[David Callin]

This inn has stood here long enough
to fill it up with ghosts
made up of more enduring stuff
than most, unwilling hosts
that linger on wan corridors
or round a favourite room,
spreading in dark interiors
a more pervasive gloom.

The jealous maid of 212,
that does not like to see
how sundry couples passing through
are happier than she,
does not torment the tranquil bed
where settled we sleep on.
She may be fuming overhead
but we are 121.

[R. Nemo Hill]

I like this one, David, but think it might read better as down wan corridors rather than on wan corridors.

I chuckled out loud at the ending.

Nemo

[Siham Karami]

Really nice, David! The juxtaposition of the two palindrome numbers kind of says it all.

[Max Goodman]

I'm approaching a ghost poem with a literal mind. So maybe my thoughts should be ignored.

The poem pulls me into this hotel and makes me eager for what it will tell me about these ghosts, then about this particular ghost. At the end, it feels this was all misdirection in the service of a joke. A good joke, I suppose, but less interesting than what the poem led me to want.

Maybe "who" for "that" in both stanzas? Ghosts may be things, but the maid's ghost is "she" rather than "it."

"Settled" could be replaced with something more strongly suggesting undisturbed rest.

Grammatically, the inn would fill itself. I think what's meant is "This inn has stood here long enough/to fill with ghosts," but the "fill it" is making that hard for me to follow.

If she worked as a maid in the hotel, I wonder why 212 is her room. If "maid" means, instead, something like "virgin," more of that old diction--appropriate enough for a ghost story--would help.

FWIW.

[Paula Fernandez]

Hi David--
This one is light as air I think, and, since it's so short, doesn't demand much of the reader. I always enjoy the smile you seem to embed in every poem--I can sense the laughter coming before you spring it. Still, I'm with Max on this one. I feel the poem's first stanza was setting a scene that could have gone somewhere interesting but ended in a one-liner. Enjoyable, but barely an amuse bouche.

[Glenn Wright]

Nice, David—
I like the gradual buildup of eerie atmosphere in the first stanza and the bubbling up of humor in the second stanza.
I think I would prefer “dim” to “wan” in S1L5.
Glenn

[David Callin]

Thanks all. I am on the road now, with online participation limited to primitive tapping on my phone, so this is - perforce - a sketchy response.

I originally had only V2, but thought some introduction might be necessary. That might have been a mistake. I'll think further about that.

The pun in 121 was intentional, of course, but I didn't see the potential pin in 212 until after posting.

Cheers

David

[David Callin]

Ahem. That should be pun, of course, not pin.

[Susan McLean]

David, I enjoyed this. The two spots that gave me some trouble were S2L6 and S2L8. The wording of the former sounded odd to me. An adverb instead of "settled" would make it read more smoothly. And I am not sure that the pun in "121" is worth the confusion of momentarily wondering how a couple became a number. It would be clearer to me if you said "we're in 121."

Susan

[Mary Boren]

Hi David. We haven't met, but I'll be watching with interest because I'm a sucker for a pun, er ... pin, so thanks for the chuckle. I have a feeling this one came off the top of your head, and that's the fun of it. I can see where other readers are coming from in wishing for further development of the scene so ably laid out in your opening stanza. If you're still on the fence as to whether it adds or detracts from the punchline, maybe let it roll around in the hopper and see if it wants to pop out in another setting, but for what it's worth the unexpected direction was part of the enjoyment for me. That, and the easy rhythm and unobtrusive (even if predictable) rhyming that gets out of the way and lets light verse cast its own spell. I had to backtrack to 212 after seeing that it was intended as two-one-two instead of two-twelve, but that's on me. If anything, I was a little disappointed in the weak pair (on/121) heading into the landing and, unless you're averse to contractions, agree that "we're in 121" would make more sense.