PoemoftheWeek

[chmpman]

If I look at the poem with the opening two lines as is, then yes, the poem becomes a dedication; but that still doesn't take away that it's 'moving verses'.


The moving verses were composed about the martyr, in a Tower, and only highlight the, in an essence, detached thinking of those who gave the scene its 'pitiful dignity'. This is contrasted in the historically realistic view taken of the Holocaust situation.

[ktd222]

Unnamable,

you seem to have forgotten a poem about the 'horizontal'. :lol:

[ktd222]

The moving verses were composed about the martyr, in a Tower, and only highlight the, in an essence, detached thinking of those who gave the scene its 'pitiful dignity'. This is contrasted in the historically realistic view taken of the Holocaust situation.

Who composed the 'moving verses'?
Composed in the Tower before his execution
These moving verses, and being brought at that time
Painfully to the stake, submitted, declaring thus:
"I implore my God to witness that I have made no crime."

edit: do you think this could be the same verse that the martyr is declaring?

[ktd222]

It is strange. We quote the same part and get different lessons from it.
I thought that the idea was that hope did not help him, faith did not help because no kind light came, and that the last stanza confirms that lack of hope. I thought the poems title asking for light was an echo of his plea.
So I can´t see the movement you refer to - at least not in the same way as you do.

Its not suppose to be a literal light in which you witness while living on earth.

[ktd222]

That hole just keeps getting bigger - you'll soon be through to the Earth's core. Be careful your shovel doesn't melt. :D

I'm underneath the ton of bull your shoveling over me. Will someone please lend a hand?

[chmpman]

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with The Unnamable's, and I believe Isagel's, ascertation that the religious references of the last stanza show that a divine presence was nowhere to be found. (Let me know if I misrepresent your words)

I would say the martyr, but it is still a sentiment at odds with the historically realistic view of what has happened in the German wood. The time shift is a shift between historically different ideological concerns of existence and divine presence.

[The Unnamable]

Sorry for the delay – I had a student to help or should I say I had to pass on to a student some useless historical knowledge?


Where is Goethe in the poem?
Try the title – always a good place to start. Oh, and try finding out why Hecht mentions Weimar while you are looking for the title.


Yes, I think he would appreciate a person who is able to see what type of poetic elements he uses.
Of course he would – his sole purpose in writing the poem was to give his reader’s some techniques to spot. Some poets are Romantics, some Modernists and some are Imagists. Hecht was a committed member of the “Little Jack Horner” School of Poetry. What’s that on the end of your thumb? The atrocity Hecht uses is purely incidental to this far more important and valuable pastime.


Its sad to say but what I've just learned about poetry seems to be more than you know about poetry.
I am more than happy for others to make up their own minds about that. Mind you, you’ve got a good chance – you obviously know more than Hecht. He was stupid enough to think that historical facts are significant.

[ktd222]

Sorry for the delay – I had a student to help or should I say I had to pass on to a student some useless historical knowledge?


Try the title – always a good place to start. Oh, and try finding out why Hecht mentions Weimar while you are looking for the title.
[/QUOTE]
I will if you try my suggestions...as if :lol:

[ktd222]

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with The Unnamable's, and I believe Isagel's, ascertation that the religious references of the last stanza show that a divine presence was nowhere to be found. (Let me know if I misrepresent your words)

I would say the martyr, but it is still a sentiment at odds with the historically realistic view of what has happened in the German wood. The time shift is a shift between historically different ideological concerns of existence and divine presence.

Ya, I would say the martyr too. What do you see that differs between the two rituals?

[chmpman]

This has just gotten silly.

[The Unnamable]

I will if you try my suggestions...as if :lol:
That's a bit like asking Michael Schumacher if he fancies a spin in a Sinclair C5. :D

[ktd222]

That's a bit like asking Michael Schumacher if he fancies a spin in a Sinclair C5. :D

Sorry, I don't know who this Schumacher fellow is.

[ktd222]

Try the title – always a good place to start. Oh, and try finding out why Hecht mentions Weimar while you are looking for the title.

Ya, More Light More Light is the title. But where, where in the first ritual does the martyr ask for 'more light' as if the Light is present, in some degree, in this world.

[Scheherazade]

Ktd222 and The Unnamable> Please deal with your personal disagreements and differences through PMs and try to stay on topic while discussing the poems. Your recent posts, which seem to concentrate more on passing personal comments on each than on the poem at hand, not only make it hard for others to follow the discussion but also spoil what is meant to be an informative discussion for us all.

Any off topic posts are likely to be edited/deleted.

[jackyyyy]

Interesting to read the back and forthe here. I have fallen into the trap many times, trying on the one hand to deal solely with the information as presented in the 'piece' versus the piece and other background information. Background can include information on the author, historical notes and even personal biases. Seems we have at least two ways of approaching it. I believe there has to be a level playing field and some rules of engagement when approaching the task, else a lot more correcting posts occur and or people end up at loggerheads.

Either decide to deal with the piece in exclusion of outside elements or with inclusion of outside elements. And then, everyone should be on the same page the same way.

