This is a translation of a poem written in danish. As I´m not that great with English I will be glad if anyone could give me a hint if anything is wrong.
The Creation
With a rose in your butt
in the light of the moon
and my dick in your mouth
I will come to you soon
And the nice little girl
will be boiled in your blood
as you whisper: oh sailor
I'm so terribly hot
And you wriggle and put
my tongue in its place
and I'm moaning and growling
the deepest bass
We are one like a priest
who is one with his God
and I'm down on my knees
and I worship a lot
I'll create with my tongue
a big-bang of moist
and I'm happy to say
that the sail has been hoist
And you're screamin: release me
go on and go on
as you join in the night
the spirit, the son
And we're pushed through the stars
and we melt in the light
with the wonderful eye
of the Holy in sight
In my cry, in your trembling
it is G.O.D who proclaim
that the world was created
in the Eros, the Name
Creation
-
peter danielsen
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 3:45 pm
Hi Peter,
Well, it was more than I'd anticipated
, but I wouldn't have come up and knocked you off the stage. The final verses frame it very differently [honouring the creation process itself] than what it appears in the beginning. I have some ideas on a couple other, possible words, yet can't be sure, not knowing the original. I'll leave it to the poets to offer those specific suggestions.
~Lizzytysh
Well, it was more than I'd anticipated
, but I wouldn't have come up and knocked you off the stage. The final verses frame it very differently [honouring the creation process itself] than what it appears in the beginning. I have some ideas on a couple other, possible words, yet can't be sure, not knowing the original. I'll leave it to the poets to offer those specific suggestions.~Lizzytysh
I respectfully disagree. I don't think it is disgusting at all. May not be suitable for minors but can certainly be appreciated by adults. In fact it is very much on the lines of LC's poem 'Celebration' posted on the old board a while ago. We need things to shock us from our complacency. Why is it disgusting if it talks about something real ? Are we ashamed of articulating the process of physical love and the creation of new life in direct terms?
Let me add that this poem doesnt hide under euphemism like LCs 'Light as a Breeze' does.
Let me add that this poem doesnt hide under euphemism like LCs 'Light as a Breeze' does.
Hi Linda,
I don't hesitate to admit that my initial reaction as I started to read was, "Whoa! What's going on here.....Peter
!" That's where the feminists sprung to action. However, as I read, it all turned around and became a beautiful and valid expression of lovemaking, union, and the connections with each other and on higher levels that can result.
Had this simply continued on with all the details of sexual exchange, without corraling it with a true and legitimate purpose....and was simply prurient/violent-toward-women rambling for shock value, I would agree with you. I'm making a very real distinction when I say that, and that was the purpose of my contrasting the ending of the poem with its beginning. This doesn't denigrate women, nor the sexual exchange. It does go rather explicitly, however, it also makes clear the preciousness of the melding. It also is written by a mature adult, and intended for and being shared with other adults. This comes across to me as a "Wait.....hear me out!" or "Wait! Hear me out....." poem, which the militant feminists definitely did not do.
For me, the first 3 verses set the stage, the 4th & 5th start making the transition, and the final three make it holy. Someone I know has written a poem, which she does as a beautiful, spoken piece to a gentle drum beat, entitled, "Sacramental Sex" ["is the only kind that interests me...."]. Once looked at, as a whole, Peter's poem for me comes in that category. There may be some less blatant, more genteel words available for body parts, etc. that would make it more comfortable for some to read.
I know what you're saying, Linda; however, unlike some/a lot of material I've read and heard, I think he handles certain aspects of the first 5 verses with gentility and subtlety....look at every other line in the first two verses, lines 2 & 4, and then 1 & 3 ~ if you're still here, that is. Then 4 & 5 of the 3rd [the lines that drew me to the poem, to begin with]; all of the 4th; and then 3 & 4 of the 5th. After that, he captures the ecstasy, the holy, the Eros.
I'm sincere when I say all this, Linda. I'm not doing it to patronize Peter....or to try to get you to consider something that lacks value.
