»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #1
»
Fragments of I
| Critical Analysis #1 |
|
Fragments of I |
|
|
YeshuJah Malikk Member
since 2000-06-29
Posts 263 |
Tell it to me in a whisper that I may hear it in a shout. Let it rain upon the fragments of my soul willfully disarranged; let it nullify the call of empathy and ecstasy. Goad it to heights of opulent disdain for the mundane human love of life. Let me examine it with the tendrils of my broken self; let me stand fearless in its bottom-less pit and have it aim at where it believes I sit. Am I over here, or over done? Some tell me I'm the father, if so, then how come I'm the son? It's bits and pieces of me I tell ya, stretching across the illusion of time before and after; sheltering beneath the pretense of I; the camouflage of another. Other portions of me they call brother, sister, mother, father. And I make love to myself and furiously hate another, then seek cover in the camp of reason. Treacherous treason, for which I was duly shot! Yet the enemy I was not; and the object pointed was of the same substance as the blood which anointed the earth, as it pulled back its skirt and screamed obscenities that could not be heard because they were uttered in the language of the dead. See, I was there in the beginning when he looked into her eyes and almost immediately I knew that she was he in disguise. After which I was fragmented from that place of being; led away, bound by the fig-ments of my imagination, towards the flaming sword that flashed every which-a way. And I lost my sense of one and saw the ensuing fragments of I as another; mother, father, sister, brother. And I descended into Hades and arose a stranger filled with rage! YeshuJah*) |
||
| © Copyright 2000 YeshuJah Malikk - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
I've read this about 8 times now and I love it more each time. The last lines are fabulous in and of themselves. I like.  Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
|
YeshuJah Malikk Member
since 2000-06-29
Posts 263 |
JP. Thanks for reading and reading and reading... This is one of my favorites. It hit me when I wasn't looking and I could not get to pen and paper fast enough to put it down. Glad you enjoyed. That quote from Hemmingway made me smile..many times. Now I know whay its always my fault. I guess its 'cause I'm damned good. Love always. YeshuJah*) |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Yesh i too love it .. i meant to say so yesterday but got distracted .. diverted even .. and now i'm outta time today as well  ... back soonphilip |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I will admit I'm in a moment of transistion right now. I am learning so much about poetry right now that I doubt my own opinion but nevertheless I will give one: Tell it to me in a whisper that I may hear it in a shout. -Okay, but you've got to expand and explain this a bit more. Use(Youse) it, don't hide behide the possibilities. Let it rain upon the fragments of my soul willfully disarranged; let it nullify the call of empathy and ecstasy. --the rain metaphor drags the alliteration. Goad it to heights of opulent disdain for the mundane human love of life. --this works!!!! Let me examine it with the tendrils of my broken self; NO!! let me stand fearless in its bottom-less pit -Still NO and have it aim at where it believes I sit. --well done. I can't explain it yet ( I will learn) but I know this is right. Am I over here, or over done? --Closr but no cigar -- think about this one. Some tell me I'm the father, if so, then how come I'm the son? --I like this. It's bits and pieces of me I tell ya, stretching across the illusion --NO of time before and after; --Not important. sheltering beneath the pretense of I; the camouflage of another. Other portions of me they call brother, --This doesn't work. sister, mother, father. And I make love to myself and furiously hate another, then seek cover in the camp of reason. --This is good. Treacherous treason, --too easy, predictable for which I was duly shot! --then why are you still writing? Expand on this, do not pretend this works. Yet the enemy I was not; and the object pointed was of the same substance as the blood --works until this point. which anointed the earth, as it pulled back its skirt and screamed obscenities that could not be heard because they were uttered in the language of the dead. --drop the last part but this works. See, I was there in the beginning when he looked into her eyes and almost immediately I knew that she was he in disguise. After which I was fragmented from that place of being; --Okay led away, bound by the fig-ments of my imagination, towards the flaming sword -NO that flashed every which-a way. And I lost my sense of one and saw the ensuing fragments of I as another; mother, father, sister, brother. --don't understand And I descended into Hades and arose a stranger filled with rage! --almost there but not quite. Brad |
