»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
The Fallen Men. Condensed and re-written.
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
The Fallen Men. Condensed and re-written. |
|
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
The main complaint with the previous versions was that it took to long to make it's point, so here I offer the condensed version. I also changed alot of the verses so that they connected better. The Fallen Men We are the fallen men, The stiff men. Staked in fields of desolation we find no sheltered fault. O' hear our voices whisper ever quiet and meaningless, We are content with our hearts that do not beat. with eyes that glance this way and thay, We see only a desert. with legs that only stumble we fall and scrape our knees on the stones, Weeping for a thought, we stare at the blood on our hands. Where is mother and her cloth. Nothing more than a whisper, Carried by the wind. We have not the stengh to stand, we the frail men, yet we cast ourselves down. We have not the breath to flee, we the weak men, but still we run away, What fault can men find in the eyes of friendship, When they have made an enemy of everything. they are blind to the war with themselves, a field stewn with meaningless endevour. Yet still we are here as wind in dry grass, our burdens suffer us no pity. We seek only the hand of fortune, as the vagabonds begs for scraps. Burn the gardens o' lamb of death. The stakes of wilted valor, Parched by the dust of wind. Can you see the veil? the veil of the selfish, unraveling to a thread, while the cup of envy passes spilling not a drop. Who can say they are not wicked, What man has not suffered an empty void. beyond the caverns of our emptiness, we have consumed the souls of others. Come not closer to us than a moth to the spiders web, ere' our deceit entangles your heart. We are the fallen men, the stiff men, see us fall from the stakes and avoid our vain grasps, we fall to remain, we remain to decay paralyzed in our pride, we find no fault in ourselves. Only in others. Yet remeber us not as the proud men, but only as the fallen men. the stiff men. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Russell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
emy Junior Member
since 2006-11-04
Posts 32 |
Hi Russel, I liked this, but you have overused two words, we and men. I would consider condensing this a bit. for example: we are the fallen men; stiff, staked in fields of desolation and where is mother and her cloth? A whisper carried by the wind any word that isn't doing double duty just let it go, hope that helps, good luck  |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
Yeah I know I overused the aforementioned words, but I couldn't find any way around it seeing as how the first verses are a self-description. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Some of your imagery/ideas clash and don't make a whole lot of sense. 'We have not the stengh to stand, we the frail men, yet we cast ourselves down. We have not the breath to flee, we the weak men, but still we run away,' How can you run if you don't have (ahem) the 'stength' to stand? Spellcheck might be nice, too. |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
That is a ridiculous comment. Poetry is about expressing your own ideas. Read some of T.S. Eliot's stuff and tell me if all that makes perfect sense. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Nevertheless, that is Hush's reaction. What do you do with it? Three possibilities: a. ignore it b. explain what you were thinking c. recognize its value and think about it Defending a poem because you don't understand what another poet was doing doesn't strike me as useful. And I'm a huge Eliot fan so don't be messen with him! |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Actually, T. S. Eliot does make sense to me. Were you trying to compare yourself to him? Take your ego down a notch. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Really, maybe you can explain some of the lines in "Gerontion"?  But, to be honest, there are certain parts of, say, "Little Gidding" that need no explanation -- I think they work on a different level than explication. I don't think he's comparing himself to Eliot, I think, and this is still everywhere you look, an attempt to create rules that 'everybody knows' and so certain criticism is off limits so to speak. It's not ego (How can you write a poem without an ego?), it's the attempt to remain safe and comfortable. I don't buy it. The moment of truth will always be the interface between reader and poem and that reaction will always be based on the experience/background/blindness/insights of the reader. You can't control that, however much people try. It's interesting because even those who claim erudition still try to do just that. If I'm right here and we aren't robots or syncophants, this still leaves the possibility of a genuinely successful interface (What some people might call authentic), but at the same time it also, most of the time, lends itself to failure. A while back, Jim and I used to talk a lot about this. We called it risk. And without risk, is there really any reason to write a poem? |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
We're getting off topic here. The comment was not meant to compare myself to Eliot, but Hush's response was a bit offensive. The verse in question was meant to be a contradiction, as the people in the poem contradict themselves, and the way I describe it is poetic. What good would poetry be if everything you wrote was 100% direct? It requires thought and intellect to understand certain things that poets write, and that, in my opinion, is the whole point of poetry; to make you think. I am by no means comparing myself to T.S. Eliot. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