~Lizzytysh
I don't hesitate to admit that my initial reaction as I started to read was, "Whoa! What's going on here.....Peter
!" That's where the feminists sprung to action. However, as I read, it all turned around and became a beautiful and valid expression of lovemaking, union, and the connections with each other and on higher levels that can result. Had this simply continued on with all the details of sexual exchange, without corraling it with a true and legitimate purpose....and was simply prurient/violent-toward-women rambling for shock value, I would agree with you. I'm making a very real distinction when I say that, and that was the purpose of my contrasting the ending of the poem with its beginning. This doesn't denigrate women, nor the sexual exchange. It does go rather explicitly, however, it also makes clear the preciousness of the melding. It also is written by a mature adult, and intended for and being shared with other adults. This comes across to me as a "Wait.....hear me out!" or "Wait! Hear me out....." poem, which the militant feminists definitely did not do.
For me, the first 3 verses set the stage, the 4th & 5th start making the transition, and the final three make it holy. Someone I know has written a poem, which she does as a beautiful, spoken piece to a gentle drum beat, entitled, "Sacramental Sex" ["is the only kind that interests me...."]. Once looked at, as a whole, Peter's poem for me comes in that category. There may be some less blatant, more genteel words available for body parts, etc. that would make it more comfortable for some to read.
I know what you're saying, Linda; however, unlike some/a lot of material I've read and heard, I think he handles certain aspects of the first 5 verses with gentility and subtlety....look at every other line in the first two verses, lines 2 & 4, and then 1 & 3 ~ if you're still here, that is. Then 4 & 5 of the 3rd [the lines that drew me to the poem, to begin with]; all of the 4th; and then 3 & 4 of the 5th. After that, he captures the ecstasy, the holy, the Eros.
I'm sincere when I say all this, Linda. I'm not doing it to patronize Peter....or to try to get you to consider something that lacks value.
~Lizzytysh
Last edited by lizzytysh on Thu Sep 19, 2002 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
George.Wright
- Posts: 1874
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 3:37 pm
- Location: Bangor, N.Ireland
Pete's Poem
Brave of you to post it, Pete...............we all are adults. A nice theme on the fact of life and the creation...........you have inspired me.
Georges
Georges
I am a right bad ass, dankish prince and I love my Violet to bits.
The count as I'm seeing it:
32 lines total ~
2 sexually explicit
6 sexually implicit and/or borderline explicit
8 [considered definitely or possibly offensive/objectionable]
+
24 benign
________
32
Lines 1 & 3 clearly intended to grab the reader's/listener's attention. They did mine and not pleasantly. Included use of one of my least favorite words, yet one which seems to be commonly and casually used among men, including Leonard [which doesn't happen to make it the least bit more appealing to me].
Numbers = 8:24
Do the power of the words/images with the 8 outweigh those of the 24, enough to determine the nature of the entire poem?
If I wrote poetry, would I write one such as this? Not on your life. Am I able to read it through to the end and suspend judgment long enough to see where the writer was going with it and appreciate where he ended up? Yes.
Peter, you've written and placed a controversial poem here. Reminds me of some art gallery exhibition debates.
~Lizzytysh
32 lines total ~
2 sexually explicit
6 sexually implicit and/or borderline explicit
8 [considered definitely or possibly offensive/objectionable]
+
24 benign
________
32
Lines 1 & 3 clearly intended to grab the reader's/listener's attention. They did mine and not pleasantly. Included use of one of my least favorite words, yet one which seems to be commonly and casually used among men, including Leonard [which doesn't happen to make it the least bit more appealing to me].
Numbers = 8:24
Do the power of the words/images with the 8 outweigh those of the 24, enough to determine the nature of the entire poem?
If I wrote poetry, would I write one such as this? Not on your life. Am I able to read it through to the end and suspend judgment long enough to see where the writer was going with it and appreciate where he ended up? Yes.
Peter, you've written and placed a controversial poem here. Reminds me of some art gallery exhibition debates.
~Lizzytysh
I'm trying to be reasonable, rational, and fair with this poem with its "inflammatory" language and images within.
So, I showed it to my friend, Ron, here at work.....who's very open, travels to Europe frequently, and whose opinions I typically respect.
After he read it, his first words were, "Well, that's erotic." We started talking about it and he said had he come upon it on its own, he "would've stopped right there [pointing to end of 3rd verse]." However, he said, he would've quit reading at that point were it not for me being the one to show it to him. This, of course, relates to my being willing to read the whole thing, based on being familiar with other things that Peter has written and placed on here. I was self-forced to consider that, totally on my own, I would, likely as not, have stopped at that point myself. Trusting in the [at least otherwise] goodwill of Peter, I felt it worth to continue....and was glad I did.
