06-29-2026, 08:34 AM
I see you note it as a sestina - might be more interesting if you didn't note it at the beginning.
What does "relentless" add to "whore"? Wouldnt it be stronger without? Why did you invert the logical sentence structure of "bodies pumped full of sugar" to "bodies pumped every morning"?
As a reader, I don't trust a narrator who says things like "sweetness fills each molecule" - he is either lying or being hyperbolic - I guess the latter but why?
It kind of continues on in the same vein with constructions fighting themselves and overwrought descriptions. My guess is it is the form driving the meaning - the meaning is solid, the metaphor is fine, some of the lines are nice but the are getting bogged down with the sheer number of lines to fill and writing toward the endwords is my guess
Thanks for posting
(06-07-2026, 04:04 AM)matsunosuperfan Wrote: god only knows why I keep trying to write these thingsThe poem tends to overexplain itself throughout which is tedious and I am not sure if it is because the form requires you to fill a number of lines or you think that is just what poems do - I stopped here because this is a perfect example: What does explaining that nectar is water boiled with sugar accomplish here? What would be lost if you never mentioned it and the reader just made the logical assumption that humminbird feeders are filled with water and sugar?
--
Sestina for My Father, Who is Still Alive
Dad is a relentless whore for hummingbirds,
whose thimble bodies he pumps every morning
full of nectar, water boiled with sugar
What does "relentless" add to "whore"? Wouldnt it be stronger without? Why did you invert the logical sentence structure of "bodies pumped full of sugar" to "bodies pumped every morning"?
Quote:until sweetness fills each molecule.
As a reader, I don't trust a narrator who says things like "sweetness fills each molecule" - he is either lying or being hyperbolic - I guess the latter but why?
Quote:Their hoods flame through the mist like aerial lights.
He feeds them to make up for what he lacks,
forgetting, at times, their names, but not for lack
of effort, fumbling with hummingbird
syllabics, consonants that won't alight
for long on his branched tongue. It's always morning
in the suburbs, where the doctor mixes molecules
to heal the brain, a measured strain of sugar,
chained triglycerides. Danny brings the sugar
and we do it in the bathroom. What we lack
in love we make up with denial, molecular
refusal of the rope wrapping our necks. A hummingbird
will die if it stops flying, and the morning
waits for no one, so they vibrate in the light
as if there were no fate to find but light
and motion. July the fourth sends sugar
spilling down the blackened sky, the next morning
my father breaks his hip. What we lack
when meeting death is not grace, but a hummingbird:
all the sound vibrations gathered in one molecule.
If I could split it, I would take the dawn's first molecule
into my mouth, make light
work of despair. But I am not a hummingbird.
I move only when moved by impulse, sugar
scattered on the sidewalk, shadows lackadaisical
holding their fading limbs up to the morning
in submission. Now there's no time for mourning
what we thought we'd be, no molecule
missing in our genes to blame for how we still lack
wings—forgive me, father. I don't mean to make light
of your desperation. I know you spilled the sugar
before you could count the grains. Humming, birds
attach themselves to you as light clings
to an iris, the pupil mourning that its sugared portal
can't catch all the molecules that fly from you like birds.
It kind of continues on in the same vein with constructions fighting themselves and overwrought descriptions. My guess is it is the form driving the meaning - the meaning is solid, the metaphor is fine, some of the lines are nice but the are getting bogged down with the sheer number of lines to fill and writing toward the endwords is my guess
Thanks for posting


