A medly of verse
Posted: 23 June 2009
Word Count: 234
Summary: John Dryden said that vice in triumph and virtue in distress makes atheists of me. Were he alive today, he wouldn't write that. He'd shoot himself. Orwell would stick his head down a live cannon. And so it goes. My favourite poet (Adam L shot himself. Even poets
|
Font Size
|
|
I'M WITH JOB
Cynics say there is no God,
Neitzsche said he was dead.
I've had to take a stand on this,
despite an empty head.
If it's evidence you seek,
Let history be your aide.
Would you yourself feel godlike,
if that's what you had made?
Job stood taller than did Jove,
in that quaint old bit of rot,
Isaac showed he was above,
the two who him wouldst swat.
It takes an empty head to see,
That reason has absconded.
God indeed is only real,
When self and Self have bonded.
I'm with Job.
_______________________________________________
THE WASHINGTON HARLEQUIN
In Washington town, there was a clown,
who couldn't put ten words together.
His house was white, his soul was black,
And he wasn't all that clever.
When some said jump, he did just that,
It really was spectacular.
They got their way for eight long years,
to create for us a Vale of Tears.
But all good fun must end one day,
and that's what happened to his.
A slumbering people got out of bed,
and chucked him out on his bottom.
_______________________________________
ONLY HUMAN
The most despised of species
is often seen on faeces.
What on earth's he thinking of?
The fly can't wonder why
with him we are so sly.
Indeed wonders he at all?
How often have we thought
the reason flies fall short
Is because they're so like us?
|
Comments by other Members
| |
 Dilapitus at 08:22 on 24 June 2009
 Report this post
|
Author's notes to aid critique:
A couple of says ago I decided to write some poetry. I'd never done any before, and it showed. So I wrote one about the fly (Only Human. Short and easy, then had it commented on and changed the beat a little. But the end is intended to be unpredictable just to de-limerick the piece. I've got nothing against limericks. On the contrary, I think they're clever, and harder to create than what I've done here. I was aiming for de-familiarisation here. Did I succeed?
The DC clown piece just flowed out as part of an on-going process whereby I try to understand (for the life of me) why so many people don't agree with Bernard-Henri Levi's view that nous sommes une espece ratee (in Australian: "we're a stuffed life-form"). Things got a bit hot on an American blog because I was being disrespectful to their C-in-C. They were polite, but clearly unhappy. I got support from British contributors, and it hit me I might be spruiking on the wrong corner. I was being a whole lot more than disrespectful - from a land where free speech still means a little (not much, though).
I'M WITH JOB was knocked out today just after breakfast and adjusted here and there to improve it during the course of the morning. It reflects my existentialist view of the world and hence my lack of patience with humbug, especially the sanctimonious sort and the empty sort we see in religion, education, politics and ethics today. I'm doing a novel on the trial and execution of Christ. Religion attracts me because it's about answering the big questions which absolutely fascinate me. It's certainly not about what clerics tell us. It doesn't bother me greatly that Albert Schweitzer's investigations backed my intuition by showing he didn't exist as a historical person. The story is rooted in myth, and has far, far more bang to it as such than it would have if the New Testament was found to be literally true. How boring.
It makes it easier for others to crit when they know what a writer was attempting. Thanks.
| |
Dilapitus at 08:41 on 24 June 2009
Report this post
|
I'll use this opportunity to edit the uneditable opening above my contribution above. This blog can't be accused of taking prisoners of the newbies. One strike and you're out, before you know if you've found what you're looking for. This is what I would have said had my unfinished first draft been frozen in space-time:
John Dryden said that vice in triumph and virtue in distress make atheists of men. Were he alive today, he wouldn't write that: he'd just shoot himself and be done with it. Orwell would stick his head down a live cannon. And so it goes. My favourite poet (Adam Lindsay Gordon) was the finest example of English manhood sent to the Antipodes and he shot himself because his world was way out of tune with his fine emotions. Even poets feel things; some feel too much. Vale ALG. All this to say that I'm fascinated by what we're supposed to remember. As my mentor Phillip K Dick put it:
"This is not our home. We are voluntary exiles here, alienated and alone, violating our own natures for a salvific purpose - a necessary purpose. Yin would not understand this, and until anamnesis sets in for us, we in our distress do not understand the reason either. Eventually it will be revealed to us; meanwhile we ache with longing for our proper home, dimly remembered but deeply felt for." Give the man a drink!