It's offensive that your imagery clashed and didn't make sense to me? It's offensive that I pointed out your misspellings? I understand you intended a contradiction. My point is I think its overly obvious and in my mind, the immediate reaction was... huh? I didn't realize that was offensive. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What are you trying to do or say with this poem? Who are "we"? If you will explain that we may be able to get somewhere from there. |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
The poem is completely obvious. That is what I'm trying to say. Compared to other poems I've read, this one is practically third grade. What about it is not clicking to all of you? We are the "Fallen Men". It's about people who have failed and are desolate because of it. Why can't you just say if the poem is good or not instead of dancing around the issue. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: But you've answered the question with two answers: we and people who have failed. To some extent, I suspect the questions aren't really about trying to understand the poem as they are trying to tease out some of your unquestioned assumptions. As an exercise, why not try writing about one person who failed one time (that is, specifics) and then compare that one and this one. See what happens. Is this a good poem? No, and one of the problems is that it's too general. For better or worse, a person is usually more interesting than people. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I would go half way to Brad's point. You don't need to go completly "specific", but instead perhaps try complementing generalizations with more specific aspects; specific moments of history, or even of your life, or of someone you know. Give "evidence" to "back up" your general statements. Give the reader insight and background into the occasion for saying what you do. Don't just say it, argue and prove it (in a poetic way) too. Hope that helps. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
What did they fail at? |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
None of this helps. I'm not going to sit here and try and explain the ideas behind this poem for an hour. It is not about one person, it's about many people, and it's based on emotion, not "exact events in history". You have to be kidding me. Do you want poetry on this site or should I just write you all a novel. IF you think it is no good, then I'll trash it and go back to the drawing board. Other people who have read it seem to think it's very good, but then again I guess you people know everything right. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Good question, Rhia! And probably one that should've been asked earlier. Not that I think (anymore) that Russell will show the respectfulness to give it, or any other question, a respectful answer. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Russell if you want serious critique then this is the place to post. If all you really want is some attaboys then maybe CA is not such a good choice. If you post in CA then you can expect some serious opinions. Some of those may not agree with yours. Get over it. The best I can determine is that everyone so far has made an honest effort to critique and advise. Use what you like and ignore the rest. |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
Okay I'm going to attempt to explain this piece of work as simply as possible. In life, there are sometimes people who fail at life in general, and the more they fail the more empty and desolate they become. Eventually they lose all hope in themselves and other people, they have fallen away. This poem is written from their perspective, which is why it begins with "We are the Fallen Men." What I am basically describing in some of the verses is the image of a scarecrow, hanging lifeless in a field, guarding nothing but the dust. How does that relate, you ask? Let me explain. The scarecrow is the lifeless person hanging their (aka "The Fallen Man"), empty and full of hate and loathing. The field represents the life he has created; a barren field of dust. In other words, his life is a wasteland and he is paralyzed there defending it. Once I have communicated that to the reader, I move on describing some of the memories the scarecrow has from his past, and what his thoughts on the rest of the world are. That is why I had broken it up into sections on the first draft, but then everyone here claimed it made it hard to understand, so being the reasonable person I am I took the advice, condensed the poem, and changed some of the verses so they connected better. Yet still everyone here does not understand it, so I offer the above explanation. I hope this moves us forward as far as critisism goes, becuause in all reality, I have recieved no real critisim, only questions as to what the work was trying to convey. |
||
|
emy Junior Member
since 2006-11-04
Posts 32 |
Russel, I didn't have a problem personally with understanding this poem. I haven't read the first version but read it as it is. The poem conveyed desolation, and self pity of a group of men. Now why should these men be interesting to me the reader? As it stands the poem is a statement, a group of men failing in life are telling how they have lost out on everything. You the poet do step in once in a while -which I would rather you hadn't- telling me that they blame others not themselves, since I can't imagine anyone down actually realising this phenomena. As such, I really did like this poem, but there were too many words in the way. Words that weren't actually forwarding the progress of the poem. If a word is not giving me the reader a specific image that differs from the image you have already established then let it go. I'll take the last stanza as eg. "We are the fallen men, the stiff men, see us fall