A ballad

[Luckieman]

Trial by Water

'You tell me all your roving years
you've had no love but me.
Look, then, on this mirror lake,
and tell me what you see.'
'I see but my own face, my dear,
green branches, empty skies...'
'Nought else?
Why then these trembling hands,
that dead light in your eyes?'
'Ophelia, Ophelia...'
the wild bird taunting cries.

[Deor Ana Log]

Trial by Water

'You tell me all your roving years 'roving' fits well in your opening line
you've had no love but me.
Look, then, on this mirror lake, expand on this concept more
and tell me what you see.'
'I see but my own face, my dear,
green branches, empty skies...'
'Nought else? 
Why then these trembling hands,
that dead light in your eyes?'
'Ophelia, Ophelia...' is this is reference to the hamlet?
the wild bird taunting cries.

A great start but I would love to see another stanza or two. Right now I don't feel there is enough substance to fully critique. Can't wait to see where this goes, thanks for sharing! -Deor Ana Log

[Luckieman]

Trial by Water

'You tell me all your roving years 'roving' fits well in your opening line
you've had no love but me.
Look, then, on this mirror lake, expand on this concept more
and tell me what you see.'
'I see but my own face, my dear,
green branches, empty skies...'
'Nought else? 
Why then these trembling hands,
that dead light in your eyes?'
'Ophelia, Ophelia...' is this is reference to the hamlet?
the wild bird taunting cries.

A great start but I would love to see another stanza or two. Right now I don't feel there is enough substance to fully critique. Can't wait to see where this goes, thanks for sharing! -Deor Ana Log

Thanks for commenting.

Look, then, on this mirror lake, expand on this concept more 
 the title says it - trial by water. This time instead of the lady being thrown in to sink or swim, the bloke is just made to look on it, but the result is much more revealing. I was alway taught never to explain what can be implied.

'Ophelia, Ophelia...' is this is reference to the hamlet? 
  yes, she drowned, and this is probably what he saw when he looked into the water. Once again, never to explain what can be implied.

That's where I came from anyway, but maybe it doesn't come across?

[matsunosuperfan]

Trial by Water

'You tell me all your roving years
you've had no love but me.
Look, then, on this mirror lake,
and tell me what you see.'
'I see but my own face, my dear,
green branches, empty skies...'
'Nought else?
Why then these trembling hands,
that dead light in your eyes?'
'Ophelia, Ophelia...'
the wild bird taunting cries.

The meter is irreproachable. A very smooth surface. I was not moved by the narrative. It all feels too considered. The first four lines establish a voice that rings cold and logical, and the poem's attempt to soar into heights of emotion in the final quatrain feels unearned.

[busker]

Trial by Water

'You tell me all your roving years
you've had no love but me.
Look, then, on this mirror lake,
and tell me what you see.'  …. I don’t understand how L3 and 4 follow from L1 and 2. What does looking at the face support or contradict anything?
'I see but my own face, my dear,
green branches, empty skies...' …. This is a good line 
'Nought else?
Why then these trembling hands,
that dead light in your eyes?'
'Ophelia, Ophelia...'
the wild bird taunting cries.

The narrator couldn’t be more different to the Ophelia who went mad muttering “he’s dead / gone to his death bed”. This isn’t Ophelia, this is someone pretending to be Ophelia. That’s my first problem with the poem - it lacks any degree of authenticity.
The schizophrenic dialogue is similarly fake. There is one good line in the poem, however.

In short, this reads like a poem trying too hard to be a poem.

[Luckieman]

There's clearly some confusion here (maybe I've been too vague). The narrator is not Ophelia. The first speaker is the current girlfriend. A drowned body like that of Ophelia is what he sees in the water but won't admit it (he lies that he can only see a normal reflection in the water) so the bird has to give the game away. So Ophelia just a symbol for the girl he led to death. Anyway this is what I intended. I must have done a very bad job if I have to explain to this level of detail.

[busker]

There's clearly some confusion here (maybe I've been too vague). The narrator is not Ophelia. The first speaker is the current girlfriend. A drowned body like that of Ophelia is what he sees in the water but won't admit it (he lies that he can only see a normal reflection in the water) so the bird has to give the game away. So Ophelia just a symbol for the girl he led to death. Anyway this is what I intended. I must have done a very bad job if I have to explain to this level of detail.