| |
Dilapitus at 08:47 on 24 June 2009
Report this post
|
On the matter of criticism, I only value one kind. I have people around me who look after my ego. I need frank and honest criticism aimed at making my stuff better. That's the bottom line. I'm not that fragile that I can't take a bit of cheek and the odd horse-whipping. Hey, I've been getting publisher's rejections for twenty years as a novelist. You toughen up. So. I'm tough. But I still need to get better. That means help from those who can see what's wrong, and can say it without fear or favour.
| |
 NMott at 10:54 on 24 June 2009
Report this post
|
Hi, and another welcome to WriteWords.
It's best to choose a group to join, and upload your work there, as it's liable to be overlooked in the Archive.
The Site works best with reciprocal feedback, which means critiquing other members work in the Group in exchange for them critiquing yours.
All the best with the writing,
NaomiM
| |
|
|
Dilapitus at 19:44 on 25 June 2009
Report this post
|
Thank you James, for that and for accepting me into your group.
These are the first fruits so to speak of a suddenly aroused desire to use the poem as a medium of expression. I'm not happy eith them, but in the various things I do, I've had to learn that being a perfectionist is all very well, but in this particular neck of the universe, it's better to just do something so it's done, then make it better once it's been manifested. I've modified the Jove on more to my satisfaction, compromising in the beat to get what I wanted. Here it is:
SO I'M WITH JOB
Cynics say there is no God,
Neitzsche said he was dead.
I've had to take a stand on this,
despite an empty head.
If it's evidence you seek,
Let history be your aide.
Would you yourself feel godlike,
if that's what you had made?
Job stood taller than Jove his 'god',
in that quaint old opera soap,
Isaac showed he was above,
Two Dads wanting to cut his throat.
It takes an empty head to see,
The illusion Kingdom Come.
God indeed is only real,
When self and Self are One.
| |
 James Graham at 11:54 on 26 June 2009
Report this post
|
Hello again. I’ve now had time to study your work and comment. In future it would be better to work on one poem at a time, though.
It’s your rhyme that needs attention most of all. If you want to write rhymed humorous/satirical verse, the rhymes have to be perfect. The rhyming words should rhyme exactly. At the same time the last rhyming line (say the fourth line, rhyming with the second) must bring off a surprise effect; it must be something the reader isn’t quite expecting. A punch line, I suppose.
It’s easier at first to use only a pair of rhymes in each rhyming stanza, i.e. rhyme the second and fourth lines but not the first and third. It’s also better to keep to the same rhyme pattern all through the poem.
I’d say you need to work on your George Bush poem, to try to make the rhyme pattern the same in each stanza. As it is, the second stanza is different to the first and the third has no rhyme at all. The end of this poem is weak, partly because it says something pretty obvious but also because the rhyme has broken down altogether.
I imagine you’d agree that Obama is an improvement on Bush. One way to end the poem that occurs to me is to give Bush a caustic send-off and bring in Obama. I can see the possibility of rhyming shammer/ clamour/ yammer/ mamma (at the end of line 2) with Obama (end of line 4). Of course there are many more possibilities. The key is to get a promising pair of rhyming words first, then try to compose a stanza round them. Aim at making the last line a good ‘punch line’.
(For me the last stanza needs changing for an entirely different reason. Bush wasn’t chucked out - he was comfortably re-elected in 2004, then came to the end of his second term and had to go, but he was never personally defeated at the polls. Except maybe the first time, when the election was ‘managed’ in his favour!)
