Hello Grasshopper,
                  Thanks for your comments. I was very interested in your point about compliance and I must say that I hadn´t myself seen it in that way, as I had also not thought of it as patriotic. My reasons for using `spreads her legs ....´ was in the first instance because the geography of the region really looks vaguely like that and because I´d used body imagery throughout the poem. `dreaming of new offspring´ extended that image and also contained, I thought, the idea of the `nation´ (once it exists as a unified concept) extending its territory, which is what colonisation is all about. That, of course, suggests complicity in the colonisation on the part of `the motherland´. But isn´t `the motherland´ rather a concept in the nationalist mind rather than the actual, real ground beneath our feet, the land which gets raped in all this. As I try to explain this in prose, and indeed as I think about in these terms, it does all seem rather convoluted, the images and what they may or may not `mean´ become wheels within wheels. I think there are two resolutions to this: 1. either I´ve been imprecise in my use of the images....or 2. it´s not possible to separate individual images from the poem and `explain´ them in prose.   This touches very closely on a point you raised in a recent reply to Shah, I think, concerning your poem `The Mermaiden´. You asked how important it was for a poem to `say´ something. I think that was your word. I thought at the time that this was a great theme to pursue further but it´s so enormous and has so many side-turnings that I didn´t quite know where to pick it up. It´s relevance here is perhaps two-fold, 1. does my poem actually express what I mean? do the images function as I want them to?...and 2. if so, can they be extracted and analysed in order to discover what they say, or must they be left in place in the poem to work. Is it in fact possible that an image which works in the poem may appear (may even really be) imprecise when taken out and analysed. This would be a poetic version of those atoms that behaved differently when they were observed in that famous experiment that I´ve now forgotten the details of. 
   I´ve been rambling on a bit and this is enough. I´d be very interested to hear whether you feel that my `explanation´ of those phrases makes any sense - I mean can the reader actually get the sense I´ve been trying to describe. 
   I have to add a little comment about the preamble. I agree it´s not needed. But by God, I enjoyed writing it ;-). You´re absolutely right about my being self-conscious, too. Can you believe that this was actually the first time in my life that I have ever used the word that begins with F? It was no small step, let me assure you, but now it´s been taken I realise just how easy it is. From now on every poem, every line, will contain a word that ends with -uck. I have a plan to write one that contains no other word than that one. OK, silly enough already. it´s time for me to go.


Best wishes,   Mike




--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
Dear Mike,
I read the poem as satirical - certainly the attitude of regarding a country
as something to be ruthlessly exploited is not one I'd regard as patriotic
in any way. I read it as a comment on a certain (unpleasant) male attitude.
I think you could tighten it a bit, and would it be stronger, for instance,
if the idea of the country being compliant were omitted - that her legs are
opened, rather than that she willingly parts them, to stress the active
aggression of the narrator?
I don't think you needed the preamble -that made you seem a bit
self-conscious about using certain words. My feeling is if the poem needs
'em, use 'em--- don't apologise for them. On the other hand, I think it's a
good idea to warn the potential reader that the poem contains strong
language, though on one list when I did this, I was slapped on the legs for
'patronising' the list members.

Kind regards,
      grasshopper

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [THE-WORKS] New sub: Colonisation - Trish


Hello Trish,
            `Rape´ is certainly a key word here, `patriotic´ is certainly
not, as you observe, and nor is `mushy´ I hope. I think Ryfkah´s point
though was also that it was neither of those things.


Best wishes,   Mike



--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
In fact, it sounds like the rape of America, with oil as it's object. But
surely not?! It's definitely not mushy, despite the swamp, but I'm not sure
it's patriotic either. Is it meant to be? (I have read the whole poem as
well as excerpt on this e-mail by the way)
Very strong stuff.

Trish