we’re lonely atoms, caught in a flux
parcels of flames, unrequited in love
trons unshared by our own nucleus

we’re dialogues waiting to be heard
floating in eyes, could never say much
we’re lonely atoms caught in a flux

we’re rich in love, yet give as beggars
where less is more and more, not enough
trons unshared by our own nucleus

we’re stars that twinkle from above
lost on the way, returning to earth
we’re lonely atoms, caught in a flux

are in awe of our own vibrations
deflect relations, tugging too much
trons unshared by our own nucleus

unknown are the chemical forces
which unbond our stable balances
we’re lonely atoms caught in a flux
trons unshared by our own nucleus


[trons is a geek's nick name given to electrons]

i do not know whether the poem, especially S1L3, is able to convey that our nuclei were unable to share the electrons, which led to un-covalent bonding and we(the atoms) remained separate and lonely, each in our own flux.
Also wish to change S1L2, which i'm unable to do.
Can anyone help me with this chemical poem, please.

Lightline, this is a great poem,
the purpose of a villanelle is the way it extends the depth with each stanza.
And you have done that.

Now if that is a poem on chemistry, i would throw in some interaction.
But it seems to border on heavy philosophy.

There are two things I want you to consider:
remove tne geek's nickname thingy, the reader can stumble onto the information by means of speculation, don't you think so, if and when unaware of what a tron is.

And un-covalent is abrupt.
If you want to say un-covalent, then show what the bond is not and what it is

parcels of flames? I don't agree.
there are no flames, only energy particles
energy can never be created or destroyed, merely altered by state.

what is the nucleus that bonds all of us? how do you interpret it Lightline?
To me, that is the universal consciousness. what is it to you? this is crucial in your poem, your opinion of what the nucleus is

misplaced comma in- less is more - that line

unbond does not work for me. bonds break, but to unbond ? break a bond is ok, unbond, i am not sure. there will be others who can help you with that.

tell me, if we are trons, or stars, and there is a nucleus , one nucleus, then where is the bond? there need to be more, of course, and that is why you say "atoms"

like five fingers of a hand, the facets of filial relationships, i like what you are saying,

but you need to work on this more to bring it to its full brightness,

are you annoyed that I am being so critical? look, i like this poem, its idea is great.

A few observations..

The vilanelle form does not require rhyme or any particular meter, but in my opinion it usually benefits from both. I am not rigid about rhyme on this poem, but I think a strict iambic meter would make it more readable.

The main issue I have with this poem is its inaccessibility. It is full of cold, scientific references that may only resonate with initiates of a certain circle. There is nothing wrong with chemistry metaphors..but these allusions are pretty esoteric.

I do like some of the more elegant lines in this..

we’re dialogues waiting to be heard

we’re rich in love, yet give as beggars
where less is more and more, not enough

we’re stars that twinkle from above
lost on the way, returning to earth

are in awe of our own vibrations

Those all have great potential. I'd like to see the other lines (especially the refrains) live up to them.

Thanks a lot, dear Alana and Hugh!
you both have pointed out the exact weak areas and the confusing ones that i need to work on or delete completely from the poem.
i knew this was a weak poem and hence placed it in the rewrite section. Now, that i've got your honest and much sought opinion, i think i'll re-do the whole thing with a fresh perspective. This may take a while.

I thank you both, once again for your time and effort.
warmest wishes,
deepali.



p.s. forum is a great place!

Hmmm... I must respectfully disagree with Hugh, it doesn't seem to me that the poem is esoteric - the chemistry is pretty basic stuff and the metaphors work for me. It's much less esoteric than a lot of other poems I've seen here which seem to revel in obscurity. Just the use of metaphors from science does not, in my opinion, make a poem cold.

"Un-covalent" is indeed a bit technical, and also an awkward word, but it does not actually appear in the poem and so it's unfair to criticize you for that, I figure.

Thanks Rory, you're encouraging.

I think all three opinions are valuable and honest. I realize, some readers may not be able to relate the chemical terms to human relations. it's a big consolation that you all have understood these metaphors.

