I saw that comment. My first thought was that his assessment was correct (though I do think it's tactless to offer unsolicited criticism in the comments section of a poem that has just been published), but on further reflection I think "little" is a necessary word. It's needed for the scansion, but also because it helps the reader visualize the child. Children come in all sizes, knowing it's a "little" child makes a difference
I think I agree about "little." (Also about the tact.)
The rules are not quite the same in very short poems. Words behave slightly differently. (I edited a fourlinesmax journal for five years and in that time...I saw some things.)
Oh! You commented here as well. Thank you. The poem is quite old though it only just now found a home. The writing is lost to time. But, whether it was conscious or not at the time, I am certain you are right. That is the key connection.
Keep little. Also, my one comment on the poem if you're looking for notes. If you're not, I'm sorry.
A sacrament cup - indefinite article
falls under the bench - definite article
and a little child - indefinite article
unfolds it.
I would make them all indefinite, or all definite. But, I think I like indefinite better. Because my reaction is, "why are we defining the bench so much, but not the cup or the child. What's so important about the bench?"
I saw that comment. My first thought was that his assessment was correct (though I do think it's tactless to offer unsolicited criticism in the comments section of a poem that has just been published), but on further reflection I think "little" is a necessary word. It's needed for the scansion, but also because it helps the reader visualize the child. Children come in all sizes, knowing it's a "little" child makes a difference
.
I think I agree about "little." (Also about the tact.)
The rules are not quite the same in very short poems. Words behave slightly differently. (I edited a fourlinesmax journal for five years and in that time...I saw some things.)
Interesting. I guess your time editing that journal must be when you came up with the phorbe?
.
Not directly, but probably. I'm just attracted to acrostics of all kinds (inc. golden shovels) and this the phorbe fits in with that interest.
I definitely like the original version the best. Not exactly sure why. But I’m not afraid of some redundancy in language.
.
I think James has explained it to us.
Allusion addict here. “Little child” has scriptural resonances that “child” lacks. It’s not just formal qualities. It evokes more.
.
Oh! You commented here as well. Thank you. The poem is quite old though it only just now found a home. The writing is lost to time. But, whether it was conscious or not at the time, I am certain you are right. That is the key connection.
I like the original. Only a “little” child is likely to do that. My authority for that comment is my own childhood. Thank you for this.
.
Even if a seventeen-year-old were to do it, 'twould not be the same.
.
It's been so long since I wrote it that I had lost something that James reminds us of here: https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/7ba/comment/230719528?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo2NjE4NzM5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoxOTE0OTU3OTQsImlhdCI6MTc3NDc5MTExMCwiZXhwIjoxNzc1MDUwMzEwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNzM3MDYzIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1jb21tZW50cyJ9.MRNJYFRc2JkBdXt1CTCYduBzkluC-Bqqb_R4tlcWtaw#comment-235031889?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo2NjE4NzM5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoxOTE0OTU3OTQsImlhdCI6MTc3NDc5MTExMCwiZXhwIjoxNzc1MDUwMzEwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNzM3MDYzIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1jb21tZW50cyJ9.MRNJYFRc2JkBdXt1CTCYduBzkluC-Bqqb_R4tlcWtaw
Holy smokes is that a link!
Keep little. Also, my one comment on the poem if you're looking for notes. If you're not, I'm sorry.
A sacrament cup - indefinite article
falls under the bench - definite article
and a little child - indefinite article
unfolds it.
I would make them all indefinite, or all definite. But, I think I like indefinite better. Because my reaction is, "why are we defining the bench so much, but not the cup or the child. What's so important about the bench?"
.
That's . . . a really good point.