Untitled again (Apologies) Revisited and revised

[Brotherfergus]

Sorry to keep on with this piece, but here is another revised version. I have been fairly brutal in cutting it back but I am still aware that the meaning may not be clear enough for most. I'm really posting it to test the waters as I am still coming around to the idea of objectivity in regards to my own work.
To everybody that has given feedback so far; I very much appreciate it.


Revised;

With a savage grip
he is torn
from the warmth of her womb.
His body descends into rigour
in expectance of death, but,
as if having never inhaled,
the cold air rushes his virgin lungs
awakening blind eyes.
He turns to her.

From her womb she had bared
the image of Aphrodite,
of Eve, of Eden
but now,
her once alabaster flesh smoulders
in his sober stare.

His attention is snatched
by a depraved form
staggering
slowly
his way.
Beyond are numbers unknown,
legions all lumbering in clockwork
their eyelids bound.

Turning to her once more
he longs for the womb,
but its memory lies dying
in the wake of the shadow
of this world he has been born.

But instead he lingers
in these doldrums of death,
unable to return
a potent protagonist
of this life’s guise.

A leash,
know only to his senses,
pulls him forth
and leaves himself nothing
between these sordid worlds
but the contempt of innocence
and a witness
to the pilgrims last mile.


Old version;

This is a revised and hopefully slightly diluted version. It is the first second of four so it still may not make too much sense, but any more feedback would be greatly appreciated.

With a savage grip,
her hymen pierced,
and from the warmth of her womb,
I am torn.
My body descends into rigour
in expectance of death, but,
as if having never inhaled,
the cold air rushes my virgin lungs
awakening blind eyes
as I turn.

From her womb she had bared
the image of Aphrodite,
of Eve, of Eden
but now,
her once alabaster flesh smoulders
beneath the cold stark glare
of the warehouse.
Her eyes, submissively, retract
and her head, bows back
to reveal an anguish,
as a mother may,
when she hears of a child’s death.

I throw aside foetal contortions,
erecting equanimity,
skin peeling against foreign air.

My focus now toils in the dank
as my brain attempts to recognise
the hand
that before me
hangs, form a depraved form.
I catch sight of its retreat,
ashamed,
clothed in menace and solemnity,
but the darkness consumes it
once more
and I am alone.

My eyes align to the isles
of bulbous organic forms
that heave and throb
infinitely beyond my sight.
The darkness
does little to hide their shame
as I pass unnoticed.

I long for the womb,
To suckle again
But its image lies dying
the teat; now infected
the womb; of a Bangkok whore
in the wake of the shadow
to this world I have been born.

But a leash,
Know only to my senses,
Pulls me forth.

[barrie]

I think you've been over elaborate here, there's much too much to take in (woods and trees). I think you should read it through, think about exactly what you want to say and then say it clearly - don't try to dress it up too much.

The start is confusing - The first two lines shout rape then it moves straight on to a birth. Maybe you should forget the hymen bit and start - From the warmth of her womb...

I think you could cut this down to a third of its present length and say the same thing, making it more accessible at the same time. Take your time with the edit and be ruthless - if you want to PM me, feel free.

BTW - dank is an adjective - dankness is a noun.

Barrie

[Elphin]

Bf

I think barrie is right about paring back and ruthlessly.

Its difficult to give specific thoughts as its not clear what you are driving at - perhaps if you can share that it might help.

My impression is that the difficulty we are having is that you layer image upon image but they don't make it any clearer. Perhaps it could be said that you are trying to reinforce but actually the effect is dilutive. Look not only for repetition of words (e.g. cold in first two stanzas) but of images e.g. in stanza 2 eyes retract and head bows back both portray the same thing to me. Look too for double adjectives e.g. bulbous organic and cold stark and choose one.

I think you also have mixed images - the hymen and the womb sequence doesn't work (drop the hymen its just offputting) and in the last stanza you long for the womb and then say to suckle again yet babies suckle once they are born.