I pointed out the "positive" lines in the first 3 verses and he agreed. Neither of us can make good sense of the 2nd verse, though I do have some ideas. This led us to talking about the problems with translations, that our rhyming is going to differ from that of another language; the choice of words to "fit" may not be fully understood in all their connotations and emotional power.
He said the 3 verses did not draw him in to want to continue, though they did make him react ["as art is supposed to do"]. However, he was put off by them, feeling they were profane and offensive, being hit up-front with the particular words and imagery. The image in the first line was confusing for both of us. He allowed for its quite possibly having less of a crude impact in its original language. He loved the 4th verse and the final 3, and felt that they accomplished the higher, intended purpose of the poem. However, he still felt the others needed toning down.
So, there's some more feedback for you, Peter. Perhaps some additional work on the subject verses would make it more palatable, overall.
Linda, I would respond to your comment regarding, "Physical love is right. I will opt for the real love, and creation from that," except for not wanting to digress into a discussion of sexuality and its place in relationships and love. The only thing I will say is that they go together [ideally, both within the same relationship] and physical love is real, as well. However, I do know how you feel about this, and I'm not trying to tell you to feel differently. I know it must be confusing to know how strongly I feel regarding Eminem, and yet here I go, seemingly trying to justify this. Yet, there are many differences between the two [this poem ~ and the writings of E.]
~Lizzytysh
So, I showed it to my friend, Ron, here at work.....who's very open, travels to Europe frequently, and whose opinions I typically respect.
After he read it, his first words were, "Well, that's erotic." We started talking about it and he said had he come upon it on its own, he "would've stopped right there [pointing to end of 3rd verse]." However, he said, he would've quit reading at that point were it not for me being the one to show it to him. This, of course, relates to my being willing to read the whole thing, based on being familiar with other things that Peter has written and placed on here. I was self-forced to consider that, totally on my own, I would, likely as not, have stopped at that point myself. Trusting in the [at least otherwise] goodwill of Peter, I felt it worth to continue....and was glad I did.
I pointed out the "positive" lines in the first 3 verses and he agreed. Neither of us can make good sense of the 2nd verse, though I do have some ideas. This led us to talking about the problems with translations, that our rhyming is going to differ from that of another language; the choice of words to "fit" may not be fully understood in all their connotations and emotional power.
He said the 3 verses did not draw him in to want to continue, though they did make him react ["as art is supposed to do"]. However, he was put off by them, feeling they were profane and offensive, being hit up-front with the particular words and imagery. The image in the first line was confusing for both of us. He allowed for its quite possibly having less of a crude impact in its original language. He loved the 4th verse and the final 3, and felt that they accomplished the higher, intended purpose of the poem. However, he still felt the others needed toning down.
So, there's some more feedback for you, Peter. Perhaps some additional work on the subject verses would make it more palatable, overall.
Linda, I would respond to your comment regarding, "Physical love is right. I will opt for the real love, and creation from that," except for not wanting to digress into a discussion of sexuality and its place in relationships and love. The only thing I will say is that they go together [ideally, both within the same relationship] and physical love is real, as well. However, I do know how you feel about this, and I'm not trying to tell you to feel differently. I know it must be confusing to know how strongly I feel regarding Eminem, and yet here I go, seemingly trying to justify this. Yet, there are many differences between the two [this poem ~ and the writings of E.]
~Lizzytysh
Lizzytysh..you have a good point re' art gallery exhibit debates. I wonder if some of the board members have seen ancient Indian sculpture (e.g.Temple of Khajuraho: 1000-2000 years old - a temple, no less) ? Pretty graphic really pertaining to various sexual acts. One that comes to mind with 3 females and 1 male in Various Positions. Having seen them from a distance of a few feet, I have no doubts that the reactions of some of the more puritanical LC fans would be "lewd, disgusting, salacious (actually I don't even know what that word means) and pornographic". It's a pity man is so quick to follow dogma and blind to reason and logic .
Last edited by Kush on Wed Sep 25, 2002 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hi Kush,
The Kama Sutra is another classic. In that we are speaking of the continuation of our species, as well as the potentially highest, physical acts of love [depending on how they are used/applied], the inability to honour by speaking of them openly and honestly in written form, and to consider such as vile, de facto rather relegates them to the status of "necessary evil."
