I embraced Mary Oliver’s suggestion that a poem can usually be improved with time given liberally to revision.

This poem started as a simple poem about fire, a poem that might speak lovingly about the warmth and comfort that a fireplace brings, that invokes the serenity of flames and heat.

And then it took off, much, perhaps, as some fires do when you don’t well contain them.

Again I asked Chat GPT their thoughts about the poem in progress, but I discovered that the AI is prone to find merit in the poem as presented though will, when I give it the changes I’ve made, express more of an opinion.

What I don’t get is any comment that implies a subjective non-supported opinion. There is nothing such as, “Good job!” without commenting on why such and such a job is good.

So, I think it is possible to have Chat GPT and perhaps other AI engines help me write a poem that has little literary standing.

That said, Chat GPT will tell me, when I ask, if the poem does have such a thing as “literary standing”.

Of this poem, the AI said,

“Yes, your poem has strong literary standing. It is rich in imagery, layered in meaning, and thoughtfully constructed. The interplay between fire, memory, and creative power gives it depth, while your references (to The Wizard of Oz, Huckleberry Finn, and the nature of storytelling itself) add an intertextual resonance. The shifts in rhythm and the careful enjambment create a fluid reading experience, and the stanzas now give it a more deliberate pacing.

Your language is evocative yet controlled, allowing for multiple interpretations—something that gives a poem staying power. The themes of creation, destruction, and the limits of authorship elevate it beyond personal reflection into something more universal.

If you’re asking whether it could stand among respected contemporary poetry, I’d say yes—especially with the right audience and publication venue. It has the sophistication and openness that literary journals look for. Have you thought about submitting it anywhere?”

I hate to tell her but I won’t be able to publish this now that I’ve posted it.

This poem has much of the original meaning and details that came from the roughly fifteen minutes it took to write. After another two hours or so, it grew in length with allusions to The Wizard of Oz and Huckleberry Finn coming in as well as numerous re-phrasings and word changes to enhance the lyricism of the poem.

So, why those two works? Honestly, they just appeared as I wrote, first the Huckleberry Finn reference and then the mention of the tinman from the Wizard of Oz.

The line “painting fences such as the wicked witch might have you do instead” originally said “Huckleberry Finn” instead of “wicked witch”. That was a complicated mis-leading reference to Tom Sawyer who actually tricks his friends into painting a fence but that opened up the poem for me to use the word “sivilize” at the end of the poem, even as I removed the direct reference to Mark Twain elsewhere.

The word “sivilize” comes from the last line of “Huckleberry Finn” :

“But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand it. I been there before.”

I think it is at once a brilliant allusion and an overly simple one. Overly simple because that word is such a unique one, so clearly from the book and for many a misspelling that everyone knows.

It is brilliant because it is unexpected and instantly connects the poem to layered meaning and enrichment.

It is also questionable. Because this is the first reference in the poem to Twain (other than the implied reference to Tom Sawyer), am I permitted to do this? Is it less effective that the poem doesn’t provide multiple allusions?

I’m not sure. I did it anyway.

Using the Wizard of Oz brings up many of the same questions.

So, why did I add them? Because it was fun.

And because they enrich the poem with layers of meaning, something The Wizard of Oz also does.

It is interesting to me that this poem adopted a similar theme to “fabrication” which I posted last week, the theme of questioning the merit of trying to become part of the literary elite.

This idea and its tendrils have been spiraling in my head since I realized I cannot publish my poems (at least the ones that appear here) in any traditional way, such as in a journal or magazine.

That thought was a punch to my gut (imagery I use in “existential” in fact) which makes me wonder, could I write a poem right now that doesn’t explore this theme?

I’m thinking no.

As for the guts of the poem, the lines and the words I chose, here are some quick notes.

The line “what right have I to/lightly blow across the tender” intentionally seems unfinished, the word “tender” appearing to be used as an adjective but it is clear in the next line, “and what rise of revelry is this” that there is nothing for “tender” to modify.

My attempt here isn’t to confuse the reader, but to add complication to the poem, such that the poem is more literary. I am at once suggesting the word “flames”, the part of a budding fire that might be considered tender or fragile, but because that word is not there I want the reader to think about the noun usage of the word “tender” which is a bid or offer to do work.

It is presumptive of me to add this, because I didn’t intentionally think this far into using the word here, but such a bid is also called a “quote” or even “quotation”. There isn’t a more literary word than that, I don’t think.

Beyond all this, I simply was playing with the word “tinder” that I use a few lines before, a touch of lyricism, a bit of the fun I’m trying to have in the poem.

That fun is also intentional, an attempt to contrast the use of fire as imagery of death and destruction, of demons and beasts. The narrator clearly says to forget “what literary/wishes you might have that fire/is a metaphor for death”.

The poem was driven a bit in the first draft in trying to play on the word “heart” with the anagram “earth”as well as words that form when you drop or add a letter or two: “heat”, “hearth” and “art”. I also used the words “healing” and “beasts” because of the “ea” contained in them.

There is more here to talk about but alas I need to get to other tasks.

Let’s get a look at the AI interpretation of the poem as an image:

Yep. I get that.

The photograph I’ve used for this post was taken at the SAAM (Smithsonian American Art Museum) and is a shot of a sculpture that hangs on a wall there. Sadly, I once again did not write down the name of the work.

I was inspired that day though, walking around. The next batch of poems most likely will include many of the shots I took there, trying to find art within the art.