BCE (tiny revision)

[bodkin]

BCE

Everybody is supposed to be dead,
to never say anything or want anything ever again.
-- Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

Time happened so long ago.
The milkman's note is deep carved
dead-language, symbolic, on the door frame.

Evidence for breakfast can still be sifted
from the archaeological layer:
people ate toasted grains, bread,
fruit preserved in storage jars.

They may have wanted extra pints
which the milkman didn't leave.

If I still spoke that language
I would pull messages from potsherds,
write a learned paper, a coffee table book,
show how civilisation faltered
a voice was raised
a door was slammed...

It was all over long ago --
I make notes with some detachment.

[calico]

I like the poem, and don't like the first line, and not so sure about the title either...otherwise super I think.
A break after faltered? So that the following two lines stand alone?
The punctuation -- in the final two lines, what's that? A dash maybe, I mean if you want to be strict about it.
I think the tone and pace of this is well-judged.

[brianedwards]

Excellent Ian.

I have caveats, of course, and I imagine you know what they are: "shards", yes, that's the first. And I expect that you are going to point to archaeology as justification for its use here. Well, fair enough, but bear in mind that readers of your poem are more likely to be versed in poetry than archaeology and thus make their judgement based on that knowledge.

Secondly, punctuation. I don't understand your use of ellipsis or that double dash before the last line. The former I find completely unnecessary. In fact, as I have posted somewhere recently, I'd like to see examples of where they have been necessary --- I can think of none. The latter, the double dash, should that be an em-dash — ?

Nits aside, I love the mood of this and especially the finely judged heftiness of the line "If I still spoke that language" -- very nice work.

B.

[Sharra]

Hi Ian
I think you have some great lines in here, and I liked it a lot. Not sure on the title though.
I think the opening is working well and I love the image of the deep carved note. I think you could possible lose the ‘symbolic’ as the rest of the stanza has that feel about it anyway.

S3, there’s something about this that’s jarring me. I wonder if you would be better with ‘that’ rather than ‘which’?

S4 I liked the first line here, but like Brian, I’m really not keen on shards – could you use remains or fragments or splinters?

For me the ending feels weaker than the beginning, there seems to be a shift in tone that doesn’t quite work for me. I think it needs tightening up and I would be tempted to take out the ‘a voice was raised/ a door was slammed...’ lines .

And for me it feels there is a logic problem here as well. By saying ‘If I still spoke the language’ we assume you don’t, and yet you are still ‘making notes’ which implies some kind of understanding. I feel you do need the ‘but I can’t cos it was so long ago’ idea at the end, just shown in a different way maybe.
Nicky

[bodkin]

Hi all and thanks...

Calico -- line break after faltered... hmm, I think I like that. Thanks!

Not sure what you are asking about the dash. I just always do m-dashes as "--" and n-dashes/hyphens as "-". I used to think it was common practise, but maybe I am wrong as I do get occasional queries...

--

Hi Brian

"shards" this is the literally correct usage: "bits of broken pot". I don't think we can ban a word from correct usage just because some muppets use it incorrectly? We need to strike back against the muppets! Now, where is my foam-rubber seeking missile...

Ellipsis in dialogue generally means either (i) a spoken or thought sentence trailing off, or (ii) that although a list is ending it could continue. I use it the same in poetry. I do try to avoid it, because I know I have a strong tendency to overuse it in conversation. Like this... And this...

The dash... I think you are right and it is wrong. I wanted to connect the two sentences more-strongly than if there was a full stop. This may be a semicolon job. Ros will advise...

But thanks, it always means something to me when you like a poem.

--

Thanks Nicky,

I wonder whether in S3 the second line is simply a bit short? It feels a bit flip, a bit abrupt? I don't think "that" helps, unfortunately. I may need to sit on it a while.

Hmm, "shards"... I may need to find some other "archaeological" word then.

But it is really annoying that this taboo has arisen because there are occasional cases where it really is the right word.

--

Thanks all,

Ian

[bodkin]

Oh, sorry, does everybody understand the title?

Ian

[Ros]

Oh, sorry, does everybody understand the title?

Ian

Well, if you must be politically correct...

[oranggunung]

Ian

If shard is too awkward a word, for whatever reason, how about sherd? That might give a more archaeological context too.


og

[bodkin]

Oh, sorry, does everybody understand the title?

Ian

Well, if you must be politically correct...

It's not PC, the alternative wouldn't mean as much in the context of this poem...

Ian

[bodkin]

Ian

If shard is too awkward a word, for whatever reason, how about sherd? That might give a more archaeological context too.


og

I don't know about "sherd", I don't think I have ever seen it used for real and wonder if anybody would know what it meant?

Ian

[Denis Joe]

This is excellent stuff. The flow of it is great and it travels in and out of (sense of) time brilliantly. I don't agree with Brian about the use of 'Shards'. If it sends the reader off to find out something that they were ignorant of, then well done. But I think that poetry shouldn't be about lexicological issues. Primararilly a poem needs to sound right. This strikes harmony for me.

I can see why you refer to Slaughterhouse-Five but I don't see how the quote relates to the poem.

