“The night was peppered with” by Struggle

4 thoughts on ““The night was peppered with” by Struggle”

1. There is some grand, beautiful imagery at work here. I would opine that it is the start and finish of a supernova relationship. I think it could stand for any relationship where Woman is the elemental force( whether Shekinah/ mother/spouse/significant other).

2. The creationism within this piece stood out to me. The birth of a universe by a mother of some sort is seen across so many ancient beliefs, and here it tells a beautiful tale. Well done!

3. I want the poem to be a bit more compositionally uniform—there are extra spaces throughout, confusing variations of stanza length, noun-verb disagreement in the final stanza, borrowed phrases and concepts to describe what must be a deeply personal understanding, some confusion about the second person object.

   There are some really fascinating thoughts here, but they bounce all over the place. When you start to deconstruct this poem’s diction you see this: “pepper”, glowing things, whispering night things, a seemingly unknowable personification of the creator/evening.

   OK, let’s pause there: She (I’ll refer to it (conceptually) as she for uniformity’s sake) is one among many, differentiated by position and — it seems — power. The poem begins with a subject (the wisher) petitioning the stars, and ultimately the true creator (object.) The curious thing here is that we’re starting with this address, and then going back towards the creation tale; this, I feel, serves to confuse.

   Oh, OK. I get it. It’s the creation tale OF A RELIGIOUS AWAKENING, not THE telling of THE creation tale.

   OK, so that assumed, going back the beginning (“leeches”, “unsure”, “abandoned”, “hesitant”) makes a bit more sense. If you rewrite this focus on imbuing this stanza with more ache, more desire, more desperation. Your reader needs to feel this, needs to (not necessarily know the origin of the dark night of the soul, but) feel the depth of longing.

   Anyway, with our new understanding we proceed:

   I, super personally, don’t find much beauty or insight in phrases like “Crepuscular whispers” or “celestial dew” or “Bathing in dark matter” or “Pulling the positive from the negative”. The problem, again this is just my super personal opinion, is that these phrases offer pre-fabricated views/vistas/texturals of the ideas you’re supposed to be intellectually and artistically exploring. I would expand on these ideas, maybe cut several and dig down in one or two of them: how do they relate to the central conceit of the poem? If you can’t find and exploit that connection you may want to abandon the phrase/line.

   Always remember that well-worn literary cliche: “You must kill all your darlings.”

   Continuing: Then we have a conflict: “Incompatible / We cannot be one”. The incompatibility is striking. Because the reader doesn’t have a clear understanding of the original object/subject concern, the sudden conflict that arises AFTER the crescendo of recognition is jarring. You, the poet, might know the answer here, but the reader does not.

   Then a promise, then a drifting, then a fond, almost rude adieu. The speaker refers to the REMNANTS of some eternal creator’s presence. As if in regarding it, addressing it, and then discovering that aforementioned conflict, the speaker chooses to disregard it.

   Like, the power is there, always, but diminished. Like, this complicated understanding that capital-G God is real but useless except for the literal night sky that she provides, which, cool, lets us walk to the outhouse at night.

   I don’t know. I finish reading this poem and have more questions than answers. I understand neither the speaker’s nor the poet’s position, opinion, trouble, concern, etc.

   The poem clearly comes from a place of great revelation, but I need to see it developed more.

   Keep working!

4. There is a distinct build-up to the poem, and gives the real impression of an evolution of feeling or perception. The first stanza is interesting in that it has very bright imagery, but focuses on lots of seemingly negative language. The ‘Glowing wisps’ are linked with being ‘hesitant’, that they will ‘be abandoned’ and that wishes are ‘leeched’ from them. This gives a strong, bittersweet impression.

   Progressing on, the second stanza seems to introduce a kind of hope, with this ‘One’ that has ‘stood out from the others’. ‘She offered you life’ really solidifies this impression, but there is still a tinge of negativity, perhaps doubt, by emphasising that they are ‘Alone’. This also implies that she is in the same situation and therefore a kindred spirit.

   The third stanza further expands on this positivity, with and ’embrace’, ‘genesis of a new era’ and how the positive is really coming out of what was once so negative. Here is where we really crescendo, seemingly reaching the height of the relationship in the poem.

   Then we stop, very abruptly. The use of ‘Incompatible’ is perfect, really showing how it can come out of the blue, the realisation that two people are no longer meant for each other. It’s not always a slow transition, certainly not always for both parties. The short, staccato sentences really deliver the change of tone well.

   Yet the final stanza moves back towards to positive once more, with how, despite the negatives, there is good to be had from all of this. This is certainly reminiscent of looking back fondly at the good times and leaving the bad to be forgotten.

   Overall, the poem seems to speak about all the stages of a relationship, starting with none, then moving to the start, flowing into the deeply intimate, but eventually crashing down. I like the flow and feel it works well, but some of the punctuation choices seemed odd, and I seem to have missed the message in parts like ‘Crepuscular whispers – / She offered you life.’ That part simply did not resonate with me.