navwin » Archives » Critical Analysis #2 » FIRE RIDERS
Critical Analysis #2
Post A Reply Post New Topic FIRE RIDERS Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
BROTHER JOHN
Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386


0 posted 2008-07-27 11:27 PM



FIRE RIDERS

Before dawn of creation's timeless date,
Vast pregnant thoughts of possibility,
Awaited in a timeless mystery
For birth, (corralled, poised at time's starting gate).

Then a bang! Riders fervidly rode straight
Across the skies'unfolding canopy
With sizzling swiftness. Now in time's decree,
These riders of fire onward stretched their weight!

With pluming passion, these fire riders race
Beyond the Milky Way's vast womb and pyre,
And riding ever in a breathless chase!

These circuit riders ride nigh to inspire
Earth's wayfarers who live by grit and grace;
And earthly riders loving . . . kindle fire!




The original version of this poem is as follows:

Before dawn of creation's timeless date,
Vast pregnant thoughts, more than a simile,
Awaited in a seamless silent sea
For birth; corralled each at time's starting gate.

Then a bang!  Riders rode urgently straight
Across the heaven's sweeping spangled lea
With sizzling swiftness.  Now in time's decree,
The riders of fire onward stretched their weight.

With wills now pluming in a dashing race
Beyond the Milky Way's vast womb and pyre,
They ever ride and leave their ancient trace.

These circuit riders ride high to inspire
Earth's wayfarers, who live by grit and grace;
And earthly riders loving . . . kindle fire!

[This message has been edited by BROTHER JOHN (07-28-2008 08:06 PM).]

© Copyright 2008 BROTHER JOHN - All Rights Reserved
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

1 posted 2008-07-28 05:28 AM


John

I liked this - it was a fun, undemanding and competent poem about those most romantic and inspirational of cosmic phenomena: comets.  I'm not well up on forms.  It's near to a Petrarchan sonnet though?

At first I had my usual predictable reaction to "flowery" language - the antidote to Billy Collins if you will.  Many nouns are endowed with colourful adjectives that in most poetry I'd find overblown and too "poetic".  Here, I have to say, partly because of your rather good and exciting choice of modifiers, and partly because the general grandness of the theme justifies the slant towards hyperbole, you succeeded IMO.  I can even live with the centred text!

It's great to see a wide vocabulary used accurately, punctuation (even the ellipses) easing the reading rather than hindering it, and rhyming (with the exception possibly of "lea" - as I find it hard to think of heaven as a meadow - but maybe) which is a joy of unforced smoothness.

I shouldn't have to say it, because it should be a given, but thanks also for doing your readers the courtesy of making sure your work is free of spelling errors.

Small nits: Not sure about the simile in L2 - using such a prosaic, technical term seems to detract a little from the glorious theme.  L4 had me stumbling a bit with "each at".  L5 deviated miles away from IP but I think works because the sudden jerk away from iambs reinforces the impact of the Big Bang.  There are other deviations, but frankly I applaud them as monotonous IP can get, well, monotonous.
  
On the other hand I loved the Milky Way as a "womb and pyre", and the bit of insight at the close.

Good job, thanks.

M

BROTHER JOHN
Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386

2 posted 2008-07-28 09:03 AM


Dear Moonbeam,

Thanks for your comments.  This is Tennyson's form of his sonnets. I settled with this form because it seemed to fit me. In studing sonnet forms, I learned there are many. I like the sonnet form because it  "sets the table," to start with.  Then turns and at last offers the meat.  It is short and one has to live within set boundaries and not ramble.  Of course, one can ramble even here. I have read four liners of just rambling.  Lol.

I, too, am not satisfied with the word simile and invite sugguestions. Also, in using metaphors to discribe the skies, this may become a mire.  If we can call it a sea, why not a lea?  The sky is not a field nor a body of water.  Scientist are now talking about endless fields in creation.  But now I'm in the mire. Many of my sonnets deal with the heavens.  There are pregnant mysteries therein.  

This is my first posting in this section and I invite constructive remarks to hone my work.  Thanks.  BJ


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

3 posted 2008-07-28 10:05 AM


John

I don't feel strongly about "lea".  The sky and heavens have been called many things I know - "blanket" also springs to mind.  But there are good similes and metaphors and bad ones.  Whether they are so is often subjective.  What works for one person with a city perspective for instance, may not work for her rural cousin.  "Blanket" for instance works for me because of the connotations of warm wrapped around comfort which covers one and which marries well with the deep purple all enveloping nature of a night sky.  "Lea" on the other hand doesn't work quite as well as it conjures up images of cows grazing in a verdant bright emerald field which is underfoot and you walk upon; not so heaven or skylike.  But, as I say, it's by no means a silly metaphor.

