[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Mary Meriam

So glad you lost the epigraph (and hopefully the note). But your revisions haven't improved the poem, which seemed terrific to me to begin with. I was especially distressed that you lost "witch-kid." I'm with those who like Full Sturgeon Moon as the title. When you make this many revisions, it's good to save the original on the thread. I do like the change from semi to colon. I liked "on me tonight" though almost got persuaded out of it.

I'm also on the fence on 'witch-kid'. The former works a little better rhythmically. I like 'changeling' but the rhythm labors a little.

[Alexandra Baez]

Mary, nice to see you again! I’ve re-posted the original version of this poem in response to your comment about that—I’ve felt the same desire as you to have that version at my fingertips. Thanks for your feedback on what you have liked and not. While I’ve had various people say that they like “Full Sturgeon Moon” as the title, I haven’t heard anyone speak to the fact that this poem is not just about any full sturgeon moon, it’s about a supermoon, and one with the very particular characteristics described in the notes. To me, it’s important to get at least some of this across. No? Would "Full Sturgeon Supermoon, 2022" be too cumbersome?

Glenn, I’m glad to hear that you’ve been following this poem in its changes and enjoying it. So you feel that the current version is an improvement over the original? I personally do, but I see that my opinion isn’t shared by all. Thank you so much for your good wishes.

Nick, thanks for your thoughts about “witch-kid” vs. “changeling.” Do you think that the latter is at least clearer in meaning than the former was for you? One thing I like about “changeling” is that it brings in a new dimension—that someone or something has secretly swapped out the n’s original views or visions with new ones from somewhere else.

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, Alexandra—

I admire this poem as a tour-de-force of both imagery and especially of sound effects. The dense /s/ alliteration suggests a wind blowing in the darkness, and the /ōō/ assonance imitates the astonished response of the speaker to the celestial light show. Adding “loon” was a nice touch. Fine work!

Glenn

[Alexandra Baez]

First of all, I’m copying this from my comment to Mary and throwing it out now to everybody:

While I’ve had various people say that they like “Full Sturgeon Moon” as the title, I haven’t heard anyone speak to the fact that this poem is not just about any full sturgeon moon, it’s about a supermoon, and one with the very particular characteristics described in the notes. To me, it’s important to get at least some of this across—if not through notes (which I might be persuaded to omit), then in the title. No? Would "Full Sturgeon Supermoon, 2022" be too cumbersome?

Well, I’m trying that on now for size.

Carl, I just realized that I overlooked responding to your last comments. Sorry!

I guess I’m preferring “too high to fight,” since I’d always been a bit bothered by “on me tonight,” for Matt’s reasons. It appears that many are on the fence about this, so I guess I’ll win and lose whichever way I go.

Yes, I think you’re right about making the “slip askew” line tet. It’s just taken me awhile to see how I feel about having that extreme a variation. But at this point, it seems to be working for me—not to stand out unduly, yet enough.

Why is “loon” so over the top as a word choice? I understand that I’m taking a liberty by employing a noun as an adjective here (rather than saying “loony”), but it’s an approach that’s been employed before by others. Is that your problem with my use of the word here?

Ah, “hydrophobia” as “rabies”—interesting!

Glenn,

The dense /s/ alliteration suggests a wind blowing in the darkness

I wasn’t actually seeking this effect, and I actually wouldn’t want it—I don’t imagine wind being part of the scene described, and I’d like the focus to stay firmly on the moon. I was after more of a sly, sneaky, slippery feel. Doesn’t “s” have something of a mystical quality about it?

the /ōō/ assonance imitates the astonished response of the speaker to the celestial light show.

I hadn’t thought about it that way—interesting observation!

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Baez

Yes, I think you’re right about making the “slip askew” line tet. It’s just taken me awhile to see how I feel about having that extreme a variation. But at this point, it seems to be working for me—not to stand out unduly, yet enough.

Actually, I never told you to make the line tet and was surprised when I saw it. I thought you’d add something earlier in the line to compensate. We can put this in the category of things that I wouldn’t have thought I’d like, but do. Gutsy.

Originally Posted by Alexandra Baez

Why is “loon” so over the top as a word choice? I understand that I’m taking a liberty by employing a noun as an adjective here (rather than saying “loony”), but it’s an approach that’s been employed before by others. Is that your problem with my use of the word here?

