The Son Of Dionysus

[Dinkleberry2010]

finally grew tired of being crucified,
tore loose from the bloody tree,
ran away to the land of Nod.
There he naps and sucks pomegranates,
lets the juice run down his thighs,
whistles for Cerberus
to come lick between his toes
(he doesn't have a care--
he paid his dues for two thousand years).
Now he collects his asocial security,
smiles his Arcadian smile,
composes lyric poetry
and dreams...
of being loved by bacchanal women,
then being lifted above their heads,
pulled gently apart--into a zillion pieces--
and strewn throughout the universe;
of his Dada the mushroom god,
fallen sloppy dead
and eaten by his worshippers
with grape juice and molded bread;
of Lucifer's ghost
still wandering through the labyrinth
of a billion bullheaded minds,
pale forlorn looking over its shoulder
into a black silence--haunted forever
by an unpardonable sin...
Then he awakens and faintly hears
from across the scarlet sea
the earthly howls of despair:
"Hitler is alive and living in Israel!"
And just for an instant he hesitates--debates
whether or not to descend once again--
but no,
the son of Dionysus wags his wine-drenched head,
"Once was quite enough,"
is all he says.
Then he stretches his wooly shanks,
sighs in immaculate contentment,
grins his purple grin,
and retires
for good.

[MorpheusSandman]

I adore short narratives in poetic form! I love the descriptive power of this one and the contrasting moods and tones. It has a very "classical content" which is interesting a more modern, somewhat free-verse delivery. Quite excellent!

[Dinkleberry2010]

thank you

[billl]

I liked it too.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I'm glad you liked it.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Yes, it's a strong poem, but what can the line I've highlighted mean?


finally grew tired of being crucified,
tore loose from the bloody tree,
ran away to the land of Nod.
There he naps and sucks pomegranates,
lets the juice run down his thighs,
whistles for Cerberus
to come lick between his toes
(he doesn't have a care--
he paid his dues for two thousand years).
Now he collects his asocial security,
smiles his Arcadian smile,
composes lyric poetry
and dreams...
of being loved by bacchanal women,
then being lifted above their heads,
pulled gently apart--into a zillion pieces--
and strewn throughout the universe;
of his Dada the mushroom god,
fallen sloppy dead
and eaten by his worshippers
with grape juice and molded bread;
of Lucifer's ghost
still wandering through the labyrinth
of a billion bullheaded minds,
pale forlorn looking over its shoulder
into a black silence--haunted forever
by an unpardonable sin...
Then he awakens and faintly hears
from across the scarlet sea
the earthly howls of despair:
"Hitler is alive and living in Israel!"
And just for an instant he hesitates--debates
whether or not to descend once again--
but no,
the son of Dionysus wags his wine-drenched head,
"Once was quite enough,"
is all he says.
Then he stretches his wooly shanks,
sighs in immaculate contentment,
grins his purple grin,
and retires
for good.




It looks like the all-too familiar anti-Jewish assertion that what Israel is doing vis a vis the Palestinians is akin to the Nazi treatment of European Jews (and to others). I hope there is some other interpretation you might offer. There is plenty of room to fault Israel's policy without equating the two - unless you know very little about the Shoah (also called the Holocaust).

No, Hitler is not alive in Israel
though there are individual Jews,
Arabs and Druze
who are no doubt evil.

But Hitler is alive
in the hearts of those
who regret he didn't finish the job.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Prince--that is ridiculous

[Bar22do]

Yes, it's a strong poem, but what can the line I've highlighted mean?






It looks like the all-too familiar anti-Jewish assertion that what Israel is doing vis a vis the Palestinians is akin to the Nazi treatment of European Jews (and to others). I hope there is some other interpretation you might offer. There is plenty of room to fault Israel's policy without equating the two - unless you know very little about the Shoah (also called the Holocaust).

No, Hitler is not alive in Israel
though there are individual Jews,
Arabs and Druze
who are no doubt evil.

But Hitler is alive
in the hearts of those
who regret he didn't finish the job.

on the same thought line with Prince:

"Prince, it is ridiculous!" - is not an answer, Jermac!!!