I’d go further and suggest you might try expanding this poem, add a few more stanzas, but try to work in one or two real political points such as Bush’s lies about WMD. I think if you set out to write a political poem, you should aim to make political points.
In ‘I’m with Job’ the rhyme rot/ swat is weak because it looks as if the line ending in ‘swat’is forced into the poem to make the rhyme. This may be complicated for me by the fact that I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Who tried to ‘swat’ Isaac? Do you mean Abraham and God in that awful sacrifice story? Whatever, it seems a very inappropriate word. As I post this I see you’ve changed this stanza - now it’s clear it must be the sacrifice story. The rhyme still isn’t too great, as you’ve turned ‘soap opera’ into ‘opera soap’ in order to make an imperfect rhyme with ‘throat’. And, as you say, you’ve sacrificed the rhythm. However, to arrive at a stanza that really works you almost always have to rewrite at least once, and in most cases many times over.
I have to say I don’t relate easily to what you seem to be saying in two of the poems at least. I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘God is only real/ when self and Self have bonded’ - unless you mean God is real only as a human invention, existing only in the individual self and the collective ‘Self’ of a society. As for ‘Only Human’, my reaction on first reading was ‘Flies don’t fall short’ (of what it takes to be a fly) and they’re not like us! For me this poem doesn’t work at all.
If you want to dispute anything I’ve said, please do. My main comment is that I think you need a good deal more practice in the techniques of rhyming verse. And maybe too, if you prefer to 'do something so it's done' it would be better to take it through a few more stages before posting!
James.
|
|
| |
Dilapitus at 14:39 on 26 June 2009
Report this post
|
Thanks, James, for that incredibly comprehensive and perspicacious critique. I was under the impression I only get one chance to post, so I thought instead of a story, I'll submit a few short pomes (adolescent poems). I appreciate the time you've obviously taken to study and comment on them. They're the first I've ever written, and I was expecting to be taken to task for the lack of proper technique. I'm working on that already, and your advice is welcome in that cause.
I take your point that it’s my rhyme that needs attention most of all. I want to write rhymed humorous/satirical verse, and I can't deny that the rhymes have to be perfect or that the rhyming words should rhyme exactly. That is pointer number one that I've noted from the crit.
I found by instinct that it’s easier at first to use only a pair of rhymes in each rhyming stanza. The same instinct told me that it'd be even better to have two rhyming couplets, i.e. rhyme the second and fourth lines but also the first and third. I'm not sure what you mean keeping the same rhyme pattern all through the poem, but I'll go looking for an understanding of that because it sounds right.
I readily concede that all three 'pomes' need more work. I did them as sketches 'to get something down.' It works out sometimes. I was still undecided about whether they might be better not over-worked. With the Bush one, I'll try to make the rhyme pattern the same in each stanza. I admit to breaking rules here without knowing what they are, and that's a no-no in any artistic endeavour. I'm reading others' poems to see what your comments mean. Allow me to go as far as I can with these repairs and get your opinion on how well I responded to the critique. I'll bring them back one at a time as you suggest.
I accept that G W Bush wasn't literally ejected from power. But in a way he was, and it was felt by all on inauguration day. The rejection of Obama's opponent was a rejection of Bush. The inauguration was as much a divesting of G W B as it was the ascension of Obama. That feeling was what I embraced, not the legalistic fact that Bush had only two terms. His popularity decline over the last year and the euphoria at his departure conspired to make for me a dismissal of the most categorical and unambiguous kind. I didn't want to mention Obama because I wasn't trying to say he was the answer. I don't believe he is, because he's as much a stooge to Eastern big money as Bush was. You don't get to be president of the people - not in America. When Kennedy took himself in that light, he got corrected. All your points on technique here are noted and will be worked on assiduously.
