Ruth

[jisbell00]

Ruth


There was a woman Ruth who lost her husband
and went to glean amid the alien corn.

It was in the time of judges. And Naomi,
who had been full, came empty home. But Ruth

went where Naomi went. And in the barley,
when Boaz asked, she said what she had done.

This is the Book of Ruth. It is not long,
its pregnancy and barley. What we lose

can’t be repaired, and Ruth lost hearth and home
and husband, and went gleaning in the field

to meet a man perhaps, and she a widow,
with a new god, and with her mother’s heart.

[jisbell00]

OK. Now I comment on every poem posted, which I can hardly expect of others. It is my sense of duty to a dying forum.

Still, I'd like to see whether this poem of mine posted a bit over a day ago can get any more than the three viewings it's had thus far.

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

John, I had this poem in mind when I told you I'd be commenting later. I noticed it yesterday and wanted to comment then, but it didn't work out. I was about to comment three hours ago when, suddenly, I needed an old-man's nap. I apologize.

I know that Ruth is a woman from the Bible. Naturally enough, I don't remember her story, although I may have seen it on public television. Before I read up on the biblical story, let me give you my initial impressions. They are, as you might expect, all positive. The poem is written well in all respects. The language is smooth and natural, it unfolds nicely. All the "blah blah blah" stuff is there. Even without knowing the story, the poem strikes me as poignant. It seems to me that you have hit a home run here.

But you will do better with a critique from someone who is more familiar with the story. I need to do my back exercises and then eat -- and then read up on Ruth -- and then return later. However, reading a Wikipedia article won't give the full story like reading the Bible would, so I'm not sure I'll have a great deal more to say that will be useful. Unlike you -- dig, dig -- I don't have any preconceived ideas about how a poem about Ruth should read.

I'm memorializing the first draft below in case you change it.

===

After reading it a couple more times (but not yet reading up on Ruth), let me emphasize that the poem has a lovely, sympathetic, human quality. Truly. You use a couple words in interesting ways. This one may end up in my special file.

>>> its pregnancy and barley

I initially thought that "its" should be "it's", but then I realized that "its" is what you meant. Very interesting.

Even before reading up on Ruth, this poem makes me feel like I understand her, and what probably ended up as a tragedy. However, I'll come back later with more knowledge in my head.

===

I've read it a couple times more. It's remarkable how you've managed to pick up the cadences of the Bible.

Ruth

There was a woman Ruth who lost her husband
and went to glean amid the alien corn.

It was in the time of judges. And Naomi,
who had been full, came empty home. But Ruth

went where Naomi went. And in the barley,
when Boaz asked, she said what she had done.

This is the Book of Ruth. It is not long,
its pregnancy and barley. What we lose

can’t be repaired, and Ruth lost hearth and home
and husband, and went gleaning in the field

to meet a man perhaps, and she a widow,
with a new god, and with her mother’s heart.

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

I appreciate you dropping by and am happy this poem spoke to you. I do hope you are getting enough sleep. I too find myself napping at odd intervals.
Ruth is indeed a book of the Old Testament. She and Esther get the two books named after women, two of the very shortest books. I have made her story even shorter, notably by not specifying the happy ending. She marries Boaz and gets to have kids. But I think I’ve left hope in the meeting with Boaz in the barley field. This follows my “Cain’s Song,” a poem looking down as this one looks up at the end.
I am very glad your first impressions are all positive. I’ve kept my language very simple and wasn’t sure how that would impact readers. This is a fairly new poem. And poignancy is an unexpected bonus, though certainly I was gunning for that. In fact, your lack of preconceive ideas makes you the perfect reader for me – after all, who knows the story of Ruth?
It is very good to hear that the poem has a human and sympathetic quality. Mostly my poems rely on the first person to be human, but here, I wanted Ruth to do the heavy lifting, and she has perhaps done that. Good also to hear about the interesting words, but I should confess that the alien corn is Keats: Ruth … ‘Stood in tears amid the alien corn.” It was barley in fact, but barley is a corn. Oh and yes, its is what I meant. Naomi was pregnant with two boys who both die – Ruth’s husband, notably – and so she comes empty home. Ruth is pregnant at the end, with the children she had somewhat lost hope of.
It could be a tragedy, like so many Bible stories, but like so many, it ends up not. Maybe Cain is a tragedy. Absalom in a tragedy. Jesus is perhaps a tragedy, though Christians won’t say that, as they look at Easter. I am more focused on the crucifixion.
Thank you for saying I’ve picked up the cadences of the Bible, that compliment means a good deal to me.

