I tried to revise my original Red Mistress in a smoother and more elegant style. Let me know if I succeeded. I’ve included the original at the end, for ease of comparison:
Red Mistress
Too frequently I see you, Red Mistress:
No fate entwines us, and thus I pursue
Harsh divorce, to convalescence overdue.
Chance lover, no more! Depart, seductress –
What? Do you converse yet? Shall I confess
My pain at your absence? I regret you
Stole my tranquility, set it askew;
Else I might offer lighter redress.
Redress – the word itself seems a promise.
Do I err? Passion-lorn, shall I attain
What once I desired and found in you?
Again, I struggle to resist, temptress;
Yet forget pain. Sweet seductress, sweet pain.
Red Mistress – my pain becomes love for you.
Red Mistress (original text)
I’m seeing you too often, Red Mistress.
For my sake, I divorced myself from you.
We were not meant to be together: two
Lovers merely by chance. Leave me - unless
You’re interested in just talking? Less
Pleasure, in that, but also less pain. You
Would steal my peace of mind whenever you
Visited. You left all my life a mess.
Still, I remember the pleasure we shared.
It makes me wonder, do I truly gain,
By leaving you? There’s something about you
That’s always tempting me. I never cared
About the pain - sweet seductress, sweet pain.
I don’t mind - my pain becomes love for you.
This seems more in line with what JadeDixon was saying about it originally about cutting yourself. It’s quite good, but the starts seems slightly out of sync with the rest of it. At least, that’s what I think.
Do you think so? The interpretation that the speaker’s cutting himself is good, though I had something less physical in mind. As for the start being out-of-sync, which part did you have in mind? Lines 1-4?
More the first three lines. After that I quite like it. Maybe replace intertwining with entwining, although that still doesn’t seem quite right. Think about it, and see what you come up with.
Very nice! You’ve definitely elevated it to a more elegant style, which is good and bad depending on your audience. The other was easier to read, but the revised version does seem to be much richer.
I agree with DB about it seeming much more like cutting in the new version. I think it’s because you use ‘converse’ instead of ‘talking’. Talking is a uniquely human action, which implies there’s another person physically there with the speaker. For some reason when I saw ‘converse’ it lent itself more towards a internal conversation. Perhaps, ‘Do you speak yet?’ would give the impression of another person, while still maintaining the elevated style? Just a thought.
While I didn’t notice anything off when I was reading it through, I have to admit I think DB’s substitution of entwines for intertwines would work really well.
It’s nice that you get the title in there a second time, as well, in the new version!
The change at the volta seems much more pronounced here as well, likely because of the separation of the word ‘Redress’.
Excellent job! I really have to say I like to new version a lot!
You’re both right about “intertwine”. It has the right meaning, but it was awkward in such a short and simple sentence. Also, the first few lines were a little choppier than I’d like. So, to smoothen them out, and replace “intertwine”, line 2 now reads, “No fate entwines us, and thus I pursue”. How does that sound?
“Converse” is less personal than “talk”, true. I can see how it’d contribute toward the cutting interpretation. I actually think that’s a good thing, since the poem’s meant to be an inner monologue; not about physical cutting, but more of an emotional cutting: willingly feeling pain, for the sake of feeling emotion.