[Virgil]

Anyhow, when Hecht states 'much casual death had drained away their souls,' I don't think that the draining away of their souls is only as a result of the ritual being performed by the Nazi guard without a religious basis on his part, but also the opportunity given to the victim to speak to his god.
In the first ritual the victim is permitted this 'pitiful dignity':And such as were by made prayers in the name of Christ,/That shall judge all men, for his soul's tranquility.
While in the latter ritual the opportunity for prayer is not even given: No prayers or incense rose up in those hours

And I think this gets to the matter of the poem: that prayers are in some way needed to acknowledge to Christ that one believes in Him; therefore, Christ will judge all men's fate based on the victim's soul's tranquility.

So the last paragraph goes as follows:
No prayers or incense rose up in those hours
Which grew to be years, and every day came mute
Ghosts from the ovens, sifting through crisp air,
And settled upon his eyes in a black soot.

The prayer or incense is what rises up to speak with God. Just as in the beginning paragraph when Heinrich Blucher and Hannah Arendt composed 'these moving verses,' the verses is itself an acknowledgement of Christ, as well what moves up and speaks directly with Christ for you.
There is movement in this poem!
And in the end I think that part of the victim, the 'acknowledging part', is what has drained away.
And in the same way, this is why the 'Ghosts from the ovens' at the end are mute. Because the opportunity for acknowledgment of Christ in life(aloud) is lost by not standing behind one's faith and speaking up.
Therefore you have this cycle at the end of the poem where the Ghost continually seem to try to rise, but instead sift down through crisp air, 'and settle upon his eyes in a black soot.' The ghosts themselves have, in a way, lost the 'light', and now is described as 'black soot'; which incidently is what is covering the Polish eye from seeing light.

PS: tell me where I'm rambling and I will try to clear up my thoughts.
You're not rambling at all. When I first read the poem, I read the two narratives as parallel episodes, the second reaching for the first as a touchstone of horror. Under that reading, it is melodramatic and frankly mediocre. But as you point out, these are not parallel episodes but contrasting episodes, each episode a ritual. The first narrative is an ironic re-enactment of a crixifiction, the cruxifiers performing the ritual sanctioned by their religion (and therefore by its power) while the cruxified is appealing to his religion for understanding. The second ritual is completely devoid of religion with the Luger as the power of the choreographed motion. In many ways this recalls T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land, the perversion of ritual because it has been stripped of religious virility. The three dead call to mind a trinity, an inverted holy trinity. The blood of the Pole could in another time be seen as the blood of Christ cruxified. You're right about no one in the second ritual standing behind any religion.

Compare the lines: "And such as were by made prayers in the name of Christ, / That shall judge all men, for his soul's tranquility" with "No prayers or incense rose up in those hours / Which grew to be years, and every day came mute / Ghosts from the ovens". Prayers verses no prayers, Christ as judge ultimately as to what transpired in the first episode verses mute ghosts, the silence as a sort of sterility.

Thank you ktd. You have salvaged this poem for me. I still don't care for the trite phrases, but the narrative justapositions adds a complex dimension to this poem.

[The Unnamable]

Background can include information on the author, historical notes and even personal biases. Seems we have at least two ways of approaching it. I believe there has to be a level playing field and some rules of engagement when approaching the task, else a lot more correcting posts occur and or people end up at loggerheads.
One of the problems with that is that it just isn’t possible to detach any piece of written language from its historical context. However, this poem presents further complications – the very title requires knowledge that isn’t made explicit anywhere in the poem.

I don’t have any personal disagreements with ktd222 – I am not disputing any aspect of his or her personality or character – I am disputing his or her methods of reading poetry – not to denounce the person but to help clarify aspects of the poem. I maintain that a degree of historical knowledge is vital to a clear understanding of this poem. A reader is better equipped if he or she knows that Goethe’s words provide Hecht with his title and, as I said above, Weimar is mentioned for a reason.


Either decide to deal with the piece in exclusion of outside elements or with inclusion of outside elements. And then, everyone should be on the same page the same way.
How would you suggest we do this in the case of this specific poem?

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.

Hasn’t Hecht deliberately echoed Goethe’s words here (albeit in negative form)? Isn’t the suggestion that the Pole was motivated by simple common decency in his refusal? We might expect the humanistic ideals of Weimar and Goethe or the ideals of a supposedly loving God to influence him but they don’t appear to. Nevertheless, (“But”) he refuses.

[apple jiang]

oh, it takes too much of my time reading your posts............. :brickwall

[The Unnamable]

oh, it takes too much of my time reading your posts............. :brickwall
Then don’t. :confused: It’s not a requirement of forum membership. :D

[Isagel]

About historical knowledge - does anyone know who the person in the first part was?
I don´t think he made it up, or choose it by coincidence. Perhaps there are more reasons to why he links these different events together the way he does.

Virgil and ktd222 - I have to think about the idea as the two events as contrasting each other. I do not really see it, but I´ll try and look at it from that perspective.There are differences of course, but I do not see the same contrast as you do, just levels of horror.
Perhaps some knowledge about the first person will make it easier.

[jackyyyy]

How would you suggest we do this in the case of this specific poem?

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.