Nouns are often used adjectivally in English—something that Russian can’t do, though Russian has tricks of its own. “Loon” is just loud and unexpected here, and I’m not sure it deserves that much attention. It’s interesting, though, and easy enough to understand.

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Baez

While I’ve had various people say that they like “Full Sturgeon Moon” as the title, I haven’t heard anyone speak to the fact that this poem is not just about any full sturgeon moon, it’s about a supermoon, and one with the very particular characteristics described in the notes. To me, it’s important to get at least some of this across. No? Would "Full Sturgeon Supermoon, 2022" be too cumbersome?

I don’t know my sturgeon supermoons from my strawberry micromoons, so it’s not an essential detail for me. Since it is for you, and since every sturgeon moon is full, how about simply “Sturgeon Supermoon, 2022.”

[Matt Q]

Hi Alexandra,

On the revisions,

I'm not sure I prefer the new L2. "And twists the night" maybe? Or "And turns the night"?

Actually my original thought on L2 was just to cut it, so I'll also float that now, especially now you have the tet line. Shorter, the line is "tighter". More impactful/dramatic too, I think.

I think "chasmic" improves on "trackless", and has the benefit of sounding a bit like "cosmic"

I think the tet line works well. Also the semicolon to colon change.

"loon dog" is nice, getting lunar on the madness/lunacy. And an echo of "moon dog" (a mock moon).

I find having the Persied's light swallowed a little less dramatic, and a bit more like factual reportage, than the Perseids themselves getting swallowed, and I get less of Greek myth vibe, too. Maybe something like, "the searing Perseids get swallowed whole" would up the drama (though at risk of stock phrase in "swallowed whole"). You'd get a rhyme of sorts with "howl".

Continuing my dislike of "get", maybe just "are" if you keep the current construction -- still generic and passive, but somehow, to my ear, and possibly my ear only, better than "get". More immediate somehow, maybe? Or add in the actor: "Moonlight swallows up the searing Persieds", for example, or some less expected way of saying "moonlight", and then there'd be a clearer image and you'd lose the passive construction. Though you'd lose your slant rhyme with "howl" (though I didn't notice it until you pointed it out).

Yay, to losing the endnote! I definitely prefer not to have the poem explained. I get enough of a sense of what's going on from the poem, and explaining why it is how it is takes something away from that. For me, anyway.

I think the "super" and the date in "Full Sturgeon Supermoon, 2022" loses something of the power and sheer weirdness of "Full Sturgeon Moon". Maybe the title could be "Full Sturgeon Moon (Supermoon, 2022)", if you think it's important for us to know which moon, and when? Actually, why not have something like "Supermoon -- August 11, 2022" in italics on another line, positioned like an epigraph? Like Nemo does when he writes, e.g. "8 June, 1994 -- Kuta, Bali" right offset and italicised under the title.

NASA says it was a "marginal supermoon", and something about it being on the margins, on the edge, seems to fit with the poem. So maybe even "Marginal supermoon -- August 11, 2022". That said, maybe "marginal" also deflates the "super" part.


best,

Matt

[Alexandra Baez]

Carl, Matt, and anyone else who hasn’t yet weighed in on the following—How do you feel about “changeling” vs. “witch-kid”?

Carl,

Actually, I never told you to make the line tet and was surprised when I saw it. I thought you’d add something earlier in the line to compensate. We can put this in the category of things that I wouldn’t have thought I’d like, but do. Gutsy.

Oh, okay. I’d assumed that in advocating keeping "slips" and "askew" together, you were backing up Matt’s suggestion to go tet. It did seem that anything, anywhere that I tried to add to this line felt like stuffing. Guts kudos on the tet goes mainly to Matt. For me, it was just an apprehensive plunge into the dark.

Nouns are often used adjectivally in English—something that Russian can’t do, though Russian has tricks of its own. “Loon” is just loud and unexpected here, and I’m not sure it deserves that much attention. It’s interesting, though, and easy enough to understand.

