leonardcohenforum.com

I make a horrid sycophant
I tend to rail, I tend to rant.
The slave was beaten out of me.
Sold into freedom, yes that's me!

I cannot say I do not pine
for strictures heavy and sublime.
It's just, He left the irons to us
where --wed to chains-- in God we rust

an edit...

I make a horrid sycophant
I tend to rail, I tend to rant.
The slave, long beaten out of me,
escaped to freedom's parody.

I must concede I reminisce
for former bindings 'round my wrists.
It's just, these bonds, since gone to dust,
bear phantom weight. In God I rust?

--Norman Ball

normanball wrote:an edit...

I make a horrid sycophant
I tend to rail, I tend to rant.
The slave, long beaten out of me,
escaped to freedom's parody.

I must concede I reminisce
for former bindings 'round my wrists.
It's just, these bonds, since gone to dust,
bear phantom weight. In God I rust?

--Norman Ball

I've seen you think on your feet, I think in a chair or bed. Mom always liked you best.

Hi Norman - I enjoyed both versions of this, although I prefer the revision.

There were 2 phrases in the originally posted one that stood out for me - sold into freedom and wed to chains.

Your second version has a nicer flow and a slightly different feel to it.
I Love the last two lines.
Phantom weight - that seems like it must be true - that even after those bonds are broken that you would still feel a shadow of them.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I participate in some poetry workshops where revisions are the norm. Poetry for me is an endlessly moving target, a rubik's cube with one blank square. Hence the constant to and fro. If you arrive it's only because you just got tired.

norm

normanball wrote: If you arrive it's only because you just got tired.

Oh, no don't say that. Some day I want to have at least one poem that I can say - 'Yes - that's exactly what I wanted to say'
Revision is hardest but most needed part of a poem - I often go back and edit, even if I was just being silly to start with. I find I need a while away from it though, so that I can be a bit more objective - it's hard to let go of a line that you like even if it doesn't belong.

I found a site that offers very good critiques and once I've get my nerve up I'm going to post there.
The thing is you have to critique other peoples work as well - of course fair is fair, plus it's a great learning tool.
That's why I was practicing on Georges - try it here where I'm comfy before making a public attempt someplace strange.

...hummm this is a pretty me focussed response -
Sorry, I'm the centre of the universe today - maybe you can have a turn tomorrow

Hi Norman ~

It's just my personal preference that you carry through with the on-topic pun in your last line with a plural and consistency with the original, and without a question mark.

This is one of the few poems I've read, or will read, today, and I like it. I have no idea how anyone keeps up with anything anymore . Some form of karma going on there, I'm sure .


~ Lizzy

lizzytysh wrote:It's just my personal preference that you carry through with the on-topic pun in your last line with a plural and consistency with the original, and without a question mark.

There. See, this is an example of what I mean about criticism-based editing being anti-art, thus anti-individual, comparable to the corruption of pandering political propagations, etc...

The question mark (?) and non-plural nature of the last line of the revision makes all the difference in the world as far as the message the line contains, doesn't it? Why change the artist's message? Why give an opinion at all about the substance of his/her message?

Much more productive, and a suggestion I think all could benefit from:

A poster posts his/her poem, followed by a clear English (assuming... of course) explanation of the message the artist is attempting to convey.

Productive critiques could then be advanced by others, without corrupting, misunderstanding, subverting, or attempting to influence the intended message of the poet-artist.

Like: "Here's my poem, here's what I'm trying to say. In your opinion, does this poem say what I'm trying to say?"

With the message available un-masked, comparable to its metaphorical representation, nearly all critiques would be light rather than darkness, even those of form and substance, because critiques of form and substance would reveal themselves for what they are.

Just a thought...

Casey

[quote="normanball"]Poetry for me is an endlessly moving target, a rubik's cube with one blank square. Hence the constant to and fro. If you arrive it's only because you just got tired.
norm[/quote]

Ah... I don't think so! Collins, Yeats, Wordsworth, Oliver, Shakespeare, Lorca....tired?????