But the fact is how do i explain to the reader that an atom, contains nucleus and electrons. When two nuclei share the electrons, the covalent bond is created.

It may be bit dry and uninteresting to find a poem comparing humans to atoms, nucleus to consciousness and electrons to love/emotions.

these were constructive discussions, will help me write a better poem. And i look forward to more such discussions.
fond regards,
D.

This is an interesting poem, and I am happy to see you branching out into other subjects and verse forms. It's so much fun! The poem is a bit lengthy, considering the subject. Maybe you don't need quite so many words to say what you have to say. It's always easier, however to prune than to add. I look forward to more on this. Hugs and Blessings, Tasha

Pujakins wrote:

This is an interesting poem, and I am happy to see you branching out into other subjects and verse forms. It's so much fun! The poem is a bit lengthy, considering the subject. Maybe you don't need quite so many words to say what you have to say. It's always easier, however to prune than to add. I look forward to more on this. Hugs and Blessings, Tasha

Point noted. I completely agree with your opinion. Going to work at it with a fresh mind. Let's see if i can manage that.
Thanks a ton, dear Tasha, for taking out time and your precious feedback.
regards,
D.

I can't wait to see more!!! Warm wishes and Hugs, Tasha

No Goddamn Particles

we are lonely particles, in flux
photons of light, unrequited in love
lost without mass in this universe

we’re dialogues waiting to be heard
floating in eyes, could never say much
we are lonely particles, in flux

we’re rich in love, yet give as beggars
where less is more, and more not enough
lost without mass in this universe

are in awe of our own vibrations
deflect relations, tugging too much
we are lonely particles, in flux

we’re stars that twinkle from above
finding our way, returning to earth
lost without mass in this universe

a mystery pervades the whole cosmos,
what goddamn particles form its mass;
we are lonely particles, in flux
lost without mass in this universe





[Last week, the physicist declared that they have found a particle similar to Higgs boson, popularly known as the God particle. Interestingly, the particle got its name from Leon Lederman's book “The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?”The legend goes that Lederman had wanted the title to refer to as “goddamn particle” because of effort and persistence required to locate it.
Scientists believe that in the first billionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe was a gigantic soup of particles racing around at the speed of light without any mass to speak of. It was through their interaction with the Higgs field that they gained mass and eventually formed the universe.
The Higgs field is a theoretical and invisible energy field that pervades the whole cosmos. Some particles, like the photons that make up light, are not affected by it and therefore have no mass. Others are not so lucky and find it drags on them as porridge drags on a spoon.]

This is such an interesting poem with so many good lines I couldn't begin to quote them. You have done a wonderful job of saving the good lines and letting go of the less important ones. I wonder if you need the last verse at all. It brings in a different theme and perhaps isn't necessary. What do you think? Or if you have another verse after "lost without mass in this universe, perhaps something summing up the situation without reference to the particles, per se, as introducing something new into the poem. Love how it is evolving. WArm Hugs, Tasha

I have no other commentary to offer than this:

Antibonding orbitals are more antibonding than bonding orbitals are bonding. True fact.

Thanks a lot for your feedback, dear Tasha and Tiger!
warmest wishes,
D.

By the way, I hope that remark didn't sound cavalier! That line about 'antibonding' has been stuck in my head since I was an undergraduate and encountered it in peter atkins infamous p-chem book, and your poem called it to mind.

electrictiger wrote:

By the way, I hope that remark didn't sound cavalier! That line about 'antibonding' has been stuck in my head since I was an undergraduate and encountered it in peter atkins infamous p-chem book, and your poem called it to mind.

Not at all, Tiger. Glad to see you interested in the subject and take out time to comment here.
Thanks a ton!
Nucleus, is a common topic, shared by Chemistry and Physics. Just changed the reference from electron bonding to particle movement.

This is really beautiful
I am not very good at critique but
Know what I like,
I like the scientific references
and the galaxy bits
It read well and I was captivated,
Nice work!

Thank you all!
I've finally posted this.