Imagistic

I got (sorta, in a half, roundabout way) compared to Imagist Pound in workshop earlier. I guess that's what throwing in a "Pound's metro" will do to you. I still think it's very appropriate to my current focus: relationships. I think I much prefer images, as the pictures they can create can do so much more for a poem. I think about Tony Hoagland's notion of three poetic "chakras": diction, image, and rhetoric, and I very much identify myself as an "image" poet. While my word choices are conscious, they are not my meaning--rather, they work more in concert to sharper/refine an image I wish to capture. I find myself employing little, if any, rhetoric in my work, as again, I try to let the situations "speak" without providing commentary/direction. I guess this makes my rule update (specifically in terms of metaphor/simile) more relevant--metaphors allow for a more a more striking/arresting image. Consider Pound's "Metro" in its current state:

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.

This is "classic" metaphor--the "is" is implied making the direct substitution/connection between the faces and petals on a bough. Consider how this changes if this becomes

The apparition of these faces in the crowd are like
Petals on a wet, black bough. (emphasis, obviously mine).

To me, there's something less...fresh or compelling here. It seems more common, like "oh yeah, the images are kinda like that." Making that (in my opinion) bold choice to say that's what they are offers the reader something meaty in terms of equating human features in all their complexities to the complexities of both a petal, a wet petal, and how this exists on a black bough.

-Glenn