Your premise: "We only awaken once" It took awhile to see the sun as one awakened thing, the rooster as another. But then you say "then," well, seems it should be "or" or something not implying two awakenings of the same thing. And the butcher block - chips? Oh, somebody must be constructing it, because they don't give off chips in normal use. Then I lose you when chips awaken as farmer and farm.
Here and in a lot of places cheap, softwood butcher blocks chip. I think higher quality ones get thousands of extremely shallow cuts across the top and need to be sanded or planed to a new smooth surface.
the language here is quite intriguing, rich, and i agree with dovina that it took a while to work out that the sun was a different entity than the rooster, although that should be obvious.
my question to you here is, do we only awaken once, or do we only awaken once as one of these things you mention?
the chips, when split off from the whole, become new entites, as i read it. they're holographic; each piece contains the whole, a new whole, when separated from the mass consciousness.
My cents: I think there are three characters here, (1) INTRANSIT, (2) his love, and (3) children or other products of love, such as puppies or a fixer-upper bungalow.
Both are incorrect. I was thinking that the things we say -tongue in groove- have no meaning. We are word butchers. Not in the poetic sense, of course. More like, the thing itself and not about the thing. I don't know. How do you pronounce your moniker anyway? Is it <~>? or do you pronounce it <~>? I just wanna know.
Meaning or not, it's a sexy as hell thing to say. I've found myself repeating tongue-in-groove all week to random Arabs. Proof that submitting to the will of micromanaging Allah didn't get them all brains.
There's something about 'the sun the other as/rooster crowing' that doesn't quite work. I couldn't pinpoint the proble, but it's there. A comma after 'sun' would simplify it, but perhaps too much.
This is a beautiful poem; I love it more each subsequent read.
However, I don't really think this is a 'ghazal' by definition, at least by the links on this site. The opening couplet doesn't rhyme (or does it?), and the last lines of each couplet definitely don't rhyme.
And it is enjambed, as well. The poetry of Rumi i have has been translated by Coleman Barks. Is there another translation that is better? Or am I just missing the lyricism as well as my butcher block is missing a leg?
A great poem with some excellent metaphors. However, I hope you wouldn't mind me calling this a loose adaptation of the traditional ghazal. Ghazals are a passion with me and the traditional form comes along various rules and restrictions including rhymes and refrains.
22 comments
my question to you here is, do we only awaken once, or do we only awaken once as one of these things you mention?
he's been known to wax philosophical on occasion.
the brackets are silent.
However, I don't really think this is a 'ghazal' by definition, at least by the links on this site. The opening couplet doesn't rhyme (or does it?), and the last lines of each couplet definitely don't rhyme.
This might help you a bit: http://allpoetry.com/Column/784848
Good work, my friend - best of luck as well.
Log in to add a comment.