401

[paperleaves]

WOW--I am so excited to receive so many comments on this poem. Thank you to all! First off, Sophia, thank you for your comment regarding the proper regard of father and grandfather..I may change 'papa' to 'tato' because it has a wonderful sound to it and adds to the richness of the poem (although originally, I was referring to a grandfather, for a more long-bearded, whitefaced image) and since I lack any Ukrainian descent, it broadens my perspective immensely.

Just a disclaimer, this was not written from an insider perspective...I have no family members who were alive in Ukraine during the Holodomor, nor have I heard any stories that inspired this, it was just a pure speculation as to the crippling events that occurred and the effects on faith afterward.

Virgil, thanks for your comments as well--after reading your dialogue with PM, I noticed that I did not capitalize "he" in the stanza regarding the Holodomor. That probably would have made things easier to understand, as the poem gets rather confusing with the interlocking of stories. I personally didn't think there was a plea for sympathy, but I may be biased. Since I have no emotional attachment to what happens in this poem, maybe I wasn't as masterful as I could have been in describing how awful it must feel to see how blind faith can sometimes destroy someone/ impact their well-being and not be able to do anything about it.

Thanks for your comments, it really helps me see what I could do to improve in my coming pieces and I can't wait to hear more!

love
paper

[blank|verse]

On the whole, this is another great poem, paperleaves.

For what it's worth, I do think Virgil has a point in saying the ending of the poem could be subtler; I think it strays too much into 'telling' rather than 'showing', to invoke Henry James's famous dictum. Perhaps something simpler like:

so now, you cry, in an antiquated accent,
sobbing for sleep, thinking He can hear you

I'm not keen on the line breaks, they seem a bit arbitrary (particularly 'wheezes' as a line by itself) and work against the flow of the measured, thoughtful tone of the subject. Maybe you should consider working in syllabics, where you just stick to a set number of syllables per line (as a basic rule of thumb); at least that gives the poem an element of control. In fact the first two lines:

the mocha loveseat, dusted with ashes
from the foot of your Maduro cigar,

both have 10 syllables, so would be an ideal form for the rest of the poem. I'm also unsure about 'loveseat' in the first line, I think it sets the wrong tone for what's to come.

But still, there are some wonderful images; the characterisation is spot-on and tenderly evoked; and the contrast between the comfort of now and the horrors of the past is strongly expressed.

[Virgil]

Virgil, thanks for your comments as well--after reading your dialogue with PM, I noticed that I did not capitalize "he" in the stanza regarding the Holodomor. That probably would have made things easier to understand, as the poem gets rather confusing with the interlocking of stories. I personally didn't think there was a plea for sympathy, but I may be biased. Since I have no emotional attachment to what happens in this poem, maybe I wasn't as masterful as I could have been in describing how awful it must feel to see how blind faith can sometimes destroy someone/ impact their well-being and not be able to do anything about it.

Thanks for your comments, it really helps me see what I could do to improve in my coming pieces and I can't wait to hear more!

love
paper

Yes, i do think capitalizing the "he" would not have thrown me. Ok, it's prepared, I'll agree, though I think Blankverse's comment is accurate.

On the whole, this is another great poem, paperleaves.

For what it's worth, I do think Virgil has a point in saying the ending of the poem could be subtler; I think it strays too much into 'telling' rather than 'showing', to invoke Henry James's famous dictum.

Yes I agree, good point. There is just something about that ending that doesn't satisfy. Perhaps it's just such a coloquial common phrase that kind of feels cheap. But I agree, the rest of the poem is very good. I still think she could leave out those two lines and end it there, and it would be fine, if not even perfect. I'm not quite sure why she needs to add that point at the end.

[paperleaves]

If I didn't add the last two lines, even if I revised them, how would you see the child's criticism of their grandfather's blind obedience to his religion?

It may not seem like it, but the main character in the poem is the child, who would be nearly eliminated if I didn't add his ring of disapproval at the end.
I'm just not sure I understand how the last two lines are the ones that plea for attention, rather than the lines about the vanilla chai or hands wrestling with angels.
Sorry I keep nagging, but I honestly never learned anything about what you're talking about in my poetry classes and I am curious to learn!

love
paper

[PrinceMyshkin]

If I didn't add the last two lines, even if I revised them, how would you see the child's criticism of their grandfather's blind obedience to his religion?

