 |
 |
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. >