Danny the lifter

[Leigh]

Killers in colars
Lazarus limps into view unseen
The noise of the gun blasts don't reach the silos
Dead or just sleeping the arguement is purely academic

Call me s synic, blame me for the rust, but you should know that i am a self made man and could buy you

[jms]

This kind of appealed to me, in an odd sort of way. Were the typos deliberate? I like 'Call me s synic' - even if the first 's' wasn't deliberate, leave it there.

[John G]

once again another post that I have enjoyed.

Particularly like the line


Paints an image of rough justice in scary abandoned land where grains silos dot the empty landscape

The noise of the gun blasts don't reach the silos

Great imagery and a good read

[thoke]

This looks unfinished.

How can anything leap "into view unseen"? Views are, by definition, seen.
What do any of the lines have to do with each other?
Why is the argument purely academic? Can't you think of a poetic alternative to "the argument is purely academic?"?

Contrary to what jms said, the typos do not look good. "Call me a cynic..." would look marginally better.

I doubt that anybody will have any idea what this poem is about. Are you happy with that?

Ben

[Leigh]

You make several presumptions about my motives and prossesses there Thoke. I couldn't point to a subject in this work, nor define any kind of statement in even a single sentence; and if I am unable to come to terms with them how is it that I am any more qualified than you to decide what the words 'mean'. Sometimes words can just appeal, or say something you don't know wants to be said and I don't feel I have the right to kill of my children just because they remain beyond my understanding; so much obsession with definition. What about that which we are unable to define; shall we never speak of that?

I don't particularly like this piece, it is unfinished, the typo's are just that; no intention to try and appear hip or 'street'. I don't always take everything I write too seriously, and if it’s below par I'm not really too bothered.

I had spotted the view unseen paradox there, it is possible for people to use paradoxes on purpose to confound those who would be. Sometimes there could be other purposes paradoxes: infinite possibilities. Also I could content that logically, Lazarus could limp (as I actually wrote) into view unseen: in that it would be possible for him to limp into my field of vision without me actually seeing- or registering through the process seeing- him. Another point you might want to pick up on is that Lazarus is, I'd reckon dead, which might even be irrelevant too being as though he probably never existed; certainly not in the form which the which the gospels describes him, and if the material does not match the label them then label is as real as it gets, does it even get that real?

Also I haven't said a damn word about the rest of the clothes the killer had on, are we to assume him naked.

Considering the contract like, hard fact based logic employed in the rest of the piece, it would be logical that the discourse over the proposed academic nature of the discussion would follow the same pattern; but no it baffles of into the striates of madness.

I don't like it but it has made me happy, so there we go, double win.

[thoke]

What about that which we are unable to define; shall we never speak of that?

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

Ben

[Leigh]

Is that your opinion? Just because someine else said it doesn't make it anymore true!

If we never spoke of things we don't understand how would we learn anything? how would we discover?

[Leigh]

Is that your opinion? Just because someine else said it doesn't make it anymore true!

If we never spoke of things we don't understand how would we learn anything? how would we discover?

[PhilipCFJohnson]

Hey Leigh!

I liked this! Especially the Lazarus reference. I'm a little lost on the title, but maybe there's a reference there I'm missing?

What I got from it (and I very well could be wrong) is about the injustice of wars being decided by politicians (I.e. killers in collars) and fought by soldiers and with civilian casualties miles away from were the decisions are made. I took the Lazarus reference to highlight how the politician's see life as a renewable resource to use in war, so that their conscious isn't affected as they may as well be sleeping, also shown in "the argument is purely academic" which shows how loss of human life is rationalised out to ease the guilt.

Also I liked the structure, how every line is longer than the last, I'll have to think a little longer on what that means.

Also liked "Lazarus limps into view unseen"
A very skillfully employed oxymoron, which again highlights the "turning a blind eye" to all the death.

I agree with what John said too in that:
"The noise of the gun blasts don't reach the silos"
is great, as it has a great moral content and imagery.

As far as the typos go I'm still not a fan I must admit. I find they stifle the intellectual content in your poems and it detracts from the complete reception of the great ideas you put into your work rather than delivering them in their truest form, but I can get over it as I can understand your art ethic behind them.

I really enjoyed this read, I think there were some great ideas behind it!

Nice work
All the best
Phil

[Leigh]

Cheers Phil, I must admit though I'm not such a massive fan of this poem, but I'm glad you liked it.I take your point about the spelling mistakes, there are some cases were they aren't apt and I think that this peice is one of them. Thanks again


Leigh

[thoke]

Is that your opinion? Just because someine else said it doesn't make it anymore true!

Right. But I don't think that it's true because Wittgenstein said it. I think Wittgenstein said it because it's true.

If we never spoke of things we don't understand...

Let me stop you there. The quotation doesn't say anything about things we don't understand. It's about what we can't speak about. You can't speak about what you can't speak about. You seemed to be defending your poem's incoherence by saying that it expressed something incoherent. Or somethign along those lines. My response is to say that this is impossible. If there is something in reality that is totally intangible, then you are not going to be able to write a poem about it. So pass it over in silence.

Ben

[Merlin]

I liked this , I do however think the spelling errors are not deliberate errors - they are errors ... just a glance back at previous posts and poems clarifies that

[catastrotopia]

hi leigh,

despite what you say about this not being your favorite poem, i think it has merit. It feels like a bit of a hasty post, but I would love to see what might emerge if you kept going with the flow of some of those "undefinable" ideas and see where it takes you. you might find they are not as undefinable as you thought.

the obscurity of the title (maybe i'm just missing it?) makes me feel like there are specific things you are hinting at here that the reader is missing out on, for lack of a few more clues.

interesting to hear phil's read on the politicians. with the lazarus reference, i wondered if the collars were clerical collars...

-c

[PhilipCFJohnson]

Ooh very good Cat! I never thought of that!! It ties in nicely with the biblical references! Possibly references to holy war?

I'm still interested to know what the title means tho?

[catastrotopia]

Ooh very good Cat! I never thought of that!! It ties in nicely with the biblical references!

just happens to be my line of work...

[Leigh]

Thoke, impossible to express incoherance! a bold claim. Perhaps you should read some Faulkner- perhaps The Sound and the Fury- or some Angela Carter. Many people might argue that if a text is to coherant it lacks scope for interpretation and therefor becomes didactic; if a text is didactic it is very hard to see it as anything other than instructiv. This leads to another question, can intruction be art? I would say no, if a text is didactic it is certainly not art. I'm not here to be explicit in my expression, I see no point as no-one will ever see a text in the exact same way I do anyway, so subject matter, to me, is irrelevant, what matters is precisely incoherance, the capacity fro a poem to be interpretted in a number of different way (the more the better), so I will deliberately avoid coherance.

Merlin, Often the spelling mistakes are not deliberate, at least when they first occur. What it is is that sometimes I deliberately don't ammend them, though that isn't the case with some of the mistakes in this piece.

[PhilipCFJohnson]

I think the argument is irrelevant anyway as this poem was entirely coherent. Ambiguous, yes. Incoherent certainly not.

On the other hand, getting back to the actual incoherence thing (to quote Calvin and Hobbes ) :



Not that I'm accusing you (Leigh) or anyone of this...just thought it seemed relevant!

All the best
Phil

[Leigh]

Cheers Phil, good old calvin and hobbes, they always brighten the mood, Nicely done old chum.

[thoke]

I'm sure I wrote a response here. Where's it gone?

Ben

[Leigh]

Nothing to do with me; I don't even know if you can delete other peoples responses.