Twined in Bronze: Achilles Among the Shades

“O shining Odysseus, never try to console me for dying. I would rather follow the plow as thrall to another man, one with no land allotted him and not much to live on, than be a king over all the perished dead.”

— Homer, Odyssey XI.488–491 (trans. Richmond Lattimore)


Prelude: The Calling Across the Void

Hear me, O boundless halls of shadow,
where the voices of the upper world drift down like falling leaves,
carrying my name—

yet here, in this silence deeper than death’s first breath,
I am but shade calling to shade across the voiceless deep.

Not as I was in life do I summon you, O dwellers in darkness,
but as one among the countless dead who wander here,
seeking not the glory that the living world still sings,
but what no song can restore, no fame redeem.

By Acheron’s dark waters, by Cocytus’ wailing stream,
come forth from asphodel’s pale meadows,
enter not Lethe’s merciful waters—

let me embrace again what I have lost,
not the glory I have won.

The Encounter with Odysseus

Through the mists of the unremembering came Odysseus of many turns,
his words still honey-bright, his tongue still silver-edged:

“Achilles, no shade walks more blessed than you among the dead!
In life, you were honored as a god among mortals;
here, you are lord of the departed.
Above, the poets crown you with undying flame—
your name will never perish from the lips of men.”

But I answered him, bitter with the dust of ages:

“Do not gild my shadow, son of Laertes.
Better to be a hireling alive, a drudge to some poor man
who scratches bread from stubborn earth,
than king among these silent multitudes.

Your songs reach my name but cannot touch my soul;
they raise me to eternity yet leave me hollow
as wind through bone.”

The Shade of Patroclus

Then—O mercy of the pitiless dark—
I thought I heard you, Patroclus,
soft as breath through withered leaves,
faint as the last note of a dying lyre string:

“They did not forget me, Achilles…
my name is bound to yours
twined in bronze and grief.
They sang my fall beneath the walls of Troy,
they knew… they knew I was beloved.”

“O Patroclus,” I cried across the gulf of silence,
“O companion of my heart, O dearer than breath—

yes, they sang you, but they knew only shadows.

They praised my spear but not your steadying hand,
they heard my wrath but not our laughter in the tents,
they saw my grief but not the mornings when you woke
and the world was whole
because you breathed within it.

Glory is one thing, beloved,
but your nearness was another—
greater than all the songs
that mortals weave.”

Then darker came your voice, like distant thunder:

“Yet had you not brooded, had you not nursed your wounded pride,
I might have lived to see another dawn.

I wore your armor, Achilles, and with it, your doom—
my blood became the price of your great wrath,
my grave the shadow of your choice.

They sing your glory,
but it is built upon ashes from my pyre.”

I reached through the darkness.

My hands closed on nothing.

The Voice of Echo

Then from the depths where memory dwells eternal,
Echo came, bearing fragments of what was,
and in her broken voice I heard my mother’s prophecy,
scattered like pearls upon the wine-dark deep:

“Two fates… two fates bear you toward death’s end…

If here you remain… remain fighting the sons of Troy…
brief is your life… brief… but your glory undying…
undying through all the generations of men…

If homeward you sail… you sail to Phthia’s shore…
long life awaits… awaits… but your name dies with you…
dies with you like smoke upon the wind…”

“Two roads… two roads I set before you…

Choose… choose… but know that I will lose you…
lose you in either path you take…”

Her voice faded
like waves withdrawing from a distant shore.

Epilogue: The Wisdom of Shadows

So here I abide, famed beyond forgetting,
hollow as the caves where no wind stirs.

O Patroclus, my brother, my breath made flesh—
they remember our names
twined in bronze and sorrow,
but none recall the quiet mornings when you woke
and smiled,
and the world was made new.

The poets crown me with eternal fire.

Eternity burns cold
without you near.

Alone.


[This poem revises a version first published here on August 18, 2025. It appears here in a later and more considered form.]

Unaware of Any Sky

Prologue

He does not come when called.