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

This poem is clearly important to you.

I may not be the best person to critique it. I just read the Wikipedia article about Ruth. Not a lot of it stayed in my head, however, firstly because my comprehension when reading new things isn't great, but also because I have other things on my mind right now -- my health and a medical appointment tomorrow. None of the names in the story mean much to me. To know if your poem about Ruth is accurate, I would have to be a Christian who was already familiar with it. However, I do think that I have grasped your poem fairly well, and I think my initial comments cover most of what I would say even if I knew the Ruth story better.

I've begun to realize that you may be a Christian. I keep blabbing about the Seth Material, but I never thought to ask you what you believe. I noticed that the stanza you like the least in my Sky poem was the one in which I commented about the Christian God and Jesus in a flippant way. In this day and age, I just assume that most people are agnostic, atheistic or "casual" believers. I shouldn't make assumptions. Given that my best childhood friend was a born-again Christian (even as a child) who believes that his parents went to Hell because they weren't devout enough, and that I will go to Hell because I am gay, I have become something of a "debunker" of Christianity. I'll try to restrain that tendency here, and I apologize if you ever felt that I was being disrespectful of your views.

Regarding your poem, I don't think I can say anything more that would be useful. Overall, I think it's a good poem for the reasons I gave before. One important thing is that I actually ENJOY reading it, and have read it about eight times so far. Poems that I enjoy reading are special to me. Even my favorite living poet -- Alicia Stallings -- has written a few poems that I intellectually appreciate more than I enjoy.

I didn't realize that the word "glean" had that secondary meaning (of collecting left-over crops from fields); I just thought you had made a creative use of the word. It sounds great, though. Also your mention of the Book of Ruth struck me as interesting and perhaps a little didactic (dig, dig). (You understand my digs are meant humorously.)

Altogether, your poem is a good work and I'm sure a worthy addition to your personal canon.

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

Thank you for your concern! No, I'm not a Christian, nor can I say I really believe in any particular religion's god. These are my poems of madness. Ruth is Jewish (after her conversion in an alien land to her), in the Jewish Bible, quite a bit older than the Christian one. But Christians do tend to feel it's their Bible, not the Jews', which is funny and a bit sad. Sorry to hear about your childhood friend. I had a gay friend at MIT whose mom used to send him little cassettes on his birthday regretting that he was going to Hell when he died. Awful. And he in fact died young.

Yup, gleaning. Not a thing that happens mmuch in the developed world these days, but I feel certain it remains a thing elsewhere. Ruth gleans because she is penniless and she wants to eat. I'm very happy this poem spoke to you, I like Ruth and her story and it is good to know I may have captured some of her stillness and quiet humanity. She has human concerns, like her mother-in-law Naomi, and they are not showy or loud. They are simple.

CHeers,
John

[CalebPerry]

So for you, the Bible is like mythology? Interesting.

I'm aware that the Torah is very old, and that it constitutes the Old Testament (although not all of the Torah is included). I have read that portions of the Torah are 10,000 years old, though I don't know if that's true. Yes, Christians think they own the whole world, so certainly they own the Jewish past too.

I don't know if I shared my theory with you that the Bible is a spiritual test for Christians. If you want to hear it, let me know.

I'm sorry that your gay friend died young, and that his mother helped to make it happen. I read once about a young Jewish man whose parents sat Shiva for him when they found out he was gay. My parents were more liberal; and since they had seven kids, they could spare one to homosexuality.

But back to your poem, I think it's a good one.

