result of ignoring wisdom? Or would it perhaps be the individual in question, not his wisdom, that might or might not cut his losses? Or does the “its” here refer to something else altogether? The following sentence, in contrast, has a nice proverbial sense while standing up to my rational examination. It’s cool that you got the idea for this sher from economics theory. Here’s to mixing it up! I like Glenn’s “showing” idea for all of the reasons that he cites.
“Let hope go”—based on context, you seem to be using this phrase not to indicate a parallel to the Pandora myth—in which hope, along with all the miseries, became activated for the first time—but to indicate an abandonment of hope. This apparent perversion of the metaphor is kind of confusing, although it could be regarded as clever as well. Of course, you know me—I tend to favor things a bit clearer cut.
I see and appreciate the name-play in the last sher, but before I started thinking about the expected name-play, I just saw “cope” as another word, and one that felt a bit awkward in context. It feels a bit at odds with the rest of the poem’s tone. But I do love the way you’ve given a new twist to “going” at the end with the dead-on auctioneers' phrase—very clever move there.
|