CREATION STORY

On a dark day on pristine plane
Saunters a whole black mass, stale stain.
Mercurial, and swift like the bendable,
A planet dangles afar like a faltering cable.

A slimy ageing mess of eternal matter
crawls slowly down as on a glass of boiling water,
Gently too, like crystal teardrops from wounded eyes,
and raw seepages from sweaty mass of ice.

A soul - a spirit - lay spread in affluent stupor
With formless limbs astride a sightless moor,
On wandering heights, and deep down valleyways,
The form moves out in countless heaps and rays.

Countless frail moments trudge right on its fluid face
With minimal ends, like a bland shapeless place.
Yet in rough and tough, dark clefts of plain skies
A ton of love and life, and fondness flies.

Then moved the energy from within a bubbling speech
With boiling strength in exceedingly great pitch.
With request for light comes a great and lasting sight -
Bright new day sighs, and there was light.


VALENTINE FANTASY
 
This day reminds of memories of old,
Of words and thoughts and works and tugs of war
It brings back sighs of days of heat and cold
And days we stared and wondered what was more.
The pristine wind brings back your specless face
Adorned in hues and shades of innocence
With thunderclap I see that smile of grace
That went with us under the public lens.
But then I stop to look behind and forth
Since now alone we know, and thus obey.
This transient game will one day gain its worth
When he or she steps in and we nod, “yea”
So till time grimly comes to draw the line,
Let me pretend to dream, and think you mine.

(c)  All rights reserved

Good.

These are beautiful poems, i particularly love the way you present yourself and selection of words.

Gently too, like crystal teardrops from wounded eyes,

Good work !!

There are a few more online that you might like if you care to look. Look here: http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poem=0&poet=64814&num=2

and here:
http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poem=0&poet=64814&num=3

Cheers all

Then why don't you draw this line, turn around and unlock the door for "her" to step in?

It's fantasy, remember? If one can help it then there'll be no need for the poem then, abi?

His or "her" fantasy?

It is *their* fantasy.

If they share one and the same fantasy, why can it not come true?

1. Because it is a *fantasy*
2. Because *they both know* it is a fantasy
3. Because that's the way it is. And, (edited), not all fantasies come true.

Today's fantasy can be the reality of tomorrow.

That's possible, isnt it? But I guess the poet-persona is more content with the uncertainty, than with a future hope that *may* or *may not* materialise. You know what they say: "Blessed are those who do not hope, for they shall not be disappointed."

Yes, I do agree dat 'Today's fantasy could become tomorrow's reality' . . . but the question is 'do they want to exchange their fantasy for reality '  . . .  becos fantasy might feel more wonderful and what's more? they can control it's flow.

[table]
[tr]
[td]
-------------------------------------------------

"Wie lange kann ich noch leben
wenn mir die Hoffnung
verlorengeht?"

---

"Das hängt davon ab was du
noch Leben nennst
wenn deine Hoffnung tot ist"

-------------------------------------------------
[/td]
[td]

[/td]
[td]
-------------------------------------------------

"How long may I still live
if hope
abondons me?"

---

"That depends on what is left
to be called life
once your hope is dead"

-------------------------------------------------
[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Hmm!

Whereas the artist might prefer a fantasy lover,
the lover won't like to be reduced to a fantasy.

hmm indeed! what are my missing here . . . .the artist? . . . the lover? . . . looks like we're discussing more than poetry here . . .

You're right; we are reaching out beyond poetry. Another topic in here is fantasy mistaken for reality  --- or reality mistaken for fantasy, depending on your point of view.

The first time I read this poem, I loved it. Time has passed and life has taught me some new, bitter lessons. Now, I see these lines from a different angle:

This poem has not only been written by a man but also from the point of view of a male first-person narrator only. In consequence, the female voice remains unheard.

Can we be sure that the girl to whom this valentine poem has been dedicated is aware that their relationship has become just a "transient game"?

Can we be sure that this "transient game" will cease once "she" steps in?

I personally don't take other human beings for toys to be played with in a game nor do I consider it a good habit and, thus, this poem has lost its innocent beauty in my opinion.

