I see what you mean, L. I would say that 'git' is a word I know but rarely hear and even more rarely, if ever, use. It sounds very Steptoe to me, Galton and Simpson wasn't it? It does have a 'force' as you say, implying incompetence born of ignorance but tends to be used in an accusing - and often challenging - sort of way, if ever addressed directly to anyone. Often I suppose it is an epithet of putdownery applied but not directed. There's no way back form being labelled a git. Gittery is I suppose more associated with beer - and cider - and less with wine, although in Australia in the 70s and 80s, wine was much cheaper by the 5 litre cardboard cask and may well have encouraged gitsome behaviour.
Hoo roo,
Bill
> On 27 Aug 2015, at 8:55 pm, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments, Bill
>
> The asterisked words were underlined in my text, as a prompt to the
> notional performer. I should have taken that off before it crossed
> character sets.
>
> I wonder if the word git has different force in our separate linguistic
> cultures. It's difficult to know because they are otherwise so close. It's
> certainly not polite; but it's a bit lower class too.
>
> I was rereading sections of Peter Barry's Poetry Wars from Salt where he
> quotes some of the disdain of some for poets .people generally who were now
> turning up to gigs smelling of and carrying beer. Peter quietly wonders it
> might have been different had they (we) been carrying wine.
>
> Git is impolite in that sense too.
>
> It's an acquired word for me. In my teens. My expletives before, now to a
> considerable extent suppressed for their sexism, were more expletive.
> Generally it's a word I know and hear rather than use much.
>
> It seemed right here. Other words suggested themselves, but were too
> aggressive (and sexist). I wanted the anger and contempt but without other
> distraction. It's possible that I failed in the last criterion.
>
> And maybe that affects the reception of the rest. I'll keep looking at that
>
> I'm going to drop the clay pigeons and stick with the dog. The metaphors
> mix badly.
>
> Thanks again
>
>
> L
>
>
>
>
>> On 26 August 2015 at 23:19, Bill Wootton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I like the first part, L and the idea of the metaphor of strum-out yo-yo
>> but 'git' a bit lost in the unfurling rant. Like particularly the lines 'as
>> if a trap had been banged wide/open unexpectedly beneath' which nails a
>> yo-yo's action and asks a reader to reconsider it.
>>
>> Are they meant to be inverted commas surrounding 'him' in line 2 and
>> 'that' in line 7? They come up as asterisks in my post anyway.
>>
>> B
>>
>>>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 11:14 pm, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I saw a man hold a made thing
>>>
>>> twined in tough cord which held *him* straight
>>>
>>> as a prisoner might show itself
>>>
>>> in restraint. He threw the odd device
>>>
>>> downwards into the air. It rolled
>>>
>>> out its tether backwards dropping
>>>
>>> till *that* jerked hard at its ending,
>>>
>>> the escapade suddenly dead,
>>>
>>> as if a trap had been banged wide
>>>
>>> open unexpectedly beneath
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> yet the round body pulled itself up
>>>
>>> upwards into a salvation
>>>
>>> from whence it took the drop again
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> like clay birds all day flying up
>>>
>>> identical factory products
>>>
>>> without their own conscious power
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> or a dog fetching a ball more times
>>>
>>> than it can count, self-persuaded
>>>
>>> that it's autonomous and free.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “This,” said the man, with nonchalance,
>>>
>>> “reminds me of my staff at work.
>>>
>>> They do not realise control
>>>
>>> is beyond their hands. All they want
>>>
>>> is the string and how it works right here
>>>
>>> with them dependent on its knots
>>>
>>> which they cannot retie. Weak minds,
>>>
>>> each self-aware, they believe; so proud;
>>>
>>> but hindered by what's possible,
>>>
>>> planning regime variations
>>>
>>> while they are first governed, and then
>>>
>>> let loose, completely, on a leash.
>>>
>>> What they eat, what they drink, we sell
>>>
>>> with ease; what they decide, I have
>>>
>>> suggested to them many ways,
>>>
>>> as I too am chained entangled
>>>
>>> stapled by hard steel to constructs
>>>
>>> I have been offered and agreed
>>>
>>> to love, to keep the money thick
>>>
>>> in my wallet, big coins weighing
>>>
>>> towards the buried iron core
>>>
>>> of limited understanding...
>>>
>>> What do I know of final things?
>>>
>>> I'm sure I am retained. Thus I
>>>
>>> am not enslaved. I do enslave.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus, you, unfriend, who always said
>>>
>>> the best thing to each one of us
>>>
>>> to keep us obedient, are now
>>>
>>> neither a yoyo nor player;
>>>
>>> a fake; a manipulator
>>>
>>> who reworks incoherent rage,
>>>
>>> which might, just, make sense; but doesn't.
>>>
>>> There is no part original
>>>
>>> in what you have written or said.
>>>
>>> There is scant substance to your speech
>>>
>>> with much meaningful malign intent...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You fooled me, yes; and many more,
>>>
>>> till I grew weary of your moods...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some may come yet and hear utterance
>>>
>>> that builds up some implications
>>>
>>> according to what you purport...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are a disappointing git!
>>>
>>> All your words mean rather little;
>>>
>>> and, what you say, you've said before
>>>
>>> twenty years ago; further still.
>>>
>>> Many were impressed by your talk,
>>>
>>> but I think them to be trite fools
>>>
>>> for all they speak in a register
>>>
>>> reserved for smug theologians;
>>>
>>> building their own theory coffins
>>>
>>> while, as with all systemic faith,
>>>
>>> they malign bodies politic.
>
|