Poetry Through the Ages for December

In the blocks below, please find your weekly poems written by me. There are two components to each poem: The poem I wrote as a child (I started writing poetry when I was 11) and an analogy of the lines and word use, using my current and adult understanding of poetic devices and how my lines conveyed the message using devices and styles I learned as an adult. If you have any questions or concerns about the poems, please reach out to me!

Week One:

The Light—2004. Age 15

Shadows of darkness cast evil over the city of light.

As the moon has no shadows,

Evil is far,

But the evilness of the city of light

Casts its movable shadow over the people who believe.

The sun casts luminous rays of sunlight on where it shines,

And increases the darkness on where it does not.

For everyone who believes in the light,

All the happy thoughts of the day settle in the mind,

Like rays of pure love and sunlight.

But the night comes and the fear of darkness is upon us.

The people who do not believe are not scared of the dark,

And welcome it with open arms.

They fear the daytime shadows which are created

By the light and purity of the sun.

They do not become cold during the darkness,

Only during the evil shadows of the light.

Analogy

Shadows of darkness cast evil over the city of light.—

If you’ve read the other poems, you might have noticed that they have dark and light and popular themes, but the difference is that they don’t always mean good (light) and evil (dark). From the poet’s perspective, light usually means the opposite of what is generally accepted: For the poet, light means evil or dark, where the darkness means knowledge and acceptance. In this context, the shadows of darkness in this line will help the city of light become good again and remove the evil associated with light. Why do you think the poet said ‘cast evil’ in this case? Could it be that the shadow of darkness is trying to help the city of light become as knowledgeable as the darkness itself?

As the moon has no shadows,—

In our universe, the moon has shadows on it because it’s the sun’s rays that cast shadows as they appear on Earth, so this line might indicate that this moon and the city of light aren’t part of our universe and instead part of its own poetic universe. The question is: How would the poet know the moon doesn’t have any shadows? Is the poet on the moon? This would imply that the moon has an atmosphere, and it’s safe to travel and stay there. This means that this moon is most definitely in its own poetic universe, and because of this, the city of light might exist in this universe too. In this case, the city of light could be where the poet lives (in this poem), but that means that where they live is unsafe. Where do the ‘shadows of darkness’ come from if the poet and their city of light is on the moon without knowledge that there is something else on the moon that could cast these shadows? Would this item or creature need to be larger than the city itself to cast shadows of knowledge over an entire city? Do you, the reader, believe this would make a difference for the city itself and remove their light of ignorance so they can leave the city of light—both physically and metaphorically—to learn new things?

Evil is far,—

Where does evil come in? Does the poet associate evil with either light vs. dark or shadows vs. illumination? If evil is far, does that mean evil exists only in far-off places, away from the moon and the city of light, like the poetic universe’s version of the Earth? Does this mean the poet believes evil (light) doesn’t exist on the moon? If this is the case, how can the city of light exist on the moon if light means evil and evil is supposed to be far away? Since the poet didn’t provide a distance of where evil is supposed to be, it could also be on the moon, and in the city of light itself. If the city of light is the cause of this evil, this could mean that the poet isn’t as close to the city of light as you, the reader, might realize. If evil is far away from the poet, the poet might not be close to the city of light or the moon at all, if the moon is associated with light and evil because of its connection to the city of light.

But the evilness of the city of light—

This line plainly states that the city of light is evil, but does that mean those in the city of light are evil too? Do you, the reader, think a city's location can be viewed in isolation from its occupants and vice versa? If a city is considered evil or ignorant because of its history, are those who live in it automatically evil because of the association? Do you think bricks and walls could hold a conflicting and evil history compared to those who live in the city today, even if the inhabitants aren’t evil themselves? If the city of light is evil because of the light itself, would darkness or A shadow create an opportunity for the city and/or the inhabitants to become good and knowledgeable? Why do you, the reader, think there is a difference?

Casts its movable shadow over the people who believe.—

This line is interesting because shadows don’t move on their own, so who/what is moving for the shadow to follow? If there is a physical shadow of something casting a shadow over the city of light, will the inhabitants of the city become good and enlightened when the shadow falls on them? The next question is: Where is the shadow moving, and why did it move at all? Do you, the reader, believe the shadow is moving so it can focus on certain areas of the city of light where the inhabitants are particularly evil and misinformed, or is the shadow moving because it’s following its being and has to go where they go? If this is the case, why is there movement at all? If the being is large enough to cast a shadow over the city of light, why does it need to move at all? Then there is the part of the line that says ‘people who don’t believe’. Believe in what? The shadow, the city of light, or the difference between evil and good between the city of light and the shadow that is cast over it? If the inhabitants of the city of light believe in the shadow at all, can they still call themselves inhabitants? Wouldn’t the shadow negate their access to the light in the city if light?

The sun casts luminous rays of sunlight on where it shines,—

This introduction of the sun could show you, the reader, that the poetic universe is very close to your own universe where a sun and moon exist simultaneously. However, since this universe deems light in a negative way, these rays of sunlight that are cast could be a way to spread evil throughout the city of light and move away from the shadows cast by the movable object from earlier on in the poem. If the sun is capable of casting sunlight on areas where evil and ignorance run freely, would these rays be as powerful if those in the rays’ area are already in the dark and choose not to step into the light?

And increases the darkness on where it doesn't.—

As stated in the line before this, wherever the light doesn’t shine, darkness and knowledge thrive and where the light does shine, evil and ignorance prevail. In this line, the darkness is being increased by the light, but the poet doesn’t specify if this is so. The light is causing the shadow (since shadows can’t exist without light), or if the darkness is increased because more people are choosing to turn away from the light of evil and move towards the knowledge of darkness. If darkness is increased because of the light around it, does this mean there is more light in general, or does this mean the darkness is simply increasing because more people are moving away from the light?

For everyone who believes in the light,—

Do you, the reader, think this means those who believe in ignorance over knowledge? If these people (fellow readers, inhabitants of the city of light) believe in the light over darkness, what reason will they have to stay in the shadow that looms over the city of light? Do you think these beings would run into the light to get away from the darkness and in so doing, they run towards evil and away from the safety of knowledge? If you, as the reader, believed in light over darkness, does this mean you would choose to believe in something that is harmful to you? Believing in the light is definitely safer for the inhabitants of the city of light because that means they don’t have to think about the looming shadow that might come to uproot their sense of safety. This line also tells us that not everyone believes in the light, otherwise, it would have said ‘all who believe in the light’. It didn’t, and that means that there are those, like the poet, for example, who believe in darkness instead and use this to their advantage to write a poem that considers the other side: Not everyone follows the light and craves ignorance because it’s easier.

