Hypocrite Lecteur

[vagantes]

The room was a prayer on the head of a pin
Clean like a diamond cut
It had an iron door which opened in
And would not open out.

"To love is to give." How he laid his snare,
" Love will make you poor no more,"
As he led her down the cellar stair
And shut fast his iron door.

"To love is to give" were the words of a liar.
Her body now lies beneath the floor.
Turn up the heat, stoke up the fire
She is cold behind this door.

To love is to give, to give, to give,
Give more and more and more.
This was the place she ceased to live
Shut in behind his iron door.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That first misrhyme of "cut" and "out" is extremely distracting.

[Alexander III]

The imagery of the poem started really strong in my opinion, but it never developed. Like when at a distance you see an image of a beautifull girl and then when you go up close you realize you were mistaken. The poem begins with a great deal of potential in terms of it's image, but then it stalls and the image and theme to my eyes is flittered around but never actually done.

The rhymes are not working they are distracting, I would suggest to ajust the rhymes or write the poem in blank verse. As, as it stands now, the subject matter of the poem is serious yet the mis-done rhymes create a sense of farce. One cannot simply mix the sublime with the ridiculous.

And the tittle leaves me perplexed as it does not seem to my understanding to tie in with the poem itself. Reading the tittle most poetry readers would imediatly have in mind Baudlaires opening poem to The flowers of Evil, but the poem does not deal with the subject, so it creates a fair amount of letdown.

[vagantes]

False reader would be one translation of the title, which might give pause for thought.

[MorpheusSandman]

And the tittle leaves me perplexed as it does not seem to my understanding to tie in with the poem itself.In all likelihood a reference to recent events on the forum where some posters were accused of being bad readers of poetry by others. Of course, Baudelaire included himself in his original (from where the title is taken from), so that might be pause for the writer as much as the reader.

[hawthorns]

I'm a little thrown by "The room was a prayer on the head of a pin." I assume you are referring to religious pin etchings (Lord's Prayer, etc.) but am having trouble ascribing a room to it. Not sure why. Also the words cut/out in first stanza.

I like the rest of it--especially the line "Turn up the heat, stoke up the fire
She is cold behind this door."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And the tittle leaves me perplexed as it does not seem to my understanding to tie in with the poem itself. Reading the tittle most poetry readers would imediatly have in mind Baudlaires opening poem to The flowers of Evil, but the poem does not deal with the subject, so it creates a fair amount of letdown.
You see, everyone who criticizes a work by vagantes is a bad reader of poetry, and he of course is missing the genius of everything vagantes writes.

[PrinceMyshkin]

False reader would be one translation of the title, which might give pause for thought.

More accurately it would be hypocritical reader as Baudelaire has just completed citing all his moral flaws and now ends up, defensively,


"Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
— Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!"



"You know him, reader, this exquisite monster,
— Hypocrite reader, — my likeness, — my brother!"

[cogs]

reading on the level of the presented information, i enjoy the first stanza's metaphors. the meter flows well. the 'giving' is redundant, and would like to have heard some additional insight into his reasoning, or a glimpse into some parallel with him. overall, very interesting, vagantes.

[Silas Thorne]

A little bit repetitive. Shut behind an iron door, 'only this and nothing more'. Could develop more.

There is rhyme here but the lines are too slack.

[miyako73]

More accurately it would be hypocritical reader as Baudelaire has just completed citing all his moral flaws and now ends up, defensively,


"Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
— Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!"



"You know him, reader, this exquisite monster,
— Hypocrite reader, — my likeness, — my brother!"


Nice one, Prince. One can now use Baudelaire's "Au Lecteur" to
understand Vagantes' poem. There's a name for that method of
literary appreciation and assessment: intertextuality, another
literary voice this forum should welcome.

[miyako73]

Reading Vagantes' poems, I cannot ignore what I always sense: an insightful lecture of a subtle writer to dogmatic readers or a sermon that comes out not through rhymes and reasons but through unseen smirks and ambiguous codes. Please don't stop even if they tell you. Yours is definitely an interesting voice in this literary wilderness, but no put downs though, just sheer education for the stubborn.

[vagantes]

I did say "one translation". It would be extremely unlikely that I was not aware of the source of my quotation or of its meaning. What I had in mind was suggested by the following:

Help me, dear Reader, to restrain
The licence of these railer's tongues,
Even though it's seldom we obtain
Through sense or wit, by prose or song
This spiteful clamour to confound.
So that my poem's enchanting sound
Will be by all admired around.

My mind grows but laurel for the palm;
Groves where my blameless soul resides
No fame want I, but wisdom calm
With eloquence two harmonious guides.
Let me shut forever from my gate
These quibbling minds that do berate
With slack envy and lying hate.

This is not said from desperate need,
But ask with kindness you would pay
The dues which are to poetry decreed.
So poets are allowed their say
I call upon your auspicious name
To keep me from this mischievous claim
And let my writing declare my fame

Perhaps another quotation might be apt from St Luke: "Omnes omnia bona dicere". Naturally the reader has to discover the ellipsis for themselves and then reverse it.