And yes: there are individual Jews, Arabs, Druze and many others who are no doubt evil! But - sorry to copy Prince! - Hitler is alive in the hearts of those who regret he didn't finish the job!

I want to believe your intentions were right... happy New Year. Bar

[billl]

Well, I have to admit, I don't have an eye for snooping out politics in a poem. Stylistically, I was impressed as Morpheus was (and by Morpheus's observations).

I think equating the situation in Israel with the Holocaust would be off target, definitely. I think's Prince's interpretation matches the lines pretty well, unfortunately, and so the poem actually becomes ugly to me now, without any likely alternative interpretations...

All I can think is that "Hitler" being in Israel would mean that "evil" or "evil people" can happen anywhere, and it's unfortunate, considering Israel's history, to single Israel out, when that sort of Hitler-jab could be leveled at a lot of places, in the Middle East, and elsewhere.

Perhaps in a larger context of poems, I would know more about Jermac (this is maybe the only one I've read), and could understand the choice better. For all I know, Jermac is Jewish. As it stands, however, the irony looks overloaded, and a little ugly.

[Buh4Bee]

Following this discussion as an observer, I am surprised by Jermac's reaction. If it is read incorrectly, why not just explain what is meant? The poem's meaning as interpreted currently is controversial and offensive.

[Dinkleberry2010]

First of all, to the one who took one line out of my poem "The Son Of Dionysus" and proceeded to read something into it that doesn't exist and to twist it and eke out a meaning which is divorced from reality and make the line appear to mean something that it doesn't, and to cast aspersions on it and to accuse me of being anti-Semitic--what you did is contemptible.

With that said, I will now give an explication of the line in question. This is how it goes: "Then he (the son of Dionysus) awakens and faintly hears from across the scarlet sea the earthly howls of despair: "Hitler is alive and living in Israel!"

Now when I composed the poem and the specific line in question, here is the idea I had: What if by some happenstance, Hitler (who represents and indeed was and is the epitome of evil--along with Stalin), did not die? What if he, like a number of Nazis--Joseph Mengele for example who managed to make it to South America and live thirty-four years without being detected, managed to escape? Where would Hitler go? Where would be the last place in the world one would expect him to go, to hide? I think it would be Israel. It would be the ultimate horrible irony that the embodiment of evil who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions and more than six million Jews would be able somehow to get into Israel and be able to hide. Then, when by some means it was discovered that Hitler was indeed hiding in Israel itself, that would cause the "earthly howls of despair"--that Hitler, that is, the embodiment of evil, had after all not been defeated, much less had died, but was still existing in Israel of all places.

Now that is the explication of the line. If the explication doesn't satisfy or placate or soothe you, then it will show to me that you have some kind of agenda; that you see a neo-Nazi or Hitlerite under every bed, or a witch behind every rosebush, or a communist teaching in every school.
__________________
Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist - Albert Einstein

[PrinceMyshkin]

First of all, to the one who took one line out of my poem "The Son Of Dionysus" and proceeded to read something into it that doesn't exist and to twist it and eke out a meaning which is divorced from reality and make the line appear to mean something that it doesn't, and to cast aspersions on it and to accuse me of being anti-Semitic--what you did is contemptible.

With that said, I will now give an explication of the line in question. This is how it goes: "Then he (the son of Dionysus) awakens and faintly hears from across the scarlet sea the earthly howls of despair: "Hitler is alive and living in Israel!"

Now when I composed the poem and the specific line in question, here is the idea I had: What if by some happenstance, Hitler (who represents and indeed was and is the epitome of evil--along with Stalin), did not die? What if he, like a number of Nazis--Joseph Mengele for example who managed to make it to South America and live thirty-four years without being detected, managed to escape? Where would Hitler go? Where would be the last place in the world one would expect him to go, to hide? I think it would be Israel. It would be the ultimate horrible irony that the embodiment of evil who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions and more than six million Jews would be able somehow to get into Israel and be able to hide. Then, when by some means it was discovered that Hitler was indeed hiding in Israel itself, that would cause the "earthly howls of despair"--that Hitler, that is, the embodiment of evil, had after all not been defeated, much less had died, but was still existing in Israel of all places.

