In my opinion this follows the 'obsession theme' very strongly. Don't worry about following or not following the poem that inspired you; this is your poem. Concentrate on what you want me to understand about this situation. Also I think at this point if you really want to understand the process of poerty writing you need to step away form the glossa format. There are no rules that say you can't write a free verse poem which begins with lines from another's poem that inspires you, or that you can't finish each stanza with one of those inspirational lines. That would elimate some of the stress from editing. If you are willing to give up the glossa idea for now and if you can commit yourself to working on this and nothing else intil it's good, I am willing to concentrate on helping you along the way for as long as it takes.

I should not secretly confess like this.

'This' is a pronoun which is used when the writer has already established what the pronoun 'this' is replacing. How am I suppose to know your saying you shouldn't confess in writing?
The verb 'writing', or any of its synonyms, is no where to be found. Why can't you say: I should not secretly confess in writing/on paper/with a letter/with my pen etc...? You can't use a pronoun when nowhere can be found the noun which the pronoun is substituting.

Love with the lips, you always insisted.

This line is completely understandable. Anyone reading it would come up with both the image of talking and/or of kissing/making love. That line needs no further work.

But then again you prefer emotions to be audible.

Again this line says nothing about the true meaning your trying to represent. there is nothing about her dislike of the strong and silent type. I could only come up with the images of her either wanting to make you wail from heartbreak or her sexually teasing you intil you screamed. And even then I was uncertain about my interpretation. Say what you mean. Conveying the information you want to communicate(in this case, that she doesn't like the silent type) is the first step you need to focus on.

Invisible wings are perfectly fine. If this is a metaphor you strongly believe represents an inportant point then leave it in. Because of all the other things going on before and after you introduce the wings, the air is taken out of your sails. You're sputtering along.

"I haven't included any filler in this, every line is relevant".

Aye, there's the rub. That is the poet's great dilemma. Each expression, each phrase discribes something you felt. You just can't use them all at once. You have to choose, but if you focus on message first and style second, you will improve dramtically. You have to be ruthless about getting down to the bare bones. Once you establish a good foundation then you can test which embellishments make the poem beautiful. As for a title you should use --Madly in love with my bestfriend-- as a working title. If, while you're editing, you use a title that states what the poem is about, you will always be able to look to the top of the page and re-focus on what your poem is really suppose to be about.

As I said, I'm happy to give some guideness intil this works, but I am pressed for time these days, so I won't always be able to get back to you right away.

And, of course, thank you for reading and making suggestions. You're right, I do want to improve. And I honestly think I can. That's why I came back.

I want to make sure I've got this right; the theme of your poem is unrequited love, which is also the theme in Blueprint. Correct? When I asked how are the lines connected I didn't mean what THEME connects In Between Lovers to Blueprint. I meant that the actual lines used at the end of each stanza have no connection to the previous lines in the same stanza. In other words, you're not leading us to the last line of the stanza. Forget about Blueprint or connecting themes, just concentrate on your ideas and how you're going to make my lines your own by using them within the context of your story.

1) The scene is only visible after you decifer it for us. None of your metaphors have anything to do with each other. you have to stay with one metaphor for at least each stanza, and you have to use a metaphor that is plausible. what do the invisble wings represent? Love? Jealously? Obsession? then say:

A pair of invisible wings is my love/jealousy/obsession .....
or
My love/jealousy/obession is like a pair of invisible wings.
or
I wrap my love/jealousy/obsession around you;
a pair of invisible wings
to bear you up and keep you
far from pain.

You can't use painkiller as a metaphor for invisible wings and then say they take you to the arms of some foreign sun. Painkillers can't take you to the arms of a foreign sun. Invisible wings can but it's to late! You changed them into painkillers. Painkillers can take you to the arms of nirvana or to the arms of sleep; the arms of relief etc.... If you want the other guy to be a foreign sun then you have to keep the wings. If you wanted you could make her a comet/angel/Icarus or anything else that can make it to the sun. You make a mess of things when you keep changing the metaphors. If you want to introduce a new image you can try using a simile:

My invisible wings like death
take you away to the arms of a foreign sun.

Wings can carry you off to a foreign sun and death can carry you to either heaven or hell which can be represented as a foreign sun. All the metaphors and similes are related to each other. They make one cohesive image for the reader to build on.

You also start with a silent written confession but 'she' would rather you love with the lips i.e. with speech or kisses. But it could also be that she wants your emotions to be heard outloud.
How can you say but then again?

She doesn't like A she insists on B, but then again she prefers b. There's no logic.

I don't like waffles I insist on pancakes, but then again I prefer flapjacks. It looks to me like your trying to do to much to soon.

And as far as ordinary language and memorable poetry is oncerned Blueprint is completey written in common language.

Tonight - I - hate - your - hands - and - their - craft.
I - cannot - sleep - as - you - do
Pressed - against - the - cool - walls
Of - sudden - and - strange - houses.

If by "ordinary" language you mean simple language--well, to an extent, you're already doing that. And it's WHY you've improved so much in my opinion. Even this poem--yes, there are places where you 'commit acts of poetry' (a capital crime), but much of it is pretty simply stated. Most of the best lines are, anyway: "How many times I have bargained, drunk with God
To take this lust - I'll plead again tomorrow."

Here's what Louise Gluck, the former Poet Laureate in the U.S., said on the topic of ordinary--well, simple--language.

"The axiom is that the mark of poetic intelligence or vocation is passion for language, which is thought to mean delirious response to language’s smallest communicative unit: to the word. The poet is supposed to be the person who can’t get enough of words like "incarnadine." This was not my experience. From the time, at four or five or six, I first started reading poems, first thought of the poets I read as my companions, my predecessors – from the beginning I preferred the simplest vocabulary. What fascinated me were the possibilities of context. What I responded to, on the page, was the way a poem could liberate, by means of a word’s setting, through subtleties of timing, of pacing, that word’s full and surprising range of meaning. It seemed to me that simple language best suited this enterprise; such language, in being generic, is likely to contain the greatest and most dramatic variety of meaning within individual words. I liked scale, but I liked it invisible. I loved those poems that seemed so small on the page but that swelled in the mind; I didn’t like the windy, dwindling kind. Not surprisingly, the sort of sentence I was drawn to, which reflected these tastes and native habit of mind, was paradox, which has the added advantage of nicely rescuing the dogmatic nature from a too moralizing rhetoric."

[From Louise Glück, "Education of the Poet," Proofs & Theories: Essays on Poetry (New York: Ecco, 1994) 4-5.]

Gluck's not the final word on the topic, obviously--she's talking about her own experience, and certainly there's room for variation and experimentation. But there's something to be said for creating magic from common cloth. The trick to it is making simple, ordinary language seem fresh and your own, and using all the other poetic techniques--meter and the way the words play together--to make it something special. That's something not too many people can pull off, IMO--but it's worth striving for, I think.

I'd already said about my work hours...I must be losing the plot...