[hallaig]

I think Vagantes gift is in the expositions, not the poetry

[Hawkman]

The above appears to be almost a verbatim quote, wth Edwards, transposed to Reader, of Mark Akenside's, To Thomas Edward's Esq., On the Late Edition of Pope's Works, which was itself a parody of Milton.

Well, we know you can quote poetry, and that you can intellectually justify your poetry, but that, on it's own, doesn't mean that your poetry is good. The people on this site would be happy to encourage you to develop your poetry, but you seem to rebuff every courteous attempt to do this with disdain, which is a pity, because you could be quite good.

Live and be well - H

[vagantes]

Curiously there is no justification of the poetry on this thread by me, simply a vague discussion reference the problems raised by the title and a slight raised eyebrows comment (using Akenside) at the way poetry is discussed on here. Underlined of course by the Latin tag which I find quite appropriate.

If you look at the adjectives and general tone that are used in the last comment it might beg the question as to why all the feathers. Everyone else is happy and courteous, whereas I am disdainful. But never mind I could be quite good.

Is that not just a tad patronising, old fruit?

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't think Hawkman is restricting his statements to merely the events of this thread. We've had more than one instance lately of certain poets posting their work, receiving something less than gushing reviews, and then ranting about the bad reading abilities of the critics around here. All I can suggest to those poets is to seek out the critics they think they deserve if they don't exist here. You may find they don't exist anywhere and that the ones that exist here are less soul-destroying than others. Or, maybe you'll make to the point where you'll be the subject of a book-length study by a critic of Vendler's or Ricks' caliber. Who's to say?

[Hawkman]

Patronising? No, a simple statement of fact. Incidentally, I may be many things, and I am certainly ageing, however, I am most definitely not a fruit of any kind, sweet or sour. Were you a friend (which you most certainly are not) and we were living in the first half of the 20th century, such a liberty in a personal exchange might be seen as affectionate. However, this is not the case.

For your information, no school of academic or literary reference, that I am aware of, regards italicisation as a substitute for quotation marks, nor would it allow for any quotation without attribution. When doing so, and adding your own words, the norm is for including them in brackets.

You have a habit of presenting other people's work in a way that it is possible for those who don't know any better, to assume you are presenting such work as your own. This is, at the very least, disengenuous, and bordering on dishonesty.

I see little point in continuing in any kind of discussion with you, so I will just leave you to stew in your own juice while other forum members turn up the heat.

Live and be well - H

[vagantes]

The style book for the Modern Humanities Research Association has this to say about quotations:

Long quotations should not be enclosed within quotation marks. It suggests that they should be indented and set in smaller script from other matter. Long quotations for verse are defined as being over two lines.

My skills for typing are slightly limited which is why I chose the easy option and used italics.

I did introduce the quote by saying my point was suggested by the following....

In general terms when I write I try to write down the truth of something I have in mind - to put down in language the inwardness of something.

To me it does not really matter if the technique is slightly wrong, so long as I feel I have made a half decent attempt at trying to say something which I consider to be of importance.

What baffles me on here is the sheer mindless pedantic 'analness' of some readers. It is though they are commenting on a golf shot.

Somewhere I have in the back of my head, when reading some of the more priceless comments, a description of Prince Andrew (one of our minor royals) as someone with no imagination, limited technical ability and an obsessive interest in golf. The clincher was that he had so little taste or class he married Sarah Ferguson.

I write for pleasure not for profit. Nor do I wish to make a career from it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Maybe you should put a disclaimer at the end of every poem, then: "No opinions on poem wanted . . . (unless positive, and even if positive, don't expect me to acknowledge your kindness)."

[vagantes]

I think what would be more to the point would be readings of the poems, which considered what the purpose of the poem to be. There has been lots of huffing and puffing about readings being confined to the text, whereas when push comes to shove it would appear that readers are more interested in the writer than the words.

This poem for instance is about child abuse and murder. It is written more or less in rhyming couplets using a metre vaguely reminiscent of a ballad, which is totally unsuited to the subject matter.

Now why would this be?

Why be the writer be deliberately discordant?

What does the title really mean?

And are the objections to false rhymes and repetitions simply veiling feelings of disgust?

Could it be that readers do not want to read about such sordid things?

[hallaig]

Ballads not suitable for such subject matter? What nonsense. You've obviously never read any. I can sort of see why you annoy so many folk. Your poetry sometimes seems flat, one dimensional, derivative, without any spark. The self-justifying expositions which follow, implying we've all missed out on something really profound and can only guess at the complex thought processes which have gone into it are risible. You should work more on your poetry but as Shakespeare said

"you rub the sore
When you should bring the plaster."

[MorpheusSandman]

Ballads not suitable for such subject matter? What nonsense. You've obviously never read any.No kidding. (http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/ballad-hollis-brown)

I can't help but echo what hallaig says. I say this without pretension that I use things that are far subtler in my work than "discordance between meter and subject" (which is old as the hills) and nobody ever points them out, yet I have never once flogged any of these people for being bad or incapable readers. If the forest isn't attractive, readers aren't going to walk inside to admire the trees.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, it looks like we don't have to put up with Vagantes anymore. I'm glad this forum doesn't take any plagiarism crap. :thumbs_up