»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #1
»
Montage Verse
| Critical Analysis #1 |
|
Montage Verse |
|
|
Greg_s Junior Member
since 2000-11-23
Posts 36Los Angeles, CA |
i bite the feeding-hand, caregiver television, mind masturbator, the non-microscope of self. fury pacing ocular-orbs dodge panoptic umbra slicers— anti-therapy for absinthe-cleansed mind-wounds. once Ulysses divulged—ready for more. |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Greg Sargent - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Sorry Greg, you blew this one right by me. I understood "i bite" and "once". I also remember absinthe but I can't make anything out of the rest of it. I'm afraid you'll have to explain or maybe someone with more imagination will come along. JMHO, Pete |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'll take a stab at it: It seems the first stanza is an attack on all support, social or otherwise that makes life easy. The second stanza describes the difficulty of dealing with complexity and the all-too-easy way out of false umbra slicers -- a need to retain the dark, the challenge and anger necessary to retain the dark. The third stanza is an attack against the use of drugs to create false hope. The last stanza centers the general dilemma described above in the reading of Ulysses and that as difficult as it is, once done you want to return. For the most part, I like your diction here but I found the second stanza syntactically inaccurate with no punctuation to help me along. A clearer sentence might make all the difference here and flush some of those trochees and dactyls. This style is particularly common among male writers, I guess many see it as a kind of strong writing -- I find it affected. Just an opinion, Brad |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
*blinks* Um, could you repeat the question? I'm sitting with Pete on this one ... in the corner, wondering what hit me. Sorry. Perhaps a hint...? Linda |
||
|
warmhrt Senior Member
since 1999-12-18
Posts 1563 |
Although I basically understood the poem, I feel that it is a bit too obscure to be enjoyed by most...the wording is just too unusual for the average reader (Brad is not considered an average reader). I did appreciate the concept. Kris  "It is wisdom to know others; It is enlightenment to know one's self" - Lao Tzu |
||
|
Greg_s Junior Member
since 2000-11-23
Posts 36Los Angeles, CA |
To All- Thank you for posting comments, even if the poem seems obtuse. I believe that Brad has done a good job with his analysis, so I will supplement it. The first stanza is an attack on social ideas although not necessarily on support, however, that is a good interpretation. Just not what I had in mind. So, in addition to social critique and denial of support "i bite the feeding-hand" I also wanted to convey a distaste and revulsion from the more scientific aspect of our world. The compound words throughout help achieve this, I think, because they give the poem a convoluted sense in some lines, which I feel is an aspect of a technological society. What the poems primary reaction against is the way that many people will accept what is put in front of them, by the television or otherwise, and be content, their minds masturbated. All of those things in the first stanza represent at least one or two things about societal ideas that seem to bother me. For example, with "the non-microscope of self" I wanted to imply that by relying on social standards or norms, perhaps those learned through television, is misleading, whereas one believes to know themselves better, they are really only looking through a non-microscope. Brad's analysis of the second stanza is also very "on." I want to add that I hoped the word "panoptic" would give a sense of futility, since the speaker is trying furiously to avoid that which is trying to trim him down, simplify him. Yet, because the slicers are panoptic, they are all seeing, and in that sense, all knowing. Thus, the eyes, "ocular-orbs," can really only pace, a sort of back and forth motion, also hopefully indicative of futitily. I had an image from the novel "A Clockwork Orange" when I was writing the third stanza. The point of anti-therapy is that what whomever attempts to do in order to cure the mind-wounded patient, psychologists, psychiatrists, western medicine doctors, the affects of their treatment go back to the second stanza's futility. This centers mostly on the use of "absinthe" which is an alcoholic drink with some psychoactive component in it. You can get absinthe in Europe, but its illegal in the US. Hemmingway drank a lot of absinthe, if I recall correctly. But anyway, the absinthe serves to retroactively nullify the treatment that is part of the therapy (hence becoming anti-therapy). Because of the wormwood in the absinthe, the speaker's mind-wounds don't heal, and I think it could be gathered that the speaker would only become more confused under the effects of the drug. The last stanza is not meant to connect the rest of the poem to reading the book Ulysses. I don't really think that given that reading, the rest of the poem is in place. I mean Ulysses in the Greek sense. Ulysses as the one who came up with the idea to build the Trojan horse. And with this sense, the feel of permeation throughout history, applied to the rest of the poem. More importantly, Ulysses is divulged. Ulysses has been picked apart and told to all. I was thinking that a Ulysses divulged (which came to me from a poem called "Prometheus Unbound") would be an ineffective one, like if his plan for the Trojan horse were divulged too soon. There is also a secondary meaning to this stanza which applies back to the first line where the speaker bites the feeding-hand. Perhaps for the speaker, Ulysses is him. Thus, for himself to be divulged, the speaker must remain stoic, "ready for more." The once may suggest a few interpretations. Once could have the emphasis that once Ulysses "is" divulged, meaning that it has not happened yet. Or it may be that once suggests, once Ulysses, "being" divulged, where I believe that use of once leads the reader more readily to the second part of the dash, "ready for more." There are some more, but I don't want to get into them. I also thinks its funny to suggest this as a very male style, since right before I wrote this I was reading Gertrude Stein and Tessa Rumsey for inspiration. The lack of punctuation in the second stanza is intentional. I wasn't having a great deal of respect for the language when I wrote this and I'm glad about it. This is not meant to be anything final in any way as an interpretation, but some asked for clarification, so here are my still convoluted thoughts, just now a bit longer. Thanks for all your comments. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Um ... yeah, I knew that ...  Thanks for the footnote -- LOL -- sheds a bit more light on the poem. I'll see what I can come up with on a critique ...  Linda |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
