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.
> >
>
|