# Let me have it, this one's up for publishing!



## saintenitouche (Mar 15, 2012)

Daughter of Eve

By the mere instinctual process of the mind
I am sacrilege
to the role history has given-
through my victories I have
fallen.
Woman is born the tenderest of
organs: God’s basket.
Whittled, we, by God’s hand
into a grain of sand
to save the race.
For growing brain eats heart in process.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 16, 2012)

Well, you asked for it:

By whom? The editor of the school magazine? _Instinctual _- A word invented by someone (probably American) who thought that the perfectly good word_ instinctive_ didn't sound clever enough. God's basket, in what way is woman, as a whole, anybody's basket? More context please - if you mean that a woman's womb is God's basket, don't be shy, show us; though introducing any deity into a modern poem is likely to disqualify it from publication on the grounds that it might offend at least one minority. Whittled _into_ a grain of sand? From a grain of sand I might believe, but would avoid it for the hackney'd cliché it is; and while I'm on it "_Whittled, *we*_...". _To save the race_ - Oh please! You then finish the poem with a line that wouldn't look out of place in nonsense verse, though I think even McGonagall might have rejected it, and he didn't write nonsense intentionally...

You really need to read your poem as if someone you don't like wrote it; if under those circumstances it works, then you've done a good job; the poet is his own best and worst editor - We all write the occasional cracking line Gromit, but when we are able to look at it objectively we often find that its wheels fell off and it no longer belongs in the poem and must go. You owe it to yourself to never use a phrase that you have heard before, unless it is for the purposes of parody or illustration - Had you said _Whittled by God from a turd on the grass_ it would at least have had the merit of originality, though I think whittling stopped, poetically, with Huckleberry Finn.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 16, 2012)

I would have thought of the mind and instinct as being diametrically opposed, opposite aspects of the brain, and instinct of mind as an oxymoron, I also fail to see why instinct should be "mere", other than to use a "poetic" word. Sacrilege is a word I associate with religion rather than history or social role, perhaps some careful thought about your intended meaning could turn up some more appropriate words.

Instinctive/instinctual ? They are American Bloggsworth, and words do change form and meaning all the time.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 16, 2012)

I have no objections to neologisms for a purpose - *Quantify* being a perfect example; to qualify with respect to quantity. But when they are invented for the purpose of big-upping a person, position or principle I react. *Anesthesiologist* instead of the perfectly good word *Anaesthetist*; any moment now I expect *Palimpsestologist *for someone who reads old handwritten documents...


----------



## saintenitouche (Mar 16, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> By whom? The editor of the school magazine?



An anthology of the writing of women in my state- no, not the biggest accomplishment but an accomplishment nonetheless. I dunno what line I've heard of before, it is just word play to represent different things. And no, I don't mean that my uterus is a basket. I mean the whole package is a basket, and that's what I said. I wasn't trying to hide anything because of fear of reaction. The purpose of the poem is to actually say, women should stay strictly maternal beings because when we evolve into complex thinkers and philosophers, we destroy our ability to love blindly and selflessly. The tone is dark and sarcastic... but it also has a grain of anxiety. But thanks for your input, though it could have possible been a tad less insulting, I'll try and find something constructive in it to apply to my work.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 17, 2012)

When you said "*Let me have it*..." I assumed you were asking for a ruthless critique of the poem, if, however, you had just wanted to be patted on the back and, regardless of quality, been praised for your efforts, then you asked the wrong question. The poem is not as good as it could be, should be. If the poet has to explain what is being attempted then the poem isn't really working.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 17, 2012)

I am afraid it matters little whether you or I object or approve the changes in language, they take place, it would seem, regardless of necessity or logic and without the permission or otherwise of authority of any sort. look at the French and the way they have fought to keep their language 'pure' over the last hundred years, they still have le sandwich, which they eat at le picnic during la weekend. Prescriptive control of the language has no chance, grammars and vocabularies should remain descriptive.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 17, 2012)

Why 'ruthless'? Is that some vestige of teaching by ruler, as in "put out your hands..."? We don't teach, or learn like that anymore._
Whittled away-_ this term is commonly used over here. It no longer even has any connotation with wood carving. It's meaning is more like 'eroded'. No one cares where it came from. It's irrelevant. They just use it.  

First impression- feminist diatribe. Ok, you're entitled.
2nd read- 1st impression is off. You're talking about traditional, historical, and cultural/religious roles of women as merely mothers. There is a realisation going on that  personal achievement and acomplishment are counter these traditional ideals. There is conflict. The last line  adds that that thinking is counter to feeling; that thinking actually negates feeling. It's like pandoras box or eating the apple. Once you've gone there, there's no going back.