Hasn’t Hecht deliberately echoed Goethe’s words here (albeit in negative form)? Isn’t the suggestion that the Pole was motivated by simple common decency in his refusal? We might expect the humanistic ideals of Weimar and Goethe or the ideals of a supposedly loving God to influence him but they don’t appear to. Nevertheless, (“But”) he refuses.I think you are correct to bring in all the information at your disposal to make available for our disposal, as others do all the time, and because we DO want to extract the most and best from the piece. Like this, people may question the source of a decision before taking up the point. I know you do that when you attach references, and that, for sure, increases the requirement to get informed. Frankly, we have to, else sometimes the point we're making looks like it was plucked from thin air. Obviously, Poem of the Week is given 'a week'. Ktd made me chuckle when I read, "But, its only Tuesday!" (something like that). I am indicating here, for 'some' poems, maybe a week is simply not enough given the enormity of it all, unless of course some boundaries, and realistic expectations are set. That does not mean to give up, just we should be realistic. I could write about cross-purposefullness here, I think there is an onus on the writer to be as efficient as possible when presenting their point.

[Scheherazade]

More Light! More Light!

For Heinrich Blucher and Hannah Arendt

Composed in the Tower before his execution
These moving verses, and being brought at that time
Painfully to the stake, submitted, declaring thus:
"I implore my God to witness that I have made no crime."

Nor was he forsaken of courage, but the death was horrible,
The sack of gunpowder failing to ignite.
His legs were blistered sticks on which the black sap
Bubbled and burst as he howled for the Kindly Light.

And that was but one, and by no means one of the worst;
Permitted at least his pitiful dignity;
And such as were by made prayers in the name of Christ,
That shall judge all men, for his soul's tranquility.

We move now to outside a German wood.
Three men are there commanded to dig a hole
In which the two Jews are ordered to lie down
And be buried alive by the third, who is a Pole.

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.
A Luger settled back deeply in its glove.
He was ordered to change places with the Jews.

Much casual death had drained away their souls.
The thick dirt mounted toward the quivering chin.
When only the head was exposed the order came
To dig him out again and to get back in.

No light, no light in the blue Polish eye.
When he finished a riding boot packed down the earth.
The Luger hovered lightly in its glove.
He was shot in the belly and in three hours bled to death.

No prayers or incense rose up in those hours
Which grew to be years, and every day came mute
Ghosts from the ovens, sifting through crisp air,
And settled upon his eyes in a black soot.


-Anthony Hecht
Virgil and ktd222 - I have to think about the idea as the two events as contrasting each other. I do not really see it, but I´ll try and look at it from that perspective.There are differences of course, but I do not see the same contrast as you do, just levels of horror.
Perhaps some knowledge about the first person will make it easier.Isagel, I agree with you that one of the differences between the first and second scenes is the level of horror. The first one is an execution of a person who claims to be innocent. I have read it a few times but I cannot find any obvious clues that it is based on religious grounds. ('The Tower' reference made me wonder if it could be Thomas More but he was beheaded and no gunpowder was involved. However, what is important, I feel, is that the person is given the chance to pray and also, more importantly, he feels the need to pray; he still believes in and trusts his God.

In the second scene, we observe another execution but this time we are given specifics (Jews, Pole, Weimar, Luger), which helps us to pinpoint what is exactly happening (and why). In my opinion, the level of horror is greater because of the style of the execution (buried alive and shot) but what is more horrifying and strikingly different from the first incident is that there is a resignation in the actions of the Pole and the Jews.

I think the line 'Much casual death had drained away their souls.' refers to many murders they have been witnessing in the concentration camps; so many that they seem numb and surely enough to make them give up. Unlike the first person executed in the earlier part of the poem, they don't feel the need to pray or express their faith in their dying moments because they are, maybe, convinced that they are deserted by their God.

I think 'no light', which is repeated in the poem a few times, is used to emphasise this fact; ie, no divine hope, no trust and no belief.

Also, I think the fact that the German soldier is described merely as a glove, Luger and boot, signifies that his identity as an individual is not essential for this poem.

[The Unnamable]

About historical knowledge - does anyone know who the person in the first part was?
This is from Ellen Miller Casey – one of the links posted above:

“Though not a specific figure, the victim evokes such men as the Protestant martyrs Nicholas Ridley and High Latimer, whose last words before being burned to death in 1555 were, "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man: we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as I trust shall never be put out" (Ann Hoffman 294).”

I hope that helps.

[Isagel]

Thank you. That thing with the gunpowder that did not light up left me with a nagging feeling that I should know what person it was.

[ktd222]

Composed in the Tower before his execution
These moving verses, and being brought at that time
Painfully to the stake, submitted, declaring thus:
"I implore my God to witness that I have made no crime."

Nor was he forsaken of courage, but the death was horrible,
The sack of gunpowder failing to ignite.
His legs were blistered sticks on which the black sap
Bubbled and burst as he howled for the Kindly Light.

And that was but one, and by no means one of the worst;
Permitted at least his pitiful dignity;
And such as were by made prayers in the name of Christ,
That shall judge all men, for his soul's tranquility.

Did you all happen to catch the rhyming patterns at the end of each line?

The first ritual:
Stanza 1/ Stanza 2/ Stanza3
L1:execution/ horrible/ worst
L2:time/ ignite/ dignity
L3:thus/ sap/ Christ
L4:crime/ light/ tranquility

Look at the first ritual and see how L2 and L4 have perfect rhymes: time/crime, ignite/light, dignity/tranquility; while L1 and L3 of the first three stanza's do not rhyme at all: execution/thus, horrible/sap, worst/Christ.
I guess if you looked at the rhyming pattern in the context of the first ritual, you can see that, by the consistent rhyming pattern, there seems to be a certain order to the ritual, even though it displays martyrdom scene taking place. That order may be, if I had a guess, could be in the purpose of the ritual? But at the same time, the non-rhyme of L1 and L3 gives the first ritual a sort of disorder to the scene as well. What that disorder may be, who knows, but again, if I had a guess it would probably do something with the Light? Any comments?