Now that is the explication of the line. If the explication doesn't satisfy or placate or soothe you, then it will show to me that you have some kind of agenda; that you see a neo-Nazi or Hitlerite under every bed, or a witch behind every rosebush, or a communist teaching in every school.
__________________
Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist - Albert Einstein

Thank you for providing this. In my defense let me say that prior to that line there was a reference to 2,000 years of history, the length of time Jews frequently use as the length of time between their last dispersal from their nation-state to the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland, but then the line itself was so provocative and I saw it in the context of those who trumpet a comparison between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the Nazi attempted genocide of European Jews.

To read the line as you intended it would have required the reader to infer the complicated irony you propose. But, again, thank you for providing an explanation other than how I and others read the poem.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Thank you. Now you can read the poem as it was intended to be read.

[ampoule]

Loved the asocial security line.
Ahhhh, retirement.
Juicy.
Loved it.

[TheFifthElement]

I see the anti-semitic trigger finger strikes again. Jermac, you have my sympathies. I don't see why you should have to guard or explain yourself against the prejudices other people bring to the reading of your poem. Interesting how no one had a problem with that line until Prince's comment.

From my reading the whole poem has an ironic, tongue-in-cheek, blackly comic tone which is especially noticable here:



whistles for Cerberus
to come lick between his toes
(he doesn't have a care--
he paid his dues for two thousand years).

and here:


Now he collects his asocial security,
smiles his Arcadian smile,
composes lyric poetry
and dreams...
of being loved by bacchanal women,

and here:


but no,
the son of Dionysus wags his wine-drenched head,
"Once was quite enough,"
is all he says.

and I enjoyed the strange blend of classic and modern running through the piece. Interesting reading.

[Dinkleberry2010]

You're right about the trigger-finger, that's for sure. The reaction and attitude a couple of people had about one line in the poem was quite simply incomprehensible to me at first, until I realized that what they were actually doing was attacking me personally. I have no idea why.

As for the poem itself, you're right about the tongue-in-cheek, ironic and comical quality of some of it. But then it has its serious side too.

Thank you for reading it and commenting on it.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I see the anti-semitic trigger finger strikes again. Jermac, you have my sympathies. I don't see why you should have to guard or explain yourself against the prejudices other people bring to the reading of your poem. Interesting how no one had a problem with that line until Prince's comment.

From my reading the whole poem has an ironic, tongue-in-cheek, blackly comic tone which is especially noticable here:

Perhaps if whatever people you identify yourself with had suffered some 2,000 years of opprobrium, oppression, expulsion and recurrent pogroms, you too might have a "trigger-finger" whenever the suspicion of anti-Xism arose.

Perhaps you'd care to explain what "ironic, tongue-in-cheek, blackly comic tone" is to be found in the line "Hitler is alive and living in Israel"? Or simply, what you thought it meant?

[TheFifthElement]

Perhaps if whatever people you identify yourself with had suffered some 2,000 years of opprobrium, oppression, expulsion and recurrent pogroms, you too might have a "trigger-finger" whenever the suspicion of anti-Xism arose.

Well as a woman you might imagine that I could associate with being down-trodden, denied opportunity, offered a life of servitude as a vassal of men, objectified and blamed for everything that goes wrong in men's lives. Women are, after all, to blame for man's downfall and if a women gets raped it's undoubtedly because she asked for it: shirt too short, she led the guy on, etc etc. So perhaps next time I come across a poem which refers to a woman as 'sexy' I should publicly burn my bra and denounce said poet as a misogynist?


Perhaps you'd care to explain what "ironic, tongue-in-cheek, blackly comic tone" is to be found in the line "Hitler is alive and well in Israel"? Or simply, what you thought it meant?

When I read the poem I took that line to be an expression of something terrible and perverse, something which would tempt the inspirer of ritual madness to to join in the madness below. I took it literally to mean that Hitler was alive and in Isreal, as I believe Jermac has stated was the intention.