It may not seem like it, but the main character in the poem is the child, who would be nearly eliminated if I didn't add his ring of disapproval at the end.
I'm just not sure I understand how the last two lines are the ones that plea for attention, rather than the lines about the vanilla chai or hands wrestling with angels.
Sorry I keep nagging, but I honestly never learned anything about what you're talking about in my poetry classes and I am curious to learn!

love
paper

In the face of two such careful, scrupulous readers as B|V and Virgil, I hesitate to reiterate that the last two lines are not only NOT an overt plea for sympathy, but they are essential to the poem inasmuch as hitherto the speaker has constrained herself to speak objectively about her grandfather and his lamentable condition but finally, she cannot leave this interior dialogue with him without appealing to him directly or as directly as she can do. Despite her avowed disbelief in God, one might even read those last two lines, to mean that she hopes - if there is a God - that He is overhearing her denunciation of Him and might be swayed to honour her grandfather's loyalty to Him..

[Virgil]

If I didn't add the last two lines, even if I revised them, how would you see the child's criticism of their grandfather's blind obedience to his religion?

It may not seem like it, but the main character in the poem is the child, who would be nearly eliminated if I didn't add his ring of disapproval at the end.
I'm just not sure I understand how the last two lines are the ones that plea for attention, rather than the lines about the vanilla chai or hands wrestling with angels.
Sorry I keep nagging, but I honestly never learned anything about what you're talking about in my poetry classes and I am curious to learn!

love
paper

I think it's suggested like this:

I can see the longing in your laugh lines, papa,
as you wobble over your cane
to the back porch, and call out,
with a wounded yelp
to what remains of God.
once, you scrounged for scraps of bread
on the hollow Ukrainian streets, you asked for water
and he gave you
the Holodomor.
so now, you cry, in an antiquated accent,
sobbing for sleep,

He asked for water and God gave him the Holodomor; he continues to call out for God and gets nothing. You can't spell everything out for the reader. Best poems are those that suggest it. If a particular reader doesn't get it, well, that's unfortunate. But I think the power of your thought is greater with the suggested subtext.

Edit: Plus I think the adjective "antiquated" is perfect to add to your subtext.

[hack]

I suppose we would each rewrite it to suit our individual tastes. If I were to criticize or edit it I would pare it down some, but that may or may not be an improvement. I think that this is true to Papers voice, as I read it anyway. It works with or without the last two lines. It is good Paper. Thank You. Keep writing...peace...

[blank|verse]

Although people are clearly divided on this issue, in addition to what Virgil said, it might be worth your while looking up the term 'objective correlative', used by TS Eliot in an essay about Hamlet. Basically, he was saying a writer should describe a situation which evokes the feelings you want the reader to experience without saying directly: "You the reader should now be feeling sorry for this person – look at all the bad things that have happened to them" or whatever, a form of authorial intervention sometimes called 'buttonholing', as if you're grabbing the reader by the lapels and shouting in his/her face. It is therefore a technique best used with caution. (And I'm not saying you go quite that far in your poem.)

To take the 'vanilla chai' example – here, you're simply describing the action. You don’t add "and you the reader should like vanilla chai as well". That, rather crudely expressed, is the difference, which is the same for moral issues as well as one's of taste.

If I didn't add the last two lines, even if I revised them, how would you see the child's criticism of their grandfather's blind obedience to his religion?

As it stands, you evoke enough sympathy for the old man, 'wobbling' across the porch with his cane, still haunted by his horrific memories. Any reader that doesn't sympathise with this will be in a cynical minority.

If the old man is simply described as thinking God can hear him, it prompts the reader to consider his inner turmoil of how, if everything has a divine purpose, God could let such horrors he has experienced happen. Any right-thinking person today will naturally consider the implicit criticism of why he continues to believe in God in such circumstances but also understand, and hopefully respect, that this is what the old man believes and the differences between the generations. 'Showing' or presenting these tensions for the reader is far more poetically and dramatically powerful than coming down on the argument one way or another. This way you leave the reader to draw the conclusion and naturally pity the old man without being told to.