We move now to outside a German wood.
Three men are there commanded to dig a hole
In which the two Jews are ordered to lie down
And be buried alive by the third, who is a Pole.

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.
A Luger settled back deeply in its glove.
He was ordered to change places with the Jews.

Much casual death had drained away their souls.
The thick dirt mounted toward the quivering chin.
When only the head was exposed the order came
To dig him out again and to get back in.

No light, no light in the blue Polish eye.
When he finished a riding boot packed down the earth.
The Luger hovered lightly in its glove.
He was shot in the belly and in three hours bled to death.

No prayers or incense rose up in those hours
Which grew to be years, and every day came mute
Ghosts from the ovens, sifting through crisp air,
And settled upon his eyes in a black soot

The second ritual:
Stanza4/ Stanza 5/ Stanza 6/ Stanza 7/ Stanza 8
L1:wood/ hill/ souls/ eye/ hours
L2:hole/ refuse/ chin/ earth/ mute
L3:down/ glove/ came/ glove/ air
L4:Pole/ Jews/ in/ death/ soot

But in the second ritual, you initially have the same rhyming pattern of the first ritual where L1 and L3 do not rhyme while L2 and 4 rhyme; until you reach stanza 7 in which L1 and L3 still are not rhyming, while L2 and L4 is a half rhyme: earth/death. Then moving to the last stanza(8) both L1 and 3, and L2 and 4 all do not rhyme. Look at how the disorder inside the order, if you well, becomes completely unravelled into disorder. The poem becomes discombobulated at the end, or should I say the second ritual becomes discombobulated. Why; I don't know; any comments? Does this fit with what ya'll been thinking about the poem?

I can't but appreciate a poet who is conscious about utilizing means other than his words to reinforce what is being put forth in the poem. Everytime I read this poem I find something new.

[Virgil]

ktd

Let me summarize the rhyming pattern this way:

The L1 and L3 of each stanza don't rhyme except for the third stanza where worst/Christ I would consider a slant rhyme. So I would conclude that the L1/L3 rhymes are not pattern forming, except if you may consider that one slant rhyme to provide emphasis.

The L2 and L4 of each stanza do exihibit a pattern. They are full rhymes in the first six stanzas. But in the last two, stanzas 7 and 8, they become slant rhymes: earth/death and mute/soot.


The poem becomes discombobulated at the end, or should I say the second ritual becomes discombobulated. Why; I don't know; any comments? Does this fit with what ya'll been thinking about the poem?
I don't know if I would call it discombobulated, but it does shimmer with emphasis. Another nice observation.

BTW, are you telling us the truth that you're not in college yet?

[Regit]

Are you telling us the truth that you're not in college yet?That would explain a lot.

[Shanna]

That would explain a lot. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Shanna]

Look at the first ritual and see how L2 and L4 have perfect rhymes: time/crime, ignite/light, dignity/tranquility; while L1 and L3 of the first three stanza's do not rhyme at all: execution/thus, horrible/sap, worst/Christ.
I guess if you looked at the rhyming pattern in the context of the first ritual, you can see that, by the consistent rhyming pattern, there seems to be a certain order to the ritual, even though it displays martyrdom scene taking place. That order may be, if I had a guess, could be in the purpose of the ritual? But at the same time, the non-rhyme of L1 and L3 gives the first ritual a sort of disorder to the scene as well. What that disorder may be, who knows, but again, if I had a guess it would probably do something with the Light? Any comments? Oh but that's just perfect. Let's ignore the content, let's not even bother with foreign-sounding, complicated references like "Weimar" - I mean, who needs all that "bull" anyway, huh? Let's slander and harangue relentlessly anyone who dares suggest that history (of all things) might have any significance at all over and above being useless, irrelevant facts force-fed into our brains which are already saturated with who knows what sort of sludge, let's declare that all their years of patience and learning count for nothing, let's insult them, let's drive them all out of this putrid hellhouse, because frankly we'd rather just believe the simplest, most commonplace, most ridiculous untruths in the world, than go to the trouble of actually listening to a point of view different from ours, or making the effort to understand it, right? And then, when we've done all that, when we've silenced everything but our own ignorant, complacent, raucous screeches, let's sit back on our sainted laurels and discuss - (drum roll, please) - the rhyme scheme!! :nod:

Of course it makes perfect sense.

[Shanna]

Virgil, what is a 'crixifiction'?

[Petrarch's Love]

Look out ktd, she's got a noose and I don't think she's afraid to use it! :lol: (Just kidding, both of you).

To give ktd credit where credit is due, I thought some of her earlier comments on this poem were fairly insightful. I thought she was setting up some good observations about comparing the two narratives in terms of their place as rituals and examining the presence (or, more particularly, absence) of religion in the poem, and I think her look at the rhyme scheme is meant as an addition to these earlier remarks, not as an exclusive take on the poem.

