leonardcohenforum.com

Infernus Rex

O, why did I trust to the fire for light
And give up my position to the stake
That fiercely seeks to sate its appetite
On ashes of this heart and flesh opaque?

In the throes of Love I then understood,
Burning deep in the yawning gulf of Hate,
To taste the ripe fruits of its womanhood
Was to court self-destruction as its mate:

Avarice and Lust (sins and mysteries
The righteous ascetic all but ignores!)
Shudder in the flesh as indecencies
Manifest tenfold as bloodthirsty whores;

Debauched and cruel, this sovereignty became
A brothel where the senses did betray
And this licentious rule made, without shame,
A bed on which Repentance never lay;

This embrace hung, taciturn and narrow,
On the promise of beauty like lilies
In repose and slung the fatal arrow
That sunk into the heel of Achilles;

This head (a golden censer on a chain),
Malodorous and pendulous, does swing
Above the fetid carrion profane
And 'neath the spoil'd crown of this vanquish'd king.

Ave! Morituri te salutant!
Loth, I pledge these words to the gouging fire;
She who, with my heart, digs - as if in want -
The treasures out the bowels of Desire.

O, foul plot of Love, if not to assuage
The sentinels of Rapture and Ennui,
Pray fold some purpose 'round your quenchless rage
That gave Rome to the Caesar - this to me!

Welcome to the Forum, Teratogen. It is a refreshing change to read a poem here that is clearly NOT about the golf Legend Arnold Palmer. I am curious what inspired you to choose the subject of the Grand Canyon? Do you want to share?

Teratogen,

I respect your mind.

Boss

Teratogen wrote:Infernus Rex

O, why did I trust to the fire for light
And give up my position to the stake
That fiercely seeks to sate its appetite
On ashes of this heart and flesh opaque?

In the throes of Love I then understood,
Burning deep in the yawning gulf of Hate,
To taste the ripe fruits of its womanhood
Was to court self-destruction as its mate:

Avarice and Lust (sins and mysteries
The righteous ascetic all but ignores!)
Shudder in the flesh as indecencies
Manifest tenfold as bloodthirsty whores;

Debauched and cruel, this sovereignty became
A brothel where the senses did betray
And this licentious rule made, without shame,
A bed on which Repentance never lay;

This embrace hung, taciturn and narrow,
On the promise of beauty like lilies
In repose and slung the fatal arrow
That sunk into the heel of Achilles;

This head (a golden censer on a chain),
Malodorous and pendulous, does swing
Above the fetid carrion profane
And 'neath the spoil'd crown of this vanquish'd king.

Ave! Morituri te salutant!
Loth, I pledge these words to the gouging fire;
She who, with my heart, digs - as if in want -
The treasures out the bowels of Desire.

O, foul plot of Love, if not to assuage
The sentinels of Rapture and Ennui,
Pray fold some purpose 'round your quenchless rage
That gave Rome to the Caesar - this to me!

... hi T.. this seems a masterfully written work here.. I'll be reading it again.. I like very much its classicism.. what works in particular have inspired you with this?.. Well, Oedipus, I suppose.. Achilles.. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the poem's genesis and background.. I'm trying to further my classical understanding these days, as I don't possess the classical training I wish I'd had initially.. Anyway, this reads quite well.. though, one thing trips me up, could it be: "that" treasures out.. since then it would refer to "She," if that's your intention..

v. x

Oedipus was not an inspiration. Just the Latin terms. Achilles was not an inspiration. But the term "Achilles' heel" was. It just means "the promise of beauty" is a weakness.

My inspirations were actually Edgar Allan Poe, and the obvious, Charles Baudelaire.

As far as the "treasures" bit, I was very careful to read these lines as sentences with the grammar intact so that it would make sense. Read it as a sentence, excluding all the variables. The line is, "She who, with my heart, digs - as if in want - the treasures out the bowels of Desire." Exclude the variables: "She digs the treasures out the bowels of Desire." I think it makes perfect sense. "She" being "the gouging fire."