Now, because the child narrator is himself giving his opinion about this poor old chap (and hence 'telling' the reader what to think) the reader could rebel and turn against the child: "Leave the old fellow alone!" he might think, "he's been through enough without you forcing your modern, godless opinions down his throat!"

Writing things like this is always a bit of a balancing act, but the fact you've chosen the subject you have, and have successfully evoked sympathy for the old man and his belief, forces the reader to consider his predicament; and, if the poem is well written (which I believe this otherwise is) then you will have led the reader to the conclusion you want them to reach naturally, without having to announce the 'moral of the story' at the end.

[paperleaves]

Thank you for your replies, PM, Virgil, hack, and blankverse. I am going to do a little bit of reading and educate myself on this "objective correlative" term.

ALSO, thank you Virgil for posting my poem without the ending lines so that it was clearer to me of what you were suggesting it look like. I see where you and blankverse are coming from now that I have read your explanations. I obviously have not mastered this kind of poem, but for some reason, felt it more important to exaggerate the child's marked disdain toward his grandfather's blind obedience to his God. Perhaps if I beefed up the poem in other ways (although I think through the line about the "wrestling hands" may have shown the child's emotions concisely), I could have exaggerated that emotion in a different way and cut out the last lines. I will have to keep that in mind.

For now, this will remain as it is in my memory, a perfect example of a poem I've wanted to write for a looooong time, one that receives both constructive criticism AND praise, so that I may grow with my voice as a poet and tame the wild constructs of which she prides herself. ^_^

Seriously, can't stress enough, thank you for all your feedback. I feel like this is the response I've been needing on LitNet and it pleases me to see how many people are helping me here.
Love you all!


in kindness,
paper

[Virgil]

Although people are clearly divided on this issue, in addition to what Virgil said, it might be worth your while looking up the term 'objective correlative', used by TS Eliot in an essay about Hamlet. Basically, he was saying a writer should describe a situation which evokes the feelings you want the reader to experience without saying directly: "You the reader should now be feeling sorry for this person – look at all the bad things that have happened to them" or whatever, a form of authorial intervention sometimes called 'buttonholing', as if you're grabbing the reader by the lapels and shouting in his/her face. It is therefore a technique best used with caution. (And I'm not saying you go quite that far in your poem.)

Yes! Objective Correlative. My mind was striving for the term and it wouldn't come. Here's a whole page of links on it: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yf...%20correlative.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm going to retract the argument I've been making contra B|V and Virgil (& which I just reiterated to paperleaves in a PM). If there were more instances like these:

once, you scrounged for scraps of bread
on the hollow Ukrainian streets, you asked for water
and he gave you
the Holodomor.

then one might read the poem as the child of a Ukrainian family mourning this aspect of Ukraine's 20th c. history (& how they had been misled by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church), then the last two lines would be entirely appropriate; but since her "Papa's" Ukrainian identity is but one of the facts of his existence, the narrator's skepticism re his beliefs is, I now believe, irrelevant to the poem, and an intrusion of the narrator into the poem, an unjustifiable theological debate.

[Virgil]

That is the core of the poem, and it's magnificently done.

[Babyguile]

I don't think Virgil has any sensible stance from which to criticise a voice such as paperleaves when he/she is not the author of his/her poem. I appreciate you're trying to make a point, Virgil, but you should have given up the cause a long time ago.

I agree with Princemyshkin about the right for the poet to stamp a little harder with their own voice toward the end. I think the whole poem works perfectly and I cannot criticise it and I would never try. Gosh no...

[Virgil]

I don't think Virgil has any sensible stance from which to criticise a voice such as paperleaves when he/she is not the author of his/her poem. I appreciate you're trying to make a point, Virgil, but you should have given up the cause a long time ago.

Huh? First of all I complimented her voice. Read each of my posts here, especially Post #11 of the thread. Second, she's asking for critical advice. I offered it. She can can do what she likes with it, including flushinig it down the toilet.

[Babyguile]

Second, she's asking for critical advice.

Where?

S/he simply posted the poem in order to share it, am I right?