That being said, ktd, I've been quite surprised while catching up to the happenings on this thread to see you so vehemently suggesting that history has no place in this poem, and I can see how such a suggestion might open you up to charges of being overly pedantic. A poem is not only form but content, and the content of this particular poem explicitly relies on some understanding of the historical contexts described. I don't really want to re-open a bitter debate, but remain puzzled as to why you are so invested in taking an absolute stance against admitting any kind of historical knowledge from outside the poem. If there's some way we could agree to discuss this issue in a respectful fashion, I would be interested to hear your response.

I'd like to take your analysis of the rhyme scheme as a starting point to my questions. You've nicely outlined how it works--half the lines rhyming in each stanza and half not, with an increasing use of slant rhyme as the poem progresses. I would agree with you that I think this connects with your earlier points about an increasing lack of ritual. What you've got here is how the poet is going after a certain effect, and what that general effect is. What you need is to connect this with why he is going to the trouble to create this effect. On the most basic level isn't it to draw a comparison between two moments in history? And wouldn't it then be helpful to know at least a little something about the two periods described? How else are we supposed to come away with anything from this poem? I don't see how you can actually leave history out of it altogether. I think you're also right to connect this shift in both ritual and rhyme to the "light" mentioned in the poem. Could you understand this mention of "light" without any special outside knowledge? Of course you could. Since it's an old metaphor for truth, knowledge, faith, and generally good things, almost any reader could probably appreciate that the light is fading to darkness in this poem--becoming (like the slant rhyme?) increasingly distorted and then extinguished. All the same, if you happen to know that the poem's title comes from Goethe's dying words, doesn't that add a dimension to the poem, and to the understanding of what the poet is about? Doesn't it add an extra layer of irony to the setting of the second scene at Weimar? It also gives us a hint that the poet is not only using the metaphor of light in its most general sense (though I think that's one level of meaning at play), but has taken pains to set up that light as a specific allusion to humanism--surely both a word and a concept that are deeply important in thinking about the way humanity is portrayed in this poem.

[ktd222]

ktd

Let me summarize the rhyming pattern this way:

The L1 and L3 of each stanza don't rhyme except for the third stanza where worst/Christ I would consider a slant rhyme. So I would conclude that the L1/L3 rhymes are not pattern forming, except if you may consider that one slant rhyme to provide emphasis.
Ya, I was thinking that. Maybe it was the late night but when I say it outloud
I don't hear even the half-rhyme.


The L2 and L4 of each stanza do exihibit a pattern. They are full rhymes in the first six stanzas. But in the last two, stanzas 7 and 8, they become slant rhymes: earth/death and mute/soot.
This one I have to disagree. Mute/soot, when I say it outloud don't even sound like a half-rhyme.



I don't know if I would call it discombobulated, but it does shimmer with emphasis. Another nice observation.
If I take mute/soot as not rhyming at all then maybe not discombobulated, but definetly unravel.


BTW, are you telling us the truth that you're not in college yet?
No. Believe what you want. I just love poetry.

[ktd222]

:confused:
That would explain a lot.

Oh, you didn't come into 'Poem of the Week' to contribute to poems. :confused:

[ktd222]

Oh but that's just perfect. Let's ignore the content, let's not even bother with foreign-sounding, complicated references like "Weimar" - I mean, who needs all that "bull" anyway, huh? Let's slander and harangue relentlessly anyone who dares suggest that history (of all things) might have any significance at all over and above being useless, irrelevant facts force-fed into our brains which are already saturated with who knows what sort of sludge, let's declare that all their years of patience and learning count for nothing, let's insult them, let's drive them all out of this putrid hellhouse, because frankly we'd rather just believe the simplest, most commonplace, most ridiculous untruths in the world, than go to the trouble of actually listening to a point of view different from ours, or making the effort to understand it, right? And then, when we've done all that, when we've silenced everything but our own ignorant, complacent, raucous screeches, let's sit back on our sainted laurels and discuss - (drum roll, please) - the rhyme scheme!! :nod:
Shanna, I not the only one doing the 'slandering'. Are you going to get at a point? BTW, Hecht created the rhyme scheme, not me.

[Petrarch's Love]

Virgil, what is a 'crixifiction'?

Shanna, you may not want to throw stones at typos unless you're absolutely certain you'll never mis-spell anything yourself. :D (This is the voice of experience talking). There's also the fact that you'd have to take on the fearsome Unnamable as well (not something I would relish given the fact we've got pics of him wrestling tigers with his bare hands) about "High Latimer" in one of his posts above (actually a typo I found quite amusing given the high and mighty quality of Hugh Latimer's rhetoric) .;)

[ktd222]

That being said, ktd, I've been quite surprised while catching up to the happenings on this thread to see you so vehemently suggesting that history has no place in this poem, and I can see how such a suggestion might open you up to charges of being overly pedantic. A poem is not only form but content, and the content of this particular poem explicitly relies on some understanding of the historical contexts described. I don't really want to re-open a bitter debate, but remain puzzled as to why you are so invested in taking an absolute stance against admitting any kind of historical knowledge from outside the poem. If there's some way we could agree to discuss this issue in a respectful fashion, I would be interested to hear your response.
To a degee...I don't want to be blinded by it.



