The British Empire (an outside view)

[rushme]

well its not only about the packaging - & yea all the things you mention is included.

it is my personal opinion - a poem that just sounds good & technically perfect but has nothing much to say - doesn't excite me.

besides, this is definitely poetry:

Lies, lies, and yet more lies,
pedantically, unctuously spoken;
it’s so difficult actively to hate the English
when you meet them in their island home,
when you understand their bluff and shallow reasoning.

Promises and agreements are routinely broken
until violence brings forth counter-violence,
but they train for violence, they seem to like it,
they have the best little army in the world;
they only tend to give in when you won’t give up
after a few thousand (unnecessary) deaths
and then they compare it to rugby or cricket.

to my mind this is poetry & not prose.


this one by dylan thomas could very well be pedantically prosaic:

In the sniffed and poured snow on the tip of the tongue of the year
That clouts the spittle like bubbles with broken rooms,
An enamoured man alone by the twigs of his eyes, two fires,
Camped in the drug-white shower of nerves and food,
Savours the lick of the times through a deadly wood of hair

so on..& so forth...

[Ros]

If these are the examples you're using, I'm afraid I'd have to weigh in on the side of Peter here. There's a world of difference between the first section you quoted, which doesn't use metaphor, alliteration, etc. and the Dylan Thomas which is stacked full of those things.

I agree that a poem, however beautifully written, is a bit pointless if it doesn't have anything interesting to say. But there are rules and techniques, craft, that make it a good poem rather than just prose. Otherwise we're all wasting our time here, surely?

Ros

[Arian]

I certainly wouldn't claim that content is irrelevant - of course it is. It's just that, in my view, it's the "packaging" (for want of a better word) that differentiates poetry from prose. I'm afraid it seems to me that the first passage you quote is pretty much entirely packaging-free (which at least makes it good for the environment!).


To describe the DT extract as "prosaic" is to use the word in a way I'm not familiar with. I agree with Ros, it seems to me to be pretty rich in what I'd call powerful poetic devices. For a start, it's a delight to read, with musical assonances and cadences, as well as...but enough. As you rightly say, Rushme, we all have our views - and this is just mine.

Cheers
peter

[dedalus]

I think you're missing out on what rushme is really trying to say, Arian, not because you're not articulate and intelligent and all that sort of thing but because you're looking at the surface of the poem as an example of its kind and thinking in terms of structures and comparisons. Rushme is looking at the poem as a stand-alone solitary event ... in fact he's not just reading the lines as they appear on the page (the computer screen) but reading between the lines and relating what he sees to his own memories and experiences. Rushme is from the Indian subcontinent, or so I believe, and he's looking at these lines written by an Irish guy from a country thousands of miles away from his own and he's saying to himself, you know, this looks awfully familiar. This, I think, is why he is more interested in discussing the content over the structure. The references to the Dylans is a polite compliment of sorts (I thought it was rather odd myself) but it's entirely peripheral. This, at least, is my interpretation. Please correct me, rushme, if I am wrong!

Best wishes to the pair of you,
dedalus/ Brendan

[brianedwards]

Without wishing to fiddle with the fiddly bits of the what-nots here, I can't help but say rushme, that of all the possible passages you could have chosen to highlight your prosaic point, the Thomas piece was a pretty naff choice: the damn thing is dripping in poetry! Admire your gusto, but I have to question your hearing if you doubt the poetry of those lines.

Sorry, I'll climb back into my soundproof box now and continue reading Charles Olson aloud through toilet roll tubes.

G'night you crazy poets.

B.

~

[dedalus]

Me again ...

My message above was a response to the last posts I had seen (those of rushme and Arian at the end of Page One) since I was not aware at the time of the ones that followed. It never crossed my mind that there might be a Page 2! A small point, but context is all. Quite apart from the merits of the poem itself, it's rather interesting to see a discussion such as this get going. It reminds me of late nights in college over bottles of awful wine.

Cheers,
D.

[rushme]

dedalus - i have to correct you on one point - i'm a she not a he.

your poem kind of reminded me of not going gentle into that night - in tone & spirit - hence the comparison.

anyways...who can say a conversational piece that does not employ the witchcraft of poetry is any less poetic then the one which does?

on the tip of the tongue of the year - is not exactly music to my ears - neither - That clouts the spittle like bubbles with broken rooms - yes i'm aware its fairly dripping - that was the whole point.

but i'm not belittling dylan - how can i ? he was a great poet so was ee cummings:

may i feel said he
(i'll squeal said she
just once said he)
it's fun said she

(may i touch said he
how much said she
a lot said he)
why not said she

is also a poem.