[billl]

Unfortunately, I think there is reason ( http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=830233#post830233 ) to point out something about this poem. One of the effects often admired in poetry is "metaphor." It is, perhaps, one of the supreme tools in a poet's toolkit. What I think happened here, in this poem and the controversey that spilled forth from it, is that during the composition of the poem, a powerful metaphor was accidentally constructed. Unfortunately, it was one that might easily be taken as anti-Semitic (or anti-Israel).

Once a concern about the metaphor was made clear (and responded to before its disavowal had a chance of transpiring, in post #6), perhaps the poet took such offense that even to clearly deny any anti-Semitism felt unwarranted. Unfortunately, in light of the quite plausible interpretation, it seems this reluctance to tackle things clearly and directly dragged things out a bit, and did nothing to dispel the (unfortunate) impression.

Personally, I don't think it is an artist's duty to interpret their work for others, and they shouldn't have to (I do, however, notice that there is sometimes a give and take among the readers and poets here, sort of praise/critique and shop-talk within a community of student-poets, or something like that). However, I do think that in cases where an understandable interpretation is offensive, it would be best for the poet to take the chance to clearly agree that such an interpretation was offensive in their mind, as well (given that it is) and that it was not intended. Readers might then search for other interpretations, or at least move on reassured about the poet's intent. This is an anonymous forum, and we really should be careful about such misunderstandings.

Eventually, however, the poet did, with understandable reluctance, provide their own personal interpretation of their lines, and by doing so made it quite clear that there was nothing anti-Semitic intended.

I still find the offensive and anti-Semitic interpretation to be one that might likely seem plausible to potential readers if the poem were to be encountered somewhere else, without any of this discussion or any other assurances to the contrary accompanying it. Again, I do believe that it (the anti-Semitic interpretation) was not an intended effect, but it still might occur in new readers upon first encounter.

Then he awakens and faintly hears
from across the scarlet sea
the earthly howls of despair:
"Hitler is alive and living in Israel!"


Interpretation 1 (worried over by a reader in post 6):
Israel is acting in ways comparable to Hitler, persecuting another people as less than human.

Interpretation 2 (offered by the poet in post 11):
Hitler has not died, he escaped from Germany like some of the other Nazis, and is still living in Israel, the most unlikely of places.

Given the fact that metaphor is something we look for in poems, I think that in this case the literal interpretation (that Hitler, now 120 years old, is living incognito in Israel) is apt to be availed of less often than the metaphoric, at least among some substantial portion of the readership (perhaps those particularly aware of world affairs, Middle East politics, etc.). And I think the poet might want to to take this into consideration when presenting the poem elsewhere, especially since they have clearly stated that the poem is not meant to express anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli sentiment. It is unfortunate that such a mix-up among anonymous participants has distracted from the impressive style in which this poem was written--almost "classical" (post #2), to my ears reminiscent of a translation of the Aeneid, the voice an example of the pleasant surprises I sometimes have when I tune into the Personal Poetry Forum.

[free]

It seems that the poem has caused a lot of fuss about some of its points. :lol: It, only, shows that the poem is good, because it is based upon deep thinking. But, no wander, Jermac is a skilful poet.

[Dinkleberry2010]

So now, billl, I want to ask you a question. In your first post you stated that you liked the poem, but in your second post you stated that you thought the poem was ugly. So what do you think now?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Unfortunately, I think there is reason ( http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=830233#post830233 ) to point out something about this poem. One of the effects often admired in poetry is "metaphor." It is, perhaps, one of the supreme tools in a poet's toolkit. What I think happened here, in this poem and the controversey that spilled forth from it, is that during the composition of the poem, a powerful metaphor was accidentally constructed. Unfortunately, it was one that might easily be taken as anti-Semitic (or anti-Israel).

Once a concern about the metaphor was made clear (and responded to before its disavowal had a chance of transpiring, in post #6), perhaps the poet took such offense that even to clearly deny any anti-Semitism felt unwarranted. Unfortunately, in light of the quite plausible interpretation, it seems this reluctance to tackle things clearly and directly dragged things out a bit, and did nothing to dispel the (unfortunate) impression.

