Yes, I have met them

[Magpie Jane]

Yes, I have met them

When I came upon the angels
I knew I was not prepared for the encounter.
Later I realized that my unreadiness
was the reason I could see them at all.

They were sitting by a black tarn
in a wooded valley. A small fire was burning
near the lakeside. Pale centipedes
swarmed, murmuring, over the moss.

One of the angels walked over to me.
The folds of its tunic breathed a faintly
creaking luminescence. Its teeth
a rodent’s smile. Tell me your secrets.

*

[JohnLott]

Hi Magpie Jane.

In the very nicest possible way - where is the rest of the story?

You've left me holding my breath and... and...and... going blue....

What have I missed?



J.

[David]

Woah. Spooky and intriguing. I agree with John, to the extent that I'd like to know more, and yet I think you've told us just enough to get our nerves jangling. Wonderfully evoked sense of place in S2, and a toothsomely sinister ending.

Very good.

Cheers

David

[ray miller]

Like the others I'd have liked more, still, its teeth a rodent's smile is very nice. Something about the first verse I find jarring, I think it's the opening two lines, 2nd in particular seems at odds with the rest.

[brianedwards]

This may sound odd, but I reckon this would be stronger without the word "angels" . . .

B.

[Raisin]

Hi Jane,

I agree with Brian, at least for that last stanza, that it would actually be more powerful without the word "angels", maybe if you used "them" instead?

I love 2 and 3, 2 in particular the centipedes in 2, but the first bit I'm less sure about- those first two lines read a little awkwardly for me.

Thanks,

Raisin

[brianedwards]

Hi Jane,

I agree with Brian, at least for that last stanza, that it would actually be more powerful without the word "angels", maybe if you used "them" instead?

I love 2 and 3, 2 in particular the centipedes in 2, but the first bit I'm less sure about- those first two lines read a little awkwardly for me.

Thanks,

Raisin

Hmm . . . not really agreeing though. My suggestion is to lose both instances of "angels".

[Mic]

Agree that losing 'angels' would make this well creepy. Quite liked it!

Michaela

[Raisin]

Hmm . . . not really agreeing though. My suggestion is to lose both instances of "angels".

Half-agreeing then. I think the last stanza would definitely be improved by losing that word but I'm not sure if Jane would want to lost the first since then it isn't as clear to what the subject is, though it would still work very well without the angels.

[Nash]

I like this a lot Jane. I think that you've given us just enough to evoke a sinster image, like a half remembered dream.

I like the twisted view of the 'angels' in the final stanza but perhaps there could be a way of losing the word from the first?

The only real crit that I have is in S3 L1. 'walked over to' maybe sounds a little bland? Would 'approached' be any better?

Thanks,
Nash.

[David]

No, I'd definitely miss the angels. Both times.

[Travis]

Can't say I like it. The first thing that struck me was not that it was trying too hard to be poetic, but that it was trying too hard to be of the poetic, if that makes any sense. For example, while I agree with David that S2 evokes at least a partially delightful sense of place, I also feel that it aims a little too high: black tarn/wooded valley/pale centipedes...murmuring.

S3 exhibits some of the same: The folds of its tunic breathed a faintly creaking luminescence.

That said, I'll react to some of the reactions. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of the poem missing its own end. I certainly think it could be expanded upon (or the story further told), but it also works at its current length.

I don't fully understand Brian's particular reservation regarding the usage of angels, but I can say that given the use of apostrophe in the title (and "them" being angels), one is immediately struck by a nearly too Christian overtone.

As for losing the angels altogether, I doubt such a casting out is needed. The creepy factor is well maintained by the usage of "it" in S3 (which has evolved from "them" as well as the familiar angel image I'm sure we all conjured up) and to a lesser extent, the entire final line.

Constructively,

Me

[JohnLott]

Hi Jane,

Following on from Select Samaritan's moderation and in the interests of possibilities, I have an example of a possibility, just to show there are possibilities. They are only rough notes and don't follow your rhythm etc; but they move away from scary serious.

I think a good start should be followed up.

When I came upon the angels
I knew I was not prepared for the encounter.
Later I realized that my rune stone bracelet
was the reason I could see them at all.

They were sitting by a black tarn
in a wooded valley. A small fire was burning
near the lakeside. Pale centipedes
swarmed, murmuring, over the moss.

One of the angels walked over to me.
The folds of its tunic breathed a faintly
creaking luminescence. Its teeth
a rodent’s smile. Tell none our secrets
slithed its tongue over alien words

Why were those centipedes
now swarming frantically
And why was that saliva
dripping through those yellowed teeth
turning green moss to
jungle’s mist then desert’s pale parchment
Was it me that was their next meal?