||
|
Elyse Member
since 2000-04-16
Posts 414Apex (think raleigh) NC |
hi yeshujah! the only problem this gave me was you say "it" without telling what "it" is. i mean, you dont necessarily have to say what "it" is before you use "it" but i think you do have to tell what "it" is at some point. thanx for giving me the credit, but im not quite that perceptive  luv Elyse |
||
|
YeshuJah Malikk Member
since 2000-06-29
Posts 263 |
Poertree. thanks for reading. I appreciate the time you took to stop. Brad. Except for a few instances, which I will address, you have not given me much to reply to. The explanation you ask for at the start I cannot give. The omission of an explanation for 'it' is intentional and is about possibilities. You'll have to work that one out for yourself. 'The rain metaphor drags the alliteration' I could agree or disagree with you if you give me a suggestion. Since you give none. I still prefer my choice of word usage. Your other remarks amount to 'no', 'I like that', or 'this does not work'.. How could I respond? When you say 'No' for instance, what are you saying no to and why, do you have a suggestion? I am at a loss on how to reply to this. Elyse. See my post to Brad on the issue of 'it'.. same goes here. To all, thanls for reading and commenting. YeshuJah*) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You make a good point concerning my impressionistic reading. I was concentrating on sound and feel rather than trying to understand the whole piece. I'm looking for a tension between syntax and line breaks, between short and long words, and between the use of words and their meaning in relation to other words rather than to the whole. I've also been spending some time at other critical poetry sites (just looking for some new ideas) and find that my above critique seems to be the standard way of reading a poem in most places. I think there is some value to the writer in this type of critique but also agree that this is not the type of thing I want to encourage here -- it avoids the 'meat' and too often obscures any discussion of meaning and form together which is really what it's all about. A couple of other points: The use of 'it' never really bothered me; I never tried to figure it out. It seems to me that if we're using multiple "I"'s here, multiple "it"'s are just as plausible. "Call me Legion" What's interesting to me about this piece is not that it's a riddle but the associations that come into play -- Satan, Adam and Eve, the Church all seem to come into play -- all with a tinge of misogyny or even misanthropy. The style (and as I've mentioned before, I'm not completely persuaded here) seems to represent the fragments of the "I" as well although I would argue that even more divergence is called for if that's what you want to do. The rain metaphor bothers me because I think it's overused ("Over done"?). What about expanding on the shooting theme you have later. I also think that, as I've stated before, that the 'shot' part jars the reader; you need more of a transition between that line and 'But the enemy I was not' part. Actually that line, now, bothers me more than the 'shot' line (I change my mind all the time): the inversion seems simply to get the two to rhyme and seems almost whining when compared to the other stanzas of rage. I think you should perhaps add a bit of pity (ex: Milton's Satan) but I think it could be done better than that. Just some ideas, Brad |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Yesh (ok Brad got back to this again before I could ..I haven't read his latest post (no time..lol) so i may have overlapped) Like brad i thought that there were parts of this that “worked” better than others, yet for some reason the whole seemed to have an authoritative ring about it which made it a fascinating read. Having said that I certainly struggled to understand it!! Certain sections pointed rather obviously towards Genesis, and once i was on that track it was fairly easy to see biblical references - particularly creation and original sin references - all over the show. Eventually i became convinced that the speaker was God (“some tell me i’m the father ...”) ... then sometime later “Adam” representing Man ... and still later the Christ (“And I descended into Hades and arose .....”) ..... I’m still not entirely sure about this .. The other big mystery for me is the question of what “it” is? In the opening stanzas: “Tell it...” “Let it..” “Goad it ...” “Examine it...” I eventually plumped for “Sin” ...... Genesis again.... the serpent “whispering” to Eve .. and the bottom-less pit of sin .. i haven’t got my Concordance here so i can’t find the bottomless pit reference. The idea of the “It” being sin does however seem to fit in quite well with most of the first 4 stanzas ... and there are echoes of Jesus in the wilderness (the third temptation) in “Goad it to the heights ...” Moving on to the fifth stanza there is the obvious Father /Son line ..which incidentally i liked a lot .. and the illusion of time .... “before and after” I took to be another Creation reference .. The “camouflage of another..” had me confused .. tho any reference to “the enemy” or another or other in this poem i eventually decided was a reference to the Devil or sin again... The sixth stanza was my least favourite .. especially the last two lines which somehow seemed out of place in the whole poem .. the obvious thought was some kind of allusion to the execution of Jesus ..but i think I’m on the wrong track there ... but in any event the lines just sound wrong (too “modern” perhaps). The split identity stuff i sort of follow and in the seventh stanza the Biblical references really get going with “the enemy” and the blood anointing the earth ... I guess this is Genesis Chap 4 verse 10 Cain and Abel ... and following on the earth opening its mouth (“pulling back its skirt” ... very good indeed ..... picks up on the sin thing as well and maybe Eve??).... like brad i was unsure about the “language of the dead line” though. This stanza had me wondering again about the speaker ..the “I”....... not “the enemy” .. and the words “the object pointed” seem to be very specific but beyond my ken! The next two stanzas presumably deal with Adam and Eve .. the rib ... The Fall ... again the “I” is “there from the beginning” .. well God obviously is .. who else? Then the banishment from Eden (the fig leaf ref!?) and Genesis Chap 3 verse 24 the cherubim guarding the entrance with flaming swords ... The whole of the last two stanzas suggest that the speaker is in fact Adam, (a Man), losing his sense of oneness with God, falling and then rising again not knowing himself.... I guess this is one of those poems where the reader is always right ...lol... and i guess you may well have had something completely different in mind when writing it . !! Nevertheless it “feels” like a great poem to me ... Thanks Philip [This message has been edited by Poertree (edited 07-09-2000).] |
||
|
YeshuJah Malikk Member
since 2000-06-29
Posts 263 |
Brad. I really appreciate the time you took to go over this poem. I enjoyed reading your comments. A few things: Tension between syntax and line breaks is an integral part of writing but I find it has the ability to lead one astray from the 'whole' meaning of the work as opposed to its parts. It remains, however, a very important part of the whole. We agree on this. The issue of how one critiques is an important one, and I agree, again, call me agreeable... that getting into the meat of meaning and form etc.. is what it is all about. Then there's the indomitable 'it'. To tell the truth, I am still coming to grips with what 'it' really should mean within the context of this poem. It came upon me in such a rush that the concrete meaning, if there is one, of 'it' as used here escapes even me. All of the associations you have made are certainly plausible, but in the light of the possible possibilities, they are certainly not absolute. Let's call it, oh boy.. there it is again, a legion of meanings. I agree entirely with you on the issue of divergence if the poem is written in the vein you describe. Alas, it would take a skill I do not possess to place all the possible divergences into a poem concise enough to resist reader overload. Then there is the real difficult question on 'I was duly shot', 'though the enemy I was not'.. Let me see if I can finesse this one. Let's assume the context of: Sin, Adam & Eve, God the devil and the whole serpent tree story. The word Sin as I understand it, as used in the Christian Bible, signifies missing the mark(I'll have to look it up and verify that one, for now I speak from memory). If this is so, then man(generically speaking.. ladies I do not want to start a fight)is attempting to hit the mark of perfection. The paradox here is that the one trying(to hit the target) and the target, seem to be one and the same(note that the target is not a thing removed from the person.. one is either perfect or not perfect)either state is orchestrated by the person's own hand. Hence the figurative use of ‘shot’ (if there’s a target to be hit, then someone is throwing something at it or firing something at it). ‘Then I was duly shot’ could imply that one shot was shot by another. But one can also shoot oneself, and this is certainly the