That is the first principle.

One may sit by the pond for hours in pious expectation, rehearsing questions, arranging thoughts as though preparing an audience. He will not come then. He is not a confessor, nor a tutor, nor a domesticated emblem of transformation.

He arrives only when he deigns.

The first time I noticed him—truly noticed him—he hovered at eye level, no more than a yard distant, as if measuring me. His body was a narrow rod of lapis lazuli, his wings vibrating so rapidly they seemed less like appendages and more like a trembling in the air itself.

He did not blink.

Dragonflies do not blink. Their eyes are already nearly all eye—vast compound hemispheres that see in directions the human skull was never designed to accommodate. I felt regarded from angles I did not possess.

“Ah,” I said, aloud and foolishly.

He moved neither closer nor farther. Suspended. Exact.

Then he departed—straight upward, without arc, as if gravity had briefly reconsidered its commitments.

The pond resumed its composure.

I

He hunts with an efficiency bordering on arrogance.

Mosquitoes vanish in his vicinity. He arrests midair, pivots without visible preparation, reverses direction as though inertia were advisory rather than binding. His wings move independently, a subtle asymmetry that produces impossible steadiness.

I watched him for weeks before admitting that I had begun to wait.

He kept no schedule.

Some afternoons he skimmed the surface in quick patrols. Other days he did not come at all. When he landed upon a reed, it was never the same reed twice.

No pattern was to be discerned.

His body caught light differently depending on angle—blue one moment, green the next, then nearly black. It was possible I had seen three different dragonflies and had, out of preference, consolidated them into one.

The pond did not clarify the matter.

Once, he settled on the sleeve of my coat. The weight was negligible; the steadiness was not. I could see the articulation of the thorax, the delicate architecture of the wings, the vast curvature of the eyes.

Only precision.

He departed without hesitation.

II

Before there were wings, there was silt.

The nymph does not glitter. It does not hover in sunlight. It does not arrest the eye of a passerby and cause him to pause mid-thought. It lives in suspension among weeds and sediment, armored, blunt, patient. Its color is the color of concealment.

It breathes through hidden gills. It moves by impulse, expelling water from its own body to lunge forward in short, decisive bursts. The hinged jaw—an apparatus both ingenious and faintly grotesque—extends and retracts with mechanical precision. It is not beautiful. It is efficient.

Years pass in this element.

Above, seasons turn with spectacle. Leaves flame and fall. Snow forms and recedes. Children shout and depart. The sky performs its elaborate variations. Beneath, the nymph waits.

It feeds. It molts. It grows by increments invisible to any watching eye.

There is no rehearsal of flight.

No hint of iridescence.

Only duration.

I had known such water.

Not mud in any literal sense, but rooms where light was steady and unremarkable. Shelves heavy with volumes that few opened. Papers drafted and redrafted with care disproportionate to their audience. Sentences weighed not for applause but for consequence.

Most of my adult life had been spent parsing language that determined outcomes. Words examined for fissures. Clauses tightened against ambiguity. Arguments constructed to withstand scrutiny, though scrutiny rarely arrived with drama. It was a discipline of precision rather than spectacle.

Years accumulated.

There were no headlines. No sudden recognitions. No visible ascent. Only the quiet refinement of judgment, the slow correction of error, the recognition—hard-won—that certainty often masks impatience.

At the time, I did not think of it as formation.

It felt, more often than not, like sediment.

I read when others preferred summary. I annotated when others skimmed. I held to arguments unfashionable but internally coherent. I resisted certain enthusiasms not from contrarian instinct but from suspicion of haste.

None of this made me luminous.

The pond’s surface remained undisturbed.

I sometimes wondered whether I had mistaken depth for obscurity. Whether the refusal of spectacle was discipline or merely temperament. Whether the years were accumulating meaning or merely accumulating.

The nymph does not ask these questions.

It consumes what passes within reach. It survives. It grows until its exoskeleton tightens against further expansion. Then it splits and sheds, leaving behind the evidence of enlargement.

