PoemoftheWeek

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “ktd222”

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “ktd222”

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “ktd222”

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?


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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

This has just gotten silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “jackyyyy”

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “jackyyyy”

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apple jiang

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

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.