A problem of we, you and I in a poem

You have cut off a large slice here, so let me itemize:

First, In Danes' poem, the personal viewpoints are actually quite easy to understand. She begins in S1 by speaking of ‘you' and of ‘I'. In speaking of specific tools (L1&2), we know she is talking not of a plural general "you", but of someone specific. I agree here with Leanne: Definitely a lazy reader.

Considering your poem, it was obvious there was someone you were talking to, but I did question the next-to-last stanza's voicing. The first "you" is obviously the person you're talking to, but it is not obvious at all with the second "you". You can see that the 2^nd. "you" could as easily and logically be a specific other person you're talking to; or it could be the general "you", meaning "one", as in, "I like hiking; it makes you feel so close to nature." We understand that the other person in your poem is not actually present, but we don't know you're talking ‘to' someone with dementia because you've provided no ‘setup' for it - no previous hint. Danes does so in her S1. It's an introduction that sets the psychological scene. In your poem, the child squashes the peas; the father is picking them up individually with his hands, so again we have no hint of a ‘second childhood'.

You might solve the problem without excessive explanation by either changing your lovely title or better, by providing some setup about second childhoods, or ‘switched places', etc. It need not be at the beginning or end. It might just be a line or two beginning the same stanza.

As to your other question, please note that in my critique, I gave it a thumbs up, discussed several aspects I liked, and described the fault as a "nit". In other words, I still think it's a flaw in that it is not sufficiently clear, but a minor one. I rated (and still rate) it as a poem of high quality. It's good that you want to perfect your poem, but I certainly DO NOT want to see you say overtly that you are "sitting down to a meal in Wetherspoons...(etc)".  That would detract from it greatly.

Considering the author of the poem critiqued by Tracey, I say, "fk him!" Anger and resentment at honest critiques is inappropriate. If he can't take the heat, let him throw his poetry in the river and jump in after it.

Considering John Hartley Williams, I say, "Who the fk is he anyway?" I hadn't read his poetry, but my respect for celebrities reached zero a long time ago, and has continued to sink.  Then I found this gem of his

The Ship

The light weakens toward death.
Changes are bred in time.
Out of the chalice, the silver bud,
the frame of energy holds the line.

Mazes. Stars. A clean abstraction
lights the world with gleaming rivers.
Forests, mountains vanish out of sight.
Emptiness the dream delivers.

Change from absence lets
the heart know truth it can't admit.
The next requirement is: look.
The dark is close to where you sit.

Here in time the form of it:
a chair, perhaps, a mask, a loom?
A woman combing pale hair?
The devastation of a room?

etc., etc...

Please note the last line in S2: A fundamental error of rhyme, called ‘inversion'. PS: The rest of the poem sucks too.

In my opinion, Dane's poem is great; yours is merely very good.

And that ain't bad.

Alcuin