There's a lot more underlying in the text. The juxtaposition of light and dark, the usage of specific words at least twice, the description of the body tied up to a stake, the reference to a sovereign rule, etc. Basically it's about losing control of the emotions we so often believe we are in control of, and how much they can consume us, and how when we lose control it can be very dangerous to us.

Teratogen wrote:Oedipus was not an inspiration. Just the Latin terms. Achilles was not an inspiration. But the term "Achilles' heel" was. It just means "the promise of beauty" is a weakness.

My inspirations were actually Edgar Allan Poe, and the obvious, Charles Baudelaire.

As far as the "treasures" bit, I was very careful to read these lines as sentences with the grammar intact so that it would make sense. Read it as a sentence, excluding all the variables. The line is, "She who, with my heart, digs - as if in want - the treasures out the bowels of Desire." Exclude the variables: "She digs the treasures out the bowels of Desire." I think it makes perfect sense. "She" being "the gouging fire."

There's a lot more underlying in the text. The juxtaposition of light and dark, the usage of specific words at least twice, the description of the body tied up to a stake, the reference to a sovereign rule, etc. Basically it's about losing control of the emotions we so often believe we are in control of, and how much they can consume us, and how when we lose control it can be very dangerous to us.

.. so.. 'tis really to read Baudelaire then.. whom I've read so little of.. more "about" I would say.. I've read more of Poe.. yes, I know of Achilles' infamous heel.. but in any case, the text has a richness to it, which I like.. and its meaning is somewhat enshrouded feeling, which I also like.. Anyway, great -- so glad to have you posting your work here.. (even with little trolls 'n things around)..

v. x

Yes, much of Baudelaire. I may have even lifted a line or phrase, but the sentiment in its totality is Baudelaire. I love his language (not necessarily French, but rather diction) and style.

Another thing about this poem was to personify certain feelings, emotions, and states of being, and I am suggesting Love is angry out of boredom, which is why it takes no prisoners for those who abuse its intimacies.

Teratogen wrote:Yes, much of Baudelaire. I may have even lifted a line or phrase, but the sentiment in its totality is Baudelaire. I love his language (not necessarily French, but rather diction) and style.

Another thing about this poem was to personify certain feelings, emotions, and states of being, and I am suggesting Love is angry out of boredom, which is why it takes no prisoners for those who abuse its intimacies.

.. well.. if you did borrow a line, since most don't know Baudelaire as you do, you might want to in some manner reference that.. or things could get a bit sticky for you at some future point, is what I'm thinking, depending on how public you go with these poems.. oh, and the line of yours I put in bold is quite provocative.. I like the sound of it.. though I'm not entirely sure of its meaning..

.. somehow I'm put in mind of something Roman Polanski had said concerning his own films (or his life, for that matter).. he talked about how boring normal (as in emotionally healthy) love is.. and certainly, from a tragedian's standpoint, that view holds (!).. but you're talking about those who abuse love's intimacies as in some manner being targeted, due to love's boredom.. and yet, surely the love gods live for that -- I mean, as concerns such abuse diverting their own boredom (!)

.. maybe instead, Love, out of boredom.. looks to abuse us with the lure of love's intimacies..

... anyway.. it may be the word "boredom" that's rather confounding here.. which is why I thought of Polanski.. from a moral standpoint, we may be loving "well," and not be being abusive with it.. and yet.. (as Polanski suggests).. the bored love gods.. all have gone to sleep..

Violet wrote:well.. if you did borrow a line, since most don't know Baudelaire as you do, you might want to in some manner reference that.. or things could get a bit sticky for you at some future point, is what I'm thinking, depending on how public you go with these poems.. oh, and the line of yours I put in bold is quite provocative.. I like the sound of it.. though I'm not entirely sure of its meaning..