The one point that I wanted to make with you was that some of the terms/phrases in Peter's first 3 verses were as much euphemism as not, or as Leonard's lyrics, when you really consider them individually. The huge distinction that I'm making is that these verses are not used to advocate, suggest, actively encourage, or seemingly brag about the denigration of or violence toward women, or others, sexually or otherwise, or to do the same with regard to other heinous and/or anti-social acts, that are unhealthy toward the young or old, either one. Had he merely continued in the same vein as he'd started, I'd have felt it salacious, porn, etc. However, his purpose became clear with it, and ended on a very high, spiritual plane. He studies Eros as well as theology. The world knows that, despite our schizophrenic approach with advertising, the U.S. is for the most part very uptight regarding sexuality, and we have not integrated it in healthy fashion with the other parts of our selves [i.e. being able to speak about it in an open, healthy way, or giving it creedence in the realm of art] in the majority of our lives. Leonard's use of euphemisms and symbolic references remains beautiful to me and still honours what he also recognizes as the beauty of sexual expression. Different means to the same end.
His use of some terms has a crude impact because at least one term is so often used in a dismissive, as well as a derogatory way, as some hurl challenges or refer to themselves or others in a dismissive, euphemistic fashion. Quite often it's considered "bar talk." I would spell all this out, rather than being as specifically referential as I can, except that this is a public forum....and my intent is not to offend.
The only thing I might add is that nothing directly described would result in creation. That aspect is only implied via the references to union. Either selecting a new title for the reader, or the reader giving the benefit of the doubt to the ultimate intent of the poem, would work to resolve that.
~Lizzytysh
The Kama Sutra is another classic. In that we are speaking of the continuation of our species, as well as the potentially highest, physical acts of love [depending on how they are used/applied], the inability to honour by speaking of them openly and honestly in written form, and to consider such as vile, de facto rather relegates them to the status of "necessary evil."
The one point that I wanted to make with you was that some of the terms/phrases in Peter's first 3 verses were as much euphemism as not, or as Leonard's lyrics, when you really consider them individually. The huge distinction that I'm making is that these verses are not used to advocate, suggest, actively encourage, or seemingly brag about the denigration of or violence toward women, or others, sexually or otherwise, or to do the same with regard to other heinous and/or anti-social acts, that are unhealthy toward the young or old, either one. Had he merely continued in the same vein as he'd started, I'd have felt it salacious, porn, etc. However, his purpose became clear with it, and ended on a very high, spiritual plane. He studies Eros as well as theology. The world knows that, despite our schizophrenic approach with advertising, the U.S. is for the most part very uptight regarding sexuality, and we have not integrated it in healthy fashion with the other parts of our selves [i.e. being able to speak about it in an open, healthy way, or giving it creedence in the realm of art] in the majority of our lives. Leonard's use of euphemisms and symbolic references remains beautiful to me and still honours what he also recognizes as the beauty of sexual expression. Different means to the same end.
His use of some terms has a crude impact because at least one term is so often used in a dismissive, as well as a derogatory way, as some hurl challenges or refer to themselves or others in a dismissive, euphemistic fashion. Quite often it's considered "bar talk." I would spell all this out, rather than being as specifically referential as I can, except that this is a public forum....and my intent is not to offend.
The only thing I might add is that nothing directly described would result in creation. That aspect is only implied via the references to union. Either selecting a new title for the reader, or the reader giving the benefit of the doubt to the ultimate intent of the poem, would work to resolve that.
~Lizzytysh
Last edited by lizzytysh on Wed Sep 25, 2002 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Is it a curious quirk of the human psyche, do you think, or is it a predominantly 'western' thing, this inference that sex is in some way dirty? Language fascinates me, and in the european languages I am familiar with it is always words to do with sex that are used as swear words. (I have no experience of afro/asian languages or cultures to make a comparison.) It has always struck me as bizarre that the f... word in English, which purports to describe the ulitmate loving union between two people, should be used as a swear word. Georges Brassens actually wrote a very funny song, complaining that he would love to write an ode to the beauty of the female body, but all the available words were 'dirty'. There was a lot of fuss when 'Beautiful Losers' first came out as to whether it was pornographic or not. Fortunately for us, it got classed as art, so we are still able to read it today. I wonder if some of the people who have been commenting above have read it, and if so what they made of it.
