[Marshall Begel]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Roger!
You're absolutely right - the poem doesn't go anywhere, nor is it a grand metaphor for anything. It's just a driver observing the behavior of the driver directly behind. I'm okay with that.

On the other hand, I could offer explanations here for (most of) your in-line comments, but that was the poem's job. The fact that an experienced reader like yourself can't picture what I intended means that my writing is not as accessible as I need to be. I appreciate that criticism!

[Jim Moonan]

.
A few thoughts — And welcome to the Sphere!

• I like it, but not all the way. The first stumble for me was in the first stanza. I just couldn't get the idea out of my head that it was a cyclist — possibly a unicyclist — that was raging. (I'm not the sharpest Hornet in the hive : )) But I eventually realized it was the steering wheel. So obstacle overcome.
  
• The N feels a bit too calm to be gridlocked. Though zen driving is an art form.
  
• Roger's suggestion of making the N the angry driver is interesting. I think it would require a reworking of the language, since presently, as I said, the driver is channeling zen.
  
• As for the descriptor "steal", I, too would not have used that to describe a road rager — though like Carl I get what you getting at. The language I use while in my car is unlike any other language I typically use. There's something about being in a capsule. Many words come to mind that I might mutter under my breath at a road rager, but "steal" isn't one of them.
  
• Then there's always that chance that what is happening is not what it appears to be. That's when that empathic/empathetic side of me kicks in that imagines anguish when all I see is anger. Could it be that the rager was desperate to get home with the medicine his dog desperately needs, or to the hospital to be with his dying wife, or late to his own wedding that he is already in a state of panic about to begin with? Could it be? Usually it's not, but I use it sometimes to help me to find my moment of zen.
  
• But I like the form and enjoy watching poets engage in it. There are a few very good practitioners of the villanelle here. With some practice you may become one of them

.

[Barbara Baig]

Just to give you one more opinion here, Marshall, I'm with Carl on this one.

Something, I think, depends on your intended audience for the poem. Roger says, "When I read a poem (or when anyone does, for that matter) my mind immediately goes into the mode of actively trying to detect metaphors or greater meaning." That's the response of a poet-critic.

But, with all respect to Roger, everyone does not read a poem that way. Some of us prefer to surrender to the words and images and music and discover the meaning of the poem that way.

I'm not saying one of these approaches is better than the other; but they are very different.

Barbara

[Hilary Biehl]

The road-stealing terminology was actually not a problem for me. I did find the title confusing.

I can't picture what is going on with the lights being like an eel.

Mostly though, I'm having a hard time seeing why this needs to be a poem at all. It's certainly a relatable experience from daily life, but the poem didn't transform that experience for me. It didn't tell me anything I haven't thought on a daily basis while being tailgated, and it didn't tell it to me in a way that I found particularly memorable, surprising, or funny.

I do like the line "You only have two pedals and a wheel" and your variations on it. It just isn't enough, for me.

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Barbara Baig

But, with all respect to Roger, everyone does not read a poem that way. Some of us prefer to surrender to the words and images and music and discover the meaning of the poem that way

Barbara

And with equal respect, I disagree. I believe that everyone reads poems that way, whether or not they know it. A poem about trying to decide which road to take, or about pausing one's horse in the snowy woods, would be trivial if the mind did not automatically allow the situation to resonate into other meatier concerns. Frost once said a poem has to mean two (or more) things at once, and I agree. A poem that merely tells us some annoying guy was tailgaiting the speaker has absolutely nothing to say to me unless it also says more, at least at some intuitive level. There's no point surrendering to the images if the images are mundane and lack subtety or resonance. (I see Hilary's related comment, and I naturally agree).

[R. Nemo Hill]

It's kind of the formalist's trap that many poems fall into, fulfilling the formal dictates becomes the end in itself—so fastidiously that the open-endedness of poems that Roger is speaking of becomes closed off in the process. The miracle of a great formalist poem is that it can be both open and closed at the same time. To settle for less is just another mundane exercise. Such exercises have their charms, of course, but those charms are ephemeral, and echoless, and quickly fade from poetic recollection.

Nemo

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Marshall Begel

John and Max:
Good point about using the title for setting the traffic congestion scene! How about "Parkway Parade" or "Gridlock Aggression"?

Either would make the congestion more present. If there's a way to include it in an early line of the poem, even better.

[Barbara Baig]

I'm curious, Roger. You say, " I believe that everyone reads poems that way, whether or not they know it.." That's a pretty comprehensive statement, and I wonder what evidence you have to support it. Thanks. Barbara

[Marshall Begel]

Jim: Okay, the unicycle cracked me up - I definitely need to estblish the scene. For a title, I could go with "To the Driver Behind Me on the Freeway During Rush Hour". It's pretty brutal, but not much more than "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening".

Whether or not the guy has good reason for impatience, nothing he was doing was actually helping him reach his destination sooner. The only way to make progress would be to cut in front of me (that's the "steal", which I see is too subtle) but I'm saying there's no room for such a maneuver.

While I appreciate the discussion regarding deeper meanings, I'm going to stay out of it. If that's the kind of analysis that makes this board thrive (you may have noticed that my critical comments are all on "flow" and meter) then maybe it's just not the place for me. I'm fine with that—really.

Otherwise, I am grateful for all the thought and expertise behind these comments, and have learned a lot. Thank you, all!