MARKER

[Leslie]

MARKER

The field lies fallow,
left to re-invent itself,
a promise under the right hand,
hedged in its unpredicted pattern
by growth unnaturally shaped,
mechanically, evenly beheaded.

In an angle of the hedge
one tree trunk, tall as two men
one mounted on the other’s shoulders,
stands obliterated by crowding ivy
that climbs glistening above head height
of two men, one atop the other,
both invisible, unable to see.

From shoulder height to shoulder height
arms as thin as bone project
naked, without hands, appealing
hopelessly in all directions.

[twelveoone]

this while being fantastic, confuses me,

"hedged in its unpredicted pattern
by growth unnaturally shaped,
mechanically, evenly beheaded."

bear with me I'm American, so I may be missing something British, this looks like a hedge to me "unnaturally shaped", "evenly beheaded", what is the "unpredicted pattern"? The fallow field? The tree branch? I assume it is the tree branch. A fallow field stikes me as predictable

"a promise under the right hand, "
this is a great line, and compliments the arms as thin as bones below.

"naked, without hands, appealing
hopelessly in all directions."
again, great description, but it forces on to decide what it is appealing
and I keep coming up with "pull the ivy off."

"of two men, one atop the other,
both invisible, unable to see."
Interesting


I guess what I am trying to say is it looks like a dead tree in a hedge, however the ambiguities with the wording, makes it looks like it could be so laden with information, and I just keep coming up with a dead tree in a hedge
with ivy.

I am trying to resolve "unpredicted", the appeal and "two men invisible and unable to see", I just wish it had one more pointer. It is probably because I come from America, I can not get a handle on it.

[Leslie]

Many thanks twelve0 for taking the trouble to dig into this poem. In writing it I have well and truly shot myself in the foot. Not long ago I posted a comment about the difficulty in commenting on poems so composed that only the writer could understand what the heck it was about – now I’ve done it!
I saw the tree during one of my country cycle-rides and it was immediately a symbol in my mind, but I was obviously too absorbed. The broad idea is that the field represents the Earth, the tree represents intelligent Man, the ivy is the way He has ensnared himself by the growth of civilisation, its industry, legislation and concomitant complexities.
‘Fallow, re-invent, promise’ it’s there, think what we could make of it.
‘unpredicted’ no great significance, just that fields in England are totally hap-hazard in shape and the World developed naturally.
‘hedges unnaturally shaped . .etc.’ Labour-saving: the farmer goes around on a tractor with a fiendish blade on a manipulating arm and massacres the hedge, so it is mechanically levelled along the top. (and leaves bits in the road, so that my tyre is punctured and I have to push the bike 3 miles home. Am I a little prejudiced?) Again, a reflection of what the machine/scientific age has done to the world. The borders and boundaries of life are more mechanical than natural.
The tree trunk is tall as two men: more than one generation involved and (like Isaac Newton) the clever men ‘have seen further because they stand upon the shoulders of giants.’ But they are lost and stifled now by what has grown up around them.
The most pathetic thing about the tree was the short branches, thin as bones, sticking through the ivy like arms reaching out blindly for help. Will it come?
So you see, no American apology needed; I don’t think any other nationality understood either.
Any good? Leslie.

[twelveoone]

Thank you.
it is so wonderful, just a tiny bit more pointers, a tiny taking away

you have been writing for a long time? I ask because so much is in it, and it misses (at least to me) by so very little.

My pleasure to read.

[Leslie]

Thanks again, twelveO. Glad you posted comment, disappointing not to receive other views - even if they were baffled, too. Yes, I've been writing for an awful lot of years, probably passed through most of the stages progressing poets experience. Must be careful not to fall back into thinking complexity equals cleverness and writing poems no-one understands. Best wishes, Leslie.

[Bombadil]

Leslie,

Didn't mean to neglect you, most august and sanguine of posters. But it was entirely over my humble head. Kind of like a Balanchine dancer, it was nice and pretty, but not for the simple man to acquire.

Cheers,

Keith

[Leslie]

Well said Keith, simplicity is a great virtue and I shall try to cultivate it in future. Must be the country air proving too intoxicating. Leslie.

[twelveoone]

just needs a few pointers
complex is good, "clever" can be be OK
deceptively simple is best
just a trim please