Is it an enjoyable read? I worry that it is not interesting.
'Enjoyable' is less important than 'moving,' which is the effect it had on me. Having seen my home town/s ravaged by catastrophic bushfires, I read this as a meditation on the limits of the hollow 'thoughts and prayers' virtue signalled by onlookers, and by extension, the limits of performative empathy. The fire-ravaged world is seen as some far-off other place that does not affect the inhabitants of winter, where fire is seen more as source of nostalgic comfort. A question remains: how to respond to tragedy that does not impact you directly? Is genuine empathy truly impossible?
Does it have enough emotion? I fear that it comes off as rather flat or as though from the perspective of the clouds.
Yes, it's a comprehensive journey of emotions: from dismay, wry bitterness and finally to a quiet sense of hope. The perspective feels less 'up in the clouds' than 'after the fact.' This feels appropriate given its reflective nature.
Does it work as a poem? The gods of formatting haunt my dreams.
As Ursula K. Le Guin reminds us, the formal structure of poetry lends itself to an infinity of expressive potential. I my first pass reading this I intuitively paid more attention to the rhythmic stresses where I quickly noticed iambic pentameter in the opening stanza: Ah, fire,does rush, flush grey these verdant leaves, - but equally noticed that it switched to uneven free verse thereafter. In thinking about poetic structure, it's less a question of whether it conforms to a traditional poetic 'pattern' than what your chosen rhythm does to convey meaning. Perhaps the syncopated passages convey the rush of fire? More halting sections could express awkward confusion, with more even-paced ones conveying calm resolution? Not very equivocal advice, I know, but worth considering if you're struggling with a way think about its poetic quality.
**Does it have enough meaning? **
Yes
Title?
Trust your instinct on this one. I find both contrast and resemblance between the 'sea of smoke' and the 'ten thousand miles' that separate the two perspectives, where both are conceived as insurmountable barriers of a sort. I also like how the two images encapsulate the entire world described in the poem itself.
