Brothers In Arms
Posted: 03 January 2016
Word Count: 339
Summary: Probably too ambitious. It just sort of grew.
|
Font Size
|
|
Brothers in Arms
If I am not harmed how shall I hate
if not attacked how kill
Crosses crescents and diverse stars
flags and anthems and booted men
march in thrall to the awful lie
your God your Nation gives you leave
to subjugate all means to doubtful ends
and to honour man-made symbols
somewhere someone’s child must die
If I am harmed courage must not fail
if attacked I must stand fast and free
but shall I take pride in this
unleash the beast on heat within
savour the saltblood taste of victory
Reluctant necessity no glory craves
today’s warriors are soon tomorrow’s slaves
The arts of war are arts no more
just careless rows of wasteful graves
Don’t blame the Devil for He is you and me
we tell ourselves to kill can keep us free
Black White Muslim Jew
even gentle Jesus will kill you for me
and Man although of Woman born
in fear and hate will abuse and rape her too
The Universal Soldier now serves a universal greed
our least desires outweigh others universal need
what we have we will hold in and by our arms
more then more and ever more again is justified
as sparing scraps for those who have already died
Our intelligence is bewitched by clever words
with which we craft deceit just short of lies
we are neither good nor bad lest we decide
but freedom’s burden heavy weighs
Hard won with struggle death and sacrifice
the arduous duties of this oppressive prize
make of it a battle we now long to lose
Though self-forged our fetters of earthly iron comprise
We beg necessity or might to free us from the need to choose
That we can fashion words to deceive and lie
confirms the trusted truths we know
My brothers’ sisters’ needs are mine and just as dear
only human life is sacred indivisible and clear
my brothers’ arms should comfort me hold me safe
not in the name of Gods kill in obedience through fear
|
Comments by other Members
| |
 James Graham at 20:16 on 04 January 2016
 Report this post
|
Hello Zettel – I haven’t started on your new poem yet, but have a further comment on ‘By the Book’. It’s no more than a point about the first stanza.
The pages turn
more quickly now
gathering speed, words
jumble meaning
tumble past sense
lifelight gutters as
memory mutters
with reluctant regret
‘Gathering speed’ says pretty much the same thing as ‘more quickly now’. The poem as a whole is very concise, and this repetition could be avoided. You will want to keep the 8-line stanza in conformity with the other two, so we must avoid cutting it to 7.
The following suggestions are (as my ‘rewrites’ of other people’s work usually are) only suggestions.You may find a better solution.
The pages turn
more quickly now
words jumble
meaning tumbles
past sense
lifelight gutters as
memory mutters
with reluctant regret
This pares it down somewhat, but I think the brevity is in keeping with the poem. It slightly enhances the effect of the jumble/tumble and gutters/mutters rhymes, which being so close together are a little like nonsense rhymes, ‘Hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle’ – though let me stress yours are not that kind of nonsense, but a vehicle for conveying your idea of loss of meaning.
The pages turn
more quickly now
threads are lost, words
jumble, meaning
tumbles past sense
lifelight gutters as
memory mutters
with reluctant regret
Here ‘gathering speed’ is replaced by something else rather than omitted.
I’ll comment on your new poem soon.
James.
|
|
| |
.JPG) Zettel at 13:23 on 05 January 2016
Report this post
|
Thank James - I agree entirely and your suggestion works for me. Implemented with thanks - an improvement.
best
Z
| |
James Graham at 20:23 on 07 January 2016
Report this post
|
A little pressed for time, so this is just Part 1 of my comment.
You put such a lot into the first stanza: after reading just these 9 lines I felt that it had already said all the most important things that can be said about war. Of course there is more to say, but it’s a strong stanza and says, if not everything, a great deal. Lines 1 and 2 concisely express two related central questions, and we reflect on how many people in the world are unable to answer, ‘I can’t hate anyone who has done me no harm’. Of course, IS ‘warriors’ might claim they are harmed by the very existence of infidels on the planet.
Then you encapsulate the absurdity of killing (including children) for either a religion or a nation. Your simple list of symbols – crosses, crescents, stars (religion); flags, anthems (nation) does this very effectively. In short, this stanza wraps up much that is to be said about war.