Subjective: The words, they're not pretty(do they have to be? ) Basket is  a plain container
Whittled away to a grain... so first, you're something larger, something more and then God humbles or dimishes...? i struggle
Last line somehow seems incongruent. Not the idea, but the words. We group 'like' things together. 'Brain' somehow seems out of place when seen with the rest of the poem.

That's all I got. Good luck.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 17, 2012)

A critique at half-throttle is useless to a poet who has any intention of improving him or herself. Writing is the one art which is, unlike painting or music, critiqued by its own art, and is the most able to benefit from accurate, even if painful, criticism. Music critics do not rush back to their desks and write a sonata to illustrate how it should have been done, don't make a recording of Elgar's Cello Concerto to demonstrate to a young Turk how to handle the delicate passages; Brian Sewell has not been known for producing livestock in tanks of formaldahyde to demonstrate how better to slice and dice a water vole in order to drag Dollars from the wallets of the tasteless.

If you ask a fellow poet to examine your your work, reflect on it, and give a useful opinion then you must be prepared to accept that criticism, however pointed it may be. If you use _gang-fight_ words of introduction akin to *Let him have it*, any critic with an ounce of integrity is going to do exactly that.

The poem is a good idea badly executed, it is derivative, clichéd and not worthy of its author; any attempt to parse the last line would drive an English professor to distraction. My advice? Take the poem and rewrite it using none of the words and images in the existing example and see if you can come up with a really original way of conveying a universal truth...


----------



## Potty (Mar 17, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> A critique at half-throttle is useless to a poet who has any intention of improving him or herself. Writing is the one art which is, unlike painting or music, critiqued by its own art, and is the most able to benefit from accurate, even if painful, criticism.



I'm no poet, I don't understand the art and I don't think I ever will. HOWEVER, Mr Blogg does offer good advice. I once made the mistake of taking his critique on a fiction item the wrong way. Yes he is blunt, but some times being blunt really helps a person. For me it helped me to realise I am not the all knowing authority on carework. Any critique is good critique, if you decide that it fits your style all the better. If not, then it's simply a case of mixed opinions. Don't let an individuals "Delivery method" put up your defences.

I disagreed with him on one thread, but he put that behind him and offered golden advice on another. 

*cough*lethimbeanarsecozanarseiswhatweneed!*cough*


----------



## saintenitouche (Mar 17, 2012)

Ok, I really was not asking for a pat on that back lol I was asking for criticism, which I always do and I always take. I do not ask for insults. Otherwise I'm pretty much done discussing that part.

_This_ was more constructive, and I can relate to what you're saying, in plain words. I do enjoy the point I make, because it it is a personal battle. But I do believe poems can be riddles. After all there are so many poets I am sure even you don't understand at first, but that doesn't stop them from being pure genius.


----------



## saintenitouche (Mar 17, 2012)

Kevin-
Thank you for your reply!

No poetry doesn't have to be pretty but I'm not sure if you're saying you'd think it better that way or not (?) it's not really feminist, though it has feminist ideas. Thanks for reading it through to gain some understanding. I'm not sure of any poems I read which are understood at first glance so I dunno why that would be my goal but anyways- I'm moaning.The entire point of the poem is not to be feminist, but perhaps to envy those who are not. I can try and come up with a substitute for brain, but at this point it might be more practical to try and rearrange the language of the poem.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 17, 2012)

First read through is simply that; *not *a final take. My 2nd readthrough was much different, and *not *do to your explanation. It's not feminist at all, to me. The envy part, of the 'mothers'- where's that? Did you say it(in the poem)? , cause I don't see it. More or less, I just see a statement of what is "supposed to be" vs. what one _has_ become(or are in the process _of_becoming) My reaction is not envy, but then I'm not traditional, religious, or female. 
As far as "pretty", I don't have that answer. Pretty can mean lots of things, not just the obvious.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 17, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> I have no objections to neologisms for a purpose - *Quantify* being a perfect example; to qualify with respect to quantity. But when they are invented for the purpose of big-upping a person, position or principle I react. *Anesthesiologist* instead of the perfectly good word *Anaesthetist*; any moment now I expect *Palimpsestologist *for someone who reads old handwritten documents...



You have a point, but in this particular case, whatever the original intent of the inventor, have you any issues with the actual 'saying" of these two in comparison? Anaesthetist is nice on paper, but it brings out the "down syndrome" in me when I speak it. Despite having three additional syllables, the newer just flows.