[rushme]

sorry D - hope its not like a nightmare - i'm outta here.

[OwenEdwards]

Bren,

If you really want to mark me down as a villainous cynic, let me just say I prefer your ad hoc response poem (to me) to the original!

Yours

Noble Knight, Sir Owen the Cynic

[dedalus]

Villainous? Thee?? ... on your other point, Owen, I'm increasingly inclined to agree. I know I still owe you a reply but you can see the way things are going.

Cheers,
Bren

[dedalus]

Apologies, rushme!!

On the other hand, your arguments have the strength and clarity of a certain type of man; I'll stop now because instead of explaining myself I'm just making things worse!!

All the best (and no offense!),
dedalus/ Brendan

[Ros]

your arguments have the strength and clarity of a certain type of man;
dedalus/ Brendan

no, do keep digging that hole

[Arian]

Perhaps you’re right, Brendan, perhaps you’re right.

If you are, though, it means a poem has no independent value: it’s not defined by any external parameters, but only by those parameters which the reader sees as important. It becomes, as it were, literature’s version of a Rorschach (did I spell that right?) image, a meaningless cloud of words which has no general value, only individual value. This, in turn, means that anything – absolutely anything – can be a poem.

This sounds ever so sweet and liberal, very neo-aesthetic relativism, but, if anything, absolutely anything, can be a poem, doesn’t that rather debase, devalue, the form? I mean, if you sweat for ages over a poem, and I know you produce some good stuff, isn’t it just a bit vexing to know that what you’ve produced is, intrinsically, neither any better, nor any worse, than the meanderings of a 4-year old learning to write - that your work has absolutely no merit in general terms, because it’s value can’t be measured by a generally agreed (it could never be universal, I know) benchmark?

Surely, surely, surely – if poetry is to have any value whatever, if our efforts on this site is to have any point at all, we have to agree that some things are poetry, and some things aren’t. I’m not as good a poet as T.S Eliot and I know it. But your argument would claim that I am – if Rushme (or anyone) enjoyed reading my stuff as much.

Still, an interesting discussion for all that.

All the best
peter

[OwenEdwards]

It might seem convenient to say things have an absolute value, but God, language doesn't work like that. We can agree general rules for the sake of conversation, but in an absolute sense, the feelings poetry engender and the linguistic elements it contains don't relate to anything but the most liberal definition of the word.

[Oskar]

Brendan

I didn't have you down for a purveyor of crude racial stereotypes. I expect that sort of thing from the BNP, not from you. Your use of the blanket term the English lumps all of the social classes together and asserts that everyone who lived on this island during the time of Empire was party to and beneficiaries of the wealth generated by global exploitation. A large proportion of the British population during our economic heyday of the Industrial Revolution were themselves victims of unscrupulous employers and political leaders who, with useful tools like Combination Acts and the police/army (Peterloo Massacre) readily at their disposal, kept ordinary working people firmly in their place by denying them trade unions and the vote. The inculcation of a deferential not for the likes of us attitude and the promise of jam tomorrow, through the promotion of religious practice, also helped to suppress the political aspirations of the lower orders. The ever present fear of the workhouse and starvation played its part too!

Not all of the 'they' you refer to were or are culpable. We're not all good little soldiers who train for violence. We're not all flag waving toffs. I think you need to make some attempt to define your terms more clearly if you want to be taken seriously.

You're a charismatic bugger. Someone whose writing talent I generally admire. On this occasion, however, your thirst for reparation has left you looking like a tawdry, shop-soiled patriot.

Regards

[dedalus]

You're a charismatic bugger. Someone whose writing talent I generally admire. On this occasion, however, your thirst for reparation has left you looking like a tawdry, shop-soiled patriot.

Well, there you are Oskar and I'm most dreadfully sorry. Of course you're quite right about class and social tensions within Britain and the fact that "the English" can't all be lumped together as a single unit. On the other hand there is a form of shorthand going on in the poem where the term "English" refers explicitly to the governing classes, those who are making and implementing policy decisions (except for the line about finding the English hard to dislike ... this refers to the people in general).

