but a window you can see through, this blocks the view and makes it harder to see the speaker, denseness making it hard to pass through...
and i agree with Jane...very uncommon metpahors...but then that fits with the idea that you do not fit a certain mold...the speaker makes no neat imprint..has uncut edges..and is quite edgy in style.
it is an ambitious piece that challenges us.
i do see the thread maintained here...and i like that...we keep going through these doorways...but have to break the door down at times.
we often are what we claim not to be.
I like that you tried to avoid all the most obvious metaphors. You are an ambitious writer. That is clear. When a writer uses metaphor and symbolism, though, it is often hard to find meaning that is not so personal that others cannot relate to it. Recently, in a piece I wrote, I had that problem. How do you talk about something that is NOT what you are meaning but get people to understand the thing you aren’t talking about but really mean? Ha! Reading what I’ve written here, it just sounds silly. But maybe you’ll be able to make some connection to it. Maybe.
What I’m getting at here is that I feel like maybe when you started, your poem was about not being a door, and that it might have maybe begun with the lines that come in now as part of the second stanza:
“I make no neat
imprint on the landscape's walled
canvas . . .”
This seems very “NOT door” ish. But the beginning seems almost like an afterthought. Not a bad one. OK, maybe not even an AFTER thought. But a separate thought. The thoughts in the first stanza just somehow don’t seem to “go” with the rest. Maybe those were the first words. Maybe they were the ones buzzing around in your brain, bumping against the skull, insisting to be set free, then the rest of the words were just you trying to fit them into a poem about not being a door. Or maybe (and this is probably it), I have no idea what I’m talking about right now.
At any rate, this piece is interesting and thought provoking, if somewhat incongruent (for me).
I was especially intrigued (and confused) by this stanza:
I guard no
That an extravagant key
can get to
And a knob does not
If I were writing this, I would have never used “extravagant” there. Maybe “intricate” or “elaborate” but no. Those wouldn’t have fit (pardon the pun). Maybe “detailed”??? But this wasn’t written by me, to me or for me. Who can say why you chose extravagant there? Hopefully you, even if you only say it to yourself. I also might have had the knob turn part but without the “on”. Maybe just:
No knob can turn me
Or something like that. But that changes the meaning considerably.
Even if the meaning of a “not door” that is not turned on by a nob is lost on me. . . it is sure to mean something to you.
And that is what all this meandering about with words is all about. Both here in my response and in all the work shared on sites like these and pages in books etc. They mean something to the author. It is my hope when I write that the words, can then, in turn, mean something (perhaps wholly different, but still something, nonetheless).
So, yep. I’m here to say, that some of your words carry through to me. Others are lost on me completely. I would assume that is the case often for poets like us. My goal though, I think, is to make most all my words carry through on one level or another. It is my goal and my frustration. How about for you?
In other words . . . these words of yours are other than what I would have chosen, but I did not choose to NOt be a door. Perhaps I’m hoping for you to be a window, and that is not your desire either. Either way, I still think you are ambitious. And I admire that.