There is enough material for at least three slice of life poems. Christmas of old generally,

young versus old, and the capriciousness of traditional courtship. Probably more themes also.

But as it is written the poem is too unfocused.

Hi Richard, I swear, I like that dancing verse:

Sorry WCW, you rock, but I grew up in the land of Chick (my edit, sorry Chick – looking up…you can slam dunk my ass, if there is a heaven…or if you have any heirs that might take serious offense to this):

"This game is in the refrigerator

door's closed

light's out

eggs cooling

butter's getting hard

Jell-O’s jiggling”

At the dance:

which meant yes, I want to be touched.

Louise, thank you.

And now, I am going to follow the Doors links, listen to some tunes and search for happiness…

Richard, I've read & agreed with a number of your 'contrarian' posts in the past. And I basically agree with you on what you write about this Gluck poem. Except...the 'too many poems per poem' issue arose with me, too, until the third reading. Perhaps there is another poem about the Christmas lights. But, here, Gluck seems to have a problem (common for many of us poets, I'd say) incorporating her _context_. I'm not sure it's even a separate poem. The whole first stanza has almost nothing to do with the main thrust of the poem, which is what HAP rightly enjoys but, I think, wrongly conflates with the structure. Or with Richard's 'dancing' metaphor. Yeah, dancing is great--and the Doors are great! But Jim Morrison's lyrics tend to be more focused than this poem! The problem is, as Richard notes, that the 'dancing' is actually evasive movement. (OK, so you should have used another metaphor--but the problem remains.) And, apart from that top-heavy and mostly extraneous first stanza (if she wants to bring in the Xmas lights, that whole biz probably should be condensed and fused with the second stanza) the stuff that HAP seems to rave about is thrown out in a few intense lines that need to be removed from the rest, which strikes me as the old 'writing around the topic' routine, and used as inspiration and as the core of a more focused poem. (The fact that he picked up & enjoyed the message doesn't mean it wasn't inefficiently delivered. )Those lines being: "For the young, it was everything.
Your life was made here-what was finished under the stars
started in the lights of the plaza."
and: "A spell was on us, but it was a sickness too,
the men and women choosing each other almost by accident, randomly,
and the lights glittering, misleading,
because whatever you did then you did forever-" except--I think the 'because...' line is a bit too editorial, and takes away from what searing insight Gluck's getting at --GETTING AT, not gotten at--with 'but it was a sickness too,' and: "How were these things decided?"
A great rhetorical question for 'the world of the poem,' as Audre Lorde once put it, and: "a man would approach a woman,
ask her to dance, but what it meant was
will you let me touch you, and the woman could say
many things, ask me later, she could say, ask me again.
Or she could say no, and turn away,
as though if nothing but you happened that night
you still weren't enough, or she could say yes, I'd love to dance
which meant yes, I want to be touched." *** EXCEPT: all this still is a bit too much the poet's own precis of her theme, a tad prosy, and I'm sure Gluck herself could translate it much better. I do understand HAP's applause for these lines. But--something I've noticed a lot when folks start with paraphrasing Slate poems--he's celebrating what the poem is saying--not how it's saying it, or whether it's saying it well. I admire much of Gluck's work; and I, too, applaud what she's trying to express in "At the Dance." But I do think it is a flawed expression, that it could've been revised a few more times, that Gluck can do better. Even though we basically know what...she's getting at!

something I've noticed a lot when folks start with paraphrasing Slate poems -- he's celebrating what the poem is saying -- not how it's saying it, or whether it's saying it well.

Excellent point, Alexandra. But sometimes, after working so hard to figure out what the poem is saying, I run out of steam or feel I don't have the skill to make too many judgments.

As for your comment about dancing around too much, I didn't mind at all the circumspect way the speaker approached his themes -- just as a stately dance (or the preceding display) starts out slowly and then gradually increases in intensity.

Gluck has written some very fine poems. This poem was well-written, but could have

been more effective if composed as completely separate and independent stanzas with a final stanza integrating the all themes of the separate stanzas.