All the happy thoughts of the day settle in the mind,—

What is happiness? From the previous line, you, the reader, could assume that happiness is ignorance because it’s easier to deal with than thinking about why you are unhappy and dealing with the knowledge (darkness) that the inhabitants of the city of light (which may or may not include you) need the light to live a peaceful life. Another important word is in this line: day. How does the poet know it’s day? If they are on the moon (in the city of light), wouldn’t it be day and night at the same time, unless this moon in the poetic universe is much larger than the one we have and there can only be day or night at a time. This comparison of day and happiness also goes back to what is generally accepted of light and goodness, but as we’ve seen from the earlier lines, this isn’t the case for this poem, so what could the difference be? If happy thoughts are in the mind because it’s day, does this mean those who think like this crave ignorance to be happy and allow these thoughts to settle, pushing out any other thoughts of knowledge and darkness? How would the inhabitants of the city of light know what knowledge is if they’ve only ever seen the light?

Like rays of pure love and sunlight.—

Again, there is a comparison of love (also seen as happiness in some circles) with the light. If the inhabitants of the city of light associate love with light, does this mean they love the evilness of what their city is capable of, or is this a case of pure ignorance? If the inhabitants don’t know what their city is capable of, they might assume their city of light is a city of love because this is what they know and feel comfortable with. These rays of love and sunlight could show the inhabitants what they need to see: That they are safe in their own world if these rays bathe them in sunlight (the means to remain ignorant and evil) and love (a means to not question why there are rays at all and just accept their fate). If these rays of sunlight can reach through the shadows because of their power, do you, the reader, believe that the rays would be dimmed, or would the darkness fall away to make way for the easy route?

But the night comes and the fear of darkness is upon us.—

This is the first time the poet mentions fear as part of the reason darkness (knowledge) exists. Why do you, the reader, believe this change of tone exists? Does the poet understand that darkness is feared in general, even if the meaning of darkness has changed for this poem? When the night comes, does this mean that’s when the shadow comes? Do you think the night and shadows are the same thing? It would explain how the shadow in the beginning of the poem was able to encompass the city of light, and this would also mean that there isn’t some being looming over the city of light to watch the evil deeds of the inhabitants. The question is: Why is the poet afraid of the dark? Weren’t they the ones who created this darkness as a response to the city of light? Do you, the reader, think they are afraid of the dark because they know what happens when the light encroaches and the dark tries to fight back? If darkness is knowledge, do you think the darkness would have the means to learn about the light and their intentions and react or fight accordingly? If the darkness is meant to be feared because of its association with the night (historically, where predatory behavior arises), does the city of light have a better chance of keeping its inhabitants safe?

The people who do not believe are not scared of the dark,—

In this line, the word ‘belief’ is used again, but this time the context is different. In the previous use of belief, these believers believed in the light. In this case, the believers believe in the dark instead, which protects them in a way because if they aren’t scared of the dark and only scared of the light, their fears will most likely not come true because being afraid of knowledge can be cured by gaining more knowledge, which brings a sense of understanding not usually seen when ignorance is rampant. If you, the reader, or the inhabitants of the city of light are afraid of the light, this means that you will remain afraid because the light is ignorance and being afraid of ignorance usually means the afraid person will remain afraid because they are too ignorant to know how to change their behavior.

And welcome it with open arms.—

Welcome what with open arms? The acknowledgement that the fear of the dark has been beaten by those who believe in it? Could it be the darkness itself that is being welcomed with open arms by those who aren’t afraid of it? On the other hand, it could be that those who believe in the light and not the dark are welcoming their own ignorance with open arms because they have been trained to accept the light over darkness as part of the status quo. If those who accept light with open arms are willing to accept the shadow that looms over them, this could mean that they have decided to accept darkness (at least partially) because they understand that light can’t exist without darkness and vice versa. If this line is referring to those who believe in darkness instead, what are they accepting with open arms? It’s less likely that a person who focuses on knowledge will so willingly accept light or ignorance as easily as those who believe in light accept darkness when they need to, so what are they welcoming with open arms? Could it be the realization that welcoming darkness is the only way to change the city of light’s perspective on good vs. evil and become the driving force where the people of the light start changing for the better?

They fear the daytime shadows which are created—

Who fears the daytime? Those who believe in the dark? If darkness means knowledge, how are the people of the dark so easily scared? Judging by this line, this could be because they know that shadows are created by the light. This could encourage the people of the light to create more light, where the shadows and people of the dark would disappear entirely. Does this mean that the only thing the people of the dark fear is the erasure of their existence? If the people of the dark fear the daytime, does that mean those who follow the light fear the nighttime? How would the people of the light know what to fear if all they have is ignorance? Could it be that the people of darkness told them about the shadows while the inhabitants of the city of light were running from the shadow cast over their city?

By the light and purity of the sun.—

Again, the poet uses the sun and light as a metaphor for purity; does this mean the poet wants you, the reader, to understand both sides of the light and dark of this poem while considering how the sun became pure? As we’ve seen, light and purity mean the opposite in this poetic universe so does this mean the sun is considered evil and ignorant in this poem? If this is the case, how could you, the reader, believe anything the poet tells you about the sun or goodness in this poem at all? The start of this line says “by the...” which implies there could be an instruction in the following line, and you, the reader, should use the light and purity of the sun to make your decision. What happens if your decision isn’t pure and good because you based it on the light which is inherently evil in this context? Would this be your fault because you didn’t read the fine print, or are your choices fair and just because your intentions were pure?

They do not become cold during the darkness,—

What/who doesn’t become cold during the darkness? The people of the light, the people of the dark, or the inhabitants of the city of light? Let’s look at the people of the light first. Why don’t they become cold during the darkness? Is cold and darkness synonymous because it’s assumed that cold means Death and darkness is associated with Death (since darkness itself isn’t seen in a positive light in general) and in this case, those who believe in the dark might not become cold at all because they are already in the dark. Does this mean the poet views the people of the dark as dead and the people of the light as alive? This would make sense and explain why the people of the light are so afraid of the dark: They want to keep their ignorance about life and death for as long as possible, so they are protected in the city of light. Is there a city of darkness in this case?

Only during the evil shadows of the light.—

I’m trying something different from now on: Instead of me analyzing the final line of each poem, I want you, the reader, to analyze it in any way you see fit, based on the rest of the poem, and tell me what you used as your analogy in the forum in the link below. I can’t wait to see your responses!