But I smiled, so sickly sweet
I could not help but think my face
Was set as pig’s head in aspic on a plate

It eyed my bracelet and shivered
As it withdrew final thoughts of being bad

Returning, they all opened their cosmetic bags
Refreshed their faces with L’Oreal bejazzle
Slicked their wings to picture postcard perfect
and with a woosh flew out of there
to oversee their next miracle

The centipedes were left to wonder
where their moment went

Only intending to help



J.

[brianedwards]

I don't fully understand Brian's particular reservation regarding the usage of angels

You don't?

one is immediately struck by a [...] Christian overtone

Oh, you do.

OK, to be fair, my angels comment should probably not be considered a suggestion, more an observation that for this reader, removal of the angels changes the poem from one that has no appeal at all, to one that chills and intrigues.
I should probably pay more attention to my own signature before commenting . . .

B.

[Suzanne]

Spooky, very. I like both instances of angels as it adds a twist when they are so creepy. The reader is pulled off course with the ending. Very interesting.
Something about it stamps a deep imprint on my memory and.. I am not so sure I like that! lol. So, powerful writing Jane. I look forward to more, more!

Suzanne

[Oskar]

I tend to agree with Brian. The removal of the angel references unhinges the piece and gives it more unpleasant possibilities.

I didn’t rate your title at first – thought it could work harder – but it’s growing on me.

An enjoyable slice of Victorian Gothic horror.

[Magpie Jane]

John, I hope you got rid of that blue tint. The rest of the story is in your imagination, as I found out later. You haven't missed a thing.

David, I'm very glad you enjoyed it. This may be seen as a kind of fairytale fragment; I always liked a story that stops at the point where my imagination ignites.

Ray, you do have a point about those first two lines; I re-wrote them a million times, and they could well deserve another look. I'm glad you pointed it out.

Brian, if I removed the word "angels", then this could be about runaway garden gnomes, the annual outing of the municipal Water Board, or just anyone, couldn't it?

Raisin, good to see you're a friend of the centipedes. As for "angels" and the first two lines, see above.

Michaela, I'm glad you liked it. I'm wondering what I should call the angels without using the "a-word"?

Nash, you said it: a half remembered dream. Much of my writing is exactly that (for better or worse). You're right about "walked over to" being a bit bland; but "approached" doesn't seem quite right either. As a matter of fact, I imagined this angel walking with a slight limp.

David, thanks for your angelic support!

Sel-Sam, yes, I think I know what you mean: I have an unholy fondness of adjectives etc.; trust me to turn a haiku into a Christmas tree any time. On the other hand, I fail to see what you mean by "Christian overtone" – the title has no apostrophe, hardly even of the vocative kind, and the poem itself bears no trace of reference to Middle-Eastern mythologies. Angels are free operators.

John, your utilisation of the possible further development of this, is amazing, to say the least. If I should ever decide to write an opera – The Timeless Moment of the Wandering Centipedes – I shall hire you as Chief Librettist. (Now where did I put my rune-stone bracelet?) Happythanks!

Brian, do you have a particular issue with angels? Or with their presence in my poem? I'm merely trying to understand, is all. You don't have to answer if you feel it's too personal.

Suzanne, I'm mighty pleased you liked it. For some reason, I always liked angels; they are such fascinating beings. And very ..... multi-facetted; not always – in fact, hardly ever – of the traditional, white-starched kind.

Oskar, even more unpleasant possibilities, you say? Perhaps I should try to write another, different, angel-free piece. I appreciate what you said about the title. And "Victorian Gothic" ... well, that sort of dates me, doesn't it? *grin*

A truckload of thanks to every one of you!
Looking at one's own stuff through the eyes of others, is useful, helpful, and fertilising.

Jane

[brianedwards]

Jane, the issue is mine not the poem. As an atheist, I have difficulty with any poem containing the word angels (or heaven, or soul, etc etc . . unless it's Rilke.) Of course, it depends on how the word (image/idea) is employed. In this poem you use angels to describe angels (albeit an unorthodox description.) My observation, as a subjective reader, was that I would enjoy the poem a whole lot more if "they" weren't named.

if I removed the word "angels", then this could be about runaway garden gnomes, the annual outing of the municipal Water Board, or just anyone, couldn't it?

Yes. And that would be an improvement in my opinion.

Sincerely,

B.

[Travis]

I fail to see what you mean by "Christian overtone"...the poem itself bears no trace of reference to Middle-Eastern mythologies...Angels are free operators.