I, too, had shed skins. Positions once held firmly, later abandoned without ceremony. Assumptions relinquished not in crisis but in attrition. Convictions refined by encounter with stubborn fact.

But the shedding was not dramatic.

No one marked the reed.

The husks fell unnoticed.

If there was preparation, it was not for display. If there was transformation, it was gradual enough to escape detection. The years beneath the surface did not whisper of eventual flight. They whispered only of continuation.

When I first learned that a dragonfly might live two or three years submerged and only weeks in the air, I resisted the symmetry. It felt too convenient. Too consoling.

Was I to believe that duration beneath the surface is always apprenticeship? That obscurity is inherently preparatory? That waiting is purposeful?

The pond did not confirm it.

The nymph hunts because it must. It waits because there is no alternative. It grows because growth is the consequence of survival, not of design.

It does not know the sky.

Perhaps that is the truest thing.

I had not known the sky either. Not in any luminous sense. There had been no moment of sudden iridescence, no public ascent, no season in which I hovered brilliantly over the surface of things.

And yet, I remained.

The nymph remains.

Years pass in water that reflects nothing of what is forming below.

One evening, after watching the dragonfly depart without landing, I walked the perimeter of the pond and found an empty shell clinging to a reed. The thorax split cleanly along the seam. The legs fixed in their final grip. The mask of the face intact but hollow.

It was lighter than I expected.

I held it between thumb and forefinger and felt the frailty of what had once been armored.

No sentiment accompanied the discovery.

Only recognition.

The shell crumbled in my hand.

The pond held its surface.

And somewhere below, another nymph waited, unaware of any sky.

III

The next afternoon, I brought a camera.

He appeared almost immediately.

He hovered above the shallows, then settled upon a low branch. I adjusted the lens. The viewfinder reduced him to framing—wings, thorax, angle, depth.

The shutter clicked.

He lifted.

The image, when examined later, was competent. The wings caught mid-beat. The eyes sharp. The background softened into abstraction.

He looked contained.

The following days passed without visitation.

The pond remained.

Wind disturbed the surface. A heron stood in the shallows. Insects moved in small, unnoticed arcs.

The camera remained on the desk.

Waiting resumed without apparatus.

IV

He had not come in eleven days.

I counted without meaning to. The mind, deprived of its irregular visitation, begins to mark absence the way it once marked presence.

The pond continued without him.

Mornings arrived grey and then brightened. The reeds thickened toward autumn. A skin of algae moved slowly across the northern shallows, indifferent to season or witness.

I read. I worked. The kettle was filled and emptied and filled again.

On the eleventh night I dreamt of forests.

Not forests I had seen. Not the managed woodlands of memory, thinned by path and signage, explained by a placard at the trail’s edge. These were older. The air was thick and warm and carried a weight that modern air has forgotten. Ferns rose to the height of buildings. Moss covered everything with the patience of something that had never known urgency.

The light was greenish. Diffuse.

They moved through it slowly.

Enormous. Wings like pale membranes stretched across frameworks of impossible delicacy. Wingspans wider than my arms extended. Bodies long as my forearm, hovering without effort in air that seemed designed to receive them.

There were many.

I stood among the ferns and was not frightened.

One descended to my level.

It regarded me with eyes that were almost entirely eye.

It said:

“We were here before your certainties.”

Nothing more.

I did not respond.

It ascended without haste.

The forest continued.

I woke before dawn. The room was dark and familiar. The books on their shelves. The papers where I had left them.

I made tea.

The dream did not feel symbolic. It felt geological — the way certain facts settle past argument into simple weight. Three hundred million years. Before birds. Before flowers. Before anything that called itself a thought had moved through any skull.

They had flown through all of it.

I drank the tea at the window.

The pond was dark, the reeds motionless.

I did not write the dream down.

Some things are diminished by record.

He did not appear that day.

Nor the next.

The dream did not repeat.