What do you think? Do you agree with my understanding and symbolism? I’d love to know!

Please use this [ link ] to the optional forum to start a discussion about the poem. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]

Week Two:

The Night.—2004. Age 15

The evening draws near and people lock themselves in houses,

While the non-believers lock themselves outside in a trance.

They fear the people of the light,

Not the demons the people of the light fear.

They welcome the demons,

Who are ushered away by the others,

The others fear them because they are not afraid.

Not afraid of the demons,

Only the people the demons hunt and kill.

They are outcasts purely for the reason that they do not fear.

The question is not why they are not afraid,

But why should you feel afraid in a world you have created yourself?

Analogy

The evening draws near and people lock themselves in houses,—

Evening denotes the sun rising and setting which means that this poetic universe is similar to ours. This means that the poet is either in both worlds or they are in the poetic universe that is similar to ours, and they might not realize how similar the universes are as they notice their evening. If you, the reader, don’t have a point of reference to compare two worlds, you wouldn’t know how to spot the differences and similarities. Why are people locking themselves in their houses? Are they afraid of the evening (and by proxy), the night and the darkness that follows? If you were in this poetic universe, would you follow the others and lock yourself in your house or would you stay outside to find out why people lock themselves in their houses?

While the non-believers lock themselves outside in a trance.—

This ‘non-believers’ line is similar to what was stated in the poem from last week. Why do you, as the reader, believe that this line (or something similar) from the previous poem is in this poem? Are these poems connected somehow? The titles could be connected since the previous poem had the title of “The Light” while this one is called “The Night”. If this is the case, the light comes after night, so why is this poem second? If there isn’t a connection, what can the ‘non-believers’ be in this poem with so little context? Could these be those who don’t believe it’s necessary to lock themselves in their homes because they believe that there isn’t anything to be afraid of when they are outside? The use of the word ‘trance’ here is also interesting because if the non-believers locked themselves out, they could enter a trance to dissociate themselves with whatever is happening outside that caused the others to run to safety so quickly. If the non-believers are stuck in a trance, they might not realize the darkness or light is coming until it’s too late.

They fear the people of the light,—

If the shadows of light are evil, does this mean the people of the light are evil themselves or does this mean their shadows are evil because they are afraid of the darkness (Death) and would could happen to them if they sucumb to their own shadows and become darkness themselves after they have realized their only option is keeping to themselves inside, where there could be an abundance of light and evilness, despite their best efforts to be good and safe outside where it’s usually darker and more dangerous. If the people of the light fear the dark, is this because they fear what could happen if they become enlightened or do the people of the dark fear those of the light because they know darkness can’t exist without light? This could mean that in order for the people of the dark to exist, they have to accept ignorance and evil as part of their existence. Without it, they wouldn’t exist.

Not the demons the people of the light fear.—

Where do these demons come from? They haven’t been mentioned in the poem before. Do these demons come from the darkness that falls at night, where they can exist without people seeing them, or do they exist for the purpose of people seeing them and asking questions they might not have asked otherwise? Why do you, the reader, think the people of the light fear them? Do you think the demons are dressed in darkness like they are usually depicted in folklore and images, or are the people of the light afraid of them because they fear that their (the demons’) presence could force others to ask questions; questions the people and elders of the light may not be ready to answer?

They welcome the demons,—

Who welcomes the demons? The people of the light or those of the dark who distance themselves from the people of the light anyway? It could be the darkness who welcomes the demons, since it wasn’t specified but in this case, do you think the people of the light would still usher the people of dark away, given that they usually stay outside (in a trance) and don’t interact with the people of the light, at least not often enough to cause any distress. If the people of the light are those who welcome the demons, there has to be a reason behind it. This reason could be that the people of light could assume that the people of the dark and the demons are on opposite sides since they both exist in the darkness, and at some point, the people of the light might assume there could be a territorial dispute which would displace the people of the dark, even for a little while.

Who are ushered away by the others,—

If the demons in this poetic universe are seen as the same as we see them in our own universe, it could be that even the people of the dark want nothing to do with the demons, even though they both come from the dark. On the other hand, the poet didn’t specify that these demons came from the dark. This was stated in this analogy, but in the poem itself, where these demons came from wasn’t stated. They could have come from the light, and if this is the case, these demons could be more sinister than previously believed. This is because these demons represent ignorance and evil, not knowledge and goodness, as if they were created by the darkness. If the demons were created by the people of light, they could be ushered away from the people of the dark: The people of the dark might not want to be associated with the demons of light because of what they represent.

The others fear them because they are not afraid.—

Who are these others the poet discusses in this line? Could this be you, the reader, who might not be afraid of the demons, the people of light, or the people of the dark, who aren’t as intimidating to you because you don’t know what they can do? On the other hand, not being afraid of something doesn’t give that thing power over you. If the people of light aren’t afraid of what the people of the dark can show them and change how they think, the people of the dark will have less power over the people of light, including their demon of light. Being unafraid of something that those around you are afraid of could give you a sense of power because you could feel more confident in your abilities compared to those around you who succumb to their fears more easily. Within the context of this poem, who, out of the people of the light; the dark; or the poet themselves; do you believe would have a stronger sense of power compared to the rest?

Not afraid of the demons,—

The repetition of the above lines of not being afraid of them demons could mean that these lines are more important than what was believed before, but the question is: Are these demons from a religious sense (which is the most common understanding of the word ‘demon’) or are these demons from the poet’s perspective regarding something dark (or light) in their own world that is considered negative or misunderstood? If the poet isn’t afraid of the demons, why did they write the lines earlier in the poem? Could the poet have written these lines about being afraid of demons because they understand that most of the readers like you will see demons as a negative and religious concept, which brings fear into both sides (the people of the light and dark), regardless of how close the people of the dark and the demons must feel because of their common ground. By choosing not to be afraid of the demons, the poet has a sense of superiority that they could have given to any characters in the poem, but chose not to.

Only the people the demons hunt and kill.—

Where do these people come from? Are these the people of darkness and light littered throughout the poem, or does the poet consider the demons, the light, and the darkness people too since they are as active as the people of light and dark in the context of the poem? This line could be taken in two ways: It could be the people the demons hunt and kill for whatever reasons the demons may have, based on either dark (knowledge) or light (ignorance) to bring either side closer to their path: Knowledge or ignorance, and to disregard any other view that opposes them. Would the dark demons hunt and kill so freely compared to the demons of light, who view it as their mission to keep the people of the dark outside in their trance? What reason for hunting and killing would the demons of dark have to do the same as their lighter counterparts?

