In Review: Interpersonal Stuff, by daka on Tue Apr 28, 2015

[Johnny Goldsmith]

Deleted
Joined Mar 26, 2015

[Jean Fournell]

Johnny, please forgive my pedantry, but in an approach based on objectivity, mightn't it be of interest to mention the fact that the whole "Stuff" is written without any punctuation, including the signature (name place time) — except for the last verse of the second stanza?

That verse is marked as a question, although this is perfectly obvious, and it is marked as a "quotation", which is much less obvious. (The only other feature anything near to punctuation is the underlining of the title.) Mightn't this be of significance?

Elsewhere, the "And", added to what otherwise would be the age-old question "who am I?", might go unheeded, or it might be discarded as just a whim of the author; but here, on a Leonard Cohen forum, mightn't it be of interest to give the reference?

Thus opening, maybe in some last half-sentence, a loop-hole for the reader to slip through towards realms of interpretation beyond the mere "mad macho" type?


Well, these thoughts are but dust in my old mind's fudge which is tapping its foot out of tune...

[Sideways]

In Review: Interpersonal Stuff, by daka on Tue Apr 28, 2015
by Johnny Goldsmith, May 2, 2015

Preface:
I recognize that this poem appeals to the metaphysical element of our psyche.
ie: “when you eventually ask, who am I” However, I read this piece from an entirely
different perspective. This review will not comment on the author’s obvious abilities.
Instead only the interpretation of the main characters motives will be discussed.
Thanks for your attentive interest …

Interpersonal Stuff
I am having some trouble with the title. Interpersonal refers to a discussion between
at least two people. The stuff presented here is from only one viewpoint.
The word ‘interpersonal’ rings with the context of being impersonal: as in a business
or management syntax. This poem does not come from the heart. ‘Stuff’ refers to
things that take up space, ‘a throw off’ but this poem is far from insignificant.
Classifying a difficult relationship this way reflects on how serious the protagonist
regards the feelings of his adversary.

Please believe me
I am not the man you see
With all his flaws
Look beyond
The frozen rainbow
In your solid sky

The protagonist has covered a lot of ground with a few words and set up
the condition of a conflict that he wants to avoid. Good imagery.

Beyond your ire
Beyond the little wooden figure
For your fire

“ire” is not a common word. It throws off the reader. (ire and f-ire, ha ha)
Because of the easy admission to flaws and because of the reference to the troubles as
a little figure, the protagonist in this story is trying to defect and diminish the real issues.
These issues may be of gigantic proportions to the adversary. Here are the elements
of a classic, abusive relationship. (I have flaws so it is not my fault)
No consideration. Wood is stiff. The rainbow is frozen. Not a fun guy, here!

You may see me with your mind
One day
When clouds no longer blind
Your wisdom eye

Here, the protagonist is unintentionally revealing his real thoughts.
We are entering into the area of superior and possessive viewpoints.
“One day she will smarten up and see me (as wonderful) as I see myself.”
“Something will happen, that will prove I was right all along
and you will come back to my side after your stupid ideas fail.”

These put-downs and sarcasms won’t win this argument.
I think she already knows ‘who the man is that she sees.’
Inversely, it is the protagonist who thinks he is something, that he is not.
When he says, “I am not the man you see,” it is this superior, outward manner.
He probably thinks he is a caring and corrective mentor.


When you can look behind
Our shimmering masks
When you eventually
Ask yourself
"And who am I?"

(The ‘I’ could be the protagonist but most likely is the adversary)

That day,
In your place IN YOUR PLACE!!
You will find
Only empty space

After some soul searching, the adversary is supposed to realize that she is the one
who has made the poor judgements. The fault of her guilt will be so great that there
will be only empty space. She is nothing. She has reached the end. She no longer
has the strength to find any alternatives. Who is she to question his solid direction.
Fortunately, she never asks herself this question. It is only an imaginary, ‘When.’

In the mind of the protagonist, this scenario should have happened a long time ago.
Psychologically, he wants to switch the blame. She is the one who has to change.

The shimmering masks, in this study are quite convoluted.
The mask of the protagonist is his view of himself. The mask under his abusiveness.
He never knows his true self because of his everyday, acceptable mask of denial.
When the protagonist asks the girl to look beyond our masks he only wants her to forgive
the frozen sky. (their ugly relationship) As for the girl, we never hear from her except
thru the eyes of her master. To him, her mask is the rejection of his kind and concerned
advances. She needs to look under her skin for unquestionable understanding.


Then you will know
With certainty
That the me that you see
Is also illusory

Because of that glorious day when the adversary finally asks ‘and who am I’
she will ‘certainly know that the me you see is also illusory.’ How comforting!
I guess it could happen in the most dependent of relationships where one side has all
the power but, I don’t see any creditable reason for this certain change to take place.
(other than by guilt, fear, dominance, dependence, ...)
She has seen thru him long ago and doesn’t like what she saw.

The process does not appear to be reciprocal. It is not a ‘universal you.’
If the protagonist examined himself in the intended ethereal sense, he too
would find emptiness. What he finds is contentment and peace.

In the end, the Adversary rightly sees that she has not been true to herself and
the Adversary rightly sees the best qualities of the protagonist.
Everything is solved to the satisfaction of one person, nothing inter-personal.

And then there will be peace
Between you and me

In Summary: I find that this is a psychotic poem from a rational point of view.
I propose that the entire poem is a mask. It originates from a privileged condition
where we all have the time to put up false pretences. I have disregarded all mystic
references to an inner sanctity. The hidden meaning is revealed thru objectivity.
3 Stars! There is a lot of emotion.
Hope you can find the good and the bad in this review.
I had a lot of fun in trying to present a credible alternative. Nothing interpersonal.
ALLTHEBEST
Johnny Goldsmith

Ok. I'm drunk. Is there any chance that your absurd drivel could be even a little better viewed through 2 bottles of red. No, it's still one of the worst trolls I have ever seen. "In Review"! You ridiculous monkey I have a major ironing competition tomorrow and I will never be fit. And you will never write

[Cate]

ahhh, there she is, and I see someplace else - there she goes.

Dear Sue your review of this review was concise and to the point - 3 stars for working in monkeys, wine and trolls.

~~
came back to add my own thoughts about the initial review (May 7)

It made me feel uncomfortable - I feel like the writer probably took his time and thought his review out carefully but his singular interpretation makes me feel uneasy. He states, "This poem does not come from the heart." - such a definitive statement seems presumptuous. The definitiveness (is that a word?) continues throughout the review as if the reviewer is stating a fact rather then an impression, there are no 'it would seem' or 'it arrears' and considering the nature of the interpretation I think that it would makes sense to tread a little carefully.
I also am confused why the reviewer does not post his reviews in the same thread as the poem or at least post a link so that the poet is invited to check it out and comment themselves (if they wish)