I tend to agree that I should go further and expand the Bush poem by adding a few more stanzas. Was I trying to make a political poem? I doubt it. I have a gut feeling that poets ought to be above politics the way great statesmen are. I was attacking something that went above party differences in that poem, but I lost focus. I'll think more about it and let you know precisely what I wanted to satirize. Rather than satirize Bush’s lies about WMD, I'd rather satirize the ease by which the bullshit worked on so many people all round the globe. Bush was about that, not what he'll be credited with in the history books by mindless journos. I don't think I'd set out to write a political poem, or make political points, since I have no time for politics.
In ‘I’m with Job’ I would have been better to write free verse (which I like as much as rhyming), because of the fact I was forcing round holes into square pegs. I take all the points you've made here as wholly valid. Most people didn't and still don't understand what Christ was talking about, and since I was saying as much here, I'm not surprised by your admission. In this poems compact form, there's little room to clarify things like 'which Isaac?' and so on. I did mean Abraham and 'God' in that awful sacrifice story. And swat was being forced to double for 'cut his throat' by symbolising 'to kill' as one kills a fly. The rhyme still isn’t too great, as you’ve turned ‘soap opera’ into ‘opera soap’ in order to make an imperfect rhyme with ‘throat’. And, as you say, you’ve sacrificed the rhythm. However, to arrive at a stanza that really works you almost always have to rewrite at least once, and in most cases many times over.
"I have to say I don’t relate easily to what you seem to be saying in two of the poems at least. I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘God is only real/ when self and Self have bonded’ - unless you mean God is real only as a human invention, existing only in the individual self and the collective ‘Self’ of a society." I meant that the illusory self (the human ego) has to transcend itself in order for the Self (the Transcendent Unity)to be real. It's not a notion that lends itself very well to verbal expression. The 'all is vanity' maxim embraces what I was getting at here. More work is needed, I agree. I'm onto it.
"As for ‘Only Human’, my reaction on first reading was ‘Flies don’t fall short’ (of what it takes to be a fly) and they’re not like us! For me this poem doesn’t work at all." I think it works, but not all will get it, because it's rather slanderous of the human condition. We have some unsalubrious habits, such as sitting back and watching murder, oppression and torture in Burma because there's no oil there. For me, that's like climbing over a stool and relishing the experience. In that we are like flies, who are more honest because of the very point you make. They don't pretend to be other than flies. We do, yet act far less morally than flies do.
I don't expect many to embrace that because we're creatures of habit, we're lazy, and we're extremely attached to the idea we're pretty special and beyond the reproach I've made. Most of us are programmed not to appreciate any metaphor of the type I proposed here. In the parable of the vineyard workers, Christ said that the secret to understanding it was: the first shall be last and the last first. I don't know anybody who understands that, or is prepared to discuss it with me. As with the Job 'pome', perhaps I haven't expressed myself anywhere nearly as well as I am determined to do, but I haven't denatured my thought to make it conform to the majority view to earn opprobrium. I like to think that if a poet is going to err, it should be on saying what he means, not what most are capable of understanding. There is no crime in misunderstanding or being misunderstood. The gravity has to point up, not down, no matter where the crowd positions itself.
"And maybe too, if you prefer to 'do something so it's done' it would be better to take it through a few more stages before posting!" By 'doing something so it's done' I mean a way of committing to paper what procrastination will ensure never sees the light. As a novice, I think that a posted sketch, however defective, is better than a blank page that can't be posted. I know of no rule that says poem sketches aren't welcome for appraisal at WW. As a novice, I need a modicum of help now, not when I've mastered the art. And the help you gave on technique is precisely what I sought.
I've found by experience as a teacher that it's better in the great majority of cases to ask the student what he means in advance of telling him you don't have any idea what he's on about. It isn't very productive in the encouragement department. It implies that whatever he was on about isn't worth querying or discussing, which is a judgment that holds little water. I'm certain you didn't aim for that effect. The trouble you took with me here - a perfect stranger, even if I am a Scot - speaks loudly of that generosity. Since I'm now in your group, I'd be glad to tell you what I mean, bit by bit, by further development of these poems and new ones on similar themes. That's the fun of poetry for me.