Regarding angels specifically, it would certainly be more accurate to ascribe them to the entire Abrahamic sphere instead of just Christianity alone. But I was never trying to suggest otherwise. What I meant by my remark was that I could envision a certain percentage of readers being slightly put off by what could easily be perceived as a Christian overtone to the poem based on the following:

- Usage of "angels", which most people will see as the Judeo-Christian kind. And the modern pop culture image of angels has its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
- The description of the one angel's clothing evokes the aforementioned image and blatantly appeals to the tendency of most people to evoke it.
- S1 almost contains elements of the Annunciation and (based on my general knowledge of the Judeo-Christian tradition) other angelic encounters.
- The title, when colored by the three items above, is evocative of a particular type of Christian dialogue. At least to me it is.

Now, regarding the title specifically, how is it not an instance of apostrophe?

[Magpie Jane]

Brian, thanks for clarifying your point. O, relief. I was half-afeard you were positioned in the opposite ditch. Some years ago I posted another unorthodox angel-poem in another poetry forum, which resulted in a great deal of theological controversy – voiced mainly from the holier-than-thou end of the spectrum. I was taken completely aback. If it wasn't so grotesquely funny, the situation would have been bloody embarrassing.
Ah, well. The angels I occasionally write about, are entirely different from the traditional type. Mischievous, merry, hairy or scary, never doctrinal. Have no fear of religious propaganda from them – or from me; I'm a freet(h)inker.

Sel-Sam, you are obviously far better versed in these matters than I would ever aspire to be. I can only point out that the angels you speak about, and the angels I speak about, are two different species. So, the religious version may well have been invented by the Arabs, and carry the ideological ballast you mention; my version is a bunch "from a whole other kind o' bag".
In the light of your argumentation, I see how the title can be interpreted as a generalized, colloquial/conversational type of apostrophe. I did not, however, intend it as such.
As for "a certain percentage of readers being slightly put off...." --- well, that's the inherent hazard of reading & writing, isn't it?
But
I'm not going to engage in a discourse on Realtheologie or angelic epiphany, for which I have neither the intellect nor the inclination.

Jane

[Suzanne]

I love your attitude and will look forward to reading more angel poems.
Part of the dictionary definition says "messenger of god" and so the angels asking you to tell secrets is really a twist on things.

You've got me wanting to turn the page and see what is next!
What an entrance you have made!

Suzanne

[brianedwards]

Brian, thanks for clarifying your point. O, relief. I was half-afeard you were positioned in the opposite ditch. Some years ago I posted another unorthodox angel-poem in another poetry forum, which resulted in a great deal of theological controversy – voiced mainly from the holier-than-thou end of the spectrum. I was taken completely aback. If it wasn't so grotesquely funny, the situation would have been bloody embarrassing.
Ah, well. The angels I occasionally write about, are entirely different from the traditional type. Mischievous, merry, hairy or scary, never doctrinal. Have no fear of religious propaganda from them – or from me; I'm a freet(h)inker.

e

If that's the case Jane, I'm not sure why you choose to use the word "angel". Why not "garden gnome"?

[Magpie Jane]

Suzanne, thank you so very much!
You really give me the courage to post more angels. Some day.
I'll tell you something (but it's a secret): I have a couple of poems that contain both angels and garden gnomes. Think I ought to let some time pass, though, before I unleash them.

Brian, there are many reasons; to mention but a few: I like angels. In my barbaric fantasies, I want to liberate the angels from churchy connexions. Angels deserve better, I think; it's no fault of theirs that they've been subjected to religious exploitation. I am a provocateuse. I am off my rocker.
I am a bloody-minded old hag. Furthermore, as I just told Suzanne: I also write poems about angels and garden gnomes.

Jane

[brianedwards]

Fair enough. Does seem odd though that you claim to be a "provocateuse" who wants "to liberate the angels from churchy connexions" and yet do not wish to "engage in a discourse on Realtheologie or angelic epiphany" because apparently you have "neither the intellect nor the inclination." That said, I applaud any and all attempts to attack religious dogma and institutions, however whimsical.

I am curious though: do you actually believe in angels? As far as I am aware, they are literary characters that first appeared in the Old testament. I could be wrong on that. Maybe you know something I don't . . .

B.

[oggiesnr]

Angels first appear in Sumerian texts which pre-date the Hebrew of Genesis.

The final stanza (the rodents smile) actually put me in mind of "Angles" the Germmanic tribe which "invaded" England (from whence the name is derived) at the end of the Roman Empire (and gave rise to the (abbreviated) quotation from St Gregory "not Angles but Angels").

Steve