Three words you never said

[Salvador Oria]

I won't leave flowers in your grave
to be swept by the wind as your words were
the day you left this world.

Or is it not enough all that I wept
and suffered upon seeing you, lying there,
still selfishly withholding those three words...

(c) 09-2006 Salvador Oria

[Catherine Edmunds]

Short and effective. I have would put 'on' your grave rather than 'in', as you're not digging her up...
In the first line of the second stanza, I wasn't sure about 'all', as it's not grammatical, but it's effective and is very much your voice, so I'd leave it.

The poem is very sad, full of hurt... and very beautiful.

[Salvador Oria]

Thank you Delph. Correction made. As a matter of fact there is another version that you can read below. The former was a bit too out of the blue since a short explanation was needed. I had it in my mind but no one should be expected to read it. Tell me please what do you think about this one.

Three words

I won't leave flowers on your grave
to be swept by the wind as your words were
the day you left this world.

I waited in vain for you to say three words
all these years that we lived together.
I begged for them, and now you're gone.

Or is it not enough all that I wept
and suffered upon seeing you, lying there,
still selfishly withholding those three words?

[Mike Daniels]

For my preference, I'd go with the first version. That middle stanza in the second version is implied by the very effective final stanza - so in effect you are merely repeating yourself, at least as I read it.

Both work though.

Mike

[Catherine Edmunds]

I agree with Mike. You don't need that middle stanza. Less is more. The meaning is inferred and the 'explanation' therefore unnecessary.

I would stick with the first version.

[Louis P. Burns aka Lugh]

I won't leave flowers in your grave
to be swept by the wind as your words were
the day you left this world.

Or is it not enough all that I wept
and suffered upon seeing you, lying there,
still selfishly withholding those three words...

(c) 09-2006 Salvador Oria

For my preference, I'd go with the first version. That middle stanza in the second version is implied by the very effective final stanza - so in effect you are merely repeating yourself, at least as I read it.

Both work though.

Mike

I agree with Mike. You don't need that middle stanza. Less is more. The meaning is inferred and the 'explanation' therefore unnecessary.

I would stick with the first version.

I would like to add to what Delph and Mike have said and say that the first version works best for me as well. It is saying everything that needs to be said, and for me appears for now that, that will make it a more memorable work. Only you really know in the end though Sal.

It would be an interesting work to hear read by a performer.