They are outcasts purely for the reason that they do not fear.—

Who are outcasts? The demons who are shunted by a certain set of people, depending on who they follow, or are the outcasts, the people of light or dark who believe that their opposing side are less than them, thereby making themselves the outcasts by choosing not to accept and understand the other side, and living in fear on purpose? What happens when the people of the dark are kept outside in a trance? Do the people of light acknowledge their (people of the dark) existence, and just choose not to engage, or do the people of the dark not exist for the people of light because they are seen as outcasts (different), and it’s easier to close the door and pretend knowledge doesn’t exist? If this knowledge existed for the people of light, they would have known it already without needing their opposites to teach them.

The question isn't why they are not afraid,—

Double negatives in poetry (and prose) could seem like lazy writing, but it serves a purpose: In this context, this double negative could mean the opposite of what the line is saying. At first glance, the line could state: The question isn’t why they are not afraid, the original line with the meaning of: The question is why they aren’t afraid, or another interpretation could be: There wasn’t a question of why they were afraid. Who is afraid? The people in the poem, since we’ve already established that the poet isn’t afraid, or could the darkness and light be afraid of the other (and the presence of their demons), are so close to the end of the poem. In this case, the end of the poem doesn’t offer much of an opportunity for a resolution between the conflicting forces so the first interpretatrion of this line is most likely accuarate: Why aren’t they (the people) afraid of oneonether since they are forced to exist together where one group is safe inside, in the light, while the others are forced to stay outside in a trance? If we’ve learned anything from this poem, it’s the people inside (the people of light) who should be more afraid since they are surrounded by ignorance and evil, while the people of darkness are outside, safe because they have chosen knowledge and goodness to step away from those of the light.

But why should you feel afraid in a world you have created yourself?—

What do you think? Do you agree with my understanding and symbolism? I’d love to know!

Please use this [ link ] to the optional forum to start a discussion about the poem. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far.

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next.

This is a website for reflection and asking questions! What type of writer would I be if I made readers like you tired on purpose, just so you can finish sooner and miss the opportunity to think about what you have read?

Week Three:

The Dream.—2004. Age 15

She went running through the woods,

Welcoming the night and shattering screams openly,

She did not care when she realised the deadly coldness and screams were coming from her.

She heard footsteps behind her,

Running the same pace she was running,

When she slows down, the footsteps follow suit.

But she hears no footsteps behind her now, so she stops.

It strikes her on her back, and she collapses.

It strikes again,

This time it strikes her on her head; she dies,

And smiles peacefully.

She woke up from the dream,

Knowing this is reality.

She wept,

She sobbed,

And she went numb.

She cried for the life she never had,

And wished her present life all away,

She learned life lessons the hard way,

And she wondered if her pain would ever go away.

“Of course it will” said she,

But she was lying.

She knew that the pain would only go away

If she escaped from this very real prison.

Analogy

‘She’ went running through the woods,—
Since the title of this poem is ‘The Dream’, we can safely assume that 'she' or the poet was running through the woods in her dream. If the poet is writing about their own dream, it could be a conscious choice to use the third person of 'she' in the line since the poet might be uncomfortable with using “I” in such an informal manner when speaking about themselves. This may seem counterintuitive, but there could be a sense of familiarity between the poet and their dream where the word “I” could seem out of place if they weren’t 100% sure they were the one running in the dream. Have you, as the reader, experienced anything like this in a dream? Some dreams can be really odd, and you might not know if the person playing you in the dream is really you.

Welcoming the night and shattering screams openly,—
Most people and readers I have come across are either day or night people. Those who prefer the day enjoy spending time in the sun, with their friends and family members, and planning what they can do based on how many hours of sunlight are left. The ‘night’ people are usually the opposite. They prefer spending time with themselves or with a select group of people (usually a very small group) and instead of counting how many hours are left in the day, they enjoy the hours of darkness they are afforded. With this line, it’s obvious that 'she' or the poet is a night person because the line states ‘welcoming the night’. For day people, they very rarely welcome the night because this means fewer daylight hours for their activities. The line also states that ‘screams’ are welcome. Does this mean the poet associates night with screams? If so, are these screams of pleasure or punishment? If the poet didn’t welcome the night and screams openly, would they still happen, or would the poet simply not notice it?

She did not care when she realised the deadly coldness and screams were coming from her.—
Using the formal ‘did not’ instead of didn’t is at odds with what this analogy said earlier about not using “I”. The dreaming aside (the other possible cause for formality) and there could be a possibility that the poem views Death as a formal affair, which is why they used this level of formality in this line. This line also changes the tone from earlier because it states that these screams are coming from her. The poet didn’t use the word ‘I’, which means that the person who is screaming probably isn’t the poet or 'she' (whoever that is) from earlier in the poem. This means that there is a third person influencing the poet and the poem itself, and it could be the screams themselves. If the screams that were welcomed from earlier are still present in the poet or ‘she’, the third person or being influencing the poem could be the screams themselves: Screams are difficult to ignore and many people find it cathartic to write their thoughts instead of screaming into the ether, not knowing if anyone is listening.

She heard footsteps behind her,—
Can you, the reader, hear in a dream? Is it possible to hear what you are dreaming if your eardrums don’t pick up any stimuli? How could 'she' hear in her dream? This was naturally a part of her dream, and the sounds were created in her mind just as the images were, but how would 'she' know they were footsteps if 'she' didn’t know someone was following her? If we create the sounds in our dreams from what we see and expect to hear, how could 'she' have heard footsteps if 'she' thought 'she' was the only one in her dream? Could these be her own footsteps that echo and 'she' just didn’t realise it?

Running the same pace she was running,—
Why are footsteps chasing her? If this is a dream, couldn’t whoever was following her just appear beside her for the same effect? This might be possible if the dream wasn’t her own and instead belonged to the footsteps chasing her, but if this was just a case, how would 'she' know what was going on in the other dream? This line is also ambiguous: The footsteps chasing her are running at the same pace but does this mean the footsteps are beside her, running alongside her and taunting her because 'she' caught up, or do the footsteps choose to stay behind her but close to intimidate her and make her run faster?

When she slows down, the footsteps follow suit.—
This confirms the above line by implying that the footsteps are behind her: You can’t follow someone if they are next to you. This line also indicates that the footsteps are aware of their presence near her (as in ‘she’) and they are making a point to make their presence known. But why? If the footsteps wanted to chase her after 'she' screamed, why would they reveal themselves until absolutely necessary? From how these footsteps behave, we can assume that they don’t have the best intentions for her, and they could be the reason 'she' screamed. In this case, 'she' has even more reason to run but if the footsteps are just behind her, what’s the point of trying to escape?