I'd like to take your analysis of the rhyme scheme as a starting point to my questions. You've nicely outlined how it works--half the lines rhyming in each stanza and half not, with an increasing use of slant rhyme as the poem progresses. I would agree with you that I think this connects with your earlier points about an increasing lack of ritual. What you've got here is how the poet is going after a certain effect, and what that general effect is. What you need is to connect this with why he is going to the trouble to create this effect. On the most basic level isn't it to draw a comparison between two moments in history? And wouldn't it then be helpful to know at least a little something about the two periods described? How else are we supposed to come away with anything from this poem? I don't see how you can actually leave history out of it altogether. I think you're also right to connect this shift in both ritual and rhyme to the "light" mentioned in the poem. Could you understand this mention of "light" without any special outside knowledge? Of course you could. Since it's an old metaphor for truth, knowledge, faith, and generally good things, almost any reader could probably appreciate that the light is fading to darkness in this poem--becoming (like the slant rhyme?) increasingly distorted and then extinguished. All the same, if you happen to know that the poem's title comes from Goethe's dying words, doesn't that add a dimension to the poem, and to the understanding of what the poet is about? Doesn't it add an extra layer of irony to the setting of the second scene at Weimar? It also gives us a hint that the poet is not only using the metaphor of light in its most general sense (though I think that's one level of meaning at play), but has taken pains to set up that light as a specific allusion to humanism--surely both a word and a concept that are deeply important in thinking about the way humanity is portrayed in this poem.
A little, yes. And I'm sure I discussed my views on the two rituals in earlier discussions. About Goeth, not really, the comparison between the title More Light More Light and whether there is light in the poem itself is sufficient. A poem shouldn't have to be a history project. You get that the poem is talking about humanism from one line out of the thirty-four lines? Wait, not even one line but one word in one line.

[The Unnamable]

(drum roll, please) - the rhyme scheme!! :nod:
But most by Numbers judge a Poet's Song,
And smooth or rough, with them, is right or wrong;
In the bright Muse tho' thousand Charms conspire,
Her Voice is all these tuneful Fools admire,
Who haunt Parnassus but to please their Ear,
Not mend their Minds; as some to Church repair,
Not for the Doctrine, but the Musick there.


So by false Learning is good Sense defac'd.
Some are bewilder'd in the Maze of Schools,
And some made Coxcombs Nature meant but Fools.
In search of Wit these lose their common Sense,
And then turn Criticks in their own Defence.

Pope An Essay on Criticism

[ktd222]

History plays the minor role
in poems, as do the page
and words on the page are
not the same.

If than, then I sit and pick
my nose to know that words
did not matter so; but let
my thoughts run wild with
the naked man that doesn't
need clothes for support.


ME

[The Unnamable]

I take your point about typos, PL. I long ago decided to ignore the appalling spelling on this site dedicated to writing, even though I feel it’s a bit like flashing your dirty underwear in public. However, some typos are really funny. Did you know that Amon Goeth is the Nazi played by Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List?

I also think you are wasting your time trying to reason. The convictions that Goethe is unimportant to the poem and that providing historical information turns a poem into a History project are so ludicrous that they don’t deserve to be considered, let alone reasoned with politely. Some people will even dismiss Alexander Pope in pursuit of a ridiculous belief. These same people usually expect to be considered sane critics of poetry.

With one eye on Shanna's avatar, I can't help being reminded of the expression, "give 'em enough rope".

[The Unnamable]

BTW, Hecht created the rhyme scheme, not me.
Hecht? Wasn't he the one who also provided a title that quotes Goethe?

[ktd222]

Hecht? Wasn't he the one who also provided a title that quotes Goethe?

I don't know, did he? Where am I, or should I see that in the poem?

[The Unnamable]

I don't know, did he? Where am I, or should I see that in the poem?
I was responding to your point, here. Your argument above supports the claim that if Hecht put it there, it must be significant/valid. All I ask for is some consistency. Your second question is inane.

[ktd222]

I was responding to your point, here. Your argument above supports the claim that if Hecht put it there, it must be significant/valid. All I ask for is some consistency. Your second question is inane.
ok...Hecht is the author of this poem as far as I know. Goethe, I can't see by looking at the poem. So your question is:Hecht? Wasn't he the one who also provided a title that quotes Goethe? So the answer is I don't know.
Your not asking the same question between the two posts.

[chmpman]

ktd, how can you take a reference to a Luger and infer that he is writing about a Nazi soldier during WWII but not be open to the possibility that the references to Goethe and Weimar are meant to suggest humanism in a historical context? Obviously history is needed to understand the poem, or you could not see the man burnt at the stake as a Christian martyr or that the second scene is taking place in WWII.

[Shanna]

Shanna, you may not want to throw stones at typos unless you're absolutely certain you'll never mis-spell anything yourself. :D (This is the voice of experience talking). I'll risk it. Right now I am completely, absolutely sure I want to throw stones at everything in sight. I do not have your unbelievable tact (er, limoncello, perhaps?) - I used to, though, I think I've lost it since, or chucked it into the nearest well - nor do I think the benefit of it is deserved by most.


There's also the fact that you'd have to take on the fearsome Unnamable as well (not something I would relish given the fact we've got pics of him wrestling tigers with his bare hands) about "High Latimer" in one of his posts above (actually a typo I found quite amusing given the high and mighty quality of Hugh Latimer's rhetoric) .;)
:lol: Like I said, I'll risk it. Its well worth the superhuman effort it calls for.