Suggestions to replace "simile".  Not much time right now - all I can come up with is:

"Vast pregnant thoughts, a cosmic potpourri,"

Cosmic may not be right of course, as at that stage in the poem the cosmos didn't exist I suppose.

M

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

4 posted 2008-07-28 11:34 AM


or:

Before dawn of creation's timeless date,
Vast pregnant thoughts, not bound to any quay,
Await within their seamless silent sea
For birth; corralled each at time's starting gate.

"quay" works quite well with the sea metaphor.

Closer reading makes me wonder about the logic of corralling these "vast pregnant thoughts",  and also the introduction of the "starting gate" metaphor hot on the heels of the sea metaphors.  I think S1 would be stronger if you could stick to one consistent metaphor.

M

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

5 posted 2008-07-28 11:40 AM


In fact the more I read it the more I don't like "corralled each at time's starting gate."

Quite apart that the "corralled" conflicts a bit with not being bound to a quay, it also feels tacked on.  It's a sentence fragment after a semicolon, and looks like it's stuck there to preserve the meter.  A feeling exacerbated by the unfortunately clumsy phrase "each at time's".  But right now I can't think of anything better!

BROTHER JOHN
Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386

6 posted 2008-07-28 11:57 AM


Dear Moonbeam,

I have been working on it and changing some words.  Corral carries with it the idea of horses and that is why I use this metaphor.  I will look at the word sea and see if that word and context can be changed.  I am surprised with your sincerity and patience in working with me.  This is so refreshing.  BJ


BROTHER JOHN
Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386

7 posted 2008-07-28 01:05 PM


Dear Moonbeam,

I trust you will have time to read this rewrite.  I am fairly new at this and write for just the pleasure of it.  Yet, I want to write properly and this site is a blessing for novices.

I invite your thoughts for improvement.  Thanks!  BJ


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

8 posted 2008-07-28 06:25 PM


John

Out of time right now - back tomorrow, but please could you leave the original at the opening of the thread and post the rewrite as a reply otherwise people can't see the progression and will also find it hard to know what we were talking about earlier in the thread.

Oh, and I also meant to say that it's always a pleasure to work with people who appreciate help and listen to advice.  No need to take it of course!

Thanks

M

BROTHER JOHN
Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386

9 posted 2008-07-28 06:39 PM


Dear Moonbeam,

I'm at a loss in knowing how to post the original poem. I will try something. BJ


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

10 posted 2008-07-29 09:10 AM


J

Not much time today other than to say that the idea of losing the sea metaphor is good, although "seamless sea" was nice.  At least you move straight onto the rider metaphor.  Right now the repetition of timeless doesn't work and I'm seeing some problems with the first line.  As first lines are important it needs to be clear and compelling.

Apart from the fact that I keep wanting to insert a "the" before "dawn" which is annoying, I also wonder about the sense of "creation's timeless date".

A "date" surely by definition implies "time" - i.e. without time you can't have dates, yes?  So a "timeless date" could be construed as an oxymoron.  Not good for openers.  

I haven't got time to suggest solutions for S1 right now, but you'll be glad to hear that I've re-read the remainder of the poem several times and still like it!

M

PS Thanks for sorting the original, post any further revisions in your reply windows.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

11 posted 2008-07-30 12:23 PM




Dear Brother John,

          You've got some interesting material here, Brother John, but I not very clear about it.  First, I want to say that I like what you're doing with the sonnet form.  I think you're working that pretty well, and deserve to be congratulated.  You've also got something of a sense of motion in the rhythm, which is difficult.

     I believe the poem itself bogs down in abstraction and in word choices that may be ultimately unsurprising; that don't give off the kind of phrase to phrase and line to line crackle that poetry likes to turn toward at the most unexpected times.  Because of the degree of stuckness that I feel (and surely I am in a minority here) that the language has in its level of abstraction, you have some difficulty in actually imagining what the visual situation may actually have been like in those initial hundred millionths of a second.  You are busily spinning imagery
about pregnant thoughts and timeless dates and the starting gate of time to take a few minutes and imagine what might actually have been there and what it might actually have been like.

     About these things, the initial perhaps size of the entire universe being smaller than an atom of matter so dense that a hundred poets and a thousand years couldn't exhaust the imagery.  The entire cosmos, Brother John, imagine this now, with everything that is in it now in some form or another compressed into the size of a single atom.  How hot would that be?  How much would that weight?  There wouldn't even be time yet, it would all be inside that tiny incomparably bright speck that in maybe one hundred billionth of a seconds would be three hundred thousand miles of roughly globe shaped heat and mass comprising all of existence.  There wouldn't even be the concept of an outside yet.  