I've always been curious on this matter and no one can seem to give me a straight answer. Anyone can throw a few words together and most likely those words in that order had been said or written before. When is it considered plagiarism? What if I lifted a 5-word sentence but added 3 words before it? So it becomes an 8-word sentence, is it still considered plagiarism? Or what if a 2 words are put together, an adjective and then a noun, but it's perhaps a bit more distinct than, say, "dumb fool." Let's say it's "yawning gulf." Is that plagiarism?

Love is angry out of boredom, which is why it takes no prisoners for those who abuse its intimacies: I realize that sounds a bit vague and artistic, but I guess what I mean to say is that if Love was meant to be a tender and beautiful thing, why is it so often abused? Why is it used as the justification for so many ill-advised partnerships? I guess there's a question being posed there. Hmmm.... I am typing as I'm thinking, so I'm not articulating well. I don't even know if I've got a solid thought process right now. But there's many ideas coming out of that idea. Love can also be bored with its position in this world. People enjoy love but people rarely respect love. Imagine Love as an employee of a large corporation (that corporation being a human being), and it works alongside other emotions, sitting in a cubicle working 9 to 5. It gets bored, and with lack of motivation to outperform everyone else or get any manageable work done whatsoever it seeks to entertain itself by becoming a tyrannical sadist and torturing its employer. I dunno, it sounds like an interesting concept but I still don't think it's the best representation of what I was trying to say.

But your interpretation of Polanski's comment makes a lot of sense too!

you have almost filled the Grand Canyon with your words, the poetic equivalent of me being stuffed with three bananas.

Marisha wrote:you have almost filled the Grand Canyon with your words, the poetic equivalent of me being stuffed with three bananas.

Hi Marish.. you must have a very large esophagus.. very large.. oh, but T. -- that's not meant as a reflection on you (!).. (geesh.. it can be just so difficult being the one in the middle)..

Teratogen wrote:

Violet wrote:well.. if you did borrow a line, since most don't know Baudelaire as you do, you might want to in some manner reference that.. or things could get a bit sticky for you at some future point, is what I'm thinking, depending on how public you go with these poems.. oh, and the line of yours I put in bold is quite provocative.. I like the sound of it.. though I'm not entirely sure of its meaning..

I've always been curious on this matter and no one can seem to give me a straight answer. Anyone can throw a few words together and most likely those words in that order had been said or written before. When is it considered plagiarism? What if I lifted a 5-word sentence but added 3 words before it? So it becomes an 8-word sentence, is it still considered plagiarism? Or what if a 2 words are put together, an adjective and then a noun, but it's perhaps a bit more distinct than, say, "dumb fool." Let's say it's "yawning gulf." Is that plagiarism?

.. as per Wikipedia: "Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary,* is the 'use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.'"

.. it's pretty significant, I think, that the word "thoughts" is here, since you may not at all be using the same words as another author, and yet it's still plagiarism, due to your language closely pertaining to his/her thoughts.. I was reading Keat's epic poem, Endymion, recently, which is based on the Greek myth of that name.. and so he's using these pre-existing ideas, and yet he's responding to them with his own manner of originality.. of course, it's important to us and to him that we know what the "subject" is.. that the original subject preceded Keats, and that Keats is responding.. You, T., may be responding to Baudelaire, and that is fine.. but you may need to find a way to make sure the reader knows that that's what you're doing.. it could even be in your title.. or subtitle.. To be in conversation with another writer can be a rich experience (depending on who that other writer is).. I mean, you have a lot at your disposal in doing that.. and inviting the reader into that conversation in a self-conscious (non-plagiaristic) way, makes it all the more rich, methinks.. so.. something to consider, at any rate..

.. oh, speaking of "rich"..