V

He returned on the fifteenth day.

The color was less decisive. The lapis lazuli had dulled toward iron. The wings, when he settled, did not lie as cleanly along the body. One bore a slight tear near the margin, visible when the light struck it.

He lifted, hovered, adjusted, then settled again.

The motion was precise.

The pond had begun its turn toward autumn. Insects were fewer. The evenings cooled without declaration.

He hunted as before.

If there was diminishment, it was not in capacity but in surface.

He remained longer than usual.

The sun moved. The light changed temperature.

He lifted without ceremony and crossed the pond once, low, then rose beyond the far bank and vanished into trees I could not see through.

Fear, when unexamined, seeks climax. It wants a marked ending — a final landing that can be named as such. The pond offers no such assurances.

The absence was not dramatic.

It was seasonal.

VI

The mornings arrived colder.

Mist held briefly above the water before lifting without trace. The reeds stood rigid at their bases. The algae withdrew and thinned.

There were fewer insects now.

No blue crossed the line between reeds.

The branch where he had once settled bore no mark of preference.

The pond clarified as the season advanced. Stones along the bottom became visible. A fallen limb half-buried in silt. The slow movement of something unseen slipping between shadows.

Nothing announced absence.

It settled.

One morning the surface lay entirely still.

The water reflected the sky without distortion.

The light moved across it without instruction.

A thin skin formed at the northern edge and broke before noon.

The reeds inclined slightly in wind too distant to be felt on shore.

No visitation followed.

No summation arrived.

The pond continued.

The surface held.

And beneath it, something moved—unaware of any sky.


Blue, Again: Hesiod and the Persistence of an Anachronism

Some time ago, I noted a small but telling anachronism in a modern translation of Homer: the appearance of blue in a poetic world that had not yet learned to name it as a discrete chromatic color. The observation was not novel, but it was instructive. Once noticed, such moments have a way of reappearing.

Recently, I encountered the same impulse in a translation of Hesiod’s Theogony.

Hesiod, Theogony 279 (Greek)

τῇ δὲ μιῇ παρελέξατο Κυανοχαίτης
ἐν μαλακῷ λειμῶνι καὶ ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσι.¹

Two Modern Translations

One careful, respectful, the other good, but slightly reckless:

“with her alone the dark-haired one lay down in a soft meadow among spring flowers.”²

“The Blue-haired god slept with Medusa on the gentle meadow amidst the spring flowers.”³

Both translators footnote that Poseidon is being named without being named, identified solely by an epithet.

Nothing in the Greek has changed. The verb (παρελέξατο), the setting (ἐν μαλακῷ λειμῶνι), even the delicacy of the spring flowers (ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσι) remain constant. The divergence lies entirely in Κυανοχαίτης.

In archaic Greek, κυανός does not function as a discrete color term. It denotes depth, darkness, sheen—the quality of shadowed mass rather than hue. Joined to χαίτη, it identifies Poseidon by a familiar epic epithet: dark-haired, dark-maned, sea-deep. To render this as “blue-haired” is not a neutral literalism; it imports a modern chromatic category into a poetic system that did not yet organize perception in that way.⁴

Set beside the Greek, the difference becomes immediately visible. “Dark-haired” preserves the archaic register and the restraint of epic diction. “Blue-haired,” by contrast, draws the line forward abruptly. In contemporary English, blue hair belongs less to gods than to declarations—of taste, rebellion, or personal idiosyncratic identity. The sea recedes, and instead of an elemental god rising from its depths, one half-expects the crash of a punk rock concert to break into Hesiod’s meadow, amplifiers humming where spring flowers had been.

These moments are small, but they matter. Translation is always interpretation, but it is also a discipline of restraint. When modern colors slip too easily into ancient verse, they do more than brighten the palette; they alter the weather of the poem itself.

Read alongside Feeling Blue, this passage suggests that the problem is not isolated or accidental, but persistent: whenever modern color names intrude too confidently into archaic poetry, they risk replacing ancient depth with contemporary noise.