But she hears no footsteps behind her now, so she stops.—
Speaking in the negative is generally unusual for poetry, particularly if the rest of the poem is serious but it has its uses. If 'she' doesn’t hear footsteps anymore, it could mean that the footsteps have stopped chasing her, or that 'she' herself has stopped running. The question of how 'she' heard these footsteps is still up for debate, but if 'she' doesn’t hear them anymore, 'she' will probably feel safer because the thing that was chasing her is no more. At least that’s what she assumes and allows herself to believe.

It strikes her on her back, and she collapses.—
What strikes her ‘on her back’? The footsteps that are no longer there? How is this possible? Could the ‘it’ that struck her be the third possible entity that was discussed earlier? How would 'she' know if it were the footsteps or the third entity 'she' may not have seen? The poet has now called the third person an ‘entity’ where in the earlier analogies, it was just a person. Does this mean this third person has always been an entity and the earlier name was a mistake or something said out of ignorance, or has the person become an entity and is no longer a person? What is a person? Is a person anyone who is human? In this case, does that mean the footsteps chasing 'she' is a person because they behave like a human to harm the runner? If they aren’t a person, why is 'she' so scared of the footsteps? Are these not the footsteps of someone with a body? It wasn’t stated that these footsteps have a body; they could be an entity entirely, void of human emotion. This could be the reason they chase her: They want to know what it’s like being a human and the only way to know that is to catch up to someone with human traits in the popular adage of “learn by example”.

It strikes again,—
The word ‘it’ could mean that what is striking her isn’t human at all, but the line also doesn’t specify where she is being struck. If the ‘it’ includes the footsteps that were chasing her up until this point, she could be struck on her legs. After running, this would be extremely painful, and this could be the reason she screamed earlier. The only problem is that if the striking only happened now, how could she scream earlier? Did she scream in advance, knowing what could happen in the future? Does this mean she has perfect knowledge in this poetic universe and reacted to her own striking when she was made aware of this in the beginning? The poem still doesn’t state where she was struck, and we only assumed that it was her legs or close to, since it was also assumed that it was the footsteps that struck her.

This time it strikes her on her head; she dies,—
Does this mean 'she' saw her own Death and chose to run anyway? Do you, the reader, believe that 'she' had a choice in the matter? If the footsteps were chasing her, does this mean that these footsteps could have been Death itself chasing her to her own Death, after showing her how she’s going to die? It would make sense that these footsteps were Death itself since Death generally doesn’t stand alongside their charges. It’s not Death’s job to walk beside them and comfort them on their path of darkness; they have another job: To guide those in their path to their final dream. Their dream of Death and being chased by an entity that could have been a person once on their final daylight has passed. If 'she' realised that 'she' had died after being struck on the head, her last sight would be that of the footsteps that had tormented her throughout the forest.

And smiles peacefully.—
Why is she smiling? Is she happy that Death came for her? This is Death’s job; it doesn’t matter if the person dying is enjoying it. The question is still “Why is she smiling?” In the deepest dredges of the forest, who will see her smile apart from Death? Does she care? There is another possibility: She smiles because she realizes she doesn’t have to run anymore and can face the person chasing her, whether it’s Death or not. She could look around all she wants, but what happens if all she sees are footprints? What happens if these footprints are the same size as hers? Will she realize she was running away from nothing, screaming for no reason; was afraid of her own shadow? Is this why she smiles? Because she finally understands that there were no footsteps chasing her. What was chasing her were her own actions, and Death came to collect on her poor choices. This leaves the identity of the third person–come–entity an open question in her mind. Who was this person? Who is this entity? How does this entity know her? What do they want from her?

She woke up from the dream,—
Who woke her? Is 'she' in the dream of Death now? How would 'she' know the difference? One possibility is that 'she' realised 'she' was in a dream all along and woke up when 'she' realised 'she' was going to die. After running through a forest, being chased by footsteps 'she' couldn’t see, and screaming into the ether because 'she' realised noone was coming to save her. 'she' had to save herself from Death and the only way to do that was to remove herself from his domain. There was one thing 'she' didn’t consider, though: Death doesn’t need a domain to do it’s work. Death can be the footsteps on the forest floor, listening to you pant as you run from the inevitable, and Death can be the world you wake up in when you thought you have escaped from your nightmare.

Knowing this is reality.—
What reality? The reality of Death being the footsteps 'she' ran away from or the reality that a dream will end whether 'she' or you, the reader, wants to or not? This realiity could also be the poetic universe where ‘she’, the footsteps, and/or Death chase her to make her scream. To make her feel alive once more before 'she' dies. The reality that you, the reader, could be the third entity in her life: Once a person reading a poem, now an entity who watches your creation of her in your head, running from something 'she' can’t see, running towards something 'she' can’t experience because 'she' can’t experience anything of yours. She is in your head and imagination, not the other way around. What does 'she' look like? Will 'she' escape your mind prison when you read the last line of the poem or will 'she' die and be reborn every time you think about her, running through the forest, being chased by your own conscience for your own amusement?

She wept—
Who is weeping? Is the poet weeping? Does this mean the poet is a female? Is the poet describing what they are witnessing and then feel the need to write about it? Does this mean the poet or who they are watching feel open and safe enough to feel vulnerable enough for the poet to observe them? There is also a possibility that the 'she' in this line isn’t a physical person at all. It could also be that 'she' is a metaphor for something or someone that weeps but their sorrow is only visible to themselves.

She sobbed,—
If you’ve read my previous poems, you might have read where I use ‘sob’ and ‘weep’ before where weep is more serious than sob because it’s usually uncontrolled. The question is still: Why is 'she' sobbing, and who is 'she'? With more context from the previous line, you, the reader, know that whoever this is, they are already weeping. This could tell you, the reader, that 'she' is sobbing because her weeping hasn’t subsided. On the other hand, 'she' could sob and weep for different things, and without you, the reader, knowing her thoughts, you wouldn’t know if these were different instances or not.

And she went numb.—
Do you, the reader, believe that you could go numb after weeping and sobbing for hours? I think this depends on where the person was when they were doing either of these things. If the poet has used Earth as the poetic universe, 'she' could be on a bed, where most people feel safe in their own home, or 'she' could also be sitting on the floor. After a while, it could become uncomfortable to sit on a bed if the bed is too hard or soft: Even the best beds could feel uncomfortable after not moving (while crying or sobbing) for a long time. This form of numbness could also be an emotional numbness after 'she' realizes how long this (the weeping and sobbing) has been going on for. After a while, the world feels numb if you’ve been taught to experience things on your own.

