This adds evidence to my theory that poetry is a mostly intuitive, feeling (as opposed to thinking) endeavor. The best things seem to come out when we act on what we feel is right. I'm not a poetry man, but I've always been curious. I've written poems, but they were painstakingly crafted by hand as opposed to flowing out of me (which is also a sentiment I heard from a girl in the university who writes poetry). In the example you gave, I wonder why you didn't break the line on the infinitive: to create than it has to destroy It seems to line up nicely, creating a refrain — a powerful tool to our pattern-seeking minds — as well as visual and semantic symmetry. "energy" is not the important part here: it's the antithesis of the creative and the destructive which you compare all the way throughout the poem. What do you think? It has always taken more energy
I mean, my only defence is that to me, the original way looks more correct to me. Also to contrast you, I think that "energy" is the most important part - It's what we're talking about, after all. It is, in some ways, the subject of the poem: energy as a metaphor for resilience. If I was going to edit it to change the emphasis to the creation and destruction, I would write ti this way: more energy to create than it has to destroy. which makes the amount of "energy" needed to read each line reflect the differing amounts of energy needed for creation and destruction. It has always taken
I agree: it looks good that way. Take my word with a grain of salt. I may have a certain amount of taste, but poetry is beyond me. Do what you think is best. Lots of inspiration to you and your writing.