Notes

  1. Hesiod, Theogony 279, Greek text in Glenn W. Most, ed. and trans., Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia, Loeb Classical Library 57 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018), 24.
  2. Ibid., 25.
  3. Barry B. Powell, trans., The Poems of Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, & The Shield of Herakles (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017), 49.
  4. See LSJ, s.v. κυανός; Brent Berlin and Paul Kay, Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969); W. E. Gladstone, Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1858).

“Yet Ever More”: On the Poetic Charge of Three Ordinary Words

Donald S. Yarab

The musings began as I started my morning routine. Roused out of bed and heading to the shower, I found myself uttering, almost involuntarily: yet ever more. The words rose without prompting—perhaps because the task before me was ordinary, repetitive, and required no conscious thought. In such moments, the mind drifts, half-idle and half-aware, allowing stray phrases to surface without clear origin. But these three words arrested me. I repeated them aloud and wondered: three simple words, and yet they carried weight, rhythm, and an unexpected poetic resonance. Why?

After completing my morning ablutions, I returned to contemplate the phrase further and determined that some research was in order. Accordingly, I sought poetry and prose in which these words appear in succession—or in meaningful proximity—with appreciable effect. Once identified, I sought to understand the source of their force: the reason they ring with a power far exceeding their lexical modesty.

What emerged almost immediately was that the phrase yet ever more is no fixed formula of the poetic canon—no Miltonic thunder, no Dantesque refrain, no Eliotian motif. Rather, it appears sporadically—in seventeenth-century lyrics, Victorian nature poetry, and occasional elegiac verse—where poets employ it whenever they require a compact expression of endurance, paradox, or lingering emotional intensification. Its power lies precisely in this: three ordinary words capturing experiences that refuse ordinariness.

Early Instances: Paradox and Persistence

Consider William Strode’s seventeenth-century poem On Jealousie:

There is a thing that nothing is,
A foolish wanton, sober wise;
It hath noe wings, noe eyes, noe eares,
And yet it flies, it sees, it heares;
It lives by losse, it feeds on smart,
It joyes in woe, it liveth not;
Yet evermore this hungry elfe
Doth feed on nothing but itselfe.1

The concessive yet introduces contradiction: jealousy ought to consume itself and die out. Yet—contrary to all reason—it persists. Evermore extends that persistence beyond temporal boundaries, transforming a human passion into an almost metaphysical condition.

A similar pattern appears in Archibald Lampman’s Hope and Fear (1883):

As when the sunless face of winter fills
The earth—a moment misty bright—
The sun streams forth in powdery light,
A silver glory over silent hills;

And all the rolling glooms that lie below
That sudden splendour of the sun,
With shivered feet and mantles dun,
In stricken columns skim the gleaming snow;

Yet far away, beyond utmost range
Of sun-drowned heights, pine-skirted, dim,
That fringe the white waste’s frozen rim,
Hang ever ghost-like waiting for the change:

So often to the blank world-sobered heart
Comes hope, with swift unbidden eye,
And bids the weary life-glooms fly
With shaken feet, and for a space depart;

Yet evermore, still known of eye and ear,
With sullen, unforgotten surge,
Hang ever on the waste heart’s verge,
Time’s hovering ghosts of restless change and fear.2

Here the phrase marks memories that, though logically expected to fade, remain vivid—“still known of eye and ear.” Memory becomes not a fading echo but an enduring presence, resisting dissolution. The poem’s natural imagery—sunlight briefly breaking through winter gloom only for shadows to persist at the horizon—mirrors consciousness itself: fleeting solace does not erase deeper, lurking fears.

Structural analogues—but not direct antecedents—appear elsewhere in the tradition: George Herbert’s The Search (1633) repeatedly opens with “Yet can I mark…,” enacting concessive-persistence, while Christina Rossetti’s A Better Resurrection deploys yet as a pivot from desolation to expectation in the line “Yet rise it shall—the sap of Spring,” generating a concessive-and-intensifying movement even without a full triadic form.