You know, we've touched on a very important aspect of poetry with this exchange. How important is the content relative to the verbal gymnastics? How important is the expressed relative to the expression? I consider both to be paramount, sharing the honours of pole position on the track. They should be so well balanced that neither stands out over the other. What do you think?
Thanks James.
PS The PREVIEW button isn't working, so please forgive any typos and uncorrected errors.
| |
 Felicity F at 21:11 on 26 June 2009
Report this post
|
Hi there,
I would agree with James with regards to the rhyming aspect of your poems,especially in the consistency of the rhyme. Keeping to the same rhyming pattern throughout the poem ensures that the reader is with you and carries the words better and the meaning.
Also, if you are eratic with your rhyming,the poem does not work as a whole with less effect overall.
Felicity.
Ps have a look at my rhyming poems.One of the hardest things to do,and which James mentions,is to find the words that not only convey the correct meaning and fit in with the poem but also sound right.
| |
Dilapitus at 22:47 on 26 June 2009
Report this post
|
Thanks, Felicity. Like James, you saw immediately what I couldn't. I'll work on that until I have a good grasp on it. As you say, the best way of doing that is to listen to what other musicians have played.
I know this isn't a blog for novices but writers. So I'll make a bit of headway before I post again. It's a hard thing I'm trying to tackle, I do realise that. If it was easy I probably would be less attracted to it. I'm a novelist and essayist at the core. I feel comfortable there. The area I'm trying to improve is in saying things more succinctly, and with imagery rather than description. Less is more. Hence this wobbly excursion into poetry - to learn how to compact a wealth of meaning into a small space. I appreciate your comments.
Dil
| |
Stonerayven at 00:21 on 05 February 2010
Report this post
|
I'M WITH JOB - I particularly like the first two lines of this and the last stanza is interesting. Personally, I would leave out the last line as I feel it detracts from the 'final thought'.
| |
Dilapitus MkII at 06:00 on 06 February 2010
Report this post
|
I like the last line because it is the final thought. My aim, as stated, was to pack in a wealth of meaning into a small space. Besides, how do you leave out the last line of a four-line stanza? Why would you? What is so terrible about the last line that it needs to be culled (censored)? When I said I can take it, I assumed an explanation would accompany the crit. There's a very good reason for the small 's' and the large one. Would we ask Christ to cut out his line where he spoke of life and Life in the same breath on the grounds that it detracted from the 'final thought'? Illuminate me, please. What final thought is being 'detracted from' in this instance?
| |
NMott at 10:29 on 06 February 2010
Report this post
|
Welcome back, Dilapitus. 
Just popping on to say that while one may be curious to know why someone has made such a suggestion, that person is not obliged to qualify it with an explanation.
It is the critter's job to point out which parts of the work that they feel doesn't work for them, and the writer's job to work out why that may be so, and whether it needs changing or whether to leave it alone. This is why a concensus of opinion is of more worth than just one person's opinion.
- NaomiM
| |
Stonerayven at 22:24 on 07 February 2010
Report this post
|
I'm sorry you seem to have taken offence at my comments; that was certainly not the intention. However there also seems to be some confusion here. When I read and commented on the poem, the final line was "I'm with Job". It stood alone after what is now the final stanza and it was this single line on its own I was referring to.
It takes an empty head to see,
The illusion Kingdom Come.
God indeed is only real,
When self and Self are One. |
|
This was, in my personal view, the culmination of the poem, a gem of insight for the reader to go away and meditate on. The last line left me thinking about Job rather than a profound statement on humanity being connected with the divinity of God (Goddess, Shiva, Allah.....) which I thought was a shame.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
| |
| |
Comments by other Members