I mean, cut me a little bit of slack here ...

but they (not of course certain groups and individuals, such as ...)train for violence, they seem to like it,
they (not of course certain groups and individuals, such as ...) have the best little army in the world;
they (not of course certain groups and individuals, such as ...)only tend to give in when you won’t give up ....
and then they (not of course certain groups and individuals, such as ...)compare it to rugby or cricket.

Cheers,
Bren/ dedalus

[brianedwards]

Seems a shame to me that so many poems are sitting on the boards with barely a single comment and this one has garnered 40 based almost purely on the fact it is controversial.
No offence meant towards any one individual, but is this site about poetry or what?

B.

~

[k-j]

Seems a shame to me that so many poems are sitting on the boards with barely a single comment and this one has garnered 40 based almost purely on the fact it is controversial.
No offence meant towards any one individual, but is this site about poetry or what?

B.

~

Absolutely agree, it's a trainwreck of a poem and a thread. That's the internet for you though. Presumably those who contribute are enjoying themselves.

[Arian]

I agree, too. Have been trying to nudge the thread back to poetry for ages. There are other boards for political crusades.

[Petronius]

I hesitate to enter this so late in the day but I feel I am qualified. I was not only alive during the British Empire but I was in India. I was serving with the RAF, looking for non-existent submarines in the Indian Ocean, rescuing Indian fishermen, dropping flares for Diwali and rescuing people from floods.It is so easy to be wise after the event but we knew that soon we should be heading to the Pacific. The poem is not a poem but a polemic. As almost always the truth lies in between.
The snobbery, particularly the mem-sahibs, was insufferable ( only some ) but not nearly so bad as the way the higher castes
(some of them) treated their servants. We tried, we really did, to combat the mountain of corruption, and bribery and help to relieve famine, floods etc. We did not, however, make ourselves loved. As for Ireland, as far as I'm concerned it would be better for all if it could be pushed over to Boston. ( except for the Bostonians of course. ) We have had to stay in Ireland and many other places to stop the Bigendians and the Littleendians from killing one another. I have little hope of anyone taking notice of my views because as anyone under fifty will tell the brain atrophies after 60,50, 30,20 depending on their age. Last thought: How many people have condemned Kipling without actually reading him?
Last last thought; How many people know the next line after " East is East and West is West" etc.
At last: Read the last few lines of Bill Bryson's " Notes from a small island."

[dillingworth]

Brendan

I'm not going to comment on the political message of your poem which others have already done. Suffice it to say I disagree with you on almost every point!

The point here is not what you're saying but how. As others have said I think the poem needs to give us an image of the empire in all its ugliness, rather than just telling us how ugly it is. Listing states in which the British have been involved is not enough, we need to be shown an example, we need some insight.

On that basis I'd agree that your long list in a reply to a previous comment would be an effective addition to the poem - I'd like to see a few things from that list come in to the poem to stand as paradigms for the empire itself.

[OwenEdwards]

Incidentally, Petronius wins post of the thread. Kipling is a far, far more complex author than we give him credit for, most Brits involved in Imperial administration in the 20th century tried to do an honest job of it, and Britain's bloody marvellous, as Bryson points out.

[dedalus]

I wrote the poem that started all these comments. In consequence I felt I had a responsibility to explain what I was trying to say, defend the damn thing and attend the discussion. This I have done, with an increasing sense of reluctance, trying not to fuel further flights of controversy. It should therefore come as no surprise that I tend to agree with the recent comment of brianedwards : ( Seems a shame to me that so many poems are sitting on the boards with barely a single comment and this one has garnered 40 based almost purely on the fact it is controversial) and those of Arian and "trainwreck" k-j (grrrr!) and dillingworth and no doubt many others. Enough is enough.

I have learned two (perhaps three) important lessons from this flurry of messages:
1). Shut up.
2). If you can't shut up, go for another controversial topic. Why not?
3). Never never write and post in ten minutes.

Best wishes to all ... now can we just close it down?

Brendan/ dedalus

[Arian]

Yep, let's close it.

But please don't go for option (1) above - shutting up. I don't think any of us would want that. Some controversy is good for the soul.

All the best
peter

[thoke]

I don't like being associated with my country's history. Let's face the facts: you didn't invent Guinness, and I've never invaded anywhere.

Ben