Original poem reprinted online here: "Change" by Wendy Videlock
Originally read: February 5, 2013
More information about the Poet: Wendy Videlock
This is a definition poem. Well, not like the ones I described before. This is more like a variable poem where x=y, y=/=x or something like that. So in the first three lines, the speaker redefines "change" as "god." Furthermore, the tone is like an infomercial trying to sell me a new definition. And just like some infomercials, I just want to read how the redefinition works out.
Since god and change have a dual definition, change and god do the following:
1) lovely enough to raise a song
2) implicate (line break)
3) implicate a sea of wrongs
4) mighty enough (? the comma after enough confuses me -- I think the line should read "mighty enough / like other gods [changes]")
6) bring together
7) estrange us
The only line that isn't straightforward is the "implicate" line which I like. Since there's a firm definition of both "change" and "god" I look for how the definitions slightly shift meaning. I feel that "shelter" and "bring together" is too similar. One or the other would suffice and butt up against the idea of "estrange us."
The connections between the outcome (the list I provided) and definition make sense. Then the last three lines come up:
we seem to say,
The italics might be too on the nose for "insert god where change is" and vice versa. The poem harps on how change (at least I want to believe) is for the better. That there's something learned from change, but doesn't that make me a "god" someone in control of my fate -- or worse, taint what needs to be learned by forcing my own "definition" insight onto change?
we seem to say,
Also, just from rewriting this right now. How about thinking that to want something or someone to change, "we" have to take a superior stance -- a "god-like" stance in order to say something like "this change is necessary." Just an interesting quandary.