from the stakes and avoid our vain grasps, we fall to remain, we remain to decay paralyzed in our pride, we find no fault in ourselves. Only in others. Yet remeber us not as the proud men, but only as the fallen men. the stiff men. " You use fallen men and stiff men twice in one stanza, why? Does it benefit the poem in any way? IS it for emphasis? Does it need this emphasis, apparently not since the title depicts the men as fallen( you need not repeat it at all throughout the poem since this particular bit of info has been established in the title). You tell me the reader to watch you fall from your stakes, show me these men falling bruising their heads or kneecaps or whatever, give it a more scarecrowy atmosphere, make the hay drop out of their hats squishing their painted faces, make their faces roll in the mud until the paint fades into unrecognisable patterns Don't tell me they decay, show me the worms crawling out of the holes in their shirts and pantlegs. Don't tell me that they blame others show me, show me how they twist their necks up and shake trembling fists at the sparrows flying south for winter, how they bare their empty mouths at the squirrels chattering in the trees nearby. hope this helped more than the last crit, good luck! |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
Awesome advice there. This is exactly why I'm here. I wish there were more people like you on this forum. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'We are the fallen men, The stiff men.' You don't need to capitalize something after a comma. 'Staked in fields of desolation we find no sheltered fault. O' hear our voices whisper ever quiet and meaningless,' Seriously? The O' hear our voices bit just makes me think you are taking yourself way too seriously. You can disregard that as a 'ridiculous comment,' or you could actually consider whether that's the impression you want to make on your readers. 'We are content with our hearts that do not beat.' I get it- another clever contradiction. I won't even go there, as it was not productive last time. 'with eyes that glance this way and thay, We see only a desert.' So they're in a field, or a desert? This doesn't seem intentional to me, it seems like an oversight... because what could possibly be the point in changing your field to a desert? Is there a point? 'with legs that only stumble we fall and scrape our knees on the stones, Weeping for a thought, we stare at the blood on our hands. Where is mother and her cloth. Nothing more than a whisper, Carried by the wind.' I'm still having issues with your caps- why leave the beginning of a sentence in lower-case, but capitalize after a comma? I thought 'weeping for a thought' was a decent image. 'We have not the stengh to stand, we the frail men, yet we cast ourselves down. We have not the breath to flee, we the weak men, but still we run away,' I believe I've already addressed this- once again, I'll encourage you to spell check. Why should anyone bother even reading your poem if you're too lazy to get the spelling right? So on and so forth. Your poem is a collection of generalities that evoke a mood, but a very vague mood. I don't know where they are, but I know it's desolate. I don't know why they are stumbling, just that they are. In short, I don't care about the fallen men, or why they've fallen- instead I'm distracted by clashing images, misspellings, and the random use of the archaic "O." You can call me ridiculous, or get defensive, but this is a bad poem. I was willing to be gentle before, but you don't respond to people being gentle- you just argue, like a child. So, bluntly- go back to the drawing board. I would set this poem aside, and start from scratch. Think hard, get below the surface, and as other have said, show us instead of telling us. Hope this helped. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
We are the fallen men, The stiff men. Staked in fields of desolation we find no sheltered fault. O' hear our voices whisper ever quiet and meaningless, We are content with our hearts that do not beat. with eyes that glance this way and thay, We see only a desert You do not need both 'fallen' and 'stiff'.Try just stiff because fallen is too general stiff gives a better physical image. Why is it sheltered fault? What about sheltered fruit as that way better adds to the image of a desolate dust field. What about 'blossoming fruit'? You say they are 'content with hearts that do not beat'.What about 'content with hearts that do not beat' ? If they are depressed and empty of hope which is the idea I am getting they would hardly be content at all, no good emotions. 'THAY'? Do I need to explain? Why desert? That image does not fit with your explanation of the 'scarecrow hanging in the desolate"FIELD" '. If this is an okay crittique by your standards I will crittique the other stanzas in this way. |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
This is the first poem I have ever written, so I don't really feel the need for Hush to keep posting negative, belligerent comments. If you don't like the poem, then stop posting on my thread. So far the only things you have complained about are mispellings and disagrements about the imagery/ideas of the work. That is not constructive or useful to anyone, and it is extremely discouraging. I know there are words spelled wrong, and yes looks awkward, but that is something very easily fixable and I don't see the need to keep bringing it up. Besides, if that's the worst that can be said about my first poeticaly endeavor, I think I'm doing pretty well. |
||
|
Russell8624 Member
since 2006-11-28
Posts 99Minnesota |
I also wanted to say that I appreciate all the great advice, and I am currently overhauling the work based on the critisism I have recieved here. I will post it shortly. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
