Eulogy for the Stars

[poetry_zealot]

once we believed the stars
were radiant balls of light—
not relics,
just ghosts.

we named them
like children
we could never raise
and let them burn

but they never did—
they only died
(quietly),
millions of years away:
their silence gradually
mistaken for warmth.

now,
the sky is full
of things
that don't dare to burn—
light still arriving,
long after
it mattered.

[CRNDLSM]

once we believed the stars
were radiant balls of light—
not relics,
just ghosts.almost too matter of fact, you have to set us up somehow and sometimes a statement does it, dies this mean though at one point we did believe stars were ghosts, or when we finally believe the stars were ghosts.   Once is a weird word

we named them
like children
we could never raise 
and let them burn  yes I want to burn the children, I really like the block of lines

but they never did—
they only died
(quietly),
millions of years away:
their silence gradually i don't like the flow of gradually to mistaken
mistaken for warmth.

now,
the sky is full
of things
that don't dare to burn— why not dare?
light still arriving,
long after
it mattered. Is it too clever ending with matter?

Anyways thanks for sharing, I think its close

[busker]

once we believed the stars
were radiant balls of light—
not relics,
just ghosts.

we named them
like children
we could never raise
and let them burn

but they never did—
they only died
(quietly),
millions of years away:
their silence gradually
mistaken for warmth.

now,
the sky is full
of things
that don't dare to burn—
light still arriving,
long after
it mattered.

The central premise of this poem is so completely incorrect, that I can't enjoy any of the actual poem.

Virtually none of the stars we can observe with the naked eye are dead. 

There are 52 star deaths in the milky way each century: https://www.astronomy.com/science/how-many-stars-die-in-the-milky-way-each-year/
There are 100 billion stars in the milky way: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/How_many_stars_are_there_in_the_Universe
The naked eye can see about 3000 stars. 

>>Therefore, the expected number of stars that die in a year out of our 3,000 visible candidates is 0.52*3000/10^11 = 0.156 ppb

The most distant visible star to the human eye - and I had to google this one - is V762 Cas. That is 16k light years away.

>>Even if we assume that all of the stars we can see are 16000 years away and could have died in the intervening 16,000 years between when their light left them and when it reached us, the expected number of dead stars that we would be observing in the night sky with the naked eye  would be 16k*0.156 ppb = 0.0002469
In other words, virtually none of the stars we can see with the naked eye are already dead.

[poetry_zealot]

once we believed the stars
were radiant balls of light—
not relics,
just ghosts.

we named them
like children
we could never raise
and let them burn

but they never did—
they only died
(quietly),
millions of years away:
their silence gradually
mistaken for warmth.

now,
the sky is full
of things
that don't dare to burn—
light still arriving,
long after
it mattered.

The central premise of this poem is so completely incorrect, that I can't enjoy any of the actual poem.

Virtually none of the stars we can observe with the naked eye are dead. 

There are 52 star deaths in the milky way each century: https://www.astronomy.com/science/how-many-stars-die-in-the-milky-way-each-year/
There are 100 billion stars in the milky way: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/How_many_stars_are_there_in_the_Universe
The naked eye can see about 3000 stars. 

>>Therefore, the expected number of stars that die in a year out of our 3,000 visible candidates is 0.52*3000/10^11 = 0.156 ppb

The most distant visible star to the human eye - and I had to google this one - is V762 Cas. That is 16k light years away.

>>Even if we assume that all of the stars we can see are 16000 years away and could have died in the intervening 16,000 years between when their light left them and when it reached us, the expected number of dead stars that we would be observing in the night sky with the naked eye  would be 16k*0.156 ppb = 0.0002469
In other words, virtually none of the stars we can see with the naked eye are already dead.

Sorry about that. While it may be a bit late to change that in this poem, I'll take matters like this into consideration in my future writing. Thank you for your feedback!

---

once we believed the stars
were radiant balls of light—
not relics,
just ghosts.almost too matter of fact, you have to set us up somehow and sometimes a statement does it, dies this mean though at one point we did believe stars were ghosts, or when we finally believe the stars were ghosts.   Once is a weird word

we named them
like children
we could never raise 
and let them burn  yes I want to burn the children, I really like the block of lines

but they never did—
they only died
(quietly),
millions of years away:
their silence gradually i don't like the flow of gradually to mistaken
mistaken for warmth.

now,
the sky is full
of things
that don't dare to burn— why not dare?
light still arriving,
long after
it mattered. Is it too clever ending with matter?

Anyways thanks for sharing, I think its close

Thank you for your feedback, I'll fix the flow in the third stanza and ponder on how to address your concern in the first stanza.

[The_system_screams]

I like the clever bit in the end but that's just me - I'm a sucker for when the words have layers.
The start of the poem gives me the "Once upon a time" vibe and I think that it fits since it does feel like that is the point in the start. The letting know that yes, these were the stories.
The second stanza is my favorite.
I can agree with CRNDLSM's criticism aobut the last flow between the lines. I am trying to think f something instead of "gradually" but I think, right now, it would be better of without a word.
Final stanza feels like it is talking to the second stanza but kind of missing the mark. Why I say that - the "that don't dare to burn" recalls the "and let them burn" but the image needs something more. Perhaps more in tune with the second stanza? Like keeping the metaphor somewhat or twisting it? I'm not sure exactly what but it feels like there is something missing here and just a tweak would make it so much better.
I liked the poem, that second stanza was powerful enough to keep it all afloat.