well, listen, baby, cause you'll have to read between the lines.
you'll have to find a taste of me that calms your mind.
the simplest things- the sound that doesn't say, but sings!
you'll have to feel for a voice far quieter than whispers-

the inarticulate scrape of fingertips against your skin.
the symphony of deep inhales as I take you in.
the breath of sheets and blankets as I lay, asleep, atop you-
and other things that sound suspiciously like love

I keep rereading this and I'm having problems. The second part, is supposed to be intimate with a hint of sexuality. I fear that instead it turned out sounding filled with just sexuality yes? no? thoughts?
Last edited by blu_flame34 at Oct 22, 2007,
You know, (not in an offensive way) you remind me of Simon Armitage. Honestly.

Oh, and yes. There's no hint, it's fairly in-your-face

Really good tone to this, Flamey Blu.

I'll try and get to your next piece more in-depth, I pwomise.
Hi Cristetta,

I really couldn't wrap my mind around this at all. It start out common and conversational, but doesn't stay there. The repetition of "you'll have to" twice so close together weakens it and it just does seem to have a rhythm when spoken.

By the time you get to the opening of the second stanza, you throw a few phrases at me, and they are effective at inspiring the senses and emotions. But it's late in the game. You close things out with some question of sincerity and certainty, but I really wasn't feeling settled yet anyway.

"as I take you in" immediately points strongly toward sex, but there is a U-turn because you're sleeping. Then my mind races back to interpret "take you in" as perhaps "breathe you in", or somehow being rapt in emotional involvement.

Instead of getting a nice surprise at the end, it just felt cluttered. I hope that didn't sound harsh.

Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
Thanks Dudey Jam...quite honestly I don't know, I'll have to familiarize myself with this Simon Armitage.

No problem SYK, thanks for reading- your responses always make me feel like you really took time reading and considering, and I appreciate that.

To clear things up it's not supposed to be about sex at all- alright, maybe a little- but not as a headliner . It's about loving someone but not being able to- or wanting to, maybe- put it into the three classic words.

The last part is sort of supposed to have a bit of duality in it of both intimacy and sex. I actually wrote each line not thinking about sex at all: "take you in" was visual, like you take in a landscape scene. when you're with someone that intimately and you look at each other like it's the first time, there's that sharp little inhale. then I realised that's what it looked like and kept in anyway, because intimately still exists in sex. but now I see that when I go on like that it sounds like I'm equating sex with love- which I don't mean to.

Clearly I didn't convey my intention at all...perhaps I've missed the point. I'll look into it after class/work/other stressful things.
Last edited by blu_flame34 at Oct 23, 2007,