I was going to ask my wife what they were called since they were truly an arresting color, when I noticed a nursery card planted in the ground near them. Plumbago—It sounds like a physical ailment and so the computer wanted to change it. I, however, prevailed. They have a Latin name too: Ceratostigma Plumbaginoides, if I copied it correctly—tiny, intensely blue flowers that make an excellent border flower. And so they do.
I looked them up on the Internet, of course, and found a delightful picture of them that captured some of their full blue intensity.
The meaning of the two preceding poems depends on "dance" and "waiting": one, a metaphor of order and two, an action verb of purpose attributed to an inanimate object. In this case the two words reveal, I think, the narrator's cosmological perspective regarding the action of the bird eating a crabapple in mid winter.
We seem to have inspired the poet. Given his last effort I was beginning to think he was sleep walking down the highway of life. Apparently he is awake after all. In #25 the critic can see where the poet is standing without much effort. In #26 the same can't be said, and I think the poem is one of the writer's better efforts.
Given this poem one might wish he would tackle asclepias tuberosa, the butterflyweed, also an I-75 plant.
Given the distinction in the last bit of verse, anything praised in the vegetable kingdom (presumably) is a flower, while any growing thing not praised (admired) is a weed. Thus ironweed (so named for its hard stem, according to my sources) is a weed if it's not admired and a flower if those lovely purple blooms earn praise for the plant. One must conclude here that the distinction is neither a good one, nor true. Yet, the verse seems to work. It has rhythm and rhyme and it teases us with an interesting distinction, eventhough the distinction does not hold up under serious examination--well, under examination. There is however, an underlying concern here as well: what is the relationship between art and truth?
If we approach this tiny bit of verse from the perspective that we have a person thinking here in the verse, then the poem allows us a glimpse into the narrator's mind. In that case the poem's level of truth doesn't reside in its assertions about weeds and flowers but about its representation of the narrator's vision. This narrator sees the world in this somewhat simplistic fashion: any plant praised is a flower; any plant not admired is a weed. The real truth of this poem, so called, is then the failure of the narrator's vision. He or she has not looked closely at the natural world of vegetation to see what it really means, which, I would argue, is what art is really about finally.
There is no ironweed in the verse. The narrator really isn't interested apparently.