Poetry Forum

Mr Bird be his name, and indeed his nose
can be said to resemble a beak,
eyes dart swiftly from side to side.
Hard to imagine him ever flighty, though,
or migrating to some foreign clime.
He served his time in the marriage bed;
widowed now, his wife, always somewhat wispy,
dwindled away completely last autumn.
His dog and cat likewise vacated the nest
and he’s left with a garden ornamented
by statuettes of storks and swans;
a stair-lift, mobility scooter,
a colostomy bag and a parrot gifted
by a great-granddaughter. His hair, in turn,
has fled the field leaving a moustache,
always awry, now looking even more off beam,
like an aeroplane banking side to side.
He tells me one day, he’s been feeling down,
has a face-to-face with the doctor next week,
hopes for some pills to lift his spirits.
And I want to say, You could try talking
therapy but I see a vision of Mr Bird
and the parrot beak-to-beak and instead
You could try talking to the parrot
comes out and I squirm with shame
while Mr Bird looks like he’s been caught
doing something unseemly.

'You could try talking to the parrot'

Particularly liked that one Ray and the 'beak to beak' as well as the moustache like an aeroplane....

I'm not getting the ending, but that could be my own brain fog.

There is always a raw quality to your poetry, which I admire. You manage to do that while remaining at least lyrical. (I've been using the word "lyrical" to mean basically "light and pretty". Is that right?

The poem is concise in places, while in others it sounds a little awkward.

I'm not sure your personification of the birds works for me. It feels a little contrived in order to make a point.

Is John Isbell still participating?

Thanks both. Yeah, I can agree it's contrived in places. The ending is just meant to infer that Mr Bird has been talking to the parrot. Pretty poor really!

CalebPerry wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 10:22 pm

Is John Isbell still participating?

I wonder why you're asking me. Surely you can see for yourself.

I asked about John only because yours was the first thread I was posting in after a break.

Given that you are a writer, I think that you should know that you misused "infer". You meant "imply". I'm guessing you know that but momentarily got them confused.

Thanks, Caleb. You're right, though it seems to me that the word "infer" lends itself to misinterpretation. In other words, somebody in the last few centuries has made a mistake. I think I'd rather be known as "someone who writes", than "a writer".

It was the 'unseemly' that befuddled me Ray.