Linda
1972: Leeds, 2008: Manchester, Lyon, London O2, 2009: Wet Weybridge, 2012: Hop Farm/Wembley Arena
1972: Leeds, 2008: Manchester, Lyon, London O2, 2009: Wet Weybridge, 2012: Hop Farm/Wembley Arena
Hi Linmag,
I'm not sure about the other cultures either. The afro aspect here is subject to the same issues. If you mean African by afro, which I'm guessing you do, I have no idea either. It may, in fact, be a "western" issue rather than just U.S. I've also always found it curious. I feel it represents a sense of embarrassment and shame that is connected with it. We're often able to giggle, laugh, and titter [all suggesting embarrassment] regarding discussion of it. We're able to condemn it [suggesting judgmentalism]. People are often extremely uncomfortable using the technically correct words, again suggesting embarrassment and shame. I feel it all represents that overall lack of integration. For Christians, maybe it has to do with a reflection back to the original "guilt" in the Garden of Eden, which maybe continues to prod that original, deep discomfort with it. I know some feel to speak of it denigrates its importance. The terms that are used, however, do become [in my mind] a determinant of whether it's denigration or not.
I read the Beautiful Losers years ago. I was more subject to all of the above at that time, and I can't honestly recall my reaction. However, I do remember being in a group session once 30+ years ago, where I got frustrated with people dancing around the most minimal of graphic words that it was obvious they wanted to use in their relating their feelings. It was a case of nothing going anywhere and no one being real about anything. Out of frustration with my feelings of "wasted time" and lack of honesty in the group, I used "f..." in a sentence and asked something to the effect of, "So, how does that affect you?" We did end up going a more productive direction after that. Of course, in that period of my life, it was a rather standard part of my daily vocabulary.....you know, that discovery that you're a real person apart from the control and influence of your parents, and maximizing that knowledge in a number of ways. Not always to your own benefit, I might add.
Back to Beautiful Losers, I feel that Leonard is very much in touch with the importance of sexuality in our lives and seeks the integration and respect that it's due. What his perspective was with his wordings in Beautiful Losers was, I can only guess at.....however, my guess would be that he was trying to open to the discussion and perhaps trying to shock people [as Kush suggests] out of their complacency.
~Lizzytysh
P.S. I've edited [by adding to] my post immediately above yours, in answer to Kush.
I'm not sure about the other cultures either. The afro aspect here is subject to the same issues. If you mean African by afro, which I'm guessing you do, I have no idea either. It may, in fact, be a "western" issue rather than just U.S. I've also always found it curious. I feel it represents a sense of embarrassment and shame that is connected with it. We're often able to giggle, laugh, and titter [all suggesting embarrassment] regarding discussion of it. We're able to condemn it [suggesting judgmentalism]. People are often extremely uncomfortable using the technically correct words, again suggesting embarrassment and shame. I feel it all represents that overall lack of integration. For Christians, maybe it has to do with a reflection back to the original "guilt" in the Garden of Eden, which maybe continues to prod that original, deep discomfort with it. I know some feel to speak of it denigrates its importance. The terms that are used, however, do become [in my mind] a determinant of whether it's denigration or not.
I read the Beautiful Losers years ago. I was more subject to all of the above at that time, and I can't honestly recall my reaction. However, I do remember being in a group session once 30+ years ago, where I got frustrated with people dancing around the most minimal of graphic words that it was obvious they wanted to use in their relating their feelings. It was a case of nothing going anywhere and no one being real about anything. Out of frustration with my feelings of "wasted time" and lack of honesty in the group, I used "f..." in a sentence and asked something to the effect of, "So, how does that affect you?" We did end up going a more productive direction after that. Of course, in that period of my life, it was a rather standard part of my daily vocabulary.....you know, that discovery that you're a real person apart from the control and influence of your parents, and maximizing that knowledge in a number of ways. Not always to your own benefit, I might add.
Back to Beautiful Losers, I feel that Leonard is very much in touch with the importance of sexuality in our lives and seeks the integration and respect that it's due. What his perspective was with his wordings in Beautiful Losers was, I can only guess at.....however, my guess would be that he was trying to open to the discussion and perhaps trying to shock people [as Kush suggests] out of their complacency.
~Lizzytysh
P.S. I've edited [by adding to] my post immediately above yours, in answer to Kush.