Okay, it sounds like your objection to “loon” isn’t unequivocal. I have to admit I’ve grown a fancy for it, so “interesting” and “easy enough to understand,” and even "loud and unexpected," sound like encouragement to me. I did try "crazed," but it just didn't sound right.

since every sturgeon moon is full

Actually, every sturgeon moon isn’t full—that’s why my thread title was “Full Sturgeon Moon.” Terms like “sturgeon moon,” from the Native American tradition, apply to an entire moon cycle. I think I will try out Matt’s title/post-note suggestion to try to satisfy both me and my constituency. I do think there's more mystique in "Full Sturgeon Moon" than any more detailed alternative.

Matt, I like the sound of “and twists the night” (or maybe “that twists the night”?), but would this make it clear enough when I say “I bulge, I leak,” that the moon is twisting me (as one inhabitant of that night)? I think so, so I’ll adopt your suggestion at least for now, but I just feel I should note that your original argument was that “It tightens like a screw” plus “I bulge, I leak” would make it clear that the moon is tightening on me, whereas your suggestion complicates that calculus a bit. However, I think not too much.

Actually my original thought on L2 was just to cut it, so I'll also float that now, especially now you have the tet line. Shorter, the line is "tighter". More impactful/dramatic too, I think.

I can’t cut L2 without disrupting both the meter and the rhyme scheme (the latter being every other line [or 5 feet] being an “ew” rhyme aside from S3). Such disruptions would lack any rhetorical motive, and a metrical variation here would lessen the impact of the purposeful disruption of the meter that occurs a bit later in S2L3.

I agree about the tet line working well—I’ve gotten used to it and what seemed like an awkward and extreme variation to me seems now to flow quite naturally—after all, it's just one foot lost!--but not so much so that its intended disruptive effect is lost. And yeah, it wasn't hard to sell me on the move from semicolon to colon.

I’m also glad you like “loon dog” and the reasons I was drawn to it. I had heard of “moon dog” before but never actually knew what it was—thanks for opening the door to my investigation.

Okay, you’d seemed confused before about what was swallowing the Perseids and why—it sounds like I did clarify that in my revision, but you now find this too clear. I do like the dramatic value of these meteors’ great light being overwhelmed by the light of the supermoon, but I see your points, too, about how a different, more mythological type of drama might be harnessed. How do you feel about the line switch in this stanza? I did it to help clarify the Perseids line—sounds like that worked for you, although again, maybe too much? “The searing Perseids get swallowed whole"—it’s a thought, but I’m not sure about it. I’ll keep pondering this line. [Update: how about "It gulps the searing Perseids and swallows."?]

Yay, to losing the endnote! I definitely prefer not to have the poem explained. I get enough of a sense of what's going on from the poem, and explaining why it is how it is takes something away from that. For me, anyway.

All right, I’m glad that the poem is doing more work than maybe I’d imagined in suggesting the astrological scenario that’s at play.

I think the "super" and the date in "Full Sturgeon Supermoon, 2022" loses something of the power and sheer weirdness of "Full Sturgeon Moon".

I have always agreed.

Actually, why not have something like "Supermoon -- August 11, 2022" in italics on another line, positioned like an epigraph? Like Nemo does when he writes, e.g. "8 June, 1994 -- Kuta, Bali" right offset and italicised under the title.

Actually, when I’ve seen poems of his with such added details, they've been in italics at the end of a poem. This makes the information less obtrusive than an epigraph and I think may be my best option. Thanks for the idea—I’ll try it on.

NASA says it was a "marginal supermoon", and something about it being on the margins, on the edge, seems to fit with the poem. So maybe even "Marginal supermoon -- August 11, 2022". That said, maybe "marginal" also deflates the "super" part.

Oh, I hadn’t heard that part before. I haven’t been able to find a definition of that term yet, but from the contexts in which it’s used, it sounds like it’s a relatively dimmer supermoon. That’s certainly not the impression I got from 8/’22’s! But anyway, it seems that the term wasn’t meant in the nifty way that you took it, so I think I’d best steer clear of that reference.

Thanks for the additional feedback—I was hoping you’d come back, since most of my last revisions addressed your comments.

[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Baez

Nick, thanks for your thoughts about “witch-kid” vs. “changeling.” Do you think that the latter is at least clearer in meaning than the former was for you? One thing I like about “changeling” is that it brings in a new dimension—that someone or something has secretly swapped out the n’s original views or visions with new ones from somewhere else.

