# Hands



## Firebird (May 18, 2010)

*lhvbj*


----------



## garza (May 18, 2010)

deleted


----------



## vangoghsear (May 18, 2010)

I like the content, but the punctuation seems a bit formal or pedantic for such a tender piece.


----------



## vangoghsear (May 18, 2010)

garza said:


> I can see them
> clearly -
> grown old together
> dearly -
> ...



If this is original, you should post it in its own thread.  If it is not original, it needs to be credited to an author.  I like it, by the way.


----------



## garza (May 18, 2010)

deleted


----------



## vangoghsear (May 18, 2010)

Correct punctuation for prose and correct for poetry are not always the same thing.

Once again, I like your response.  You should copy it to its own thread.


----------



## leah_rose (May 18, 2010)

I agree that the punctuation is a bit formal; though the punctuation is grammatically correct, there are too many punctuation marks and they get in the way, visually, of the words because there are so few of them.  Sometimes it is necessary to play with punctuation to make the piece visually appealing or make it so that they punctuation works with the shape, length, and words of the poem because poetry is not only the art of words, but often it is a visual experience as well.  The only other thing I would change is the line:

"but not yours:
it 
rests on mine."

I do like this line, but I found it grammatically awkward.  You refer to hands in the plural throughout the poem, speaking of both hands being placed on the gatepost, but in this section, you use "it" instead of "they."  Grammatically, at least the way I read the poem, it should be "they."  Lastly, I found the line break for "it" to be awkward.  Is there any weighted significance to the "it" being on another line?  Because when I read it, I thought it would read better as:

"but not yours:
they rest
on mine."

Besides those little nit-picky comments, though, I really liked it.  It read very well and I really enjoy the ease of the words, the lilt they have when read, and the way the message was able to be conveyed in so few words.  

I hope that helps.


----------



## MaggieG (May 18, 2010)

Firebird said:


> *Countless hands* *[FONT=&quot]
> must have used this gatepost[/FONT]*
> *for support*
> *and now mine, too;*
> ...



The only punctuation that I felt interrupted your words are these two bits



> and now mine, too;





> but not yours:



The second I would simply replace it with a period, and the first remove the comma, and semi-colon altogether, starting new sentences. BUT  lol that is just me  

Is it grammatically correct ? Probably not. Just the way my weird mind works. Other than those two nits, I found this a fabulous read.


----------



## vangoghsear (May 18, 2010)

*Countless hands* *[FONT=&quot]
must have used this gatepost[/FONT]*
*for support*
*and now mine, too*
*but not yours*
*it *
*rests on mine.*

Tinkered with the punctuation a bit.  I wanted to see if it could work with less. The weight of the word 'it' on it's own line creates a pause just fine without a colon ahead of it.  And the line break acts as a semicolon before 'but' in this case.

Firebird, if you don't change a thing, I still think it is a marvelous little poem.  You've said so much with so few words.  I love that style.


----------



## garza (May 18, 2010)

deleted


----------



## leah_rose (May 18, 2010)

Garza: Just to clarify the grammatical issue you pointed out, the first line references "countless hands."  The next reference to those "countless hands" are in the fourth line "and now mine, too."  The reference is to the "hands," which makes the implication that the "mine" and the "yours" in the next line are plural and not singular, hence why the change from plural to singular is awkward and not necessarily correct.  Changing it to plural does not take away the simplicity in the last two lines, but, at least in my opinion, makes for a smoother read because of the consistency in the amount.


----------



## Martin (May 18, 2010)

I got two problems with this piece. 

First one is a physical one, that even though the others hand rests on yours, it might still use the gatepost as support!

Second one is that the hand-on-hand punchline, was banal and boring and really hasn't anything to do with the latter. 

Or well, maybe I missed something? 'Gatepost' is just not enough to make for a solid metaphor I think.


----------



## vangoghsear (May 18, 2010)

Martin said:


> ...'Gatepost' is just not enough to make for a solid metaphor I think.


 I see this as a shared home, the "American Dream" type house in the suburbs, shared since marriage by this couple growing old together.  I may have misinterpreted it, but I think that fits.


----------



## garza (May 18, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Martin (May 19, 2010)

What I got from this, was the narrator finding meaning in life because of this gatepost - something that countless others found meaning in beforehand. The partner however, finds meaning in just being with the narrator. But a gatepost is merely something of an entrance right, indeed very _unconcrete_ as a metaphor, so for me it's really not strong enough to hold the piece together...


----------



## Seven (May 19, 2010)

Wow... I never thought something with so little words would be so deep. I respect this poem because of that.


----------



## Firebird (May 19, 2010)

Vangoghsear and leah_rose many thanks for your advice on the punctuation - I agree and have made some changes.

I can see why the issue with plurals is confusing. But I stand by my use of 'it' in the penultimate line, as it only refers to one hand. The use of 'yours' in line 5 is possessive not plural.

Martin, it's not the gatepost that's the metaphor, it's the hands. Initially, the narrator's hands feel the same as many other hands that have rested on the gatepost, but are made to feel special by his partner's hand resting on his/hers. Remember Martin, we are all supported by something and in turn are able to support others. There are of course other ways of reading the poem as vangoghsear suggested. 

Many, many thanks for all your comment.

Love,

Firebird


----------



## Gumby (May 19, 2010)

As usual, you have said so much with so few words. Just beautiful!


----------



## Martin (May 19, 2010)

I see... very nice, I'm touched now...


----------



## Chesters Daughter (May 19, 2010)

Late to the party so I can only echo what's already been said. Once again, few words with tremendous meaning. You really should hire yourself out to teach people like me how to do that.:wink: Wise choice to go with Van's suggestion for the punctuation. I was very touched by this piece, Firebird. Very much enjoyed.

Best,
Lisa


----------