Thanks for responding to my, uh, constructive criticism, really more of an observation. Not a put-down. I’m actually impressed with the expositions and elaborations I’ve read, as I tend to be an almost blinkered close reader. I wonder, though, if it’s possible to pay a sort of simultaneous technical/content-attention to a poem. Because although it’s not literally true that a poem must be not mean, much of the meaning comes from the ‘molecular’ level of word choice. I can’t think of a specific example right now! but sometimes it seems that readers judge a poem to be good because they like its message, or its ideas, with little attention to the words used. When, to me, the music and various forms of condensation/compression/evasi­on are what most make poems different from essays or stories. Such minutely careful use of words, almost on a molecular, an etymological level. Paradoxically, if folks started with the vocabulary and rhythm first, like Alice walking away from her destination, they’d often find, I think, that they’d regularly start stumbling on the ‘reasons’ for the poems. As for Richard’s dancing metaphor, I’m fine with it—I was sort of teasing, and more HAP than Richard. As someone who works with schoolchildren who can be more fidgety than in my day, I might say, with similar intent, that the poem fidgets too much! Or…that it is MULTITASKING. And if anyone can tell me how to more easily post responses w/o having to open a word doc & paste it in, and while retaining formatting, I’d greatly appreciate it.

Hi A.Y., I took the teasing in good stride. Working with schoolchildren is a noble endeavor. I was one of the fidgety and my son was blessedly passed over, but my grandson? My grandson is one of the fidgety, too. I wish I could help with the formatting, I write in Word.

And if anyone can tell me how to more easily post responses w/o having to open a word doc & paste it in, and while retaining formatting, I’d greatly appreciate it.

Some of us live on the edge and type right into posting square.

As for retaining formatting, just remember that every time you hit the enter button, Slate skips a line. But in your case, I think shorter paragraphs would make your posts easier to read, like this --

Thanks for responding to my, uh, constructive criticism, really more of an observation. Not a put-down. I’m actually impressed with the expositions and elaborations I’ve read, as I tend to be an almost blinkered close reader.

I wonder, though, if it’s possible to pay a sort of simultaneous technical/content-attention to a poem. Because although it’s not literally true that a poem must be not mean, much of the meaning comes from the ‘molecular’ level of word choice. I can’t think of a specific example right now! but sometimes it seems that readers judge a poem to be good because they like its message, or its ideas, with little attention to the words used.

When, to me, the music and various forms of condensation/compression/evasi­on are what most make poems different from essays or stories. Such minutely careful use of words, almost on a molecular, an etymological level. Paradoxically, if folks started with the vocabulary and rhythm first, like Alice walking away from her destination, they’d often find, I think, that they’d regularly start stumbling on the ‘reasons’ for the poems.

sometimes it seems that readers judge a poem to be good because they like its message, or its ideas, with little attention to the words used.

I personally try not to do that. I think your statement would be more accurate, Alexandra, if you said that "some readers judge a poem to be good...."

See, I entered after managing to change the subject line, and it posted the subject line only! For some reason, I can't get the cursor into the box. And when I paste from word, the formatting disappears, and I still can't get inside the box (Indeed, my original word-formatted posting DID have paragraphs breaks! and breaks after each "and:"!)

PARAGRAPH

Indeed, too, I should have said "some readers," although the "sometimes" was meant to (only) partly qualify my generalization.

For some reason, I can't get the cursor into the box. And when I paste from word, the formatting disappears, and I still can't get inside the box (Indeed, my original word-formatted posting DID have paragraphs breaks! and breaks after each "and:"!)

Alex, there is no extraneous cursor. Just move your mouse to wherever you want to start typing.

As for the formatting, yes, sometimes it does change when you move a Word doc to a post. That's why you should re-read your post carefully and re-format it if need be (with paragraph breaks ) before hitting the POST button. Just be aware that Slate doesn't recognize indentations.

You'll get the hang of it. But feel free to ask more questions if you need to.