Reading deeply into poems is a rare luxury for me these days. I'm piled high in children's books, so I really have to push myself to dig into poetry.

On first read I got caught up in the rhythm and imagery and let it wash over me, and that was pretty much it. The meaning of the poem wasn't immediately clear, and I'm still not sure that I fully understand either witch-kid or changeling. But I wouldn't take that as a mark against the poem or it's ability to communicate it's meaning, I just haven't tried that hard yet.

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Baez

Carl, Matt, and anyone else who hasn’t yet weighed in on the following—How do you feel about “changeling” vs. “witch-kid”?

I preferred "witch-kid lot" which for me had nicer, and more dramatic, sounds -- three successive short vowels each followed by alveolar plosives (/t/ or /d/), plus the assonance of "witch" and "kid" -- compared to "changeling lot".

On first read I wasn't 100% sure of the sense of it, as there's something slightly unstraightforward/indirect about it that takes some unpacking. In the sentence, "witch-kid"/"changeling" modifies "lot", but actually applies to the N, right? The N, since she has visions, is the witch-kid/changeling. So: I stack up all the visions I had, the whole lot of them, and I am a witch-kid/changeling, so these are my witch-kid/changeling visions.

I did wonder about "stack up my witch-kid's lot", even though it changes the meaning of "lot". Not necessarily saying it's better. It just seemed to be hovering behind "witch-kid lot".

I like the sound of “and twists the night” (or maybe “that twists the night”?), but would this make it clear enough when I say “I bulge, I leak,” that the moon is twisting me (as one inhabitant of that night)? I think so, so I’ll adopt your suggestion at least for now, but I just feel I should note that your original argument was that “It tightens like a screw” plus “I bulge, I leak” would make it clear that the moon is tightening on me, whereas your suggestion complicates that calculus a bit. However, I think not too much.

Yes, I think the calculus is still clear. In fact your version just lengthens the simile, so nothing changes in the causal sequence. With "and" in place of "that", you get: It tightens like a screw. It twists the night. I bulge and spew. Either the tightening causes both the twisting and the bulging and spewing, or there's a chain: the tightening cause the twisting which causes the bulging and spewing.

I prefer "and twists the night" because it seems more immediate and dramatic. With "and" you have two things happening: The screw tightens. The night twists. (And the former causes the latter). With "that" instead of two thing happenings, you have one thing happen plus a simile. So you lose some action: It tightens. And the way it tightens resembles a screw that twists the night. Arguably the night doesn't actually get twisted.

[quote]I can’t cut L2 without disrupting both the meter and the rhyme scheme (the latter being every other line [or 5 feet] being an “ew” rhyme aside from S3). Such disruptions would lack any rhetorical motive, and a metrical variation here would lessen the impact of the purposeful disruption of the meter that occurs a bit later in S2L3.[quote]

Ah, but the moon causes wild and crazy things to happen, and disrupts patterns, no? Also the rule, "every other line [or 5 feet] being an “ew” rhyme" isn't that strict a rule, since, as you note, you already break it in S3. And it would be a purposeful -- at least, defensible -- use of form matching function. The screw tightens and compresses the line. The screw tightens and the rhymes get closer. Anyway, it was just a thought I had when I realised the original L2 seemed unnecessary, so I thought I'd float it. I don't mind it sinking.

Okay, you’d seemed confused before about what was swallowing the Perseids and why—it sounds like I did clarify that in my revision, but you now find this too clear. I do like the dramatic value of these meteors’ great light being overwhelmed by the light of the supermoon, but I see your points, too, about how a different, more mythological type of drama might be harnessed. How do you feel about the line switch in this stanza? I did it to help clarify the Perseids line—sounds like that worked for you, although again, maybe too much? “The searing Perseids get swallowed whole"—it’s a thought, but I’m not sure about it. I’ll keep pondering this line. [Update: how about "It gulps the searing Perseids and swallows."?]

I think changing the line order definitely helped, because it made it clearer the swallowing was cause by the outflow of moonlight light, rather than say, the dog or the nebulae. My main objection to the change was more to the loss of image than to it having become too clear. I think your new line also makes things even clearer with an actor, "it", and I like that it's now an active construction, which seems to better suit the poem's energy.

-Matt