Trapeze Artist

Actually, the poem does not pose any English language challenges. I understand it perfectly both English wise and as a poetic text (it's really easy).

Interpretation, where the lyrical subject (the "I" of the poem or narrator) is a sugar daddy (or mommy :-), and the addressee (the "you" of the poem) is his (her) lover is at least as close to the text as the intended interpretation about a parent and a child.

Multiple interpretations are most of the time a plus for a poem. But here we have just a couple of plain statements, and nothing for a true poetry reader to do, to feel... Looking for interpretations does not count. Poetry is not about solving puzzles, especially that the puzzle is not well defined in the first place.

(I've written also a much longer comment but decided to keep it to myself after all :-).

but it's not about not doing enough. My point about the trapeze is that you never lose your fear for your children, however much you've given them, however wonderfully they can perform their act.

Btw, I'm astonished that what I thought was the least and simplest of my poems has caused such debate:)

I simply read it as as much as you do for them it isn't enough, should I have been delving deeper?

It worked for me, and I seemed to understand it as intended.

There's something there though that may be part of what others are saying: You use descriptive telling for the past, and then a metaphor for the present. To me it feels like those approaches don't work all that well together. They kind of...chafe a little.

fridayam, I had a problem with the poem, and now the comments confuse me more. It is an easy 100, I would give you more, because it prompted this comment:

From Senna:

"But logic is only one of the aspects of a poem. Every two moments in a poem actively coexist in a way which either contributes to the artistic effect or detracts from it."

This should be engraved in stone.