Stanza 2 is very thoughtful, and shows us that there is indeed more to be said. If I am attacked I must defend myself – and my children – but the elements of pride, glory, honour can and must be taken out of the picture. Not only that, we must not
unleash the beast on heat within
(a very striking line) – we must defend ourselves effectively but retain our humanity. We must act in such a way as to defeat our enemy but do so reluctantly, aware that what we are doing is necessary but contrary to the best of our humanity. This is a very fertile idea and one feels it’s something that might be developed in another genre – an essay. The stanza makes the central idea very clear though, and the reader can reflect on it.
One word so far that I’d question is ‘pointed stars'. Seems rather obvious. If it were five-pointed it would perhaps remind readers of Israel, which can be accused of exceeding limits of violence and not always acting out of ‘reluctant necessity’. I’ll give this a little more thought. Swastika or hammer and sickle could be cited as pseudo-religious aggressive symbols.
More to follow.
James.
PS. To fight only if attacked, as a ‘reluctant necessity’, is, according to my limited understanding of the Qu'ran, close to the Prophet's message. I'm sure moderate Muslims would hold that view.
|
|
| |
Zettel at 01:12 on 08 January 2016
Report this post
|
James - thanks so much for taking precious time to have a first look at this. I am conscious of not only posting 2 poems in short order but also that this one is I thnk the longest poem I've ever attempted.
I will be very grateful and pleased to get your overall response in due course but please don't feel this has to be quickly, when you inevitably have other demands on your time. There is no urgency as such.
thanks again
Z/K
| |
Zettel at 01:18 on 08 January 2016
Report this post
|
PS
I think this pretty much now sums up my overall view in this area with most of the themes I have touched on in other poems drawn together here. There would be something 'wrong' about continually coming back to these issues. In the end poems of ideas which I am drawn to, lack the intimacy and personal-ness (ugh!) of most of the rest of my stuff. I would like to make this one therefore as good as I/we can make it as it would then become so to speak 'definitive' for me of these issues so I can 'move on'.
K/Z
| |
James Graham at 20:14 on 09 January 2016
Report this post
|
I would like to make this one therefore as good as I/we can make it
So would I - it's well worth it. What I'll do now is go over it carefully and come up with suggestions. I'll take enough time to do it properly, and we should end up with the 'definitive' statement you're looking for.
James.
|
|
| |
|
|
James Graham at 21:07 on 12 January 2016
Report this post
|
Hello Zettel – This is the start of our working towards a ‘definitive statement’. To deal with the whole poem in one comment would make the comment too long, but I will very soon follow up.
The poem is too long, I think, and I suggest cutting down until you have the core statement – which is a very telling declaration against the jingoism of ‘honour’, ’glory’ etc. I hope you can accept having stanzas of different lengths, as will be inevitable if you accept these changes. It’s not strictly a formal poem, though there are rhymes and assonances, so you can be flexible.
In the first stanza I would leave out
what part of me would be served
what gain sought or won
lines which say something, but nothing as extraordinary as the rest of the stanza. They more or less just say ‘What good would it be to me?’ The rest of stanza 1 I would leave unchanged.
Stanza 2: Leave out
today’s warriors are soon tomorrow’s slaves
- not a bad line, but for me the lines before and after it go together so well:
Reluctant necessity no glory cedes
The arts of war are arts no more
To use ‘art’ in connection with war implies that warmakers can create ‘works of art’, and ‘glory’ becomes equated with the artist’s sense of triumph on having created something beautiful. I think you’ll agree that to speak of the ‘arts of war’ is distasteful. These two lines make this point, and the intervening line takes us away from it. Now it says more clearly that war cannot be other than ‘reluctant necessity’.
I would also leave out the second last line of this stanza. What it says about honour and triumph has already been said or strongly implied. And the lines that are left convey a key part of your ‘definitive statement’. I’ve made some other changes here too.
Reluctant necessity needs no glory
The arts of war are arts no more
Casual graves their masterpiece.
‘Cedes’ in the original seems slightly wrong, as cedes usually means surrenders or gives up. I’m sure you don’t mean ‘Reluctant necessity does not give up the idea of glory’. It does; it renounces glory. I hope you’ll see the third line here as a kind of punch line, finally disposing of the notion of war being an art.
In the first line of Stanza 2, I would write ‘courage must respond’ rather than ‘refuse’. Though it’s not intended to mean this, ‘refuse’ could imply refusal to defend oneself, one’s family and community, if attacked.