     Comets are interesting, Brother John, but God won't even be mixing atoms complicated enough to dream of comets for probably more than a billion years yet.  He hasn't even imagined atoms yet concretely for them to take shape.  Canopies?  He hasn't even started the blender to make hydrogen yet.

     There are so many different sights and temperatures and, one supposes, thoughts going on in this fraction of a millionth of a second, why would you bother using all the abstractions and polysyllabic adjectives you've got moving around here?  It's not that you're any less than clever, but you are missing the possibility of surprising yourself.

     As a side-thought, I was distracted by wondering how weight stretches?  Shapes stretch, of course, but weight is a function of mass and gravity and stuff, and a whole bunch of weight can be so small you can't necessarily even make it out, say if it's a part of a neutron star.  It's shape that stretches.

     About this poem, I think you need to get concrete enough so that you can make the poem more visual and continue some of the play with the sound that you seem to enjoy so much, or find some way in which to seriously emphasize the abstraction and divorce it from the poem in somewhat the way that a Wallace Stevens or Lewis Carroll might manage.  Either might be an interesting strategy to attempt, and might stretch your skills as a poet.  You might also keep going with what you have now, though I don't think that way has as much to teach you.

     Perhaps try all three or ignore my suggestions entirely.
The last one might be the best of all.  I do hope there's something here that might serve you.

Sincerely, Bob K.


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

12 posted 2008-07-30 04:17 AM


John

Bob's advice is, as seems to be usual, spot on.  It essentially suggests that you might write "better" and more satisfying poetry if you try to focus more on detailed concrete imagery and dispense with the complicated latinate language. (Sorry Bob, I know that's an over-simplification but time presses).  It's the sort of critique I might have written in different circumstances.  

The reasons I didn't are partly that I suppose I was on the rebound from the less than inspiring writing posted in the last week or two in this forum (Ess and Grinch excepted!) and it was just a joy to read something competent, but also I went to read all your other poems at PiP (from 2006), and despite your protestations of noviceship it was fairly obvious you knew what you were doing and were comfortable with it.  My final reason, already stated above, was the topic.  I happen to think, perhaps at variance to Bob in this instance, that the beginning of time and the inception of the universe, if indeed it HAS an inception, and if indeed it is material, is one area where a bit of overblown vague abstraction might be apposite to the subject.  That's not to say of course that you couldn't write in more concrete terms, after all science fiction writers have been doing it for years.  It's just that in this instance I think the grandness of the event and the vagueness of our knowledge can be presented in a fun and readable way by the sort of writing, and in the form, you have here.

Having said all that, there have been many times in the last few days when I have been tempted to try and point out to you that your obvious talent and imagination might benefit from a complete shake up in your approach to writing poetry.  Most "mainstream" contemporary poetry is not like yours.  If you pick up any good modern journal you'll see the type of writing which usually derives from following Bob's advice.  And to be honest it is normally the way I try to write and also produces the poems which I find most compelling.

But I've learned here at PiP that there are many readers out there who don't find the contemporary approach to their liking.  They actually prefer their poems to be more flowery and to be full of gloriously abstract modifiers and wonderfully undemanding cliche.  And you know when you wrote above implying that you were comfortable in the confines of the formal sonnet and with what you did, I thought (uncharacteristically for me!) that I'd leave you to get on and do what you enjoy!

But Bob is right yanno!  

Best.

M


BROTHER JOHN
Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386

13 posted 2008-07-30 02:37 PM


Dear Moonbeam,

I am sorry for being late with a reply.  I have had computer problems.  Your comments are so helpful.  I wish I had posted here from the start.  I invited criticizing from the start and got  little help.  I am  going to  rewrite the opening.  State maybe better than date.  Yet, before time was that a state?  But then, it  maybe a better choice.

Thanks,  BJ


BROTHER JOHN
Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386

14 posted 2008-07-30 02:52 PM


Dear Bob,

Your thoughts are so helpful.  I see you are up on this subject.  You are right in trying to describe what happened before and right after the BB. Yet, I read quantum scientists who this subject and one is posted in my earlier poems.  I would like your remarks.  I  just enjoy trying to write poems and only started this in my retirement.

I am looking at your suggestions for more concreteness.  Yet before the beginning,there was no concreteness as we know it.

I invite your expertise anytime.

BJ


BROTHER JOHN
Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386

15 posted 2008-07-30 03:31 PM


Dear Moonbean,

Iam unable to make correction on FIRE RIDERS.  Is there anyway to over ride this?

Thanks.  

