That’s all
This is not a love-poem
I can’t conjure rhymes
nor any reasons
to defend the whys & wherefores
of love-
others before me have
written perfection,
why spoil it with a feeble lyric
or a sonnet, overwrought?
Some paltry words will have to do
the job of telling you
my life has become
an eloquent rhythm
since we met.
I only wanted to mention
that sometimes
the light in your eyes & the sound of your voice
are all I need
& that I am
completely unwilling
to ever be without you.
Because
this is not a love-poem,
it’s just a poem about love.
That’s all.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:21 am
I like this. The humility and the humor go a long way. “Lame Lyric” and “since we met” both seem less than ideal, though I am not certain as to why. I would suggest thinking about how they work in this one.
“Completely unwilling/to ever be without you” is brilliant. If that doesn’t make someone feel good and loved nothing will.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I like the simple and obvious love that this poem describes. It exhalts the feeling simply for existing without going into any high-handed language.
For me however, the final line “That’s all” didn’t seem to capture the same essence of the rest of the poem. I can see how you decided on it because it does complete the whole idea of simplicity, but in comparison to the rest of the poem which seems to sort of float, I find that the ending finishes on a somewhat negative note, like “that’s all, there’s nothing more” when for me the poem says “there really is so much more, but I could never truly explain it”.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Ah this is very beautiful, without wanting it to be!
February 16th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Thanks to you all who have provided valuable comments and/or compliments! I appreciate them all and have already reposted the poem once, based on Christopher’s remarks. Yes, Tree, I do see what you mean, that’s an interesting observation – I counter that with the following – that “That’s All” refers to a number of things – starting with the simple, “that’s all she wrote”… ! but also because I had in mind the last line of a poem written by a Japanese poet which basically says “there is no other poem but this one” – there is nothing more to be said. It’s interesting that in the original version (I think I’m up to version 4), the words “That’s all” originally appeared following the line “to ever be without you.” If that was the case, how would that read to you?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:48 am
You gotta love the simplitstic calm tone that’s as soft as it is plain- true tenderness that’s what I think is the resulting affect. I love the paradoxical understatement in this poem it is beautiful. You use the negation of a clear sympton of being separated to silently show the depth of love in the poem- Ijust think it’s wonderful.
I have only a couple of minor critical comments that I think are inconsequential. I may be wrong but I think this poem would be classified in poetic terms as a lyric poem because it’s not dramatic nor is it narrative. I think that may pose a small problem in the lines “why spoil it with a feeble lyric
or a sonnet, overwrought?”. That said I think the line conveys the desied idea well though possibly erroniously.
Lastly, is that all? or are you attemptting to say more than “that’s all” I’m not sure it can really convey. I’m not convinced that line is saying all you want it to say.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I love this poem. Very simple. Straight to the point. It reminds me of the song by John Mayer “Say”.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Hi Gabie-
Thanks for the wonderful compliment and your kind words about my poem!