Even when you explain it, the Ophelia analogy doesn’t work.
Hamlet didn’t have a second girlfriend. He died too soon for that.
Ophelia died of grief because she lost hamlet and her father. 
It’s ok to use Ophelia as a throwaway reference in the context, but the scene you set is very detailed and specific. 

But yes, with the explanation, the poem does make sense. Maybe italicise the response and have stanza breaks to make it easier to follow that there are two different persons speaking. I don’t think the penny would drop still, because Hamket is supposed to be dead, but it’d be clearer than the current version

[Luckieman]

"Hamlet didn’t have a second girlfriend." Right,, but not relevant, coz Hamlet's only _very_ indirectly involved here anyway.
"Ophelia died of grief because she lost hamlet and her father." She drowned herself (at least partly but significantly) because she was _abandoned_ by Hamlet - "Go to a nunnery".
Ophelia is supposed to be symbolic here not literal. How I must have screwed up if that wasn't obvious.
"It’s ok to use Ophelia as a throwaway reference in the context" It wasn't intended as a 'throw away' but as a symbolic reference to the man's statement being a lie.

Maybe you just don't like the poem, which is OK - tastes differ. but I'm not getting any other signals from you that I can really use to improve it if it needs improving. Lets' leave it at that and see what anyone else thinks.

[busker]

"Hamlet didn’t have a second girlfriend." Right,, but not relevant, coz Hamlet's only _very_ indirectly involved here anyway.
"Ophelia died of grief because she lost hamlet and her father." She drowned herself (at least partly but significantly) because she was _abandoned_ by Hamlet - "Go to a nunnery".
Ophelia is supposed to be symbolic here not literal. How I must have screwed up if that wasn't obvious.
"It’s ok to use Ophelia as a throwaway reference in the context" It wasn't intended as a 'throw away' but as a symbolic reference to the man's statement being a lie.

Maybe you just don't like the poem, which is OK - tastes differ. but I'm not getting any other signals from you that I can really use to improve it if it needs improving. Lets' leave it at that and see what anyone else thinks.

My point is that you’re using a very confusing symbol 
An improvement would be to use a different symbol 
Hope that helps

[matsunosuperfan]

"Hamlet didn’t have a second girlfriend." Right,, but not relevant, coz Hamlet's only _very_ indirectly involved here anyway.
"Ophelia died of grief because she lost hamlet and her father." She drowned herself (at least partly but significantly) because she was _abandoned_ by Hamlet - "Go to a nunnery".
Ophelia is supposed to be symbolic here not literal. How I must have screwed up if that wasn't obvious.
"It’s ok to use Ophelia as a throwaway reference in the context" It wasn't intended as a 'throw away' but as a symbolic reference to the man's statement being a lie.

Maybe you just don't like the poem, which is OK - tastes differ. but I'm not getting any other signals from you that I can really use to improve it if it needs improving. Lets' leave it at that and see what anyone else thinks.

My point is that you’re using a very confusing symbol 
An improvement would be to use a different symbol 
Hope that helps

I share this confusion, very hard to read the narrative as explained in the plaintext of the poem. Poem presents a bit too much as a kind of narrative riddle, at present.

[milo]

Hello

You have posted an interesting poem here which seems to be about 2 lovers speaking by a lake but then takes a rather threatening turn as on prompts the other to look into it and reveal what they see.  The other obviously lies at first attempting to escape the situation but they are caught out by their own traitorous hands.  I can assume (but cannot know which is a shame) that they are a cheat and they will join the fate of Ophelia in the not-too-distant future.

It is written in ballad meter - thank god.  It is rather short for a traditional ballad (though there is no length requirement that I know of).  

One thing I noticed is that it is easier to read if you can separate the heavy weight of Shakespeare when reading the first 9 lines and then come upon the ending.  By that I mean, read it almost like a separate poem and then add the ending mentally.  For sure, the title 'Trial by Water' is the key.

