solipsismal dementia

[oranggunung]

revision

Yesterday, upon the stair,
and not just hanging in thin air,
I saw a man, well I say a man,
it clearly wasn’t who I am.
And not one of the fairer sex;
a bearded chap with half-moon specs.
So yesterday, or Wednesday last -
(I’m certain Tuesday must’ve passed),
perhaps it’s simpler if I say,
“at a point before today” -
a gentleman I couldn’t place
struck me with his open face -
he caught my eye and held my gaze,
then seemed to toss it clean away.
The details are complex, I fear;
my recollection’s not so clear -
He was on a level over mine
(that’s quite a reassuring sign).
I didn’t meet him on the flat,
he won’t have been as tall as that,
but if he were upon a flight
he would have gained some extra height.
So I think I’m sure when I declare,
“I saw a man upon the stair.”
Who was that man? Well, don’t ask me,
I’ve got an awful memory.


original

Yesterday, upon the stair,
and not just hanging in thin air,
I saw a man, well I say a man,
it clearly wasn’t who I am -
a bearded chap with thick-lens specs.
No. Not one of the fairer sex -
So yesterday, or Wednesday last
(I’m certain Tuesday must’ve passed).
Let’s just say, “at a time now gone”,
there was someone, who was clearly on.
Well they were above, and not below,
yet now I think, a strange fellow -
he caught my eye and held my gaze,
then seemed to toss it clean away.
The details are complex, I fear.
My recollection; not so clear -
He was on a level over mine
(that’s quite a reassuring sign).
I didn’t meet him on the flat,
he won’t have been as tall as that,
but if he were upon a flight
he would have gained some extra height.
So I think I’m sure when I declare,
“I saw a man upon the stair.”
Who was that man? Well, don’t ask me,
I’ve got an awful memory.

[thoke]

This is quite good, but it seems a little old fashioned. Especially the phrase, "the fairer sex". That seems a bit 1950s.

There are some good lines, but there are also some lines than seem to serve no purpose except to conform to the rhyming scheme.

Okay, I've just reread it, and assuming that the speaker is supposed to be an elderly gentleman, I guess that excuses the old-fashioned language. And some of the lines, which I thought were just there to make the rhymes add up, do seem to add to the bumbling, confused, solipsismally demented nature of the piece.

So I take back my first two comments. This post is essentially pointless.

Ben

[Gene van Troyer]

I quite liked this, and thought it could go a couple of ways: the recollective fumblings of an elderly gent, or even someone trying to offer an eyewitness account to a police officer.

Line 14, I thought, could have been ended with "aways."

Cheers,

Gene

[Wabznasm]

Og,

This is very good light verse. I was about to comment on the constant asides as being sentences simply jostled for the rhyme, but that's the point. We really haven't learned anything here, have we?

I would reccomend changing two parts. Firstly ditching this couplet, which seems a little flimsy compared to the rest:
Let’s just say, “at a time now gone”,
there was someone, who was clearly on.
and swapping these two lines around, since you want to get the more surprising and odd detail first so that it won't seem tacked on because of the rhyme:
a bearded chap with thick-lens specs.
No. Not one of the fairer sex -

Oh, and I don't think the title suits it to be honest. Maybe something a little more, well, humourous.
Dave

[barrie]

I like the idea to expand the original.

You hold the rhyme and rhythm quite well, but there are a couple of places where it breaks down for me (is it my Northern pronunciation again?). I don't think fellow and below are a snug fit, but I can't offer an alternative - a good visual rhyme though, I suppose you could sneak it.

Let’s just say, “at a time now gone”,
there was someone, who was clearly on. - This is where the real stumble came. 'on' is left hanging for starters, but I suppose this could be overlooked here. My problem was with the rhythm of there was someone, who was clearly on. You seem to have kept this beat up by inserting 'well' 'yet' and 'he' at the beginning of the next three lines.

Let’s say, “at a time now gone”,
someone there was clearly on.
They were above, and not below,
now I think, a strange fellow
caught my eye and held my gaze,
then seemed to toss it clean away.

Good stuff

Barrie

At Downing Street upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't Blair.
He wasn't Blair again today,
Oh how I wish he'd go away... ----(anon.)

[oranggunung]

Barrie

was that anonymous poem called AntiBrown-ish?

og

[David]

Og, great evocation of - I dunno, is it just absent-mindedness? Scatter-brainedness? It's not an actual condition, is it? The sense of confusion is not absent, shall we say.

The doggerel-like rhyming adds to the effect as well.

Cheers

David

[twoleftfeet]

Og,

I enjoyed this light-hearted piece (Well, I think I did - but I don't remember..)

My only quibble is:
a bearded chap with thick-lens specs.
No. Not one of the fairer sex -
- this really clunks. Perhaps you could use "hardly"?

At Downing Street upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't Blair.
He wasn't Blair again today,
Oh how I wish he'd go away... ----(anon.)

Be careful what you wish for ! (<---- this Icon was modelled on Bliar, methinks)

Geoff

[oranggunung]

Here’s a little revision to address the most frequently-mentioned stumbles. I think the flow is better. Being light verse, I’m not quite sure how seriously I should be taking it. However, I do strive to improve and hope I have done so here.

Thanks Ben. The material is very confusing, as intended. I had originally called the poem solipsis, but as it became more bumbling that title didn’t seem to serve very well on its own. Sadly, the title now reads like a scientific name for a plant.

Thanks Gene. The gaze/away rhyme is less than perfect, but I think aways, although sometimes used, would draw more attention to itself.

Thanks Dave (Wab)
One of the couplets (the specs) you mentioned was a recent addition, but rather kack-handedly cobbled on. I have taken your suggestion to reverse it. I think it does flow a little better. The “clearly on” pairing was meant to be playful, but I see that it has caused several people problems - it has been consigned to the cutting room floor. I didn’t want to abbreviate the piece, so I found a different way of leading into the “caught my eye” line. I think it is becoming a little more surreal, but, for me, that suits the state of befuddlement.
Title – still thinking

Thanks Barrie
fellow/below was a stumbling block for me too, but I’d trapped myself into a corner. I’ve tried to escape this awkwardness with an alternative idea. I hope it isn’t just as bad. The “someone on” line is gone.
I see what you mean about the insertions, but thought they gave the flow a sense of conversation, rather than a stream of consciousness feel. I had imagined the words being spoken out loud by the narrator.

Thanks David
Absent-mindedness
Scatter-brainedness
Both possible titles for the piece, but the temptation is to link them to Antigonish. I considered a number of convolutions, but they smacked of bad puns.

Thanks Geoff
The specs/sex couplet has been modified along the lines that Wab mentioned. I don’t think it clunks as much as before. As far as a title goes, I suppose you’d be all in favour of the bad puns. Perhaps I can manage one that isn’t too painful.


og

[twoleftfeet]

Og,

a gentleman I couldn’t place
struck me with his open face -
- is brilliant.

Overall I like the revision better.
Geoff

btw "inVOLVed" instead of "COMplex" ? Just a thought - I think it would aid the flow a little.