Poetry Forum

(1st revision)


old suffolk barn
rustic, ragged
and weather-beaten
with stressed out beamed interiors
and cloudy red rooftops

silk thread nets
in dark corners
with hungry spiders and twitchy legs
feeling for their lunch

mice scout in hidden holes
for fragments of food
darting in and out
of crumbled brick
some balanced on dried out sticks
brought in by the farmer’s dog

tucked away
above
in a quiet spot on a jointed beam
a mud house
of twittering swallows
and parents swooping in
with beaks full of flies

chicks squabbling
screeching
gobbling
growing
ready to fly

the barn
now quiet
but not quite empty
the spiders and mice
are still busy


(Original post)
This is my first posting of a poem on this board so let's see what you think, good or bad. It's in free verse (obviously) and I seldom use punctuation; instead, I use line breaks to indicate where commas could be and line spaces for full stops.


old Suffolk barns
rustic and ragged
cloudy red rooftops
weather-beaten ginger forts
with stressed out beamed interiors

silk thread net curtains
in dark corners
with hungry spiders and twitchy legs
feeling for their lunch

mice twitch and scout
in hidden holes
for fragments of food
darting in and out
of crumbled brick
some balanced on dried out sticks
brought in by the farmer’s dog

tucked away
above
in a quite spot on a jointed beam
a mud house of twittering swallows
and parents swooping in
with beak-fulls of flies

babies squabbling
screeching
gobbling
growing
ready to fly

the barn
now empty and quiet

Hello Ron, welcome to the forum.

A very pleasant descriptive piece which, I think, contains a metaphor of a house and the owners growing old and children leaving home?

Personally, if I write a piece without capitalisation or punctuation I like to go the whole hog and omit all of it, unless there's a valid reason. I see that you've kept a capital S for Suffolk and you've added apostrophes. A personal choice of course, but I like to go for all or nothing myself.

There's a spelling mistake half way through, should quite = quiet?

I think this bit:

Ron63 wrote:with beak-fulls of flies

babies squabbling
screeching

Would read better as

with beaks full of flies

chicks squabbling
screeching

I think beaks full looks better on the page and sounds better rhythmically. And chicks instead of babies sounds a little less trite and adds a nice bit of consonance.

Look forward to reading more from you.

Regards,
Nash.

Ron63 wrote:

old Suffolk barns....... A plural, but a singular 'barn' to conclude/title. For me the particular rather than general is effective.
rustic and ragged
cloudy red rooftops....................perhaps shift to L5, so all that 'r' alliteration is not clustered
weather-beaten ginger forts....................'ginger' made me think of hair?
with stressed out beamed interiors

silk thread net curtains
in dark corners
with hungry spiders and twitchy legs............I like 'twitchy'...set the tension
feeling for their lunch

mice twitch and scout............I think the repetition of 'twitch' devalues its earlier use
in hidden holes
for fragments of food
darting in and out
of crumbled brick
some balanced on dried out sticks
brought in by the farmer’s dog

tucked away
above
in a quite spot on a jointed beam
a mud house of twittering swallows.........spider/mice/birds has a logical sequential feel
and parents swooping in
with beak-fulls of flies...........................Nash's suggestion is smoother

babies squabbling
screeching
gobbling
growing
ready to fly.............................I like the way this tails off

the barn
now empty and quiet........................wouldn't it still be full of spiders?

I enoyed the picture you created. Look forward to more.

Please ignore any suggestions if unhelpful

cheers

Mac

Nash and Mac, thank you for your comments. You have both offered some positive remarks which will be taken into account when revising. Many thanks indeed.

Yes, a pleasant-enough first post, with some nice touches. I enjoyed the drama of:

babies squabbling
screeching
gobbling
growing
ready to fly

though I agree with nash about babies. I also think there are some weaker aspects, some of which have already been pointed out. For me, the piece's main flaw is its motivation of description only. Nash has hypothesised that it has an allegorical nature, and I'd like to believe he's right. But I don't, I'm afraid.

But I may be wrong.

Anyway, yes, let's see more.

Cheers
peter

Decent debut, Ron. Welcome

Yes it's mainly descriptive so look forward to reading more.

elph

Thanks Peter and elph for reading. Feedback is alway welcome and hope to return the compliment when I find your work.

Yes, that chicks amend has made a difference. Good section, that.

Why has Swallows got a cap S? Or is it a typo?

Will look out for your next one
peter

Arian wrote:Yes, that chicks amend has made a difference. Good section, that.

Why has Swallows got a cap S? Or is it a typo?

Will look out for your next one
peter

It was a typo I meant to correct; thanks for pointing it out.

I think the revision is going in the right direction. Nice unity of sound with beak/chick. I'm not sure you need 'ocher', 'weather-beaten forts' gives enough description and effective stresses - less is more sometimes.

mac

Hi Ron,

A nice first post and it shows that you have an eye observation. I like the gentleness in this description of nature.
You've gotten some good crits and your revision is better than the original. I look forward to more from you, I like the mood.

Suzanne

I enjoyed this Ron. What you communicate is that you are relishing what you observe. It makes the reader want to go out and really LOOK at things. Can't be bad.