case of the sinner in the above context. But is the sinner really the enemy? I think not. The sinner is a pawn of the enemy. That’s my explanation for the ‘shot’ lines. Don’t know if any of it is convincing. Let me know what you think. Then the over use of ‘rain’ as a metaphor is certainly overdone. I could have probably used something else there. But all in all, this poem has turned out to be pretty interesting even to me, and I totally enjoyed grappling with it. Philip. First thanks for your comments. They are greatly appreciated. I think that if we go for the biblical version of an interpretation(and I really don’t have another yet..) then your assessment is generally valid. The allusions in the poem seem clear enough. The ‘it’ as I explained above is still somewhat of a mystery to me too. I’m still trying to dig it out as it should relate to the rest of the poem.(gosh.. so many (it)s ) I have a theory of the ‘object pointed.’ As noted above, the shot fired is the sinner’s attempt to hit the mark of perfection. To miss the mark is to sin. Well consider: sins such as hate, jealously, greed, etc... are not committed within a vacuum. For example, I may feel jealous of my neighbor because he/she has a nicer car than mine. Jealousy is the sin, but the object triggering the jealousy is the car. It, literally, is the object which I used to shoot myself, so to speak. Your interpretation is mostly in the ballpark of where I saw this. On a score of one to ten your score is above low. Ha ha.. how do you like that! Anyways, this was all so interesting. Thanks guys for digging in. YeshuJah*) |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
LOL .. yeah well I'm not sure i HAD an "interpretation" more a jumbled collection of ideas derived from the various allusions which as you say were reasonably clear ... its where they lead to that i'm still a bit hazy about ...still it's nice to know that my non-interpretation was above low ..heh heh ... nice explanation of "object" btw way .. thanks Yesh for taking the time to come back on this ..definitely an interesting piece p |
||
|
eldridgejackson Member
since 2000-04-30
Posts 91 |
I liked the poem. It examines the aspects of the sin part of man or should I say the programed part of the brain society in relationship to the spirit or that part of Man that is of God. And the individual who must deal with both aspects. Very interesting indeed. James |
||
|
YeshuJah Malikk Member
since 2000-06-29
Posts 263 |
James, thank you for your kind comments. I do appreciate them. YeshuJah*) |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
I started this reply to address Brad's method and intention, when analyzing this poem, or other poems for that matter. I realized though that it would be a thread unto itself and may address it in Philosophy 101. Let me just say this for now: It is apparent to me Brad, that you are critiquing poetry from a viewpoint that it should offer solutions, or direct a course of action. What is wrong with poetry that merely describes? Also... is not the work as a whole more important than the dissection of each line and phrase for individual content? Do we not lose context with that dissection? Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
|
mysticharm Member
since 2000-06-08
Posts 189Canada |
Hi YeshuJah ...I like this poem much better then the last one  ...on the issue of your reference to "it", you still didn't clarify exactly what "it" is in your posting to Brad, I understand you haven't quite figured it out yourself but it would add substance, for me anyway, if you could say what "it" is. ...I especially liked your last two lines and reference to Hades. ...we do play many different parts in our lives it's hard to keep them straight at times. debbie debbie Think of saying "I Love You" as always being overdue. Love is a gift, not an obligation. unknown |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
JP, I do indeed hope you post that thread. It'll give me a chance to explain where I'm coming from and others a chance to judge the validity of my comments accordingly. In response to your question: No, a poem that only describes is a poem that is about something. I believe a poem is something and in order for that to be so, it must do something. I thought I'd already distanced myself from my first post here but let me say that I agree -- dissecting a poem only for its parts neglects why a poem should be dissected in the first place. Dissection is only useful when it somehow reflects or emphasizes the poem as a whole. Still, if dissection does not do this, it might still have value to the writer in being able to see the poem in a different light. Wishy washy, aren't I, Brad |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
