thanks Andrew, that's a hell of a lot more useful than some
of the feedback I've had lately.
As to whom is being addressed -- that's really up to the reader.
It's meant to have many possible interpretations.
I have heard about six so far and only a couple of them
are ones I've thought of.
Janet
> I'm being particularly thick this evening, but I can't work out who
> the poet is addressing here. I have thought of God, Australia, a
> lover, ... I dunno. Maybe it doesn't matter: maybe it the angry energy
> that is the 'point' of the poem. I do feel that saying 'unspeakable
> name' twice weakens it - It has more power if you just use it once. &
> I'd drop the second verse because too many unspeakables in that
> line-broken way becomes a gimmick if used too often.
>
> I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't think the poem had legs. (It may
> even have balls.)
|