[ktd222]

ktd, how can you take a reference to a Luger and infer that he is writing about a Nazi soldier during WWII but not be open to the possibility that the references to Goethe and Weimar are meant to suggest humanism in a historical context? Obviously history is needed to understand the poem, or you could not see the man burnt at the stake as a Christian martyr or that the second scene is taking place in WWII.

Again, history in degrees. And because I don't want to play Six Degrees of Separation.

[Shanna]

Here you go, ktd:

The title of the poem comes from what were (supposedly) Goethe’s dying words.
That was the first post on this thread about this poem.

Er, I thought you said you did actually read what people wrote?

[ktd222]

Here you go, ktd:

That was the first post on this thread about this poem.

Er, I thought you said you did actually read what people wrote?

Where are you going with this? This is neither here nor there. We're talking about it now, so we'll deal with it now. I'm not sure what your trying to get out of this thread.

[The Unnamable]

There's also the fact that you'd have to take on the fearsome Unnamable as well (not something I would relish given the fact we've got pics of him wrestling tigers with his bare hands) about "High Latimer" in one of his posts above (actually a typo I found quite amusing given the high and mighty quality of Hugh Latimer's rhetoric) .;)
That’s what I get for relying on someone else! As I’m sure you can tell, I copied and pasted the comment from the website on which it appeared. When I rely on my own resources, I almost never make such errors. But thanks for pointing out that website’s typo for me. :D

[Petrarch's Love]

However, some typos are really funny. Did you know that Amon Goeth is the Nazi played by Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List?

:lol: That is funny.



That’s what I get for relying on someone else! As I’m sure you can tell, I copied and pasted the comment from the website on which it appeared. When I rely on my own resources, I almost never make such errors. But thanks for pointing out that website’s typo for me.

I rather thought that might be the case...but it was so tempting to think you might not really be infallible after all. :D


I'll risk it. Right now I am completely, absolutely sure I want to throw stones at everything in sight.

Have fun. :lol:


I do not have your unbelievable tact (er, limoncello, perhaps?)
I just wanted to clarify that my little spelling question in my comments to Virg's poem honestly was due to my uncertainty as to whether there's an alternative spelling rather than attempts at tact (which you're right that I have been guilty of on other occasions). I think I have seen it spelled with an "e" before, but while I was in Italy I thought I usually saw it with an "i."

[Jay]

Please, stay on topic and refrain from personalizing your posts.

[Petrarch's Love]

To a degee...I don't want to be blinded by it.

Neither do I, but I don't think anyone here has suggested anything radically divorced from what is present in the language of the poem.


About Goeth, not really, the comparison between the title More Light More Light and whether there is light in the poem itself is sufficient.

I acknowledged that it certainly could be sufficient. That's not really the question. The question is whether the reader obtains additional information about the poem and a deeper perspective on its project with the knowledge that the title is a quote from a famous thinker.


A poem shouldn't have to be a history project.

Of course not. I object as much to people who overhistoricize poetry as I do to those who get caught up in overly pedantic points about prosody. Either approach is attempting to add to an understanding of the poem via external analysis. That doesn't mean that I'm going to blanketly refuse to allow any sort of historical reading any more than I'm going to refuse to consider an analysis of the rhyme scheme.


You get that the poem is talking about humanism from one line out of the thirty-four lines? Wait, not even one line but one word in one line.

This is where I'm puzzled by your argument. You're someone who's insisting on a close reading with attention to detail in the author's rhyme and choice of words etc, and yet you argue that an entire line quoted from another source-- and not only that, the line that forms the title of the poem--is insignificant. Are you actually trying to say that any allusion to another's words in poetry should never be examined in relation to the original source? Would you say, to pick an example at random, that when T.S. Eliot uses the line "I had not thought death had undone so many" (Wasteland, ln.63) to describe a crowded London street that it is irrelevant to bring up the fact that he is quoting Dante's Inferno? The reader may not know that from reading the text of the poem alone if he/she is not well versed in Dante, but that doesn't mean there's no significance to his choice of quote. We're not talking about one word at random here. We're talking about a key word in the poem which is repeated several times throughout, and how it is being defined in the title of that poem.

Incidently, when you get to college you may be interested in reading some of the critics associated with Reader Response theory. I think you might recognize some of what you're trying to express here in their position (just don't forget to read the people who point out what the potential flaws are in such views as well).

Also, just a friendly suggestion. Most people aren't terribly successful trying to match poetic wits with Alexander Pope (myself most definately included ;) ).

[Shanna]

You're not rambling at all. When I first read the poem, I read the two narratives as parallel episodes, the second reaching for the first as a touchstone of horror. Under that reading, it is melodramatic and frankly mediocre. But as you point out, these are not parallel episodes but contrasting episodes, each episode a ritual. The first narrative is an ironic re-enactment of a crixifiction, the cruxifiers performing the ritual sanctioned by their religion (and therefore by its power) while the cruxified is appealing to his religion for understanding. The second ritual is completely devoid of religion with the Luger as the power of the choreographed motion. In many ways this recalls T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land, the perversion of ritual because it has been stripped of religious virility. The three dead call to mind a trinity, an inverted holy trinity. The blood of the Pole could in another time be seen as the blood of Christ cruxified. You're right about no one in the second ritual standing behind any religion.