---

As for the poet, who is one of the artist's numerous manifestations, s/he must first experience love before s/he will succeed in sculpting a poem in its image, just as the painter has to have seen a person s/he is portraying and as the writer has to know a subject when treating it.

Curious comments, Somegirl!

While this poem, Valentine Fantasy does not pretend to be innocent, or to have been a result of some innocent process, it has tried at best to be honest. It doesn't even pretend to be a "love" poem as an honest appraisal of the present. It is not "toying" with feelings. It is only expressing the obvious. In defence of the subtly indicted muse, here are my comments:

One. The poem is not only very personal, it is a private appraisal of a situation and doesn't really need corroboration from the other voice. At least not in the same breath. It seeks mainly to explain back to itself what it genuinely feels, and hopes to be seen as open and honest about it. Now whether the situation warranting the "sculpting" could be made different is entirely a different issue, separate from the very private confession that alas happens to have also been directed then at the object of such contemplation. It was *her* responsibility as well to read between the lines. In this case, she knew, and she did.

,

somegirl:



Can we be sure that this "transient game" will cease once "she" steps in?

In your post, you have asked the above, but you have curiously ignored the "he" that same line. You shouldn't. By the way, the question is rhetoric. In creating the piece, I have tried to be at best descriptive and not prescriptive, thus divesting myself of any pretensions to omnipotence.

No, the muse (whoever that is) is not indicted at all; it is the poet (a.k.a. the artist) who’s put on trial. You lay the blame on “her” (or do you lay it on her instead?). But I know “she” didn’t know and quite possibly she didn’t know either. I am wondering now whether one of them or both are mediocre not to have seen the message between the lines or whether you are a poor poet who was not able to express it well.

Could somebody explain to me in a simple language what this poem (VALENTINE FANTASY) is about? Because it must be beyond my grasp ---

guys i dont understand the poem?

Alright. Here are some background info, pretending to be a translation of my earlier post. This, finally so as to give others a chance to comment.

1. I wrote the poem on the eve of St. Valentine's day of 2001 (or 2002. I'm not sure, but I'll vote for 2001.)

2 .I wrote it because I was confused. And a little depressed at my situation, so much so that I could not think of anything better to do than embark on a frank assessment of where I had got myself into. I sat down and wrote. The whole sonnet, plus the title, came in a flash and was finished in an instant - less than 20 minutes - which still convinces me when I look back today, that the thoughts had definitely lingered in my head for far longer than my consciousness would  readily acknowledge.

3. Now coming to the text of my last post, Somegirl, I have used the word "muse" only in a most literal sense. It is not figurative of any person/personas recognisable, much less within the work. It's muse as in *the Muse*.

4. I have not "laid the blame" on anyone. We really shouldn't. It is already a grieving personal narrative if you would only read between the lines and see it as such.


Ok now, oya! Over to the house. I think I've talked enough to feed a multitude. Time now  to read what others think about this bottle of panadol. Kai, my head!

men i love ur concept its really nice.

Now, since you were not able to explain in plain words what happens in VALENTINE FANTASY, here comes my own interpretation:

In this poem, the first person narrator has broken up with his lover. It’s Valentine’s Day and he feels lonely. That’s why he remembers the good old days when he still was part of a twosome. She seems to feel the same and, since neither of them is in a new relationship yet, they decide to spend Valentine’s together, to make each other a gift (e.g. a little poem) or something alike, pretending for one day that they still were in love with each other but both of them knowing that it is just a fantasy, that, now, they are singles and that, one day, they each might have a new partner and new priorities.

---

It was *her* responsibility as well to read between the lines. In this case, she knew, and she did.

I have not "laid the blame" on anyone. We really shouldn't. It is already a grieving personal narrative if you would only read between the lines and see it as such.

If you say that it was "her" responsibility to understand from some hidden message in a poem that you already have a girlfriend, then you blame "her" for the resulting situation.

---

One more thing: I’m starting to agree with the poet being the worst lover of all (let me restrict myself to the male poet). It is because he speaks a language that only few understand. A poem of his can be a Trojan horse whinnying something that sounds like “I love you” in the human tongue but actually means “I’ll never be able to restrict my love (or sex drive?) to one woman only” in horsish. And once you find him in flagranti, he’ll protest that he had been honest to you from the beginning and that you could have left him alone if you would have minded then.

