Seven
Posted: 06 July 2005
Word Count: 158
Summary: I have been working onthis for a long time - mostly because I have had too little time to really focus on my writing - anyway I wonder what you will make of it??
|
Font Size
|
|
There was rancour at the heart of the tree
nothing could sate its bitterness; obsessively it
watched others who had more of His attention.
Was it not he who nurtured the luscious secrets?
Was it not he who held the rings of wisdom?
In fury its roots claw the earth.
In the heat the snake silently wraps his coils;
a blink of his jewelled eye the only movement.
He is indolent and indifferent to events.
From the uppermost branches small birds compulsively
preen. Puffing themselves up, flapping their ostentatious
feathers; incessantly squawking and squabbling.
Far below the man thinks of nothing else, his eyes
are fixed upon her licking at her contours,
saliva trickling from a smirking mouth.
At night in the shadows he rocks himself
muttering licentious profanities, hoping to hide
his shame.
The woman lies naked, she is restless,
rapacious eyes scan the garden. Petulantly
she looks to the tree, esurience takes possession
she reaches up.
|
Comments by other Members
| |
 James Graham at 10:52 on 07 July 2005
 Report this post
|
Hi Tina. This is to let you know I'm going to prepare my comment in a slow cooker. If it isn't fully cooked by Saturday I'll give it another couple of days. It's not that it's a difficult poem to get into, not at all; but there are things to explore. Back soon.
James.
|
|
| |
 Ticonderoga at 18:09 on 07 July 2005
Report this post
|
This is very rich, and all the more powerful for not naming names. Your poem restores the mythic power to a tale which has often been trivialised. Keep scribbling.
Best,
Mike
| |
James Graham at 14:52 on 09 July 2005
Report this post
|
Hi Tina. Your poem is intriguing and takes the reader’s thoughts off in all sorts of directions. These are just some of the directions I found myself taking. If you - or anyone else in the group - see it differently, we could have quite a long thread here. The poem gives us a lot to think about.
Your poem certainly looks at the Garden of Eden with a fresh eye. The most striking departure from anything else on the subject that I’ve come across is the snake, which is ‘indolent and indifferent’, idly observing, taking no active part and little interest. He isn’t Satan in serpent form; he doesn’t seem to represent evil at all. So in this human scenario there’s no external force of evil. Or else the Devil/serpent has decided Eve and Adam will do the ‘bad’ thing anyway, without any help from him. But it isn’t even that - this isn’t a devil at all, he’s just a snake. I’m not sure he’s even aware of his Freudian role.
In Paradise Lost, behind the snake in the garden there’s the whole story of the politics of Heaven and Hell - Satan exiled from God’s one-party state and now stirring up Adam and Eve to rebel against their helot status as unpaid gardeners. Whenever a writer writes about the Eden myth every reader comes to it with baggage, most likely the Bible story learned in childhood, perhaps Milton’s version too. So when we come across this indolent snake in your poem, we’re aware of his past record, as it were. Maybe you meant there to be a hint of baneful influence coming from the snake - but no, for me this snake is innocent.
He’s also by far the most self-possessed creature in the Garden. Eve, Adam and - intriguingly - the tree, are seething with frustration, resentment or greed. They are all needy beyond endurance.
Is everything seen through the woman’s eyes? The birds seem to be seen by her, as if she is thinking how she hates these bloody birds. They’re every bit as fascinating as the snake. In contrast to him, they are full of energy: more than enough energy to preen, to show off and to squabble ‘incessantly’. The snake is the most content of the creatures; the birds are the most animated. Although they seem to squabble, they’re unmistakeably ‘together’. So is the snake in his own way. In contrast, the man and the woman are not only not literally together, neither of them is ‘together’ emotionally. This is an unhappy Eden.
Even the tree is beside itself. Possibly some readers might have a problem with the tree being sentient, but trees have been personified and made sentient at least from Blake to Tolkien. But I’m not sure why the tree should be so overwrought. It’s jealous of ‘others who have more of His attention’ but the man and woman, who presumably have had more of His attention that anyone else, are miserable. And the tree is eaten up with thoughts about ‘luscious secrets’ and ‘rings of wisdom’ which are possessively held…by God or Adam? It’s God, surely. If so, it should read ‘Was it not He…?’ I’ve no problem with the tree being sentient and having negative feelings, but why it has these particular feelings doesn’t seem clear. I’d have thought it would more likely resent being used by God to play such a cruel trick on rookie humanity.
If humanity had really started in this way, cobbled together by a Creator and dumped in a landscape - however fertile - probably this is the state they would have got into before very long. The poem offers a very interesting take on the myth, and even having thought about it for a couple of days I’m left with the feeling there’s still exploring to do.
Just a few technical points.
The second three-line section on the man seems incomplete. It would be neater to have ‘muttering licentious profanities to hide his shame’ as one line, or even just ‘muttering profanities to hide his shame’ as profanities can be assumed to be licentious. In any case, you need a third line.
Why past tense to begin with, then change to present?
Finally: ‘In the uppermost branches…’?
It would be interesting to have other members' takes on all this - if we're not feeling too lethargic these summer days.
James.
|
|
| |
Ticonderoga at 15:27 on 09 July 2005
Report this post
|
James - and Tina! - I think 'in' is better, as 'from' suggests movement or noise emanating, and that's not realy what we're given.
Mike
| |
Tina at 10:05 on 10 July 2005
Report this post
|
Ok - Enormous thanks and ....
First thanks James and Mike for you thoughtful responses as I am aware this is an 'ambiguous poem'to say the least and wondered what people would make of it. Thanks also for sticking with it as I would really appreciate some further directions and reactions.
SO - Actually the title is the real clue to the reader.
About 3-4 months ago I was thinking about a poem on ...the seven deadly sins. I did a lot of research into these- (fascinating actually) which included Blake and Milton and CS Lewis and many religious sites.
The original idea was to write seven verses each focussing on one sin - as you can imagine some were easier to write than others! Then reading about original sin and - the source of all sin - (no I am not a religious zealot) I formed the idea of original sin at its origin - ie Eden after Stans fall from Grace.
Each verse in 'SEVEN' is 'supposed'to frame elements of the seven sins - but as my reading revealed - it is hard to frame them individually - as us humans are such a 'rotten/ greedy'lot and so the story evolved.
In this Eden no-one is content. Each is riddled with its own 'stuff' but still it is 'the woman' who takes the fruit. The tree is possessed by jealousy/ envy and anger. Thus the fruit of the tree will only bring more bitterness. The snake is no longer the great protagonist - the damage of the fall from Grace has already been done and he has infected all parties - now he is lazy and disinclined to further actions preferring to watch and smile. The birds represent frivolous pride leaving the lust and greed/gluttony to the humans.
I appreciate that this is all rather obtuse but I have really enjoyed working this from a rather vague idea to the current poem.
Now that you have this 'explanation' I wonder what sense it makes to you?
Actually I have redrafted it slightly since I posted it here and take onboard the comments about tenses.
Big thanks again
Tina
| |
James Graham at 19:48 on 11 July 2005
Report this post
|
The title ‘Seven’ just passed me by. If it suggests this is a poem about the Seven Deadly Sins, it might just lead to confusion. Maybe that’s how the poem started but it seems to have moved on from its starting point. For example, keeping the title in mind, the snake now presumably represents sloth; but that ruins the snake lines for me. I’ve already said in the other comment above what I take out of the snake lines; it may not be the same as someone else’s take on it. But if you tell us this is a poem about the Seven Deadly Sins, then we start thinking in that groove and read the snake lines and say ‘Ah! sloth’ and think we've discovered the meaning. In a way it turns the poem into a riddle. Can you find seven sins hidden in the picture? Undoubtedly there are subtleties to be found in this poem; but the title ‘Seven’, i.e. the Seven Deadly Sins, is a formula imposed on it, which oversimplifies it and obscures the subtleties. I just completely failed to register the title first time around, but in a way I’m glad I did. Failing to read it that way, I think I was able to see much more in the poem.
I'm sure this is coloured by my own prejudices. I really don’t understand sin. Human beings do one another a great deal of harm (as we’ve surely been reminded in the last few days), but sin is a different concept, an idea of breaking divine law which I’m afraid I fail to comprehend. The crude medieval list of Deadly Sins turns human attributes into crimes. None of the so-called sins is wholly bad; each is an attribute that can express itself in different ways; anger against injustice, for instance, can be a tremendous force for good. And the other six can - in varying degrees - be opened up in this way.
Anyway I hate to pass judgement on the snake as a slothful creature. He’s a snake - coiled up there, blinking his ‘jewelled eye’, he’s all snake. You see snakes at the zoo: go back a week later, they haven’t moved. He’s probably just swallowed a few small animals whole and is ready to sleep for a month. (Or is that Gluttony?) I see your snake as having freed himself at long last of the stigma put upon him by the writer of the Book of Genesis. The poor man and woman haven’t managed to do so yet, sadly for them. Their servitude under the regime of their tyrant-creator has made them desperately unhappy. The furious jealousy of the tree is a sign that other things in nature are afflicted too. (As for the birds - at first I thought they were ‘together’ but now I’m not so sure; there’s something not right about them.) If the world and its living creatures had been created by the God of the Old Testament - the same who, a few generations later, drowned millions of men, women and children for their sins - this is the unhappy place it would have been. I know that’s an eccentric reading of your poem. But the poem can be open to this and other readings only if you lead it gently away from its origins. Changing the title will help a lot.
James.
|
|
| |
Tina at 10:55 on 13 July 2005
Report this post
|
Dear James
You're a gem - what an incredible feedback! Can't say that all of what you say resonates with me but it has certainly made me think and smile!