Personally, I don't think it is an artist's duty to interpret their work for others, and they shouldn't have to (I do, however, notice that there is sometimes a give and take among the readers and poets here, sort of praise/critique and shop-talk within a community of student-poets, or something like that). However, I do think that in cases where an understandable interpretation is offensive, it would be best for the poet to take the chance to clearly agree that such an interpretation was offensive in their mind, as well (given that it is) and that it was not intended. Readers might then search for other interpretations, or at least move on reassured about the poet's intent. This is an anonymous forum, and we really should be careful about such misunderstandings.

Eventually, however, the poet did, with understandable reluctance, provide their own personal interpretation of their lines, and by doing so made it quite clear that there was nothing anti-Semitic intended.

I still find the offensive and anti-Semitic interpretation to be one that might likely seem plausible to potential readers if the poem were to be encountered somewhere else, without any of this discussion or any other assurances to the contrary accompanying it. Again, I do believe that it (the anti-Semitic interpretation) was not an intended effect, but it still might occur in new readers upon first encounter.


Interpretation 1 (worried over by a reader in post 6):
Israel is acting in ways comparable to Hitler, persecuting another people as less than human.

Interpretation 2 (offered by the poet in post 11):
Hitler has not died, he escaped from Germany like some of the other Nazis, and is still living in Israel, the most unlikely of places.

Given the fact that metaphor is something we look for in poems, I think that in this case the literal interpretation (that Hitler, now 120 years old, is living incognito in Israel) is apt to be availed of less often than the metaphoric, at least among some substantial portion of the readership (perhaps those particularly aware of world affairs, Middle East politics, etc.). And I think the poet might want to to take this into consideration when presenting the poem elsewhere, especially since they have clearly stated that the poem is not meant to express anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli sentiment. It is unfortunate that such a mix-up among anonymous participants has distracted from the impressive style in which this poem was written--almost "classical" (post #2), to my ears reminiscent of a translation of the Aeneid, the voice an example of the pleasant surprises I sometimes have when I tune into the Personal Poetry Forum.

Without intending to revive or prolong debate over the intent of the line referred to (whether it was subconsciously or consciously anti-Semitic, or not that at all) I want to salute the patient, intelligent thoughtfulness of your reply. It is a testimony, I believe, to the value of posting one's poems here and trusting that they will be read (or even mis-read) with care and integrity.

[Dinkleberry2010]

So tell me, Prince, what do you think of the poem now?

[PrinceMyshkin]

So tell me, Prince, what do you think of the poem now?

Still something of an ambitious muddle for me, choked with metaphor laid upon metaphor and the line I objected to still comes at me with no possibility of intuiting the explanation you later gave for it but still has the sting of possibly subconscious anti-Semitism.

A few typos or misspellings: "sloppy" for sloppily; and "molded" for moldy; .

[billl]

Jermac, I am most definitely satisfied you had no ugly intent, and still find the poem's style (voice?) to be great. Judging the poem as something existing beyond this thread, I cannot say that the brief lines that have brought some controversy here are as good as the rest.

Really, I think that the "anti-Israel" sense in which they might be interpreted would be a powerful sense indeed--and might even make the poem a particularly effective piece of "protest" if written by an Israeli upset at their government, and would be difficult to argue with if written by a Palestinian. Hyperbole can indeed be a powerful effect, and appropriate in certain situations. Without such context, the lines seem unfairly hyperbolic, to me.

If the intended (literal) sense is used, I think the poem's power fades somewhat and it paradoxically becomes more removed from the real world (but loses its offensive quality, with the question of the metaphor's accuracy vanishing). If Israel were currently a paradise, where the Jewish people were living in peace and without difficulties (checkpoints, bulldozered homes, etc.) then Hitler's presence there might simply seem a maddening bit of unresolved justice left over from WW II. However, I can't help but think that the lines might still be an unintended invitation to a misunderstanding of the poem as a controversial political comment, and might still strike a new reader as being unpleasant for that reason (or, indeed, might delight and impress another reader, for that reason...).