And why not revise BEFORE posting?
Bit like tying your shoe laces half way across the tightrope.

Seriously, I don't think:
"The slave was beaten out of me.
Sold into freedom, yes that's me!"
was ever a runner - very weak on rhyme.

Casey Butler wrote: Much more productive, and a suggestion I think all could benefit from:

A poster posts his/her poem, followed by a clear English (assuming... of course) explanation of the message the artist is attempting to convey.

Productive critiques could then be advanced by others, without corrupting, misunderstanding, subverting, or attempting to influence the intended message of the poet-artist.

Like: "Here's my poem, here's what I'm trying to say. In your opinion, does this poem say what I'm trying to say?"

With the message available un-masked, comparable to its metaphorical representation, nearly all critiques would be light rather than darkness, even those of form and substance, because critiques of form and substance would reveal themselves for what they are.

Just a thought...

Casey

I think it depends on the poster - If it's important to them that a specific message gets across then this might be a good idea.
Myself I'd rather not do that, although I appreciate feedback - positive and negative
Personally, I find comments like Lizzy's can be helpful.

I'm more accustomed to a workshop environment where revisions are the norm. So I apologize if I'm muddling the traditional intent of this forum. But given your location Red, I thought it might interest you that Yeats revised his poetry continuously and systematically:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/459668

The anthologists are thus left with Yeats' last revision only --which is to say not necessarily the poem in its 'final form', if there even is such a thing. Needless to say Yeats' death brought all further revisions to a complete standstill. Mortality propagates the illusion of 'finished product'.

Like you, I have some pretty stalwart notions about poetry.

"The Poem That Wasn't There"
http://www.shitcreekreview.com/issue3/page22.htm?22

"Poetry Has Left the Building for 'Unreachable Solitudes'"
http://www.shitcreekreview.com/issue2/ball.htm

Thank you Lizzy. I think I'm going back to 'In God We Rust.'

Respectfully, I beg to differ Casey. You can't accompany your poems through the world like a protective mother, parting the way and sparing them the indignities of misprision. They must stand and fall on their own merits without attendant cliff notes. It is the perogative of the reader to 'misconstrue' and run in wholly unintended directions (at least from the poet's POV) if he or she so chooses. The sense of authorial ownership you imply is counterfeit. The poet has no copyright on meaning. Why write a poem when a recipe will do, or clear assembly instructions? Heck, just skip the poem stuff entirely as it's so prone to misconstrual.

Okay, I'm going to thoroughly deplete my boorishness allotment this morning and attach another essay. Picasso fought valiantly against the artist-as-interpreter-of-last-resort. There, I'm done.

http://www.eclectica.org/v12n3/ball.html

Casey wrote:
...Much more productive, and a suggestion I think all could benefit from:

A poster posts his/her poem, followed by a clear English (assuming... of course) explanation of the message the artist is attempting to convey.

Productive critiques could then be advanced by others, without corrupting, misunderstanding, subverting, or attempting to influence the intended message of the poet-artist.

Like: "Here's my poem, here's what I'm trying to say. In your opinion, does this poem say what I'm trying to say?"

So many levels of engagement in experiencing a poem –
- rhythm
- sounds of words, use of language
- first reactions
- discovery
– noticing the writer's clues
- re-reading and re-noticing
- appreciating, interpreting, understanding (?)

Please don't take this away from me! Give the poem a chance to communicate before you explain its intent. Critiques, comments and suggestions extend the experience; we're all free to agree or disasgree, to post or not to post.

normanball wrote:I'm more accustomed to a workshop environment where revisions are the norm.

Well, I suppose I mistook this section as a workshop environment norm. I wasn't aware that poems posted here were aimed at the audience here.

Casey

They're not! They're aimed at Bambi's mother!!!!!