I believe your objections to the poem’s form (and you’re hardly alone) may be due to your expectations as much as to my handling of it.
Every line here, except the single enjambed one (“philosophers tell / their loves”), breaks at a grammatical caesura. This is one kind of free verse strategy, here used very consistently, to ensure line integrity. (And the exception is an off-rhythm rhyme.)
Stanza construction adheres to the same principle.
As for rhyme… yes, it’s “occasional,” which is perfectly valid. There’s also more of it than readers here have noticed, given the opening stanza’s embedded “cry/eye” rhyme, and the slant rhymes in stanza 2 (“clock/dark” and “lost/dress”).
Stanza 3 hits rhyme evenly, then stanza 4 violates the pattern. The final two stanzas mix full rhymes with slants.
The form very deliberately evolves through and past regularity (or symmetry), much as the content does, which I’ve explained in an earlier long-ass comment.
In short: Enjambment is a particular technique with a particular effect, which doesn’t belong in this poem except (perhaps) in a single line. Nowhere else would it have any purpose.
This poem is a formal hybrid, using free-verse and traditional techniques together. It’s not a fully improvised form—what I call freestyle verse—as descended from the Italian canzone or madrigal forms, because it remains stanzaic; but that’s what it is. If you’re looking for something more in-the-box, you’re looking for it in the wrong poem.
As for the poem’s plot… This is an abstract, symbolically driven piece, with a measured but varying tone. If you’re looking for a straight narrative, you’re looking for it in the wrong poem.











Review item
Add to faves
Ratings & Rankings