She cried for the life she never had,—
How could 'she' cry for a life that 'she' didn’t know about? How would 'she' know what was missed? In this case, crying for a life that was never had could also be coming from the poet. If the poet was on the outskirts looking into her (as in the person the poet called ‘she’) life, the poet could compare their lives to what they are witnessing and cry (notice the use of cry instead of sob or weep) for a life that the poet wished they had. Comparison is often seen “as the thief of joy”, which is commonly attributed to Theodore Roosevelt. While no direct quote can be traced to him, I’m sure you, the reader, have heard this quote. The problem with this quote is that it paints comparison in a completely negative light without considering that some comparisons could be positive. If the poet compares their life to that of their muse (the she in the poem) and what they see will benefit their own life, this can be seen as a positive outcome of a comparison. If, for example, 'she' lives in a world and society that praises hard work and those who live well, without conflict and bloodshed, that life is probably better for the poet if they live in their own world filled with superficial jobs, people, and a lifetime of familial or political conflict.

And wished her present life all away,—
Who is wishing their present life away? The poet or the muse? If it’s the muse who is wishing her life away, this would make sense because of the weeping and sobbing in the beginning of the poem. Who wouldn’t want to wish that away? Going numb for any reason isn’t a good thing so it would make sense that she would wish the life she is currently living away. Where would she go? Would she go with the poet who knows her well enough to talk about her life experiences and pain to the point where others may understand what she’s going through? If it is the poet who wished her life away, the question is why? Did the poet experience the same struggles as their muse? The poet could wish their life away for a chance at their muse’s life if it’s better than theirs. In this case, the poet could wish their current life away in the hopes that she will take the poet in because of the better life she can give the poet, but there is no guarantee that the poet will have the same experiences in the same setting as the muse.

She learned life lessons the hard way,—
This line, in a way, can be seen as 'she' learning difficult life lessons as a muse of the poet since this may be a part of life, but this goes against what was stated earlier in the poem about 'she' living a good life; a life that the poet wants for herself. From the 'she' words, do you, the reader, believe this is a person or could this be a means to personify something else in her life, like a home or vehicle that has possessive properties? What life lessons could there be for someone who sobs, weeps, and yet leads a relatively good life (or at least a life the poet wants to adopt?) Do you think these life lessons make her (as in 'she' a more rounded person because of their experiences, or could 'she' be bitter over the life not fully lived since 'she' was a muse and nothing more to the poet?

And she wondered if her pain would ever go away.—
Is this why 'she' sobbed and wept earlier? This pain could be the result of the life lessons learned the hard way and how 'she' feels about the life 'she' leads now. With that being said, you, the reader, don’t actually know a lot about the life before and after the poem and before and after 'she' met the poet. Can we assume the poet gave her life as a muse or did 'she' have a life before the poet? In theory, this must have been the case; otherwise, how would the poet know what to compare? If the life of the muse only existed when the poet started using them as a muse (from the first line of the poem), the pain the muse experiences will only ever go away should the poet allow it, or at the end of the poem when the muse dies.

“Of course it will” said she,—
How did 'she' know what the muse was thinking? Isn’t 'she' the muse? What if 'she' and the poet are the same people? This could mean the poet was their own muse the whole time but this also raises the question: What was the poet comparing themselves to in the beginning of the poem if the point of comparison was their only life? Is there a possibility that the poet doesn’t realise they are their own muse, and created a muse for themselves? This could be to place the success or failure of their poem on something or someone else, in case the poem is poorly received. The ‘of course’ in this line could be the poet telling themselves that the outcome of this poem and their muse was obvious: Since they are their own muse, were they the ones sobbing and weeping in the beginning? The answer could be ‘of course’ because how else would the poet know this reaction to whatever caused these feelings were possible? They would have to experience this themselves otherwise, it might have been seen as crying alone.

But she was lying.—
Since we’ve established that the poet could be the 'she' in the poem, does this mean that the poet was lying about everything in the poem so far, including being their own muse? How would the poet know if they are lying? If they believed their own words from the beginning, what would change now? What would cause the poet to believe they were lying to themselves if nothing changed in the lines above? If the poet was lying, does that mean their muse (either 'she' or themselves) wasn’t as distressed in the beginning of the poem, and the poet used those words as a hook to grab you, as the reader’s attention? If the 'she' in this wasn’t the poet as their own muse, 'she' as the muse could have been lying about anything in the poem, including being the muse at all. How would the poet know the difference? As a muse, there could be certain actions and thoughts that are overlooked thanks to starry–eyed poets who are gratfeful enough to have someone to write about at all and eager readers who take in whatever they read, despite the consequences of what happens to those on the page.

She knew that the pain would only go away—
This line isn’t a complete sentence, but in a poem, this is quite normal. The difference is that in this line, the remainder of the line is the one below, not above. This gives you, the reader, some room to experiment and think about what could come next instead of feeling positive that you know what the answer can be. The second point and question is (again, I’m sorry haha) who is this ‘she’? This could be the muse or the poet themselves who could understand that their pain’s (regardless of who the 'she' is) disappearance is conditional. The pain, according to this line, will go away, though. This is without a doubt a possibility, and this line tells you that 'she' knows this pain is temporary. While these lines and the rest of the poem could indicate that her pain is only temporary, nowhere in the poem does it state what could happen if this pain takes a long time to leave, or what is waiting for her on the other side of the pain. If a painfree life isn’t guaranteed, what incentive does the poet or 'she' have to change anything if the ‘after pain’ life could be less painful but just as difficult?

If she escaped from this very real prison.—

Please use this [ link ] to the optional forum to start a discussion about the poem. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]

Week Four:

The Diary Entry—2004. Age 15

She sits,

She writes about her worries,

She cries,

And her tears fall on the clean white paper

And it smudges the perfectly formed lettering.

She waits for the rest of her tears to fall,

And they turn to blood as she sobs without any control.

She has been like this many times,

And she thinks her tears are from the plague of Egypt;

“Then all the water will turn to blood”

She has stopped believing in anything,

Only the spirit of her long–lost humanity

No one cares or bothers to ask her what’s wrong,

So she sits on the floor,

With her knife in one hand

She jerks herself into reality,

And writes no more.