[David]

I like this a lot, Ian. The title works well for me. No punctuation points! I know what Megan means about the first line - in fact (gulp) you could lose that whole first stanza - but this is a very good poem.

I have nothing against shards as a word, but I'm not sure it works in that line. Or is it the "pulling out" of messages that bothers me?

Still, as I say ... very good.

Cheers

David

[Oskar]

Ian

Hmm, "shards"... I may need to find some other "archaeological" word then.

Why?! As you have already stated, it is the CORRECT term and, as far as I can see, doesn't interfere with the sense or flow of what is being communicated. Stick to your guns. Jesus Christ!

BCE? Yes, it is politically correct, isn't it.

Cheers

[Sharra]

Hmm maybe I missed the point with the title then. I googled it and understood it to mean Before Common Era but with the pc comments I'm guessing it's not that? I have to say that sadly the first time I read it I confused it with BSE and was reading stuff about cows in there... It made the poem rather surreal lol

[Ros]

I have to say that sadly the first time I read it I confused it with BSE and was reading stuff about cows in there... It made the poem rather surreal lol

Brilliant!

[bodkin]

Ian

BCE? Yes, it is politically correct, isn't it.

Cheers

Hmm maybe I missed the point with the title then. I googled it and understood it to mean Before Common Era but with the pc comments I'm guessing it's not that? I have to say that sadly the first time I read it I confused it with BSE and was reading stuff about cows in there... It made the poem rather surreal lol

Sorry I accidentally mislead. What I meant to say was that I didn't choose it because it was PC, but rather because I thought the idea of there being a "common" (shared) era (and implicitly also a non-shared one) resonated for the poem...

So it does stand for Before Common Era, just not for "wishy-washy PC term used by people too scared to say BC but too unimaginative to base the measurement from some other date" (tm)

Ian

[bodkin]

This is excellent stuff. The flow of it is great and it travels in and out of (sense of) time brilliantly. I don't agree with Brian about the use of 'Shards'. If it sends the reader off to find out something that they were ignorant of, then well done. But I think that poetry shouldn't be about lexicological issues. Primararilly a poem needs to sound right. This strikes harmony for me.

I can see why you refer to Slaughterhouse-Five but I don't see how the quote relates to the poem.

I must be catching Brian's syndrome, I suddenly don't want to explain, I'll PM you...

[bodkin]

I have to say that sadly the first time I read it I confused it with BSE and was reading stuff about cows in there... It made the poem rather surreal lol

Brilliant!

I think I'll retire now...

[brianedwards]

T I don't agree with Brian about the use of 'Shards'. If it sends the reader off to find out something that they were ignorant of, then well done. But I think that poetry shouldn't be about lexicological issues.

But that's my point. readers of contemporary poetry might not think they are ignorant of the word shards.

And I think poetry should absolutely be about lexicological issues! Not exclusively, of course . . .

B.

[Meesha]

What an interesting mind you have, B.

I'm wondering why the milkman came twice too ... joke!

Nothing like Chemical Engineering - eh? Especially the liquid kind.

On that note, please consider:

Time lapsed long ago,
the milkmaid’s note is carved deep,
dead syntax, on a door frame.

Evidence for breakfast can still be sifted
from archaeological livers:
then, people toasted grains,
fruit preserved in storage jars.

They may have wanted extra quarts
which the milkman didn't leave.

If I still spoke the lingo
I could pull messages from shards,
write on leaner paper — a coffee table book,
show how civilisation faltered
how voice was raised
and doors were slammed...

It was all over long ago --
I make notes with some detachment.

Hope I don't offend by changing your intent here just a smidgeon. But then where would Jack be without Jill or crack... another joke?

M

[brianedwards]

What an interesting name you have Meesha. Have we met before? Whereabouts in Oz are you based?

B.

[Basnik]

Hi,

I found this intriguing, liked it but didn't like the ending, "I make notes with some detachment,' as it sounds too arch somehow, a bit mannered and thus, for me, destroys the detached tone you'd worked hard to achieve. It works well without the last line or perhaps have something about the notes but something not drawing attachment to detachment (or not). 'If I still spoke that language' sounds odd - has the narrator forgotten a language? - odd considering he/she's an academic. How about, 'If I had learnt that language'?

I know 'shards' is right here but it still made me go, 'Oh God, shards' unfortunately. Sorry.

I know sound as if I don't like the poem when actually I did - it worked well overall.

Regards,

Rich Basnik

[brianedwards]

I know 'shards' is right here but it still made me go, 'Oh God, shards' unfortunately.

[INSERT EVIL LAUGH HERE]

[Meesha]

Shards is also a clever pun on Chardonnay to my way of thinking... God awful stuff that.

Am also wondering detachment <>reserve?

M

[bodkin]

Thanks again all, sorry I've been too busy to reply....

Rich -- I take your point about the last, how about just

"I make notes."

? I think I like that...

Thanks Meesha.

I think I'm keeping shards. Maybe there is some vast reserve of truly crap poetry so massive that it can bend the fabric of language and render neutral words repulsive. But luckily I have avoided it to date and hope to continue like this...

Of course, in the first draft it was a "cusp of shards"

Ian