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

Well, in English I read (and cite) the Bible in the King James Version from 1615 or so, which they say is inaccurate, but is beautiful. So, go figure. I am indeed ready to talk about Jewish or Christian myth as I talk about, say, Norse myth. A religion is a religion.

The Torah now is the first five books of the Old Testament, called the Pentateuch by Christians. The Jews say they are written by Moses and they read the entire Torah through the year then start again at the start on Simchat Torah. It has indeed been argued that some of the OT dates back to about 1500 BCE, so quite a bit older than the NT which by definition begins after 0 BCE. So, there's that! Bits of the Torah are astonishing, bits are incredibly tedious (Deuteronomy, I'm looking at you).

Yes, it was too bad about my friend JD, whom I remember here. He was I think an only child, though I'm vague now - I last saw him back in the 1980s. Good to hear your parents could spare you! I am one of eight myself. And I'm still glad you like this poem. The story of Ruth is I think quite poignant, so I'm glad that came through.

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

I guess what I heard about parts of the Torah being 10,000 years old wasn't accurate. As you can tell, I don't know my history well -- 10,000 years ago may have been the stone age, for all I know.

You seem to have a voracious appetite for knowledge. I've been an inward looking person myself all my life. Only things that relate to me fascinate me. Mythology, old religions, fiction -- it all leaves me cold. That means, unfortunately, that I can't quote the classics in my poems, which limits them. Oh well.

[jisbell00]

10,000 years is a pretty long time ago. That's around the time of the first uncovered city, Jericho, and the time of the domestication of the dog. It's before Egypt, for instance, and I think the late stone age. The first recorded texts go back maybe 5,000 years, I think.

Yup, I am omnivorously curious! I'm not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing for my poetry, it is what it is. Yours I think work fine the way you write them!

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

Thanks, John.

Just a factoid from the Seth Material. Seth said that early man didn't develop speech because he was able to communicate telepathically. Seth said mankind chose to move into a more materialistic phase, and that's when language became necessary.

[jisbell00]

Interesting! I believe Chomsky says man developed language about 200,000 years ago, and that Neanderthals did not have it, hence their obliteration by Cro-Magnon.

CHeers,
John

[David]

OK. Now I comment on every poem posted, which I can hardly expect of others. It is my sense of duty to a dying forum.

Now, is that a fair characterisation of the forum's state of health? I had thought it was showing signs of life, if not exactly sitting up and taking a little chicken soup.

Still, your sense of duty is admirable, John. It puts others, like me - rare-visiting flibbertigibbets - to shame.

So, since you ask, I have to wonder what the poem adds to what (not that much, in my case) we know about the story itself. Perhaps this is one of your poems which occupy a vital place in a larger MS, but which don't flourish when detached from that context?

And, just to come back to your opening comment, I have said this before, but I do believe that, if you posted less frequently, you would garner (or glean?) more responses for each poem. But you are a strict poem-a-day man, and I respect that.

Cheers

David

[jisbell00]

Hi David,

That is a splendid chicken soup image. And yes, I do try to comment on every poem posted, but then, I seem to have the time to do so at present. Just a line or two, like a Heimlich maneuver or the cardiac paddles.
Hmm. Caleb enjoyed this poem, so here I was thinking it was working, but you ask the eternal question when another work is referenced – what does this add? A fair question. I would say it’s maybe more what I leave out, in my bid to strip the short book down to six couplets. I want to expose the bone, and I hope to have done so while preserving the poem’s original quiet. In context, I used to have a poem on Exodus here which I found rather too clever boots for my taste, so it’s gone and I wrote this to replace it. In the MS., I think it’s a pleasant moment of stillness, and of talking about someone else’s problems. It also sits nicely alongside Cain’s Song on the facing page, very different in mood.
I probably would glean more comments if I waited! I tried waiting 2-3 days to post but am not good at it. I think I have too much time on my hands. But I don’t often feel the need for seventeen comments, I think, two or three tend to answer to my needs. Threads often drift into noodling in my experience. Perhaps I should post in Beginners again!

Cheers,
John