BJ


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

16 posted 2008-07-30 05:00 PM




Dear Brother John,

                        To ask me about physics is a touch beyond my capabilities, though I confess a layman's non-mathematical fascination.  Some of the recent material about string theory and branes seems especially interesting, especially when it veers into rolled dimensions at every intersection in space, and how gravity may be differentially distributed and its effects on force distributions between branes etc.  At one point, I even ran across a theoretical model of the shape of the universe, a sort of saddle shape.  There is occasionally some speculation as to how often creation events may actually happen.  All this I find fascinating.  The math is utterly elusive, and the challenge of constructing some sort of image of the events being described is actually painful, though rewarding for the effort expended.

     If I were able to help you with the material, though, I'm afraid I'd be understanding the material well enough actually to be writing the books instead of struggling to read them.  (One interesting piece I ran across was a diagram of quasicrystals, a form taken by some non-stick coating for pans.  Its  apparent five-dimensional form makes it very confusing for three dimensional food to find places to latch onto.   My mind promptly packed its bags and walked out the door for the remainder of the afternoon.  Warped Passages by Lisa Randall, Harper Perennial, New York, 2005.)

     What I might be able to help with is some suggestions about the language and form.  I do love a well done sonnet, though I find them quite difficult myself.  I think that Sonneteers have had serious problems in the only language, English, that I can really claim fluency in because of Shakespeare.  Shakespeare has produced a first rate sonnet sequence whose influence the language has never managed to shake off.  Ever since, the sonnet has carried his stamp, and nobody has every actually managed to throw that influence off since.  Even when the actual form differs, and the sonnet is Petrarchian or some subset still, the dense language tends to remain.  Even today the form retains the feel of the lapidary shop.

     To get a sense of the other possibilities, it might help to go back to the sixteenth century and read some of the other poets, the Samuel Daniels, the Ben Johsons, the Sir John Davies, the Thomas Wyatts who wrote in the same form, and whose poetry had a different feel to it.  I'd try reading their sonnets especially out loud and see if you can get a sense of them.  How they got a momentum going, how they turned from one line to the next, how they used the various phrases inside the lines to keep the line moving and sounding more natural or less natural than a line from the Shakespeare sonnets.  

     My sense has always been that the Shakespeare sonnets that were included in his sequence, as opposed to the occasional sonnets that he threw into the plays without people tending even to notice, were highly mannered, highly patterned and worked over, while the sonnets that many of the other sonneteers were much more straightforward and less  consciously ornamented.
Listen to how each of them used adjectives especially.  Listen to how they use word order.  Listen to the number of words they use of more than two syllables.  Have a look at how long the sentences are that they use, how long the clauses are, and whether they remain the same length throughout the poems.  Do the poets change the lengths of the words, clauses and sentences or not?

     Then have a look at some of the modern formal writers.
One pretty good modern sonnet writer is a poet named Ron Wallace, who's published several books from The University of Pittsburgh.  Check these poems out for the kind of intimacy they offer with the sort of  intimacy and diction you get from the sort of sonnets you're looking at as your current models.  I think Ron Wallace will offer some eye-opening alternatives about what a sonnet can do.  He's a very fine writer indeed.

     Have a look, especially at Wallace, who's a pretty darn good sonneteer, and let me know what you think.  Howard Nemerov is more of a traditionalist overall, and probably won't stretch your mind so much, but is also very fine.

     Sincerely, BobK.

      

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

17 posted 2008-07-30 06:32 PM


John, this is one of the most enjoyable collections of sonnets I have read.  A superb variety across the ages, it will really open your eyes to what a sonnet has been, is, and can be!  Pete (our moderator here) would hate it!

101 Sonnets (Faber Poetry) (Paperback)
by Don Paterson (Editor)

# Paperback: 160 pages
# Publisher: Faber and Faber; New Ed edition (7 Oct 2002)
# Language English
# ISBN-10: 0571215572
# ISBN-13: 978-0571215577


Synopsis from Amazon:

"This collection demonstrates the sonnet's enduring appeal to poets from the 16th century to the present-day--from Wyatt, Shakespeare and Milton, to Armitage, Heaney and Carol Ann Duffy. Paterson cleverly opts for a non-chronological approach--his innovative juxtaposition makes fresh even familiar examples, and his brief notes on each poem's technique and treatment of subject are illuminating, laconic and often irreverent. If the tone of these annotations veers occasionally towards the bluff and overly matey, it is perhaps an indication of Paterson's confidence in the form hitched to the sensibility of a seasoned craftsman--the introduction likewise shifts from the pragmatic and informative to the speculatively baroque--but the end result is a collection of many pleasures and surprises and a bold reassertion of the continuing tradition of formal poetry."

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Archives » Critical Analysis #2 » FIRE RIDERS

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary