|
|
 |
The Communication is Lacking
Posted: 23 March 2007
Word Count: 85
Summary: ho, ho, ho... i wrote this a few days ago, it both amuses and disturbs me.
|
Font Size
|
|
If I understand the world as I know myself,
Then I am a mute weilding a blowtorch
in a room dripping with gasoline.
Why do I smile and why do I laugh?
If she touches me again, if she runs her finger down my arm
And kisses my cheek, I will break her spine.
Socrates said, shoot yourself in the head.
Plato said, you should have studied math.
I know my family only by their faces,
And my wife by the curve of her backside.
|
Comments by other Members
| |
 Account Closed at 11:16 on 23 March 2007
 Report this post
|
ayaaa...!!! not sure what to make of this, J. I guess I'm not connecting the two stanza's to understand it as a whole. Not sure if the 'she' of the first stanza is the 'wife' of the second either. Somehow I feel my not understanding of this poem makes the title rather apt, in an odd way...
Perhaps others will offer more illuminating comments, just not with a blowtorch, I hope.
Davina.
ps - look forward to your explanation of this one!
<Added>
| look forward to your explanation of this one! |
|
but don't feel obliged.
| |
 James Graham at 11:21 on 28 March 2007
Report this post
|
This may not be a very helpful comment. I've worked on the poem and feel the force of parts of it - especially the first three lines and the last two - but can't put it together. The best I can do is say it has an emotional impact. It catches a moment of very strong feelings - anger, fear, panic - an attack of alienation, personal anomie. My God! How alone we all are! How isolated I am, inside my head, inside my body - yet I don't even know myself. A bundle of feelings like these can break over you like a wave at times. The poem seems to try to fix a moment like that, trap it or cage it in the formality of a poem.
The part I understand least is Socrates and Plato. The things the poem says they said are ironic and throwaway, things said with a shrug. But I can't work out why you bring them into the poem.
If 'she' and 'my wife' aren't the same, there's a story to be read between the lines. They don't seem to be the same, because 'she' seems to be coming on to the poem's speaker, as if it's an affair in its early stages. Or else, it's an affair that's been going a while, and he has a sudden attack of blind anger against her. The emotions in the poem are powerful, but I think we need your help to get hold of it.
James.
|
|
| |
Account Closed at 16:01 on 30 March 2007
Report this post
|
I thought had a thought about this poem, that perhaps the 'she' from the first section is not the 'wife' of the second half.
The second half seems to deal with how the narrator recognises those within his own circle - his children's faces, his wife's shape. Whereas the 'she' of the first part seems to provoke great anger. Her actions are described through her ability to come close to him and touch. I suspect she didn't really touch his arm or brush his cheak - it's some other action, but that remains a mystery. As does motive - the reader is left in the dark as to whether 'she' strokes him with deliberation, or is unwitting.
The poem still confuses me though, and the classical references obfuscate. What stands out is the anger, but I don't understand why and remain unclear as to its provocation.
Davina
| |
 Elsie at 13:15 on 01 April 2007
Report this post
|
The first stanza/half, of this struck me as being a dream. The second stanza confuses me, mostly because I'm not well rad enough to work out what the Plato and Socrates references mean - although I did wonder if it meant by studying philosophy he discovered he didn't really get and should have studies something else. So perhaps it is all about failure? Or about being a simple person in a confusing world?
<Added>
oops 'not well read' - as opposed too 'well rad' - which sounds like something my teenage daughter would say!
| |
| |
Comments by other Members