Analogy

She sits.—

As an opening line, ‘she’ could mean the poet or the person the poet is observing. Since ‘she’ is sitting, you, the reader, can assume that the place where ‘she’ sits is a real place and not somewhere random in the poetic universe like many of the other poems. Why is ‘she’ sitting? Is ‘she’ resting? Does ‘she’ need to sit because she has been on her feet the whole day and needs a place to relax? There is also the possibility that ‘she’ needs to sit because ‘she’ feels overwhelmed, but without any context, we don’t know what has overwhelmed her, and we’ll need to read the rest of the poem for more context.

She writes about her worries,—

This line gives you, the reader, more context, but you are only given one piece of information: That ‘she’ has worries and feels the need to write them down. Could this be a form of journaling before journaling became popular? If ‘she’ writes about her worries, would these worries lessen because they are being processed, or does ‘she’ write about her worries because there isn’t anything else to do? If all ‘she’ has is her chair (or the floor, depending on where she is sitting) and her worries, what else can ‘she’ do? Could ‘she’ instead write or journal a world that doesn’t have any worries in it? This could be a fantasy or utopian world where ‘she’ feels safe enough to write about her worries in the hopes that this new world will take them away. What happens if ‘she’ is the only one in this world? Without anyone helping her forget or work through her worries, that responsibility will fall onto her. How would ‘she’ know how to work through her worries if ‘she’ hasn’t in the past? What steps can ‘she’ take to keep her worries at bay without knowing how to cope with them from past experience of others helping her through them.

She cries.—

These short lines could mean something: The poet could focus on short lines for impact in the beginning of the poem, followed by longer lines towards the end for less guesswork about what the lines could mean. These short lines (she sits/she cries) don’t give a lot of context on their own, but as sentences/lines on their own, their bluntness could help you, the reader, understand her state of mind. ‘She’ might not be willing or able to do anything else, and these short lines/sentences could help you, the reader, see into her world as ‘she’ experiences it in short bursts of emotion and presence to be able to journal. Why is ‘she’ crying? Is it because of what ‘she’ wrote, or is it because ‘she’ feels alone in her imaginary world after writing about her worries?

And her tears fall on the clean white paper—

Falling tears is a common theme in literature and it makes for easy writing: Most readers like you have cried to the point where the tears stream down your face, or at least felt tears that would stream down your face, but you catch them with your sleeve before they fall. “Nobody wants to see someone cry” could be what your parents or friends have told you. Falling tears could mean weakness or a sign that you are too sensitive to interact with the world around you in a logical manner. If people see you, the reader, cry, what would they think? Would they think they are better than you because their own tears aren’t falling (at the moment), or would they think poorly of you because you dared to show emotion in a public space? This could be how she felt, sitting and crying by herself because no one asked to be a part of her world. As ‘her tears fall’, they aren’t rolling down ‘her’ cheeks anymore. They are falling onto a sheet of paper that she took out to write her emotions and give her inner world meaning. The paper is clean; does that mean it doesn’t have any writing on it yet, or does this mean what is written on the paper has pure intentions for her and her world?

And it smudges the perfectly formed lettering.—

What smudges? Her tears of the ‘lettering’ because of her tears? Another point to consider is that in the previous line, it stated that the paper might have been clean, or without anything written on it. What, in this case, is being smudged? Lettering can’t be smudged if it doesn’t exist, and if she (from the beginning of the poem) is worried and writes as a result, would the letters really be perfectly formed, or would they be less neat based on her emotional state? Perfect letters are usually the aftermath of practising these letters for a final project so this goes against the initial wording of her writing her feelings after/while she cries: People rarely create a final draft during an emotional state, so why are the letters perfect? Were there letters on the page before she started writing? This would mean that the ‘clean’ in the previous line meant a clean piece of work with pure intentions and not a blank piece of paper.

She waits for the rest of her tears to fall,—

With this line, ‘she’ is aware that ‘she’ has more tears to shed and ‘she’ also understands that the only way to get through this is to just allow her tears to fall. This could mean that.

In this line, ‘she’ is still crying and ‘she’ knows that there is more to come, which could mean ‘she’ knows why ‘she’ was crying in the beginning of the poem, even though you, the reader, weren’t privy to that information at the time. Without any context, you, the reader, could have assumed that ‘she’ was sitting because ‘she’ wanted to, not because ‘she’ had to. On the other hand, what is ‘she’ waiting for? Is ‘she’ only waiting for her tears stop falling or is ‘she’ waiting for her circumstances to change so that ‘she’ doesn’t need to sit and cry by herself at all? Did the poet state that ‘she’ was alone? Or did you, the reader, assume that ‘she’ was alone because those around you cry in silence and isolation? Does the poet give any indication of what would happen once the tears stop falling?

And they turn to blood as she sobs without any control.—

This line brings the supernatural into the poem: Tears don’t turn to blood usually, but they might in this specific poetic universe. If this is the case, her tears turning to blood after crying for a long time isn’t anything special; it’s what happens when people cry in this universe. Did ‘she’ know her tears were going to turn to blood when she started crying? If this was the first time she cried, then this is a possibility, but if not, what is without control? Her sobs and tears in general, or the gushing of blood from her tears as she cries? Does this mean her tears have always been blood, and you, the reader, just didn’t think about it like this because it wasn’t explicitly stated, or does this mean they became blood after an extended period of time? If they turned to blood after some time (of her sobbing), do you think the paper from earlier would be stained red with her tears or would they just stream down her face, staining her cheeks in what should be salt water, but this has turned to blood water? If this is the case, would ‘she’ have control over this situation at all? If she couldn’t control her tears, how could she control the tears made from blood falling down her face like a mineral–rich waterfall?

She has been like this many times,—

Like what? Crying, sitting, and bleeding on the floor? If ‘she’ has been like this many times, wouldn’t she know to protect the pages from her falling tears to avoid them getting smudged? Another possibility is that ‘this’ could be too many times for her to count, and the reason ‘she’ was on the floor in the beginning of the poem is that it’s more comfortable than the emotional imprint the bed or chair has when ‘she’ used those spaces in the past. Since this is a recurring theme in her life, the poet could know more than they are letting on. This again touches on the muse theory from a few poems ago, where the poet watches their subject (in this case, it’s a woman/girl from the poem) and simply observes what they see without interfering. If the poet is aware that ‘she’ has been like this many times, they could understand why ‘she’ feels like this but chooses not to state anything, yet or at all.