Trial by Water

'You tell me all your roving years
you've had no love but me.
Look, then, on this mirror lake,
and tell me what you see.'

meter is a little rough with the forced promotion on "on" - switching to "Look then upon this mirror lake" - although I cannot tell whether you are deliberately avoiding the affectation to avoid the "bard" so to say.
"mirror lake" is of course a cliche but probably necessary here as it is supposed to both signify revealing her true nature as well as act as her alibi.
"and tell me what you see" is a pretty prosaic way of wording that in verse.

'I see but my own face, my dear,
green branches, empty skies...'
'Nought else?
Why then these trembling hands,
that dead light in your eyes?'

well, you are using "nought" so I guess the avoiding affectation is out the window.  Also, I can't see a reason to abandon the ballad meter here that justifies it. The demotion on "green" is pretty awkward as well - suiting for Shakespearean verse but strange to see in the 21st century.

'Ophelia, Ophelia...'
the wild bird taunting cries.

Overall - I like the premise - the metaphor is dark and presented in an interesting fashion.  I think there are some craft issues to clean up as well, perhaps as some choices but it is an interesting piece.

Thanks for posting

[Luckieman]

Hi Milo
that's highly constructive criticism - thanks. I handn't spotted 'on' v. 'upon' I actually broke the meter there unintentionally).

Insofar as this was _thought out_ at all, the 'naught else?' was there to have shock effect (the challenge) so breaking the meter seened the right thing to do. Maybe it doesn't work?

I don't understand that "nought" is 'affectation' - I'd need a solid definition form you. I always thought (and still do) that affectation is intentional artifice in an attempt to indicate unjustified status (ostentatious display - OED) - whereas I was just using a word that came naturally to me. I'm worried by notable tendency for literary folk to ban perfectly good words outright (I found a list of such a while back on the web - 111 perfectly ordainary words that would have written of most of our notable poets from Shakespere to Robert Frost, but cited as 'not to be used in any form'). Surely language is supposed to grow, not shrink!

[milo]

Hi Milo
that's highly constructive criticism - thanks. I handn't spotted 'on' v. 'upon' I actually broke the meter there unintentionally).

Insofar as this  was _thought out_ at all, the 'naught else?' was there to have shock effect (the challenge) so breaking the meter seened the right thing to do. Maybe it doesn't work?

I don't understand that "nought" is 'affectation' - I'd need a solid definition form you. I always thought (and still do) that affectation is intentional artifice in an attempt to indicate unjustified status (ostentatious display - OED) - whereas I was just using a word that came naturally to me. I'm worried by notable tendency for literary folk to ban perfectly good words outright (I found a list of such a while back on the web - 111 perfectly ordainary words that would have written of most of our notable poets from Shakespere to Robert Frost, but cited as 'not to be used in any form'). Surely language is supposed to grow, not shrink!

It, like "upon" creates phrasing only used in poetry. I have no problem with either, I just used it as an argument against my own premise

[Luckieman]

Thanks for clarifying, and I'm fine with that - the word has a fairy tale effect (which I seem to have wanted). But a demo of the general problem I mentioned can be found at a web site called Pretend Genius, and dozens (if not more) of self-proclaimed pundits prohibit 'shard' for no robust reason I can establish. A lot of folk seem to assume that only everyday vernacular is acceptable in poetry, but I think that narrows our options too much. For example I've used the word 'fardel' (last seen in the mouth of Hamlet maybe) because of its delightful double meaning - a burden, or a quarter part of something. Words are amazing companions, provided one gives them enough attention, both as writer and as reader.

[milo]

Thanks for clarifying, and I'm fine with that - the word has a fairy tale effect (which I seem to have wanted). But a demo of the general problem I mentioned can be found at a web site called Pretend Genius, and dozens (if not more) of self-proclaimed pundits prohibit 'shard' for no robust reason I can establish. A lot of folk seem to assume that only everyday vernacular is acceptable in poetry, but I think that narrows our options too much. For example I've used the word 'fardel' (last seen in the mouth of Hamlet maybe) because of its delightful double meaning - a burden, or a quarter part of something. Words are amazing companions, provided one gives them enough attention, both as writer and as reader.

You are preaching to the choir but if you really do want to have a discussion on it feel free to open a thread in the discussion forum - it’s a great topic you seem passionate about