.. "Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind".. To those who know Shakespeare, this is a very famous line (of Ophelia's).. and so.. if I used it in a poem, for example.. would I need to cite that?.. wouldn't it be obvious to most that that's Shakespeare??.. The funny thing about Shakespeare, especially his tragedy Hamlet, is that most of us know quotes from that play, even if we don't know that we do:

.. To thine own self be true.. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.. That it should come to this (!).. oh, and Marisha's favorite: Brevity is the soul of wit.. well either that or: Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?.. (the latter known more to Marisha than to most, although she keeps confusing pipes with bananas)..

.. anyway.. at some point, a famed writer's influence can be so integrated in a culture, there's no longer need to trace it.. although it's interesting when you do..

Teratogen wrote: Love is angry out of boredom, which is why it takes no prisoners for those who abuse its intimacies: I realize that sounds a bit vague and artistic, but I guess what I mean to say is that if Love was meant to be a tender and beautiful thing, why is it so often abused? Why is it used as the justification for so many ill-advised partnerships? I guess there's a question being posed there. Hmmm.... I am typing as I'm thinking, so I'm not articulating well. I don't even know if I've got a solid thought process right now. But there's many ideas coming out of that idea. Love can also be bored with its position in this world. People enjoy love but people rarely respect love. Imagine Love as an employee of a large corporation (that corporation being a human being), and it works alongside other emotions, sitting in a cubicle working 9 to 5. It gets bored, and with lack of motivation to outperform everyone else or get any manageable work done whatsoever it seeks to entertain itself by becoming a tyrannical sadist and torturing its employer. I dunno, it sounds like an interesting concept but I still don't think it's the best representation of what I was trying to say.

But your interpretation of Polanski's comment makes a lot of sense too!

.. well.. I think it’s still the word "boredom" that might be throwing me off in terms of your initial provocative line, T.. Also, in knowing something about what you’ve been through concerning Love these past months (as per other threads).. I would suggest that, as opposed to Love's boredom, it’s where Love attaches itself to long lost wounds that in some manner instigates Love's becoming the sadistic menace that won’t leave us (Love’s employer) alone.. (although it may be wishful thinking that we are, in fact, Love's employer.. I mean.. I think it may be the other way around)..

.. okay.. me-self needs to try to employ, if not Marisha’s, well, tact.. then at least her sense of brevity -- when that’s at all possible, I mean.. (some thoughts do take longer to articulate)..

.. alright, I'll end with another Shakespeare quote, just for Mr. Marisha:

.. Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't.. (then again, it might just be "bananas")..

v. x



.. *oh, I'm mildly curious as to just why wiki thinks this particular dictionary is of any particular value.. although I've had "wicked" wiki issues before.. and a "compact" dictionary??.. okay, "unabridged," but still.. could the researcher not have tried a good ol' unabridged Webster's Collegiate, for example.. or dare I say, an Oxford English??.. geez..

It seems that if you claim something called "fair use" on a copyrighted work then it's okay. Is that what you're reading too? It's hard to understand some of the technicalities.

no one can accuse Teratogen of unfair use or breach of copyright of the Grand Canyon. afaik you cant copyright a National Monumnet and Teratogen´s tribute is as good as anybody else´s imho

Geoffrey

Marisha wrote:no one can accuse Teratogen of unfair use or breach of copyright of the Grand Canyon. afaik you cant copyright a National Monumnet and Teratogen´s tribute is as good as anybody else´s imho

Geoffrey

Marisha, why do you keep signing as Geoffrey, and why isn't Geoffrey suing you for such identity theft.. (?)

.. oh, and what does "afaik" mean??.. and anyway, now you're defending T.??.. oh, or was it Harry giving him a hard time before.. who's dead, by the way.. I think.. he died right on the fairway, as I understand it.. with his little pink-silk woods covers in tow.. (the ones that match his panties.. or so I'm told).. if he'd only stuck with boxers.. I mean, it's simple things like that that can actually save lives..

..anyway.. something for all of us to ponder, it seems..

v i o l e t.. (having a contemplative day)...