The Ringmaster

[lizzytysh]

Hi William ~

For me, with both "clenching" and "tightly" in the same line referring to the same action, one or the other is redundant. Just my three cents . I'm finding, however, that any way it lays, I like the poem, no matter what.


~ Lizzy

[Red Poppy]

Here's another one for you Laurie.
A bear is shitting in the woods. A rabbit is standing nearby.
Tell me, the bear asks, does shit stick to your fur?
No, the rabbit says, it doesn't.
Good, the bear says, picking the rabbit up and wiping his ass with it.

[lizzytysh]

RP ~

As theories go, wouldn't he prefer that it did?


~ Lizzy

[Red Poppy]

Shit,
I never thought of that!

[lizzytysh]

Spared the hare, foiled the bear.


~ Lizzy


< added d and ed to past tense it >

[Alan Alda]

poppy~

There is something that doesn't quite make sense (although a fuzzy bunny butt wipe is intriguing).
Here in the U.S. we have these ridiculous cartoon commercials with bears pooping in the forest (a Charmin tp ad) They are stupidly precious and sweet...mama bears-pappa bears-baby bears and tp rolls hanging off twigs.

Anyways...........

I wonder if the bear asked:

"Do your whiskers itch?"

if that would prop your joke up a bit?

cheers,
L
p.s. Apologies again to William

[lizzytysh]

Another option, RP, is to have the rabbit answer "Yes" ~ which, it seems, may have been the original form of the yoke.

Yes, the rabbit lamented, it does.
Yes, the rabbit grumbled, it does.

Either one.

From commiserator to toilet paper in one wipe.
Or swipe.
Or one, fell swipe.
Or one, quick wipe.

William ~ I hope you return soon, to at least comment on my redundancy observation. Your thread seems to be going down the uhm...



~ Lizzy

[Alan Alda]

William wrote:

"while clenching the whip so tight in his hand.

liz wrote:

For me, with both "clenching" and "tightly" in the same line referring to the same action, one or the other is redundant.

There is a huge difference between 'tight' and "tightly" in William's line.

His latest version (above) has a gritted teeth sort of read to it. Short, single-syllable (cept for one, the verb) words, with hard consonant sounds echoing the intended message. I don't think he should change a word.

Laurie

[lizzytysh]

It definitely reenforces the tension of it all... yet, as someone said the Ringmaster is the one in control, so I'm not so sure that all that tension is required, at least not enough to make the point in that particular way. It places the Ringmaster too much in a space of 'fear' when he's the one who has 'succeeded' in making them cower, stumble, and lose their natural voice.

He's clearly the one dominating, the act of domination itself could be enough to make him clench the whip tightly; yet, even with the "tight" being used to make that point, it still feels overdone to me, with both focused on how he's just holding the whip. The domination, the control, the desire to dominate and control, comes from a deeper place than the whip or how he's holding it. The whip is just a tool and is alongside the voice, the glare, possibly the depriving of food [not sure on that], etc. The domination process appears to have happened a long time ago; so, unless the Ringmaster is new in the ring [which he shouldn't be if he's the Ringmaster], physical positioning that connotes fear shouldn't still be there... unless there's an elephant about to rampage or a tiger's about to lunge; but I don't get that impression at all. At this point, the animals are in a state of total disspiritedness.

If he was gritting his teeth or something [somehow putting that into words], that might make the same point, without the seeming redundancy.

With "tight" vs. "tightly" [my error on the latter], if the whip was wound around his hand [and tightly], then it could be considered "tight," but then it would be "around" not "in" ~ otherwise, it seems to revert to even "tight" and "clenching" being too close in meaning. As it stands, "tightly" would be grammatically correct, which someone here is a stickler about .

If the whip's handle's construction was tight, which it is/they are, then "tight" would fit; but, then, referring to it in that way wouldn't make enough sense to justify it. It wouldn't serve enough of a purpose to be there. It is definitely 'punchier,' though.

That's my take on it.

When you return, William, I truly don't care whether you revise that portion or leave it intact; I would still be interested in your considered comments on my thoughts and reasoning behind my suggestions, though. I like your poem very much for its essence and meaning, which communicated from the beginning; and still come through no matter what the changes.


~ Lizzy

[Alan Alda]

lyz~ I know what "redundant" means. I don't have time for long-winded explanations...assuming that is what your latest post is........

[lizzytysh]

Fortunately, my latest post wasn't to you, Laurie; rather to William, taking into account what each of us had commented. I figure most every native English speaker reading in this section knows what redundant means, including William; but that's not the point of my explanation to him, anyway. He may not agree, but I know my thoughts won't be lost on him. That's what matters to me.


