Lovely work.

My favorite phrases: love's stagnant season; bygone adoration; my tongue knows these vacant scripts.

I appreciate your use of structure and rhyme scheme, both underused in modern poetry.  You have done an excellent job of encapsulating your feelings into these words.  I have a great admiration for this, as I tend to be a thinking, more than a feeling, writer.

What could be improved?  I believe that the poem might work better if you transposed the first two stanzas with the second two.  Right now the poem starts with words and abstraction and then moves into the concrete of the walk.  If it started with the invitation to walk then the reader has a physical place/sensation to start of with, important in such a short work.  My first read through I didn't really get captured until the third stanza, even though the best writing (in my opinion) is in the first two.  Also, those second two stanza are almost too right as a conclusion.  As if you thought, here's a good way to wrap it up.  If you ended with the vacant scripts line I believe that you would be leaving your reader in the same open-ended space that the poem is referencing.

Overall, it is really well done.  You can certainly turn a poetic phrase, a skill I admire.  While the sentiment itself is genuine, it has been the subject of countless poems.  This puts you in with some fierce competition for the mind of your reader.  Perhaps a longer version could tread some new ground.

 

I think that the decision to stick to a rhyme scheme hurts your intent in this piece. There are certainly some good ideas present but I feel they are obscured by a desire to appear more literate, or more relevant - if that makes sense. I think that sometimes honesty is sacraficed in favour of embellishment, and in the case of this piece, I think the latter is winning out over the former. It may seem like I'm putting a lot of analysis on such a short piece but I think that the feeling and the idea here are valid, but that you are being hung up with notions of what "should" and "should not" be present in a piece of work. I feel like there is probably something rather interesting to be said here, but it is being obscured by the desire to expand depth where simplicity would serve just as well. Sometimes it is best to be simple, even if it means sacraficing a metaphor or two - the key to honest writing is honest communication, and sometimes that can be compromised by focusing too hard on the language and not hard enough on the message.