As an exercise try and distill this to two stanzas of about 20 lines - it may not be where you finish but the exercise will be worthwhile.

elphin

[dl04]

My problem with this piece is that it's SO graphic and explicit that it made me feel slightly uncomfortable reading it, like i was a witness to some kind of gothic surgery or something Surely not the way you intended but it comes across like that because your word choices are so extreme e.g. 'the teat; now infected'. I agree with the others, less is most definitely more. Try and be a little bit less bloody with your words.

Abortion is a pretty good subject to tackle and employ into literature, but i feel it doesnt have to be this lengthy. I see from your orginal post you have shortened some stanzas down, but the poem is still very protracted and i feel short and snappy would be better, especially when you consider how short the process of abortion is i believe.

I think the emotion is there without a doubt and you obviously have some good devices jumping through with the metaphors etc, but i think it could be much more subtle. The way you've wriiten seems almost a bit aggressive? I feel for a sensitive subject it doesnt have to be soraw and visceral.

Keep working on this though, because i think it has great potential. Just keep it 'real' and tighren up a few things and it'll be something good me thinks

dl04.

[Brotherfergus]

Taken on board. But, again, it really has nothing to do with abortion, this is why there are purposeful contradictions (womb/to suckle), the hymen phrase does not refer to an actual hymen, its more what it represents in its bearer. Cheers for help so far, I will try to clarify the concept in the next version.

[David]

It's the warehouse that's throwing me. We're not looking at a row of stored statues are we? Probably not. I'm sure it's going to get mythological, though.

Cheers

David

[keekee107]

For me, this is definitely an improvement on the original but I still feel it has it's problems. It's still very obscure. You say it might not make much sense to us because it's the 'first second of four', but it really is very difficult to crit a poem if we aren't supposed to know what it means... Almost seems like the poem or poet has failed.

You'll be glad to hear, I don't get abortion from this this time - which means your improvement has done it's job to an extent. I agree with others though, and like I said previously, I think there are just too many images - too many metaphors perhaps, for any clear meaning to be grasped. You've mixed images and as you say they're deliberate because they're all metaphorical but to me a metaphor only works when the reader can actually understand it.

Having said that, there is some good stuff here. Parring it down to essentials I believe would leave you with a nice piece... but then, you said it was the 'first second of four' so maybe that's not what you want but that makes crit very difficult. I'd also get rid of 'hymen'. Maybe I'm prude but to me it's just unpleasant.

Good luck with this

[davelord]

Ok

I find your obsession with the subject rather disturbing. You say it is not about abortion, but it clearly is. Please stop.

[David]

Steady on, Dave. If BrotherF says it's not about abortion, we should take him at his word. We can, however, say that it still appears to us to be about abortion (if it does, I must admit I don't know what's going on here). That tells him something useful, because clearly his poem isn't doing what he thinks it does.

Still, we must honour the poet's own view of the meaning of his poem, even if we aren't obliged to share it (or even get it).

Asking him to stop is not polite. If it bothers you, leave it alone. That's my advice.

Yes? Very well. Carry on.

Cheers

David

[davelord]

Thank you for putting me in my place.

I apologise genuinely for being too destructive and negative. I am only giving a response straight from my heart. I find the poem extremely disturbing. Now, I would never stand in the way of a writer who wanted to express himself however he wishes. but I believe that he needs to know how his audience sees his work. Each part of that audience will see different aspects of his work - and that is good and natural. I happen to see darkness and unpleasantness. I am sure that that is part of the message.

If I have come across as negative, I am sorry. I will always be honest.

[David]

No worries, Dave, you're dead right - you should respond honestly, and exactly as you feel, to whatever you like (or don't like). I just don't want BrotherF to feel he's being censored in some way. (Some things may require censorship, but they're a long way from the likes of this.)

I'm not putting you in your place. Your place is wherever you want it to be. I think you give excellent responses, open and honest, when you comment on poems, so just keep on keeping on. (And have a good hol.)

Friends again? I hope so.

Cheers

David