I know your question was brief, and seeks to move forward. Certainly, discussion of the poem changes how it is read. However, I think that poems are rarely encountered and experienced in such a way as this one has been here in this thread, and I don't want my judgment to ignore the influence of the discussion. I initially read over the poem rather quickly, simply enjoying it as a well-written piece of vaguely graspable imagery, and found the first commenter had seen much the same quality about it. After a few pages of discussion, it is fair to say that the poem has unexpectedly become something a bit more significant.

And so, taking into account the discussion here:
I think the poem is great stylistically; does well suggesting a distant, hovering force, whose whim we might be lucky to escape; but contains an unintended effect that distracts from its enjoyment.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Okay, Prince, so you are still doing that--implying that I am subconsciously anti-semitic. Fine.

But billl, you didn't answer my question: Do you think the poem is ugly?

[billl]

No, after speaking with its author, and learning they had no such intent to be ugly, I don't think that would be fair to say I think it ugly. But to judge a poem in such a light is an uncommon thing. It isn't simply that I don't want to hurt your feelings--there is much that is great to the poem. But you're being pretty direct, and I have tried to convey the difficulty of judging a poem as a work of art, separate from discussion, and as an object of discussion with its author. If someone were to encounter the poem for the first time, and ask me my opinion, I would still (after allowing the new reader to express their reaction) describe the lines in question as seeming 'ugly' to me, but also make sure to mention that I had learned that this impression was not at all intended by the author.

I find this entire episode pretty unfortunate, and I don't want to either condemn the author for sentiments they reject, nor be on record as regarding the lines as being pleasing, or effective.

[Dinkleberry2010]

So, billl, the two lines still seem ugly to you.

[hack]

I liked the poem. I am not sure that the discussion that it has evoked is an altogether positive one. I don't see that it requires the personal animus that it seems to have stirred up. I hope that this does not require horror to be matched with horror. I identify with Native American ancestors who have only 500 years of contempt (and worse) to rue, so that may seem a small thing to some. Though if sheer numbers are all that is to be considered, the horror grows, and it may approach or even surpass the Shoah. To my mind, there is little point to such comparisons.
In the end though, that pain is an accumulation of insults, each individual. In fact, there are innocents in Gaza, and elsewhere in the world, whose plight should not be overlooked because of some prior greater evil. If the metaphor seems over large, oh well, it is a poem. A poem explained is usually less for the effort.
Hack

[Dinkleberry2010]

Yes, it is too bad that a few kept insisting that I explain one line in the poem. I finally grew tired of their insistence, so I opened a thread to explain the line. After a few days, someone decided to close the thread. So be it.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, it is too bad that a few kept insisting that I explain one line in the poem. I finally grew tired of their insistence, so I opened a thread to explain the line. After a few days, someone decided to close the thread. So be it.

And yet . . . the presumably non-Jewish dude right above you implied he interpreted it as a commentary on Gaza too, despite your claims that wasn't what you meant.

The fact is every Jewish commentator of your poem finds the line problematic. I am adding my voice in as well. The line is offensive.

Prince didn't even mention that the last part is anti-Semitic too.


finally grew tired of being crucified,
tore loose from the bloody tree, . . .
Then he awakens and faintly hears
from across the scarlet sea
the earthly howls of despair:
"Hitler is alive and living in Israel!"
And just for an instant he hesitates--debates
whether or not to descend once again--
but no,
the son of Dionysus wags his wine-drenched head,
"Once was quite enough,"
is all he says.
Then he stretches his wooly shanks,
sighs in immaculate contentment,
grins his purple grin,
and retires
for good.

You frame the entire poem with Dionysus as a crucified Jesus. One stereotype of Jews among Christians and neo-Nazis is that they killed Christ. So after you have your problematic Hitler/Israel line you immediately follow it up with Jesus/Dionysus refusing to return because "once was not enough." That, too, is anti-Semitic because of the connotations. You seem to be implying that Jesus-Dionysus doesn't want to return to deal with Hitler/Israel because he'll be crucified presumably by Jews.

Now I have no idea if you really hate Jews or not. I'm leaning towards you don't. However, as an artist who is writing content like this you need to be aware of these issues and all the connotations and problems that can arise, otherwise you shouldn't be writing about this type of stuff.

