[N. Matheson]

A spark beneath neglected embers lurks
With former strength, where nourishment by winds
Might starving flames renew; so too is love
That broods in injured lover’s hearts, fatigued
With cold and faithless years; but welcome lips
Restore the spirit into dust and soot,
And rouse the sleeping fire from ashen bed…

[Matt Q]

Hi N,

The message here seems to be that the fire of love is reduced to embers when lovers fall out, but a kiss, years later, will rekindle it. That the years are "faithless" suggest disloyalty, perhaps even infidelity. Perhaps they have separated and been apart for these years as a result of the falling out, or perhaps they've been together, but the relationship has been cold and faithless. My take is that it's the former.

Love as fire -- love sparking/kindling/rekindling in one's breast, the heart ablaze, burning passion, etc -- is a well-used trope in poetry and song. Perhaps that's appropriate to the archaic form, but for me it detracts somewhat from the poem.

The poem presents in argument in the general case. And as such it can be contradicted by contrary experiences. What's described doesn't always happen, after all. Maybe they kiss and find the spark has gone after all. OK, I guess, the poem does say that love is still there. Still, it doesn't always fire back up immediately, it might take some sustained fanning. So I wonder if the poem is more persuasive presented in first (or fourth) person? The specific rather than general case might also be more affecting, add power to the poem, and more reason for it's existence, for the narrator to be telling us this: This is what happened to me/us might be more compelling than: by the way, this is what always happens to lovers.

I was a bit confused at "lurks with former strength". How long does a spark last? Does an actual spark last long enough to lurk? I'd say sparks were transitory phenomena. So, what was this spark and its strength it in the past? Did that spark even exist then? Or maybe the former strength it has is not its own, somehow? It's the same strength as a previous spark?

"Restore the spirit into dust and soot" is maybe ambiguous. I first read it as the spirit had been changed into dust and soot, though I now realise you into that spirit has been reintroduced into the dust and soot. That could well just be my poor reading. But maybe, "Restore the spirit to the dust and soot" is clearer?

best,

Matt

[N. Matheson]

Noted. Well, I will be scrapping this one. The archaism is just too baked into it.

[Julie Steiner]

Hi, N!

Not every poem turns out as we'd like, but the effort's not wasted if we learn something that we can apply to future poems.

I shared Matt's confusion about the logistical details of spark vs. ember vs. dust and soot, and also the more serious problem that this reader's personal experience does not endorse the universal truth being proposed by this general statement. (Surely some of that revival/rapprochement must have already taken place by both sides before the kiss, if the exes have gotten close enough for a consensual kiss to occur. Otherwise, it's restraining order time.) And I agree with Matt that making this a more personal statement, or perhaps just a statement of hope, could make the poem more effective.

Minor nit: "lover's hearts" >>> "lovers' hearts."

[Ashley Bowen]

Hi, N.,

I won't make repeat what's been said. It does seems overwrought and unwieldy, BUT, the first line, IMO, is a great title for a poem, especially if the poem can find a way to take itself less seriously than this one does.

Stokesbury's poem comes to mind as something I'm talking about:

https://lastyearsalmanac.wordpress.c...on-stokesbury/