Mike,

Thinking again, brain-washed is the wrong term to use. Maybe something
closer to "resigned" or "brain worn out" (after much exertion against an
immoveable object), or even "dead pan".

And while I'm criticising my own criticism, communism is quite a risky thing
for me to mention in the current context. I'm lucky not to have had some
harpy swooping from the ether to tear my heart out. I should have added that
I did not wish to imply either of us were communists or that it would matter
if we were. It was just a method of modifying the word "propagate" as in
"propaganda". Too flamboyant of me perhaps.

I suppose I was trying to offer criticism without declaring any point of
view, or reacting to your poem according to the point of view propagated in
it.


BW

Colin


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: New sub: Homage...- Colin


Hello Colin,
             Thanks for your comments. The form follows Larkin´s  original
quite closely, including the repetition of certain phrases. I wonder if that
is what gave the wooden effect you noticed? For myself, I see the poem as
being heavily ironic and for me the irony overrides the brain-washed tone
that you describe, but that´s just how I feel about it and I may well be
exaggerating my own powers of irony. Given that use of irony (at least as I
perceive/exaggerate it) the voice of the poem becomes serious/reliable as
far as it goes, which is just a very sour form of criticism, as I see it.
But having said that I can see that it would be quite justified to read the
voice of the poem rather differently, along the lines you suggest. I hadn´t
noticed it before but there is an element of ambiguity - is the tone
appropriate, or isn´t it? Regarding the witty change from `here´ to `hear´ I
must admit that all credit goes to Larkin who does the same in his poem.



Best wishes,   Mike



--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
Mike,

I haven't seen this configuration before but then maybe I haven't read my
Philip Larkin enough. It's a thorny question isn't it, whether poetry should
be overtly political? My guess is that if it is going to be political then
it has to be something else as well. Otherwise it isn't likely to be an
effective piece of propaganda, using the word in the communist sense (as
disseminating truth) rather than in the democratic sense (disseminating
lies). There is irony in the poem but it comes across as a bit wooden. Maybe
that's intentional. The form you have chosen with its repetitive mirror
rhymes discharges any sense of being able to take the protagonist seriously,
but then the protagonist isn't the poet and that slightly brain washed tone
is in the end quite appropriate...or is it.....? As for the lines one
quibble would be "that our worst fears could possible happen". Do fears
happen? I suppose they do but this isn't the same as fears being realised or
justified. I like the witty switch hear to here in S3.

Colin


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:45 AM
Subject: New sub: Homage...


Homage to a Government

after Philip Larkin

This year we´re sending our troops abroad
to preserve world peace, and this is all right.
They will bring order and prevent killing,
although to achieve this goal some killing
will be necessary, but this is all right
if it is for world peace and happens abroad.

Of course no one wanted this to happen.
Tyrants must be stopped before they threaten
world peace and the evidence was convincing,
although the public took some convincing
that this enemy posed a real threat and
that our worst fears could possibly happen.

So now we are living in a country
that sends soldiers abroad to preserve peace
in a country that is far from here.
In theory that would be all right, but we hear
that fighting goes on with no sign of peace
and we´re just thankful it´s not in our country.




Mike