-------------------------------------------

And there is no need to touch on Fifth Element's thoughtless and silly comments about being trigger happy.

[qimissung]

I really liked your poem, Jermac. It is amamzing, with full, rich, evocative language. I find it, though, both amusing and troubling, that you were so disturbed at being asked to explain the line about Hitler. Your explanation helped me, because (and I'm not Jewish) upon reading it my first thought was "What is he saying about Israel?" It was only after that that I read everyone's comments.

I could not help but remember that in reading stuff on the Personal Poetry page in the last week that I had encounterd two comments from you that read "You need to explain what you meant by a certain line in the poem..."

I don't think authors need ever explain. In our case, as Billl said, there is a certain give and take which is nice; but why the surly attidue when asked to do what you have demanded from others? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thank you.

[TheFifthElement]

And there is no need to touch on Fifth Element's thoughtless and silly comments about being trigger happy.

There's no need to be rude Drkshadow. There was a serious point to it. It all hinges around how the original question was put to Jermac, which I felt was inappropriate. You may disagree, as is your right. But, to my mind, if you want to know what a poet means by a line you can say simply that: 'what do you mean by this line?' or 'I'm not sure I understand what you meant by this line/part, would you please explain?', at which point the poet may explain themselves if they so choose and then the intention is made clear and after that point the poet can be made aware of the alternative, and apparently unintended, interpretation. This then gives the poet opportunity to re-evaluate the poem taking that feedback into account. And everyone can keep an open mind to the possibility of different interpretations. However, what happened in this thread is that the line was queried and at the same time an accusation of anti-Semitism was made. That was the 'trigger finger' of which I spoke. The accusation made before the crime, if you like. That accusation took what could have been a healthy debate on the interpretation of the poem into the realms of a personal assault on the poet. And it has coloured the tone of this thread from that point on. No one who reads the thread reads the poem without that interpretation in mind. And perhaps, yes, Jermac might have explained themselves right away, but then it does tend to kill the poetry; and though an explanation has been given, not everyone has accepted that explanation. So Jermac becomes guilty until proven innocent, and on top of that a liar? All from one interpretation, which the poet has said was not their intended meaning, of one line of a poem. Maybe you are comfortable with that. I am not.

I think it is inherently dangerous to accuse someone of something without there being extremely strong case to do so. This is how people become demonised. And I believe that people should be permitted to explain themselves before they are judged and that those explanations should be taken in good faith unless there is an extremely compelling reason not to do so. We do not know the hearts and minds of other people. And I think that it is inappropriate, here in this context, to subject a poet to trial by committee and for that trial to be not of the poem but of the poet and their morals. Poetry may or may not reflect the opinion of the poet, it is a creative art which sometimes requires us to represent our imaginings of the minds of someone or something that is not ourselves, to imagine something beyond and outside ourselves. So it seems flawed, to me, to make any judgement about a person based on one, or even more than one, line of a poem. If that makes me silly and thoughtless, so be it.

It is easy to react with anger to something which we perceive as being an assault on something which defines us. This is why we should take a breath before pushing what is in our own minds into the minds of others. I think this thread (and I include my own part in it) stands as testimony to that.

[Dinkleberry2010]

This is just some of what I have been called on this thread and other threads dealing with this poem: a liar, an anti-Semite, a Jew hater, a Hitlerite, a neo-Nazi, a Nazi, an anti-Jew, an anti-Christian, a Christian hater, a Christ hater. I've even received PMs from people calling me names. It's become almost grotesquely funny. One person made this statement: "I like the style of your poem, some of the images are really good, but you are an anti-Semite because of this one certain line."

Some have said they find the entire poem offensive. Some have attacked me with vile names because they imagine that a certain line in the poem offends them in some way.

It is really beyond my comprehension that anyone finds any of the lines in the poem offensive. I composed the poem; I was the one who created it. I know what it means; I know what I intended. And I know this: The ones who imagine they are offended by certain lines in the poem are deceiving themselves. They are reading something into the lines that they wish to see, but is not there and does not exist.

