[Trevor Conway]

Cheers, Phil.

All the best,

Trev

Originally Posted by Phil Wood

Enjoyed Trev. The meditative and observational voice
is grounded in the domestic.

Phil

[Trevor Conway]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for your feedback. I'll consider building it up in the way you suggest, and yes, you're probably right about "ghost". I'm sure a better alternative will reveal itself, but the simpler "fall" is a good example alright.

Thanks again,

Trev

Originally Posted by Nick McRae

Hi Trevor,

You've got some enjoyable lines and thoughts here, my main feedback is that I found the narrative a bit too shrouded. It looks like you're trying to get some kind of theme across, but I couldn't quite pick up on it. So without that I was left without the emotional punch. So opening the poem up a bit to allow for better understanding may be in order.

My only other thought is that you could go for something simpler than 'ghost'. The word is overdone, for the most part, and in this scenario it came across as a bit tired to me. IMO, the simpler 'fall' would work better.

Hope that helps,
Nick

[Trevor Conway]

Hi Jim,

This kind of feedback absolutely isn't more than I want. It's exactly what I want. Thanks for the very helpful examples. I think "plotting" is a touch too far, but the other words you chose, and the overall new approach, is very interesting and worth serious consideration.

Thanks very much,

Trev

Originally Posted by Jim Ramsey

Hi Trevor,

If this is more than you want in the way of a critique please ignore it and forgive the intrusion. I wonder if this piece would have more impact if your word choices were a little more specific and connotative. As an example, here is the first stanza with some word substitutions that I think would lift the poem out of its subtle descriptive observer mode into a more subjective thematic approach:

Your epidermis is plotting,
shoving cells from deep within,
and even before they greet the light,
they're all discreetly murdered

All the best,
Jim

[Simon Hunt]

Hi Trevor--I like this one, too. It's quite brief and pithy, but I find myself wondering if it could be even punchier if made even shorter and more epigrammatic. Having said that, I don't know what I would cut--although I agree with (somebody?) above in hesitating a bit over the last stanza. In particular, I wonder if you're committed to the word "wife," which I think limits your explicit "you" audience to those men and women with wives. Isn't the same true for those with husbands and those unmarried (but with a beloved)? Cheers, --Simon

[Matt Q]

Hi Trevor,

I like this. It reminds me somewhat of early Buddhist meditations, where reflecting on various aspects of bodies -- bile and pus, skin, bones and internal organs and so on -- is intended to undermine monks' sensual attraction and lust. Not that I think this is quite your intention!

I'd echo James on losing "of skin" (maybe the moving "ghost" up to end the first line). I also wonder if you need "without a trace". It's something of a stock phase, and is maybe a little inaccurate too, in that there are traces in the form of dust, and anyway "ghost" tends to imply things that aren't overly visible.

I wondered if "running a hoover over a floor" might just be "vacuuming a floor" for concision.

The shortness of the lines in S3 stand out somewhat. I wonder if that stems from wanting the poem in quatrains? Anyway, to me it reads a little staccato as result.

I also wonder if there's an alternative to "wife" (and "her") -- which maybe opens the poem up to more readers. "love" or "your lover's face" could work. If you're opposed to a singular "them" in place of "her", or you could use "it" to refer to "face".

Given the very long line in S4, I wondered if you might move the "that" in L1 down to the beginning of L3. And thinking on that, it slightly shifts the meaning, too, in a way that for me, improves it. Rather than remembering, now, that at other times when I look into my beloved's face all the skin cells are dead, I should instead remember this when I actually do look into their face.

best,

Matt

[Trevor Conway]

Thanks, Simon. Yes, there seems like a consensus that I should steer away from the wife :-) I specifically wanted to avoid lover or beloved because they sounded a bit corny/stage poetic, but some other alternative might work better, like partner or something similar.

Thanks again for your input. It really helps.

Trev

Originally Posted by Simon Hunt

Hi Trevor--I like this one, too. It's quite brief and pithy, but I find myself wondering if it could be even punchier if made even shorter and more epigrammatic. Having said that, I don't know what I would cut--although I agree with (somebody?) above in hesitating a bit over the last stanza. In particular, I wonder if you're committed to the word "wife," which I think limits your explicit "you" audience to those men and women with wives. Isn't the same true for those with husbands and those unmarried (but with a beloved)? Cheers, --Simon

[Trevor Conway]

Cheers, Matt. Some interesting observations there, like the Buddhist comparison. No, I wasn't thinking in that direction. Thanks for the detailed reading and suggestions. I don't have time to properly consider them now, but I will for sure in due course.

