Theodicy

[PrinceMyshkin]

The first child
who died of hunger
pulled God
down
into the grave with him.

[Jerrybaldy]

You had me at the death of god :D

[Alexander III]

The first child
who died of hunger
pulled God
down
into the grave with him.


I think this is beautifull in substance and style, as most of your work tends to be. However if I might make a suggestion:

The first child
who died of hunger
pulled God
into the grave with him.

firstly I would remove down, but by removing down there is a lack of violent or rather dramatic motion in the poem. So by replacing "pulled" with a stronger word such as "dragged" you retain the violent movement and remove a line. Yet I noticed that by removing a line the poem becomes to quick, and the line was necessary for tempo. So this would be my final suggestion:

The first child
who died of hunger
Draged God
Down into the grave
With him.


Naturally I am just shooting some thoughts which should not be given to much seriousness. Just trying a different angle to see if it works.

Also I feel bad playing so much with your poem, but what do you think of this as the final line?

The first child
who died of hunger
Draged God
Down into the grave
Hand in hand.

[Jerrybaldy]

It seems to me that Prince's original poem is purposely open to interpretation .. as to whether God as an idea, died with the first child allowed to die of hunger or as to whether God accompanied the child. I prefer the first of these, but that is my personal preference and the poem allows this.

I dont think Alexanders re-write aided this at all and the 'hand in hand' ending leads the reader, ruining the essence of the poem. It also doesn't read as well.

JB

[cacian]

Theodicy a title in itself.
I guess evil is a human mistake made by humans to punish other humans and so by this evil justifies itself by impregnating the god concept with the full wrath.
Abit like one is punished not because they did bad but because god is bad.
Evil is never justified through god or anyhting else but its own egoism and greed.
I wonder why egoism is not a sin. It should be because that is what evil is.

[Jeos]

The first child
who died of hunger
pulled MANKIND
down
into the grave with him.

[Jerrybaldy]

or maybe GOD.

[Jack of Hearts]

This reader isn't particularly moved by this poem. Now, old Jack of Hearts knows a Prince poem when he reads one (and if you want a Prince poem, search Prince's archive for 'The Death of Etan Patz'- it's the stuff nightmares are made of). But looking at this poem, a few thoughts come to mind.


The first child
who died of hunger
pulled God
down
into the grave with him.

It's a single sentence and it knows well the concept of brevity. Can't fault it there. But , as much as the reader like's reading about the lack of a god or the breaking of those old values, something of those old values persists here. The first child who died of starvation, or any child that dies of starvation, doesn't seem to get the classic, sterile image of 'going down into the grave' associated with that death. It doesn't fit well. Starving children don't 'go to the grave', and it feels like the poem should have the courage to say what they actually do (something akin to rotting or wasting away, probably), and what that idea actually does to the idea of god. It, of course, destroys it.

So for those reasons this reader finds this poem impotent. It needs to be messier.






J

[Jerrybaldy]

I have to disagree Jack. whether the child rots on top of polythene wallmart bags or has a grave doesn't matter, its all a metaphore after all, not a drama.

The more this thread makes me re-visit it the more I appreciate it. Its apparent simplicity is being torn by the responses that I hope do not end here.

[Jerrybaldy]

Oh and the use of the grave adds to this poems ambiguity leaving it open to the believers and the non. Hence, it gave us Alexanders attempt to re-write it in a manner that suited his belief better and a similar post from Jeos. A messier version would not have allowed this, so I am buying drinks for Prince.

[Jack of Hearts]

Prince deserves a round just for writing in the first place. Well we have our angles on what should be, but Prince wrote what is. Let us never forget that and always honor it. Now lezzz ged drunk.




J

[Jerrybaldy]

:cheers2:Crap... and I thought we could have a fun falling out over it. Instead we end up arm in arm singing auld langs syne. Oh well, shuddup and give me a kiss :cheers2:

[Jack of Hearts]

Probably just did in the other thread. We're two-thread communicating a lot these days...





J

[angliholic]

The first child
who died of hunger
pulled God
down
into the grave with him.


Well,
I have always been captivated your your poems.
And in this one, I assume you tried to express if God is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent, then He shouldn't let a creature, not to mention a child dies of hunger. If He does, then he is not God. Or there is no God.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm blown away by the number and the passions this poem evoked. Thank you JerryB & JerryB & JerryB & JerryB & JerryB & Alexander (though I strongly object to your "hand in hand" as a closing line, because it somewhat implies that they were buddies) & Cacian, Jeos, Angliholic and Jack of Hearts: I disagree with every one of the points you make but am appreciative of the flair with which you make them. Messiness as an aesthetic category is a valuable concept, I believe.

[Xillus_Xavier]

The poem is perfect as is. A short poem that contains enough impact to keep the reader thinking about it long after reading it, and also allows further interpretations. Well done.