Ok, here I am after some days of diconnection with this blogosphere, no thanks to the little spyware I discovered in my computer some days ago. That is why my compact response earlier typed got lost. I am at the cybercafe, and my flashdisk only shows boxes where files have once been.

@Somegirl.
Hmmm! We agree here. I agree with your interpretation of the poem which you wrote thusly:

somegirl:


In this poem, the first person narrator has broken up with his lover. It’s Valentine’s Day and he feels lonely. That’s why he remembers the good old days when he still was part of a twosome. She seems to feel the same and, since neither of them is in a new relationship yet, they decide to spend Valentine’s together, to make each other a gift (e.g. a little poem) or something alike, pretending for one day that they still were in love with each other but both of them knowing that it is just a fantasy, that, now, they are singles and that, one day, they each might have a new partner and new priorities.

---

But unlike you suggested above, they had not "broken up". They just were not in a defined relationship even though they wished/hoped/fantasised that they were, and still gave themselves some amount of pretense to that premise.

I winced however at the contradictions in the later parts of the post when you said:

somegirl:

---
If you say that it was "her" responsibility to understand from some hidden message in a poem that you already have a girlfriend, then you blame "her" for the resulting situation.
---

The emphasis is mine. No where in the poem would you find words to justify your claim. That is why I said that you got it right only that first time. Read again your interpretation. I repeat it here with the main parts coloured to illuminate the contradictions even in your submission:

In this poem, the first person narrator has broken up with his lover. It’s Valentine’s Day and he feels lonely. That’s why he remembers the good old days when he still was part of a twosome. She seems to feel the same and, since neither of them is in a new relationship yet[/i], they decide to spend Valentine’s together, to make each other a gift (e.g. a little poem) or something alike, pretending for one day that they still were in love with each other but both of them knowing that it is just a fantasy, that, now, [i]they are singles[/color] and that, one day, they each might have a new partner and new priorities[color=#006600].

So where did you get that from?

For the last part of your comments, I will not take it as mine to scoff or to refute. The world is large enough for us to find archetypes/abberations with which to smear/generalise a group of people. The question is really whether it is in anyone's best interest to do so.

Cheers all.

Here's the quote badly displayed earlier:

somegirl

link=topic=19812.msg592610#msg592610 date=1157470609:


In this poem, the first person narrator has broken up

with his lover. It’s Valentine’s Day and he feels

lonely. That’s why he remembers the good old days when

he still was part of a twosome. She seems to feel the

same and, since neither of them is in a new relationship

yet, they decide to spend Valentine’s together, to make

each other a gift (e.g. a little poem) or something

alike, pretending for one day that they still were in

love with each other but both of them knowing that it is

just a fantasy, that, now, they are singles and that,

one day, they each might have a new partner and new

priorities.
---

Hope you get it.

TWO QUESTIONS

gwatala:

But unlike you suggested above, they had not "broken up". They just were not in a defined relationship even though they wished/hoped/fantasised that they were, and still gave themselves some amount of pretense to that premise.

(1) The poem was written in 2001. What has happened to these two people since then?

gwatala:
I winced however at the contradictions in the later parts of the post when you said:

If you say that it was "her" responsibility to understand from some hidden message in a poem that you already have a girlfriend, then you blame "her" for the resulting situation.

The emphasis is mine. No where in the poem would you find words to justify your claim.

If you had read and quoted well, then you would have noticed that I got this idea from two of your posts in which you wrote the following:

It was *her* responsibility as well to read between the lines. In this case, she knew, and she did.

I have not "laid the blame" on anyone. We really shouldn't. It is already a grieving personal narrative if you would only read between the lines and see it as such.

(2) How can you tell somebody to read between your lines if, in other people's writing, you can't even read lines themselves?

Hope you get it.

No, since there is no contradiction.

THIRD QUESTION

For the last part of your comments, I will not take it as mine to scoff or to refute. The world is large enough for us to find archetypes/abberations with which to smear/generalise a group of people. The question is really whether it is in anyone's best interest to do so.

(3) [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=artist+%22kolawole+olatubosun%22+]Google[/url] says that once you thought differently --- So have you come to your senses now?