Tennyson and the Deepening of Grief

The pattern appears with particular frequency and force in Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s In Memoriam A.H.H. (1850), where it becomes almost a structural signature for the poem’s central paradox: grief that does not diminish with time but deepens and transforms. Tennyson varies the pattern—substituting but for yet, altering the position of ever and more—while retaining its concessive–durational–intensifying logic.

In Canto XLI, contemplating his deceased friend’s spiritual ascent, he writes:

For tho’ my nature rarely yields
To that vague fear implied in death;
Nor shudders at the gulfs beneath,
The howlings from forgotten fields;

Yet oft when sundown skirts the moor
An inner trouble I behold,
A spectral doubt which makes me cold.
That I shall be thy mate no more,

Tho’ following with an upward mind
The wonders that have come to thee,
Thro’ all the secular to-be,
But evermore a life behind.3

The phrase captures the poet’s fear that he will perpetually lag behind Hallam’s transfigured state—not merely left behind but evermore behind, the temporal gulf widening rather than closing. The concession is double: though he claims not to fear death itself, and though he strives to follow Hallam’s ascent, the doubt persists and intensifies.

Yet the most remarkable deployment appears in Canto CXXXI, where the pattern shifts from lamentation to affirmation:

And yet is love not less, but more;

No longer caring to embalm
In dying songs a dead regret,
But like a statue solid-set,
And moulded in colossal calm.

Regret is dead, but love is more
Than in the summers that are flown,
For I myself with these have grown
To something greater than before.4

Here yet introduces not mere continuation but transfiguration. Love persists and intensifies—”not less, but more”—becoming something greater. What began as lamentation has, through time’s pressure, become an enlargement of the heart.

Later Variations

Geoffrey Bache Smith, whose A Spring Harvest was published posthumously under J.R.R. Tolkien’s editorship, employs the phrase to capture beauty and grace in his Glastonbury:

The Queen that was, whom now a convent’s shade
Imprisons, and a dark and tristful veil
Enwraps those brows, that in old days were seen
Most puissant proud of all that ever made
The traitor honest, and the valorous frail.

Yet evermore about her form there clings
And evermore shall cling, the ancient grace,
Like evening sunlight lingering on the mere:
And till the end of all created things
There shall be some one found, shall strive to trace
The immortal loveliness of Guinevere.5

Guinevere’s beauty, though shadowed by sorrowful penitence, persists; the phrase conveys a grace that resists decay, lingering like light upon the waters. The doubled evermore—first descriptive, then prophetic—creates a temporal dilation: what persists now will persist “till the end of all created things.”

Perhaps this explains why the phrase surfaced unbidden during my morning routine—in that liminal state when the mind is neither fully engaged nor wholly at rest, and truths we do not seek present themselves. A simple, repetitive task; three ordinary words; and suddenly a glimpse of what all these poets knew.

The Shape and Sound of the Phrase

The power of yet ever more lies in the internal mechanics of the phrase itself. Yet, is adversative; it signals resistance, contradiction, persistence against expectation. Ever erases temporal boundaries and opens a vista without limit. More introduces escalation—a rising degree, an intensifying condition.

Thus the phrase embodies a miniature logic of concession → duration → escalation, a compressed rhetoric of persistence against expectation.

The sound reinforces the structure. The assonantal /ɛ/ shared by yet and ev-er binds the first two terms, while the deeper /ɔː/ of more provides rounded closure. Jakobson’s “poetic function” is precisely this intertwining of sound and meaning: language calling attention to itself through patterned echo.6 The triad exemplifies it.

Linguistically, the force of yet ever more can also be understood in light of Michael Israel’s account of scalar meaning. Ever is a degree-based intensifier, signaling movement along an ordered scale without natural upper bound; joined to more, it expresses not mere continuation but continuation that deepens.7 Geoffrey Leech’s observations on foregrounded repetition likewise illuminate why paired or tripled intensifiers resonate in poetic contexts.8

But lived experience precedes theory: some feelings—grief, longing, devotion—intensify through time rather than diminish.

