leonardcohenforum.com

The un- matching Lovers.

O tell me dearest, canst Thou see
The mortal waves roll to the shore?
- O dear, please do not tell me more
Upon the raging sea!

But tell me dearest, canst Thou see
The dying of the candle's light?
- My dear, methinks it shines as bright
As Thou dost shine to me.

And dearest, canst not clearly see
That even Time itself decays?
- my dear what shall I care far days
As long as I have Thee?

Quirky, nice - is it meant to be quirky? I hope so.
The last verse contradicts the middle verse (at the risk of stating the obvious) cos the middle verse says lover is on the way out. So the last verse, if the first two are to be believed, is to sound very, very ironic. Have I got this right?? Tempted to add: Now try saying the same thing in a proper poem (i.e. not a piece of doggerel). But who am I to give advice? Just thinking aloud.

Well, generally you're right, and of course, the last stanza could be looked at as ironic. In fact, corresponding to the title it is about two opinions that never really can match - there is a fine line between those lines, which sketches the both characters. Of course that includes a certain irony. But why is that so bad? I think, irony is a very important thing in writing poetry and I like to use it, why does that make a poem less properly?
I think it can increase tragic effects although, or even, because its comic effect. Or do you mean the style?

Well, generally you're right, and of course, the last stanza could be looked at as ironic. In fact, corresponding to the title it is about two opinions that never really can match - there is a fine line between those lines, which sketches the both characters. Of course that includes a certain irony. But why is that so bad? I think, irony is a very important thing in writing poetry and I like to use it, why does that make a poem less properly?
I think it can increase tragic effects although, or even, because its comic effect. Or do you mean the style?

Hoops, my fault.
Didn't want to post this twice. Well, I guess, I'm rather the "Typewriter Typus".

Why do you adopt an archaic language in what seems to start as a ballad, but so quickly fails your purpose, assuming you had one in the first place?

Seems as though someone's ego has become a bit inflated from having their litl poems put on a plaque under a statue

Dear Andrew,
to answer in the right order, first: I like this style, even thought it's obsolete, and I like to use it from time to time in my writings. And concerning this one I thought it would suit. ( Maybe it's a little like Tolkien said, that the pure sound of a word alone can unfold a certain aesthetic )Well, I have to add, that English isn't my native language, but I like it and I like the archaic forms. Maybe for a native tongue they may sound a little strange ... hmmm, never thought about before.
Second: Do you find it starts like it could become a ballad? I don't think so ( but I wrote it, maybe I'm not the one who should review it ).
There's no ballad- stanza, only three 4- iambic verses and a 3- iambic one. Well, maybe that looks a bit like the falling part of a common ballad stanza, but it is not. That little thing is just a kind of dialogue between two characteres who can't really come together, that's all. But maybe that level is a little too hidden in the text, maybe I should really revise it. Hmmm...

Of course that includes a certain irony. But why is that so bad? I think, irony is a very important thing in writing poetry and I like to use it, why does that make a poem less properly?
I think it can increase tragic effects although, or even, because its comic effect. Or do you mean the style?

Yes yes, I meant the style - nothing wrong with adopting it but, as you see here, some native speakers will find it archaic and ridiculous. Which means they will not take your poem as seriously meant and that's a pity. 'Proper' wasn't the right word, I'm lazy, forget I said that. Are there then two people speaking here, two voices (corresponding to the two lovers)? Is that what you meant when you said "two opinions that never can match"? Or is it that the person speaking has some conflict within him (or her) - OH, I SEE!! - lines 1 and 2 of each verse are one person speaking and lines 3 and 4 are the second person. Well, that didn't come across too clearly before. Oh well, the thing is a lot clearer now, thank you.

Well, here we are again ...
Dear Guest, I'm glad that the dust of confusion now has cleared; yes, lines 1 and 2 of each stanza are one person and the other both represent the other one. I thought hyphenating would be clear enough to indicate, but maybe using inverted commas would've done a better job.
Well, nevertheless, now I hope the code of interpretation is broken. ( It's a little tricky, I confess )
One voice looks the decay in everything, the other one only looks the moment; and they are missing by talking to each other.
The archaic style may confuse a bit, but it's meant seriously ( by the way I never thought about, but I think I can understand this, I look in the same way on Baroque poems in my language ... )
Nevetheless I like to use those forms ( sometimes I'm mixing them with contemorary slang - that's my style.)

Hi Chaske,
I've followed this discussion of your poem, and I am pleased to report that I now understand it and can see where you were going with it, and now, actually, the archaic language has a charm and formality that rather underscores how they're missing true communication with one another. I really like your poem now, whereas, before I just wasn't certain what to think of it, or how to express my confusion with it, without seeming rude and like I was dismissing or slamming it. I think there are ways of spacing that could help clarify who's speaking when, as well.
~Lizzytysh

Hi Lizzytysh,
now I can go sleep tenderly again ... No, earnestly, I'm glad that now the confusion is over, but, on the other hand, I was a little proud of it, cause controversies, I think are the best reaction a poem can get
( and the longer you have to look at a poem to get behind the lines, the better it is, in my eyes ).
A last commentary to the Two-Voices-Prob: maybe the clearest way to distinguish is to write one voice in italics.

Excellent idea, Chaske. Italics would make the separation clear. I think, perhaps, with my not having the sense of the other person speaking within the same stanza [I read your poem several times and kept trying to make the stanzas themselves be the "contrast" of the lovers], and the archaic language seemed to conceal it even a bit further. I finally just gave up and decided, ah well, you're not going to understand everything written here.

I, of course, defend your right to use whatever language you choose, archaic or otherwise; it was just an additional barrier...not that I can't handle more than one variable for my understanding, but I simply wasn't getting it. However, once the difference in speakers became clear, the conversation emerged and it was great. And the archaic language reappeared at the scene in an expediter role, in the sense I previously mentioned. Nothing quite like those "ah-ha" moments!

Sleep well, Chaske, even though it's resolved. Some things aren't meant to go on forever, yet were fun while they lasted.

All good things, [Pete clarified for me that this was originally used by Leonard and was in a songbook that I actually have, but had forgotten its being there ~ can't remember everything the man says .]

~Lizzytysh