SUBJECT>Re: Roofing POSTER>Hannah EMAIL>hrcraig@gmail.com DATE>1109006122 EMAILNOTICES>no IP_ADDRESS>fgw.msa.com PASSWORD>aamfaEF9hh1V6 PREVIOUS>83678 NEXT> 83695 IMAGE> LINKNAME> LINKURL>

Ash-

Probably not fair to comment on this. I lurk enough to know the genesis of this particular poem, think it’s very apt, for that target, and agree wholesale with Claudia’s advice to “get the poem out of it.” If you feel you must leave the poem in, consider a little re-roofing of your own to leave the “poem” reference only in the last line.

So why am I responding, since I’m little but an echo in the wrong place, at the wrong time?

Because, having thought about this a bit recently, I think this poem strikes a good balance between “coding” and “clarity.” I.e., the story and people of the story are not explicit—the narrative thread of the poem is not concerned with espousing a particular history of events or a chronology that can be followed—but rather with some secondary affect of the words. The literal “clash” that occurs (sonically, physically, but also metaphorically in terms of language and culture, in terms of “reality” and “dreaming”) is of particular interest. What is being roofed is, in my estimation, much more than a poem (another reason to get rid of that first line).

I would reconsider the dialectical choice in the penultimate line unless you plan on making the “reaction” of the poem (as something against the stereotyping of the laborers) more explicit in the text.

Another good one.

-Hannah