The Lived Experience of Persistence

The rarity of the exact triad is telling. Poets have long used its components in various pairings, but the compact English formula appears only occasionally, and often at moments of emotional endurance or spiritual intensification. This scarcity sharpens its effect. Each verified instance crystallizes a paradox: what ought to subside instead deepens.

This explains the phrase’s particular force. In three ordinary words, it captures something we already know but rarely articulate: the heart’s deepest experiences follow a logic all their own. They do not fade; they deepen. They do not lessen; they grow. For grief, for love, for memory, for beauty glimpsed and lost, time does not heal so much as intensify. What we carry becomes heavier, more present, more itself.

Yet ever more.

Notes

  1. William Strode, The Poetical Works of William Strode, ed. Bertram Dobell (London: Dobell, 1907), 49. ↩︎
  2. L. R. Early, ed., Twenty-Five Fugitive Poems by Archibald Lampman (Canadian Poetry, vol. 12, Spring–Summer 1983). ↩︎
  3. Alfred, Lord Tennyson, In Memoriam A.H.H. as written by Alfred Lord Tennyson MDCCCXLIX (London: Bankside Press, 1900), Canto XLI, 49. ↩︎
  4. Tennyson, In Memoriam, CXXXI, 133. ↩︎
  5. Geoffrey Bache Smith, A Spring Harvest, ed. J.R.R. Tolkien (London: Erskine Macdonald, 1918), 17. ↩︎
  6. Roman Jakobson, Language in Literature, ed. Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), esp. Chapter 7, Linguistics and Poetics, 62–94, on the poetic function. ↩︎
  7. Linguist Michael Israel notes that words such as ever function as degree-based intensifiers, signaling movement along a scale rather than a fixed quantity. In his discussion of polarity items, he explains that their force comes from the way they mark increasing degrees without a natural upper limit, a feature central to English expressions of ongoing growth or intensification. This helps clarify why phrases like “ever more” feel open-ended and expansive: they point not to a single amount but to a process that keeps rising. See Israel, “The Pragmatics of Polarity,” in The Handbook of Pragmatics (Horn & Ward, eds., 2004), discussion of scalar semantics and polarity items. ↩︎
  8. Geoffrey N. Leech, A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry (London: Longman, 1969), chap. 6, “Patterns of Sound,” esp. §§6.1–6.4, where Leech discusses foregrounded repetition, sound patterning, and the poetic heightening of ordinary lexical items. ↩︎

On the Em Dash

The em dash—now ever present in my writing—was, for the better part of my life, a non-entity. For several obvious reasons.

First, though it may have appeared in my handwritten script, I scarcely distinguished it from an ordinary dash or hyphen; the length of line between words was inconsequential in my already indecipherable and increasingly illegible hand. In truth, I long remained unaware of its proper name, or of the distinctions of nomenclature that punctuation ascribes to the several lengths of line between words.

Second, my earliest years of composition were spent at the typewriter. There, whether composing at the typewriter or transcribing handwritten script at the typewriter for submission and review, I knew only the dash—or the double dash—a generally unattractive contrivance, with space-dash-space between words when some pause seemed warranted. Better, I thought, a semicolon, a colon, or perhaps parenthetical for the offset thought.

And then came my first decades at the computer, where a stilted admixture of bureaucratic and legalistic form constrained me: such mandated style allowed no room for such expressive gestures. The dash—any dash—was a rarity in the acceptable prose of the office.

But in retirement, in the rediscovery of prose and poetry and possibility, I learned how easily the ungainly dash could be replaced by its elegant cousin—the em dash. And so I was converted: from endless parentheticals, unsightly space-dash-space, and other intrusive devices, to this versatile and dashing stroke. Poets and novelists know its power—and so, it seems, to the consternation of creative writers everywhere, does artificial intelligence.