Much obliged,

Trev

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Hi Trevor,

I like this. It reminds me somewhat of early Buddhist meditations, where reflecting on various aspects of bodies -- bile and pus, skin, bones and internal organs and so on -- is intended to undermine monks' sensual attraction and lust. Not that I think this is quite your intention!

I'd echo James on losing "of skin" (maybe the moving "ghost" up to end the first line). I also wonder if you need "without a trace". It's something of a stock phase, and is maybe a little inaccurate too, in that there are traces in the form of dust, and anyway "ghost" tends to imply things that aren't overly visible.

I wondered if "running a hoover over a floor" might just be "vacuuming a floor" for concision.

The shortness of the lines in S3 stand out somewhat. I wonder if that stems from wanting the poem in quatrains? Anyway, to me it reads a little staccato as result.

I also wonder if there's an alternative to "wife" (and "her") -- which maybe opens the poem up to more readers. "love" or "your lover's face" could work. If you're opposed to a singular "them" in place of "her", or you could use "it" to refer to "face".

Given the very long line in S4, I wondered if you might move the "that" in L1 down to the beginning of L3. And thinking on that, it slightly shifts the meaning, too, in a way that for me, improves it. Rather than remembering, now, that at other times when I look into my beloved's face all the skin cells are dead, I should instead remember this when I actually do look into their face.

best,

Matt

[Matt Q]

Hi Trevor,

Thinking about this some more. I think there are a couple issues for me with the beautiful wife line.

Most people don't have a wife. A lot of your potential readership isn't sexually attracted to women, and even among those who are, less than half will be married or in a civil partnership (at least in the UK). So, the poem is probably more immediately relatable to more readers if something more generally applicable than "wife" is used.

But also, even if you were to go with "partner", I'd say that there's the issue that not everyone's partner is beautiful. Clearly you can still find someone with average or less than average looks beautiful because you love them, but your poem doesn't seem to be about at that sort of beauty -- it seems to be about surface-level beauty which is, as the title reminds us, "skin deep".

So one question, is the line, "all that makes her beautiful has recently deceased" accurate? A fair bit of what makes someone beautiful to a partner they love isn't skin-deep.

A related question: is it important to the poem that there's a long time romantic/sexual bond between the two people? Is the poem specific to someone who one loves and is deeply attached to -- perhaps a reminder of their coming death? In which case, as above, "all that makes her beautiful" seems off. Or is it specifically about attraction, and beauty being skin-deep? In which case, isn't the poem equally applicable to a one-night stand, say, or to someone you pass in the street and feel attracted to? In which case, why is "partner" or "wife" important?

I find the reflection on skin already being dead to be striking. But I'm a little unclear on the above.

best,

Matt

[James Brancheau]

Change the last two stanzas to first person ?

[Trevor Conway]

Thanks again, Matt. I appreciate the follow-up. The idea of lovers isn't essential to the poem, it's true; it's one example of many I could potentially go with, so I might consider taking it in a different direction, although I do like the idea of a specific example rather than being too worried about it excluding people. Not sure yet what I'll come up with, but thanks very much for your detailed feedback. It really helps a lot.

Trev

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Hi Trevor,

Thinking about this some more. I think there are a couple issues for me with the beautiful wife line.

Most people don't have a wife. A lot of your potential readership isn't sexually attracted to women, and even among those who are, less than half will be married or in a civil partnership (at least in the UK). So, the poem is probably more immediately relatable to more readers if something more generally applicable than "wife" is used.

But also, even if you were to go with "partner", I'd say that there's the issue that not everyone's partner is beautiful. Clearly you can still find someone with average or less than average looks beautiful because you love them, but your poem doesn't seem to be about at that sort of beauty -- it seems to be about surface-level beauty which is, as the title reminds us, "skin deep".

So one question, is the line, "all that makes her beautiful has recently deceased" accurate? A fair bit of what makes someone beautiful to a partner they love isn't skin-deep.

A related question: is it important to the poem that there's a long time romantic/sexual bond between the two people? Is the poem specific to someone who one loves and is deeply attached to -- perhaps a reminder of their coming death? In which case, as above, "all that makes her beautiful" seems off. Or is it specifically about attraction, and beauty being skin-deep? In which case, isn't the poem equally applicable to a one-night stand, say, or to someone you pass in the street and feel attracted to? In which case, why is "partner" or "wife" important?

I find the reflection on skin already being dead to be striking. But I'm a little unclear on the above.

best,

Matt