Though it isn’t without merit, I would consider discarding Stanza 3 altogether. But this seems drastic and I have some alternative suggestions. Whatever is said in the lines about falling into step with a military band, and the impulses associated with it, are well expressed in Stanza 1 and later in Stanza 4 where we discard compassion and reason in ‘the thrill of a marching band’. The two lines
your God your Nation gives you leave
to subjugate all means to doubtful ends
do perhaps make a valid point not so forcefully made elsewhere. A place might be found for them at another point in the poem, e.g.
march in thrall to the awful lie
your God your Nation gives you leave
to subjugate all means to doubtful ends
to honour man-made symbols
somewhere someone’s child must die
This now says: Soldiers are persuaded by the lie that ends justify means if some great Authority sanctions them. So many young Germans in WW2 tortured and killed gratuitously because they were allowed to, by the Nation/ Reich.
The last four lines of Stanza 3: I suppose they are an extension of the idea of ends justifying means. Rape would be one of the worst examples: you can do even that for your God or Nation. I’m reminded of the Crusades in which Muslims and Jews were slaughtered and their women raped in the name of ‘gentle Jesus’. I have to confess I’m not sure what to do with these lines. You see, I think Stanza 4 very naturally follows Stanza 2: don’t blame the Devil for our wicked indulgence in the ‘saltblood taste of victory’ or for implanting in us the notion that mass killing is a art; we ‘tell ourselves’ these things. There would be greater continuity if St 4 followed St 2. Perhaps these four lines (‘Black White...abuse her too’) could also be transposed to a point earlier in the poem, as a stanza on its own:
march in thrall to the awful lie
your God your Nation gives you leave
to subjugate all means to doubtful ends
to honour man-made symbols
somewhere someone’s child must die
Black White Muslim Jew
even gentle Jesus will kill you
and Man of Woman born
will hate rape and abuse her too
That’s more than enough for now, especially after that complicated business of St 3. Reading again through the rest of the poem, I see that you go on to make new statements, say important things not said already. There should be less need for cutting.
If any of the above is unclear, please tell me. If this revision works you really will have made an important and necessary statement – with every line making its contribution.
James.
|
|
| |
Zettel at 00:46 on 13 January 2016
Report this post
|
James
Lots to think about - and much I agree with. Need to think it through and come back to you.
But thanks so much - very helpful and as ever very insightful.
later
best
Z
| |
James Graham at 16:37 on 13 January 2016
Report this post
|
You may have seen the recent BBC4 documentary series on the Crusades. Working on your poem at the time, I was struck by how far removed the presenter Thomas Asbridge was from the kind of view of war that you're expressing. In particular he praised both Richard I and Saladin as great practitioners of the arts of war. Not much about the lack of moral justification (even by the standards of the time) for these bloody incursions into the Arab world. Saladin is more interesting than Richard - he could be ruthless and was responsible for massacres, but in taking on the Crusaders it could fairly be said that he acted out of 'reluctant necessity'. And after the recapture of Jerusalem he did not allow indiscriminate killing.
I'll finish working on your poem in the next few days.
James.
|
|
| |
James Graham at 20:08 on 14 January 2016
Report this post
|
Stanza 4: I’ll just copy it in here for convenience.
Don’t blame the Devil for He is you and me
we tell ourselves to kill can set us free
compassion reason only these might stay our hand but
these relieved we discard to the thrill of a marching band
The Universal Soldier now serves a universal greed
our least desires outweigh others universal need
what we have we will hold in and by our arms
more then more and still more is justified
as extra scraps for those who have already died
In line 1 you could omit ‘for’. It becomes just a little more succinct.
Line 4 is rather clumsy: ‘these relieved we discard’. Just say compassion and reason surrender to the marching band, or words to that effect. Use a single verb instead of the rather tortuous phrase. Or compassion and reason desert us. Of course these are both military terms used ironically. While shortening this line, why not strengthen it at the same time by attributing an irrational aspect to the marching band? Sorcery, necromancy, conjuring. My suggestion would be
compassion reason only these might stay our hand
but they succumb to the sorcery of the marching band
Other words and phrases occur as alternatives to ‘succumb’ – yield to, are disarmed by, submit to, take flight before. By the way, and these things are important in poetry, if you use ‘sorcery’ it will be echoed by ‘bewitched’ in St 5.
Line 5: do you mean in our time soldiers serve the interests of corporations and the rich? For example, a strong case has been made that the Iraq war primarily served the interests of multinational oil companies, brought a massive boost to profits and to the personal fortunes of a few who promptly buried them in the Caymans and other treasure islands. If this is what you mean, I suggest
The Universal Soldier now serves minority greed
Then does it not follow that ‘their least desires outweigh the universal need’? Maybe you didn’t mean any of this, but it does make sense.
Line 9: I need you to explain in what way more killings can be ‘scraps’ for those already dead. I don’t understand this line. My thought would be
more then more and still more is justified
as if enough innocents had not already died
or similar. ‘Innocents’ would echo ‘someone’s child must die’ in St 1.
Stanza 5: this stanza is very lucid, and has much to say that hasn’t already been touched on. Your idea of the ‘burden’ of freedom is very thought-provoking. ‘Fighting for freedom’ may have been jingoistic in some wars, but in WW2 we were genuinely defending freedom. This freedom, which has been fought for, confers choice; yet paradoxically we wish to be free of the need to choose, the need to make decisions and take responsibility for them. War gives us that ‘freedom’; decisions are made for us and others are responsible. In my youth I never had the least desire to be a soldier, but I believe that a strong motive in young men in joining the armed forces is a need to be free of the responsibility of taking decisions – a fear of adult responsibility. They ‘long to lose’ this ‘battle’ which freedom entails. St 5 works through this idea very coherently and effectively.
One line I would question:
Though self-forged our fetters of earthly iron comprise
I think it’s the word ‘comprise’. Comprise what? it’s a verb that needs to have a predicate. Either you need a new line which better follows the reasoning of the stanza, or – as I prefer – omit this line. I think the version below is so much more telling: the last line perfectly concludes the thought, and ends the stanza strongly; and the lines rhyme contiguously, adding to the impact.
Hard won with struggle death and sacrifice
the arduous duties of this oppressive prize
make of it a battle we now long to lose
We beg Authority to free us from the need to choose
(I’ve taken the liberty of replacing ‘necessity or might’ with ‘Authority’.The word can imply both God and Nation, and the line is less rambling.)
Stanza 6: I wondered about cutting St 6 to leave only the last four lines, but there are ideas in the rest of the stanza that I’m not clear about and need to ask you about them before suggesting anything so drastic.
in the beginning is the deed not the idea
I’m afraid this reminds me of the old anarchist slogan ‘Propaganda of the deed’ which for them meant deeds such as assassination or setting off bombs were a priority over ideas, or at least more important than persuasion through argument. I’m sure you don’t mean anything like this, but it’s open to that sort of interpretation.
through the cacophony of rights injustice whisper why
By ‘rights’ do you mean ‘human rights’? Surely not. Surely the small voice of justice is asking ‘Why?’ against a cacophony of propaganda, jingoism, the lies of leaders? I need to be clear on these points.
Well, there’s a lot to think about here, but I’m confident it will be well worth it. If you can just get back to me on St 6 we can get that sorted too.
James.
|
|
| |
Zettel at 16:44 on 15 January 2016
Report this post
|
James
Thanks so much for the help. You will see that I have substantially taken on board much/most of your advice including restructuring which is always tricky.
I'd like to think the result includes the best of the original much improved by your observations. Where I have gone a slightly different way, this is under the sway of the 'inner ear rhythm' that my poems have for me; including the desire for a stanza to have a cadence that builds to a final line that if it works well, seems as of it is the only line it could be; whether upbeat or down. Tough ask and one doesn't always (often) get it right. This is why I have split 2 and 3 as the cadence runs too long when joined into one and I don't feel there is redundancy there suggesting reduction..
Given the very real improvements arising from your comments so far, I am more than open to reviewing the remainder of the poem in the light of any further comments you may have. The last 2 stanzas are perhaps the most philosophical;regarding the paradox that men will suffer any hardship to achieve freedom but then finding the burden of choice it imposes too heavy, sacrifice it too easily to power, might: it is easier to obey than think for oneself and the intoxication of a simple common purpose in a world so complex it seems incomprehensible and out of control has proven at times irresistable. Groups don't, can't think - that is what makes them so frightening and why we have developed over centuries of conflict and suffering, the protection of due process and the rule of law: the very values that power and might invites us to abandon. With much success since 9/11 I fear.
best
Z
| |
|
|
James Graham at 20:41 on 17 January 2016
Report this post
|
This is what you were aiming for. The first thing I did was simply to read through your revision, trying (more or less successfully) to forget all previous discussion and treat it as a new poem. I often find this works. The poem reads as a very lucid, fully coherent statement of a view of conflict, freedom and authority – a view which any reader must take seriously. It’s not ‘difficult’ – by which I mean it demands thought on the reader’s part, quite strenuous thought even, but it puts no unnecessary obstacles in his way. The transposition of some lines to other parts of the poem helps considerably in this.
One minor detail: the ‘and’ at the end of line 7 could be omitted perhaps, or moved to the next line. But it may be that I’m failing to catch the 'inner ear rhythm', and you may prefer to leave it as it is.
I am more than open to reviewing the remainder of the poem
You include both the second last and last stanzas in this, but the second last needs no more comment. It’s every bit as clear as the rest, and (as I said before) the idea put forward is very thought-provoking. (I have no trouble in accepting the idea.) As for the last stanza, I will get back to you to ask some questions, and I think there may be one or two lines where I see an ambiguity that isn’t immediately apparent to you. But I’ll think it through a little more.
James.
|
|
| |
Zettel at 01:06 on 18 January 2016
Report this post
|
Thanks again for all your time and effort on this.
I tried to do without the 'and' but felt it needed to be there and I couldn't decide where best to put it. I think you're right so I've dropped it to the next line.
It is perhaps worth clarifying the philosophical thought in the first two line of the last stanza - though it may be obvious enough. This is that we are only able to use words to lie and deceive against a background where most people, most of the time tell the truth. A practical example of the same logic is that not all banknotes could be forgeries.
I think we're getting there. I have found this a very productive process that I have rarely done so extensively before.
Z
| |
James Graham at 19:51 on 19 January 2016
Report this post
|
The last stanza: I would like to discuss some lines with you as they still puzzle me. It may be that I haven’t sufficiently thought them through. (I've no difficulties with the second-last.)
our challenge is not to enquire to discover but to act
in the beginning is the deed not the idea
Here you seem to discount intellectual enquiry, scientific discovery, and ideas generally – our quest for knowledge and truth. I can see these lines as implying that as far as the welfare of humanity is concerned, we need not enquire any further; we know how to act; therefore let us make action our priority. ‘Only human life is sacred’ is the only idea we need; let us be informed by it and act accordingly. Is this close to what you mean? Perhaps these lines need to be reworded to avoid being interpreted as saying we must set intellectual enquiry aside. In that case, the reader might wonder on what principles do we act?
a courageous heart and honest mind will hear
through the cacophony of rights injustice whisper why
Here you seem to oppose ‘rights’ and ‘justice’. Maybe it strikes me in this way because I’m an active member of Amnesty International, thinking in terms of human rights. The voice of human rights is a whisper too. I’m concerned a good deal with Mexico: police there have taken to arresting women they see walking alone, taking them to the station and raping them. To make the arrest look legitimate, they torture them until they sign a confession which is placed in front of them with the text covered so they can’t read it. The courts, as corrupt as the police, more often than not admit these confessions. Political leaders deny this is happening, or if that is palpably not credible they promise to pursue the perpetrators, reform the system, exonerate and compensate the victims – and do none of these. For me these lies and false promises best deserve to be called a ‘cacophony’, against which the small voice of justice (and rights) can scarcely be heard.
Again I’ve tried to see another meaning in these lines: maybe by ‘rights’ you mean the rights claimed by men of power, including the invidious ‘rights’ they appropriate to themselves as secretly as possible, such as the ‘right’ to cream off personal fortunes out of public money. If those ‘rights’are the ones you mean, it makes perfect sense; but I’m not sure the meaning is clear. Again perhaps the lines need to be reworked.
Let me know whether you agree with any of this or not.
This is a philosophical poem. I seem to think this is a bit of a rarity in modern times, more common in the classical era. One I’ve come across is Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (though I’ve read only passages from it, in English not Latin!). It’s a suprisingly good read! ‘All things are created from natural elements, not by the hand of any God’. I think you are on the verge of completing a very accomplished philosophical poem.
James.
|
|
| |
Zettel at 02:12 on 21 January 2016
Report this post
|
Thanks James. The last stanza tried to do too much in the form it was as you so pertinently point out. In the hope that less is more, I have settled for what you see. I thnk your help has improved my original. The trouble with this process is that eventually familiarity breeds if not contempt then a sense of the impossibility of ever getting it completely 'right'.
A useful process though: and I have learned from it.
Thank you
Z
| |
James Graham at 20:07 on 22 January 2016
Report this post
|
Yes, on reflection I think there was too much in the last stanza, and the poem now is just as it should be. I'm keeping a copy and will certainly return to it. As you say, one can begin to despair of ever getting a poem 'right', but you have succeeded very well in this case. The dialogue we've had has been very satisfying; it's what WW is all about.
James.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Comments by other Members
V`yonne
