Le Châtelier's Principle

[figure eight]

We were only a theory
when you bonded with another,
sublimating our what if
into what might’ve been.

We may never test empirically
Le Châtelier's discovery,
a constant equilbrium
that burns like Bunsen flames.




----------------------------------------------
I hope some of the issues have been addressed
It feels like I'm getting closer to what I wanted but welcome any help.
----------------------------------------------
This was the first draft

We became only a theory
when you formed your bond,
sublimating our what if
into what might’ve been.

We’re a Schrödinger experiment
and so I’ll live a half-life,
grasping at uncertainties
that burn like Bunsen flames.

[CalebMurdock]

I think I understand this poem well enough, but I do have one question about the first stanza. The bond that "you" formed was with someone else, right? And that's why our "what if" became a "might've been". If that's what the poem means, I'd like to suggest that you add a line to the poem to make that clear, as in:

We became only a theory
when you formed your bond
with that harlot down the street, (written in your own words, of course)
sublimating our what if
into what might’ve been.

(I used the term "harlot", but I don't know if you are a man or woman. Substitute "gigolo" if you are a women.)

You would then have to add another line to the second stanza, or you could choose to call the poem an informal sonnet.

The poem is very tightly written. I definitely like the second stanza.

[Ros]

I like a physicky poem.

I'm not sure why you say 'your bond' rather than 'our bond', since I assume it is a bond between the narrator and the other party? If the bond was with a third party, I think that could be a bit clearer.

(no idea why caleb should assume harlot/gigolo - seems rather pejorative).

I wonder if v2 has rather too many metaphors - Schrodinger, half-life, bunsen burner - it might work better to home in on one of them and pursue it otherwise they feel a bit casually used.

Ros

[CalebMurdock]

(no idea why caleb should assume harlot/gigolo - seems rather pejorative).

I was just being humorous. If there is a third party involved, the narrator would be contemptuous of the third party.

[Ros]

(no idea why caleb should assume harlot/gigolo - seems rather pejorative).

I was just being humorous. If there is a third party involved, the narrator would be contemptuous of the third party.

Ah, ok. Possibly an across the pond thing, then; even in that situation, those particular words are not ones that would occur to me.

[CalebMurdock]

Ah, ok. Possibly an across the pond thing, then; even in that situation, those particular words are not ones that would occur to me.

Let me explain lest you think I have a dark side to my nature: I've seen movies in which the jilted party referred to the third party as a "gigolo", "whore", etc. It's pretty common to demonize someone who is snatching your mate from you.

[figure eight]

Caleb, Ros,

The intention was that there was a third party. I wanted the narrator to be the outsider though. It was more about a relationship that could never happen as the object of his affections was married/getting married and that was her bond. It wasn't that they had run off or left anyone more that nothing could happen. I guess it's obvious now that that is an area I need to rework as it's not as clear as I intended.

I think you're right, I might've over done it with with the science references. It was intended for someone that worked in a lab as a technician and I wanted to include something from that.

Thank you both for your help and advice on this.

Adam

[CalebMurdock]

Let me just say that I like the second stanza, although the only scientific word in the first stanza is "theory", so there is something of a thematic schism between the two stanzas. (I guess "bond" could be viewed as slightly scientific in tone.)

You have my sympathy about making the poem clear. It's very difficult to explain a complicated situation in a poem without writing what sounds like a preamble.

[clemonz]

you had me thru s1
s2 sounded comic / too much a capitulation [either].

We’re a Schrödinger experiment

we're a LONG WORD... comic. the set up to see "equation" didn't help me either

and so I’ll live a half-life

i don't think you DID ovedo the metaphor, but i'm not buying this one... half life here sounds [to me] forced into / given the rhythm, and anyway - the use of "living" a half life is superfulous, unless you want to ram it down our throats!

thanks - i quite liked it, and would def. welcome you posting - again !
PEACE.

[cynwulf]

nice to see a poem that recognises science. I preferred the 1st verse to the second, I think Ros was right there, half-life seems more to do with radio-activity than Schrodinger and Bunsen Burner tooprosaic. Verse one excellent, ambiguity of bond and of sublimation I enjoyed.
Regards,
C.

[Arian]

I really like the idea behind this. It's clever. And it's neatly expressed, too. But I do have a couple of - perhaps tediously pedantic - comments.

S1
Theories/hypotheses are (nearly, not quite) what ifs. They're certainly not what might've beens. So if 'we became a theory', 'we' couldn't have become a what might've been. So the stanza might have more coherence with the first line (along the lines of) 'We were no longer a theory'. Admittedly, that impacts s2.

s2
The S experiment (actually a 'thought experiment') wasn't really about half lives. It was about quantum duality. I'd say, again for coherence, 'and so I'll live a double life' would be more accurate. And make the piece sharper.

I like it, though.

Cheers
peter

[figure eight]

Thank you all for your comments. As ever it's great to see the boards are still full of useful advice and suggestions. I think it needs a bit if a re work. Hopefully the edit will address a lot of the concerns and issues.

[cynwulf]

Ah yes, a great improvement to bring in the Law of Cussedness in Nature, though as an ex scientist I don't like 'only a theory'. Sorry to be pompous and I realise it's a poem and not a treatise, hypothesis or conjecture are nearer to what I think you're getting at.
regards,
C.

[Ros]

It may be more obscure now, but I like v2. to me it's still not obvious who the bond is being formed with - the new version seems to omit a third party altogether.

ros

[Jackie]

Adam, why not have a title that reflects the personal relationship aspects of your poem, especially since you mention Le Chatelier's clearly in st.2?

Jackie

[KevJ]

I must admit that I had to look up Le Châtelier's Priciple on google. Still not sure I understand it even after reading the definition. Not sure I quite grasp what you're getting at here yet. Will come back and have another read later.