~ Lizzy

[~greg]

The Ringmaster

The ringmaster's such a charming fellow,
in his shining hat and coat of yellow.
And he calls the tune, he conducts the band
while holding the whip lightly in his hand.
The animals jump, the animals dance,
controlled by his smile, the steel in his glance,
elephants stumble, the tigers don't roar,
for none is the creature he was before.
~~~~

{then, later}

Thank you all - my current draft of line four is:
"while clenching the whip so tight in his hand."

I believe that would be a mistake.

As has been pointed out,
"...clenching ... tight..." implies fear.
Whereas this particular ringmaster
has no cause to fear these particular animals.
"He calls the tune, he conducts the band".
So he ought to hold the whip lightly in his hand.
Just like a conductor holds a baton.

The way I read the poem, the subject isn't
the ringmaster anyway. And the reason that
he has nothing to fear has nothing to do with him.
He is not a comic book hero in a comic book poem
about the circus.

This ringmaster is a straw-man. A parry.
A soft subject for those who aren't
ready to see what the real subject is.

Because the real subject is the broken spirit of the animals.
And the animals are us.

None of us is who we once were.
We are all broken by age, if by nothing else.

So you can think of the ringmaster as time.
Or whatever your personal excuse is
to not "not go gentle into that good night".

But it isn't necessary. Because the ringmaster
isn't the subject. The subject is the broken spirits
of the animals. The ringmaster is simply whatever
makes that apparent.

~~~

For the same reason,
to change:
---- "controlled by his smile, the steel in his glance"
to:
----"controlled by his smile or the steel in his glance"
would be a mistake, because it would reduce the inner
harmony of the poem, which is all about emphasizing
the dispiritedness of the animals.

Putting the word "or" between "smile" and "steel(y)...glance"
sets the two up on equal footing as essentially randomly
chosen examples of the sorts of gestures that ringmasters
generally find useful in controlling animals. In other words,
the construct would be a "synecdoche" - the use of parts
to designate a whole.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche )

In a synecdoche, the parts are usually typical or outstanding
characteristics of the whole. But they neither define nor limit
its range. They simply point to the whole, by reason of
being parts of it.

And in this case the synecdoche "his smile or the steel in his glance"
would leave us too much leeway to imagine that,
once the spot light of the poem has left the tent,
the ringmaster may have occasion to use other
gestures from that set, such as fear and trembling
or panic. Which would be wrong because it would
reduce the inner harmony of the poem.

The original line

controlled by his smile, the steel in his glance

on the other hand happens to be a very special type of
construct called a "merism".
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merism )

Merisms don't often occur in natural speech.
They usually only occur in poetry because they
are an extremely condensed way to define a set.
Many of the most common examples used to explain
the idea happen to define very large sets,
which would be difficult to designate in any other way.
(eg "heaven and earth", "lock. stock, and barrel", "soup to nuts")
But these are figurative uses, whereas the basic idea of a merism
is to limit the designated range, not expand it.
A merism is more of a definition of a whole, than a pointer to it.
It specifies the full range we are permitted to imagine.

In this case the full range of gestures needed by this particular
ringmaster to control these particular animals is limited by the merism
to the set of gestures which are, in some sense, like a "smile"
and a "steely glance" - these two being the extreme limits of the range.
The implication being that takes only very subtle gestures to keep
these particular animals in line. In other words the merism
is another inner-harmony emphasizing the animal's broken spirits.

That "controlled by his smile, the steel in his glance"
was intended to be a merism is emphasized by
the presence of another one:

elephants stumble, the tigers don't roar

In this case if the line were changed to, say,
--- "the elephants stumble and the tigers don't roar"
it wouldn't be a synecdoche.
But what It would be is simply a consequence of the line
preceding it:
--- "controlled by his smile, the steel in his glance,".
We'd be free to imagine that the elephants stumble
and the tigers fall silent only when the ringmaster
happens to be looking at them.

The merism "elephants stumble, the tigers don't roar",
on the other hand, limits the full range of their possible
behaviors. Which excludes even, for example, eating,
- they being all that dispirited! And, in this state, naturally,
the ringmaster easily controls them with just a smile or a glance.
But the smile and steely glance aren't made out to be
the cause of their dispiritedness.

~~

Of course I went too far in saying that we are the dispirited animals.
The poem doesn't support it, literally.
I just think it'd be a pity if it wasn't implicit in it.

~~

I believe the poem, as originally posted, was essentially perfect.

Of course any poem can be made better.
But I don't see any immediately obvious way to improve this one.
(If it's read the way I've been reading it, that is.)

And my advise to the author, if he isn't sure, is to put it away
for a month or two, or a year or two, and then get back to it.

In games like chess there is "zugzwang" - the obligation to move.
But in poetry there is no zugzwang.

And there comes a point when alterations are not improvements.
They are meanderings. (In chess, a "draw".)

Generally all exercise, physical and intellectual, must be followed by rest.
And for the same reason.

(more to come...

[lizzytysh]

Hi Greg ~

I've just read your posting and reread William's original posting of his poem. It reads well and I agree that the dichotomy of the dynamics is already there as it ought to be. The jauntiness of the cavalier controller in the first four lines... contrasted by the last four as, line by line, they reveal with increasing seriousness the tragedy of what has become of these beautiful creatures.

Thanks for the lessons, too. You've made some very good points with them.


~ Lizzy