You astonish me one day
by quoting poems I never knew
you’d read.
After all these years
of knowing you, I still don’t
fully know you. Who can
ever really know the inner of an
other? But
I know what it’s like
to be with
you.
And I like it.
Jennifer L. Freed likes her daily dose of 50WS, likes the challenge of trying to write with such brevity (she can lean toward wordiness at times!), and likes poetry more than she ever thought she would when she was young. She has other poems and a chapbook available at her website, jfreed.weebly.com.
Touching, lovely. Indepth sensitivity.so much emotion expressed so clearly in a lovely and brief poem
what you wrote deserves to be everywhere.
so much can be written in 50 words.
Did you write this in fifty words by accident or was that intentional? It just sounds so perfect and I don’t know how you do it. I like the poem too, it’s quite good.
Thanks to all of you for your kind comments.
Jennifer
Pleasant sentimentality but the multiple use of “know” and “knowing” was a bit of an irritation. In FF, every word, every thought must count and I felt in the line
After all these years
of knowing you, I still don’t
fully know you.
the “of knowing you” was redundant and not needed
Good point, Jeff. To be honest, I liked the word-play of it when I submitted it, but when saw it again on-line, the intentional repetition seemed too much. Thanks,
Jennifer
i like the way you say it.
i enjoy the way it sounds.
After all these years
of knowing you, i still don’t
fully know you.
i think that without the “knowing you” it wouldn’t sound as good, as full, as complete.
But that leaves room for 3 better words to round it out. :)
Which three words? Perhaps ‘understand’ and ‘realise’ might be two contenders, but I can’t be sure they wouldn’t distract the reader by changing the number of syllables in each line too much. I don’t think they all need to change though. Metre is more important for me.than repetition, although I can certainly see the problem with repetition.
After all these years
“of knowing you”
goes to my original comment about duplication