Compare the lines: "And such as were by made prayers in the name of Christ, / That shall judge all men, for his soul's tranquility" with "No prayers or incense rose up in those hours / Which grew to be years, and every day came mute / Ghosts from the ovens". Prayers verses no prayers, Christ as judge ultimately as to what transpired in the first episode verses mute ghosts, the silence as a sort of sterility.

Thank you ktd. You have salvaged this poem for me. I still don't care for the trite phrases, but the narrative justapositions adds a complex dimension to this poem.Again, wow. I had no idea enjoying poetry could be such hard work. Everything you say here is forced, twisted out of its original context and jammed into another, one you'd - quite simply - like to believe, making the end result quite ungainly. Its like a malformed baby. Its just sad. Never mind what the poet wanted to say, never mind what the critics have said, never mind the references to actual, physical places and people, never mind what is glaringly obvious - we'll do with it as we please, we'll make of it what we choose. They were wrong about Lawrence after all, now, weren't they? Congratulations, Virgil, you just killed it. I really think you can stop beating it now, though, its quite dead, believe me.

Oh and.. Virgil? what is a 'justaposition'?

[Logos]

You know "Shanna", for someone who really seems to dislike this site so much, you sure spend an awful lot of time here. Yes I can see you.

And you sure spend an awful lot of time criticizing others for their spelling mistakes and such. Your constant petty invective and negativity is unwelcome.

This is your one official warning, any more of it and you will be banned.

[ktd222]

Neither do I, but I don't think anyone here has suggested anything radically divorced from what is present in the language of the poem.
really? I would like to deal with the poem and not focus on how horrible these scenes are, to me. Not talk about how 6 million Jews died in the hand of the Nazis, and what I think about that.


I acknowledged that it certainly could be sufficient. That's not really the question. The question is whether the reader obtains additional information about the poem and a deeper perspective on its project with the knowledge that the title is a quote from a famous thinker.
again, really? I always find myself veering off into morality issues when I focus more on additional information and not the poem.


Of course not. I object as much to people who overhistoricize poetry as I do to those who get caught up in overly pedantic points about prosody. Either approach is attempting to add to an understanding of the poem via external analysis. That doesn't mean that I'm going to blanketly refuse to allow any sort of historical reading any more than I'm going to refuse to consider an analysis of the rhyme scheme.
again, use of history to a degree. I think one can easily get lost and end up in historical perspectives. Did anyone mention rhyme scheme this week? Or movement in the poem this week?



This is where I'm puzzled by your argument. You're someone who's insisting on a close reading with attention to detail in the author's rhyme and choice of words etc, and yet you argue that an entire line quoted from another source-- and not only that, the line that forms the title of the poem--is insignificant.
Say this again, please? I don't follow. I never said the title of the poem was insignificant. Different aspects of the poem have more 'weight' than other aspects. I can only cover and discuss one aspect at a time. Most of you seem to do a full sweep in one sitting.


Are you actually trying to say that any allusion to another's words in poetry should never be examined in relation to the original source? Would you say, to pick an example at random, that when T.S. Eliot uses the line "I had not thought death had undone so many" (Wasteland, ln.63) to describe a crowded London street that it is irrelevant to bring up the fact that he is quoting Dante's Inferno? The reader may not know that from reading the text of the poem alone if he/she is not well versed in Dante, but that doesn't mean there's no significance to his choice of quote. We're not talking about one word at random here. We're talking about a key word in the poem which is repeated several times throughout, and how it is being defined in the title of that poem.
No, I'm saying be careful you don't get lost. And maybe you should pick this week's 'Poem of the Week' as an example. Lets not be too random.


Incidently, when you get to college you may be interested in reading some of the critics associated with Reader Response theory. I think you might recognize some of what you're trying to express here in their position (just don't forget to read the people who point out what the potential flaws are in such views as well).
I'll keep this in mind.


Also, just a friendly suggestion. Most people aren't terribly successful trying to match poetic wits with Alexander Pope (myself most definately included ;) ).
again, what? I don't follow.

Have you read my perspective in the form of a poem in response to a poem by Pope showing his perspective? It's still a rough draft, but hey...

History plays the minor role
in poems, as do the page
and words on the page are
not the same.

If than, then I sit and pick
my nose to know that words
did not matter so; but let
my thoughts run wild with
the naked man that doesn't
need clothes for support.


ME :lol:

[ktd222]

Again, wow. I had no idea enjoying poetry could be such hard work. Everything you say here is forced, twisted out of its original context and jammed into another, one you'd - quite simply - like to believe, making the end result quite ungainly. Its like a malformed baby. Its just sad. Never mind what the poet wanted to say, never mind what the critics have said, never mind the references to actual, physical places and people, never mind what is glaringly obvious - we'll do with it as we please, we'll make of it what we choose. They were wrong about Lawrence after all, now, weren't they? Congratulations, Virgil, you just killed it. I really think you can stop beating it now, though, its quite dead, believe me.

Oh and.. Virgil? what is a 'justaposition'?

It makes sense to not only me. I would like to hear your perspective on the type of poetic elements, if you will, on this poem. You seem to like 'dishing' but, would you like to actually participate in the poem analysis?