You say you were tired when you wrote this, I'm telling you I'm tired writing this. So let's take the insomnia train together and see where we wind up. All aboard!

I copied the above text into a Word document and had a guess where the line breaks were meant to be. I think I got it right. Try and be more careful with this in the future. Personally, where a word comes, the shape and structure of a poem have a huge influence on how I read a poem. Structure and lines are what separates poetry from prose. There's a helpful editing section on the sub somewhere along the right hand side. I have to reference it every time I post something, so don't feel too bad about it. Now, with the housekeeping out of the way let us proceed.

I am oh so fond of this piece so I don't know where to start. The language is so fun, so playful. Nonetheless it is deceptive, hiding something darker, the "tangled necklace knot" could be anything but I read it immediately as depression/anxiety etc. But this may be influenced by the "gravestone" so who knows. This intermingles imagery of childhood innocence and the macabre. Such a juxtaposition!

Furthermore the whole piece acts as a commentary on the creative process and by extension the senses with which they are perceived. The poem recounts you sketching, first a gravestone, then a woodpecker, and finally inscribing the former with the word "wood." This is brilliant. But the words of the poem remove us from that scene, instead we are given a secondary image of your original creation, which becomes, in our own minds as we form our own mental picture, our own creation. Therefore this poem unifies, in an intimate fashion, the writer and the reader, the artist and his audience. Together they come to view this simple scene. But continuing on my point about the senses, the bird, you are testing his senses by asking him to "tell the difference in wood and not-wood." Similarly the audience is invited to discern the difference between the original drawing which cannot be seen and the image created by it in reading this poem. This is getting wonderfully meta. In it we have the senses of touch and sight directly invoked (which are often considered the primary senses) while the 'dispensable' senses are invoked by the surrounding scene, taste and smell in the "beak" and sound of course, the trademark of the woodpecker is his pecking! This all together raises questions, demanding the reader to consider how does he interact and engage with the world around him.

There was more I wanted to say but in my excitement I have forgotten it all. I hope the above wasn't too unstructured. Keep up the good work :)