Possibly as a man you are siding with the 'poor misjudged' snake and all the negativity about maleness that has arisen from his deeds!!!!! HA!
I agree with what you say about sin - but isn't it an interesting idea that life could be so simplistic - tick this box for sin one et al. And how much it has been used to control people and create unhappiness. Some folk really get off on it.
However - what about my poem??? I am not sure whta to do with it now!!!! Chnage the title I guess.
with enormous thanks
Tina
ps thanks for being awake at this somnambulistic time of year.
| |
James Graham at 21:16 on 13 July 2005
Report this post
|
What are you to do with the poem? Change the title. A few other mechanical things, but not the essential ideas. These are some changes I’d make:
1. Full stop at end of first line.
2. ‘Was it not he…?’ There’s some ambiguity as to whether this refers to God or Adam. If it’s God, put a capital H. If it’s Adam, put ‘the man’ instead of ‘he’ - only in the first of these two lines.
3. A comma after ‘preen’ instead of a new sentence.
4. The two verses about the man could be condensed into one.
Far below the man’s eyes are fixed upon her, licking
at her contours, saliva trickling from a smirking mouth.
He rocks himself, muttering profanities to hide his shame.
I know this is my typical tendency to take a machete to a poem, but if it was my poem I’d feel this abridgement was worth while. It keeps snake, birds, man, woman all to three-line ‘packets’ - except for the short, very telling last line which then stands out even better than it did before. The tree still has two verses to itself ; for the sake of the formal consistency of the poem it should be possible to present the tree also in three lines: ‘There is rancour at the heart of the tree’ plus one line expressing the main cause of its bitterness, plus ‘In fury its roots claw the earth’. Or it could begin, ‘In its fury the tree claws at the earth’ which frees up two lines.
5. Comma after ‘possession’.
When we read the original Eden story we’re left with the impression that Adam and Eve were in beautiful harmony together until they disobeyed God and shared the apple. In your poem, not only the man and woman but the tree too, and the birds in its branches, are very out of sorts. This is the distinguishing feature of the poem. It presents a scenario in which the first man and woman are already unhappy creatures in an unhappy world. This raises a lot of questions. What kind of God could bring into being such intelligent creatures and allow them to be so unhappy? In this alternative Eden, what does the apple represent? What is the role of this indolent snake that we used to think was such a proactive trouble-maker? Other readers would think of different questions maybe. (And be less easy on the snake!) The specific questions aren’t the point; the point is that the way you present this Eden stimulates questions. Of course, the poem doesn’t have to answer any of them. It’s enigmatic, a sort of intellectual puzzle poem. Nothing wrong with that. The Eden you depict seems surreal, wrenched out of the shape we expect it to take. That’s good - the poem makes demands of us. Apart from some punctuation changes and maybe some machete work, what you should do with the poem is leave it essentially as it is, and see what people make of it.
James.
|
|
| |
engldolph at 17:33 on 17 July 2005
Report this post
|
HI Tina,
I have a particular fascination with the rewriting of biblical myths/stories..and really enjoyed this..full of dark human humour
You create a picture of a utopia which has really gone to seed ...either abandoned by its owner, once the perfection was broken, or the owner has just got tired of it and just visits once in a while to see his favourites... of which the tree of knowledge is no longer one of these! ..reminded me of one of those old Victorian gardens where the owner is unable to keep up with the scale of what was laid down...
Seemed to capture that insight that even the most utopian plans will go awry given human nature..
wonderfully descriptive too -- you can feel the anger in the trees roots ...the singular motion of the jewelled eye...the compulsive preening..the drooling male.... all great stuff..
I get the idea of the seven ..but if this is to really be more your central idea, I think you need to spell it out a little more in the title or somewhere...as you say, it gets a bit lost.
a brave and entertaining effort I think
Mike
| |
Tina at 11:07 on 23 July 2005
Report this post
|
Dear Mike and James
Thanks for your responses and enormous apologies for this late response from me – unfortunately we have been having fun and games with BT – that multi million pound profit company who you can’t get a sensible answer out of if you have a problem. In an attempt to upgrade our Broadband service they have managed to cut off our internet connection for almost two weeks – it is still very intermittent which is why I have to type everything in Word first in case it gets lost when the connection is cut. So na na na na na – blar blar blar – I think I could become a professional complainer! Have you ever tried to speak to a human being at BT – virtually impossible.
Anyhowup – back to t he poem which seems –(like so many of my ‘creations’) to have developed a life of its own – in attempt to write ‘this’ I have created ‘that’ – great isn’t it!! So glad you liked it – and I will take up your suggestions James.
with thanks again
Tina
| |
James Graham at 15:05 on 23 July 2005
Report this post
|
Hi Tina, welcome back! It does the heart good to read the way you wipe the floor with BT customer 'service'. 'Service' indeed! All of us who love the English language hate to see words so abused.
Looking forward to seeing how 'Seven' develops.
James.
|
|
| |
| |
Comments by other Members