This poem, The Son Of Dionysus, has been published in numerous publications. I think it's been published in twelve different publications in all. This is the first time I have posted the poem on the internet. I have been writing for more than forty years, and I have have had literally hundreds of poems published. But this is the first time that I have been personally attacked for a poem I wrote. It's a strange experience.

[Silas Thorne]

Excellent work! I'm really impressed by the mythic/religious imagery in it. I agree with qimisung that the language is rich and evocative . Maybe some people may choose to be offended by particular lines taken out of context, but when I read it (I started reading from the beginning of the thread by the way) I enjoyed the poem immensely, and did not see anything Anti-Semitic about it. Great stuff!

[Drkshadow03]

@Fifth Element, but also a little at Jermac

It's well known in artistic circles that artists don't get to control the meaning of their artistic works once it's released to the public. They control meaning in so far as they express it through craft in the actual construction of the work, then it's left to the readers. Basically a writer's declared intention means nothing.

I never called Jermac anti-Semitic. I called his lines anti-Semitic and suggested the connotations are not something he can ignore and sweep under the rug. In fact, if you re-read my post I specifically note that I cannot get into his heart and soul when I wrote, "Now I have no idea if you really hate Jews or not. I'm leaning towards you don't." Instead of owning the fact that the lines might be problematic, and since he claims he didn't mean it that way, that is also might be a failure of craft since its doing something he never intended, he is instead playing the victim and bemoaning that everyone is picking on him.

I'm not saying he is lying about his stated intentions for the lines. No doubt Jermac did mean the lines the way he claimed (in other words, I am taking his claims on good faith), but it's precisely that he doesn't live in a vacuum and that he has an audience for the work, and that audience is going to react to what's on the page (not some clandestine intentions). Or to be blunt, I am judging only on what I can ascertain from the poem itself and I find elements of the poem to be anti-Semitic for the very clear reasons listed above.

Also Fifth what you actually wrote:


I see the anti-semitic trigger finger strikes again. Jermac, you have my sympathies. I don't see why you should have to guard or explain yourself against the prejudices other people bring to the reading of your poem. Interesting how no one had a problem with that line until Prince's comment.

Let's quote the important words: "anti-Semitic" trigger finger strikes "again."

It doesn't take a stretch of interpretation to read your lines as basically saying, "Oh, those freaking Jews are whining about anti-Semitism again. Jermac, you have my sympathies." In fact, I would say that is the more reasonable interpretation of your words without any context. However, I'll take your explanation for your intentions on good faith. There is a gap between what you actually wrote and what you seemed to have meant.

Instead you could easily have written: "I see people are being trigger happy with accusations before hearing others defenses. Jermac, you have my sympathies." Much closer to your meaning.

[TheFifthElement]

It doesn't take a stretch of interpretation to read your lines as basically saying, "Oh, those freaking Jews are whining about anti-Semitism again. Jermac, you have my sympathies." In fact, I would say that is the more reasonable interpretation of your words without any context. However, I'll take your explanation for your intentions on good faith. There is a gap between what you actually wrote and what you seemed to have meant.

DrkShadow, I appreciate that. It is why I said this:

It is easy to react with anger to something which we perceive as being an assault on something which defines us. This is why we should take a breath before pushing what is in our own minds into the minds of others. I think this thread (and I include my own part in it) stands as testimony to that.
Perhaps I didn't state it clear enough. If what I said created offence, albeit unintended, I apologise for it.

[Dinkleberry2010]

This will probably be the last post I make on this subject.

To the ones who find lines in my poem The Son Of Dionysus offensive: I don't care what you think. You can think whatever you want. I couldn't care less. It's just too bad that you find something offensive about the poem. So what are you going to do about it. Cry? Oh, you poor little babies.

To the ones who have attacked me personally, you know what you can do, don't you. I don't have to tell you. What you have done is contemptible and vile, and I feel nothing but contempt for you.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I am requesting that this thread be closed.

[Drkshadow03]

Cry? Oh, you poor little babies.



Funny the only one who really seemed to be crying was you.

Anyway, where did you publish this twelve times? I'm curious.

[Dinkleberry2010]

.
.
.

.
.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I have nothing more to say