And she thinks her tears are from the plague of Egypt;—

This line may seem out of nowhere: Why is Egypt mentioned? Is this the same Egypt on Earth, or is it a different Egypt that is found in this poetic universe? The poet speaks about a plague which means that this Egypt is probably on Earth (not in the poetic universe the poet is using which could be different, based on circumstances), and it can also be assumed that ‘she’ or the poet has a basic understanding of history, or they could be religious and focus on the plagues in the Christian bible. There isn’t much else in this poem that explains why ‘she’ or the poet can be religious so we can assume that these plagues were the non–religious kind and instead the Naturalistic explanations of these events happening along the Nile river. The question is: Why does ‘she’ think her tears are related to these plagues? Is this a metaphorical thought where ‘she’ saw the red tears streaming down her face—did the poet discuss a mirror or reflection at any point?—and associated these tears with the water that turned red in the Nile river and its tributaries, or ‘she’ could link her natural (not bloody) tears to the rain and hail experienced during this time. With these similarities, ‘she’ could feel the weight of her decisions to be as serious as the plagues of the Nile and the outcome of these events which set the path and tone for the region for years to come. While ‘she’ might not be a part of these plagues, ‘she’ could understand that their impact isn’t something to be ignored. If the impact of her emotions (as a response to crying, etc.) can’t be ignored, what is the alternative? Do the plagues need to account for how ‘she’ is feeling? In this case, were these plagues created by her?

“Then all the water will turn to blood”—

In the Egyptian plagues, it was stated that the rivers turned to blood, not simply the water. Why do you, as the reader, believe there is a difference? If this is the case, all the water in her house and the surrounding areas could turn to blood before she has a chance to drink water or bathe. If this is the case, do you, the reader, think it’s possible that the plagues discussed earlier in the poem were her doing, or at least in her head after suffering from dehydration since she couldn’t drink the bloody water? Why was the water bloody from the start, though? If she believed in these plagues before she became dehydrated, she could have believed the water was blood and refused to drink because she could have assumed that she would be cursed if she drank the water that wasn’t water. In the times of the plagues (and now in some areas), water is an extremely limited resource so not drinking the water could have made he seem like an outcast in her town, hence the plagues came for her as punishment.

She has stopped believing in anything,—

Has the poet stated what ‘she’ believed in in the first place? Apart from the plagues, ‘she’ might not believe in anything, other than that the water is blood and that she doesn’t have any control. Let’s look at this from her perspective: If ‘she has stopped believing in anything’, does this mean that ‘she’ believed something at the start of this poem and her story and through her own understanding, lost her faith? If this is the case, what was her faith before this? Was it the Christian faith because of the mentioned plagues, or did ‘she’ believe in the Egyptian deities who were more hands-on regarding their people? If this is the case, there is a possibility that these Egyptian deities were responsible for what ‘she’ saw: The water turning to blood. In this context, the water turning to blood could be a metaphor of the bloodshed at the time with rival families competing over water usage and the agricultural land the Nile river allowed. If ‘she’ lost her faith, her faith could be that the water would one day be clean (of the blood of her family members and friends) and after seeing her own bloody water, ‘she’ could have realized that this would never happen.

Only the spirit of her long–lost humanity—

Seeing your loved ones and friends lose their lives and add to the rivers of blood (not linked to my other poem called Rivers of Blood, or is it?) would eventually result in losing your humanity. It’s only natural that she lost her humanity, but this line doesn’t explicitly state that her humanity is lost. It says 'long lost humanity’ instead. What do you, the reader, think this means? Was ‘her’ humanity lost in the harsh conditions of the plagues, or did the poet say ‘long lost’ as a way to tell you, the reader, that ‘her’ humanity was lost already and only in seeing the blood and plagues did she realize that it had been gone (or missing, in the context of lost) for a long time before she realized?

No one cares or bothers to ask her what’s wrong,—

Who are these people who don’t care? Are they the loved ones and friends contributing to the plagues of blood in the water and rivers over land and resources? If this is the case, why would they care about ‘her’ at all? Don’t they have other things to worry about? One possibility is this: That these people are all a part of her imagination and what she dreamed up after reality set in, and she found out she was plagued after losing ‘humanity’, or did she lose her humanity because she was plagued and could only see the bloody water that led to dehydration and did the unspeakable to stay alive? Have you, the reader, read anywhere in this poem that she was on the same side as her loved ones and friends fighting along the Nile? What if she was fighting them for survival, and the water turned red from their own blood because they had become plagued by ‘her’ and ‘her’ fantasies of desperation?

So she sits on the floor,—

Whose floor? Her floor in the same house where her water turned to blood and ‘she’ refused to drink it because she was afraid? On the ground floor next to the Nile alongside her loved ones and friends who are feeding the river with their own plagues of blood? Why is ‘she’ sitting and not running away from what ‘she’ has done? Is it because she doesn’t feel ashamed of what she’s done, with a mentality of “It was for my survival?” What about their survival? How could they survive her plague without knowing what ‘she’ was doing? Also, why do you, the reader, think the poet made a point of stating where ‘she’ is? Does it matter? Would it make a difference where ‘she’ is if noone else from the poem cares to ask her what’s wrong? Does this mean they don’t think ‘she’ is important enough, or could it be that they don’t think ‘she’ exists? This could be the case if she saw herself as the plague and felt ashamed to leave her house for fear of ridicule.

With her knife in one hand—

Where did this knife come from? The poet seems to enjoy springing items on you, the reader, like the floor, a knife, and so on, but what about her? Is the poet writing like this because they understand that these items (and others) were sprung on ‘her’ and now she has to deal with the aftermath? This could be why she thinks she is the plague itself: Things in ‘her’ environment may have been sprung on ‘her’ and if she didn’t know where they were coming from, she could have thought that she was the cause of all of it and losing ‘her’ humanity by reaching out in desparation againts ‘her’ loved ones and friends. Is this how she made sure she survived? By using a knife and helping herself to those who could offer ‘her’ water to drink instead of being forced to drink the blood water from ‘her’ home? What do you think happened when they refused?

She jerks herself into reality,—

This line could be seen as a way of the poet describing the literal action of what ‘she’ is doing, or it could be a way of the poet stating what her body does after it starts shutting down after severe dehydration because ‘she’ wasn’t able to drink any water in her home or from those around her. Why did the poet write ‘reality’? Is ‘she’ not part of the same reality as the people she gave her plague to, those who are feeding the Nile with their own plagued blood? ‘She’ could also jerk with the knife in her hand to ensure that she ends the suffering of herself and those around her. Jerking with a knife in one hand should give you, the reader, an idea of what she did, but with the possibilities of jerking herself out of her reality by inflicting pain in a dream, her ending could come in different forms.

And writes no more.—

Please use this [ link ] to the optional forum to start a discussion about the poem. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far.

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next.