----------



## saintenitouche (Mar 17, 2012)

Kevin said:


> First read through is simply that; *not *a final take. My 2nd readthrough was much different, and *not *do to your explanation. It's not feminist at all, to me. The envy part, of the 'mothers'- where's that? Did you say it(in the poem)? , cause I don't see it. More or less, I just see a statement of what is "supposed to be" vs. what one _has_ become(or are in the process _of_becoming) My reaction is not envy, but then I'm not traditional, religious, or female.
> As far as "pretty", I don't have that answer. Pretty can mean lots of things, not just the obvious.



I understand that, which is why I appreciate it. To me it is communicating feminist ideas because it says that I believe that women as a whole have not achieved equal status. But at the same time, as a person who has strived to move beyond the title of 'female' the regret is there because I am communicating that it is impossible to think philosophically (as a feminist, or a realist, pessimist, whatever) and love at the same time, something that seems to come very naturally to the maternal. God in the poem is supposed to be ironic. I am not religious, to me God is simply fate and history. In the poem, God is symbolic of society and its habitual self-comfort.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 17, 2012)

I've read this poem about four times over the last couple of days, and the meaning has escaped me until today when I read your comments. I'm not sure if this is a fault of the poem or just me being dense. I suspect most writers of this kind of layered, super-symbolic poetry believe the latter. 

I think the poem would be tremendously more powerful if the opening was trimmed to "I am sacrilege/to the role history has given". There is some excellent writing here, but it is surrounded by words and ideas that are borderline surreal ("brain eats heart" etc.) and do not seem to fit. 



> [strike]By the mere instinctual process of the mind[/strike]
> I am sacrilege
> to the role history has given-
> through my victories I have
> ...



I suggest starting over with what is not crossed out.



> The purpose of the poem is to actually say, women should stay strictly  maternal beings because when we evolve into complex thinkers and  philosophers, we destroy our ability to love blindly and selflessly.


I don't agree with this. It is a terrible oversimplification. It's almost like saying women should stay barefoot inside the kitchen, because that is their identity, their purpose. Even if it is meant to be sarcastic, that's not coming through yet.


----------



## saintenitouche (Mar 17, 2012)

Jon M said:


> I've read this poem about four times over the last couple of days, and the meaning has escaped me until today when I read your comments. I'm not sure if this is a fault of the poem or just me being dense. I suspect most writers of this kind of layered, super-symbolic poetry believe the latter.
> 
> I think the poem would be tremendously more powerful if the opening was trimmed to "I am sacrilege/to the role history has given". There is some excellent writing here, but it is surrounded by words and ideas that are borderline surreal ("brain eats heart" etc.) and do not seem to fit.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much for your comments, super symbolic is what i like ^_^ and no, i don't think anyone who can't understand what I write is dense lol What you had to say was very helpful, and I am in the process of editing it now, though it will happen a couple more times before I submit it... honestly your comment frightened me though. I do not think at all, in any sense, whatsoever, that women ought to stay "barefooted in the kitchen" *breathes* Someone like me could not possibly believe that. lol The purpose of the poem is more like an ignorance is bliss type of envy, for women who are satisfied with the status quo. Who don't blink at gender roles or D&G advertisements. :/ I have children and my husband is more maternal than I am... and my point about secrecy in poetry being okay is that, when people know a bit about me when I'm an awesome, famous poet and all (yeah yeah I walked into that, ok) people will be able to interpret what I am saying because they will be able to reference back to the life I lived. Just like we do with Sylvia Plath and Poe and all those other great people who let their lives write for them. But I get it, we've got some organizational errors here, I'm workin' on it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 18, 2012)

> The purpose of the poem is more like an ignorance is bliss type of envy, for women who are satisfied with the status quo.


What my friend from student days used to call "Happy prole syndrom".  "I wish I had been born a poor Italian peasant believing devoutly in the Maddona and her saving powers", no I don't, If such a person exists (Doubtful) he is a used, exploited, fool, and who wants to be that?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 18, 2012)

If I were publishing a poetry anthology and had one blank page to fill, and this was the only poem offered to fill it, I would leave the page blank; as I would if offered at least 80% of my own poems, poems which are not of publishable quality.


----------



## JRBurgher (Mar 18, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> If I had one blank page to fill, and this was the only poem offered to fill it, I would leave the page blank



Ouch.  How is this not an insult?  More importantly, how is this language constructive?

I think an apology is in order.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 18, 2012)

JRBurgher said:


> Ouch.  How is this not an insult?  More importantly, how is this language constructive?
> 
> I think an apology is in order.



If you take it out of context you can make it mean anything you like - I also said that over 80% of my own poems wouldn't fill the space either. Should I apologise to myself?


----------



## Gumby (Mar 18, 2012)

Gentlemen, saintenitouche has been more than a good sport through all of this discussion.  Not all of it has been about this particular work, which is the point of her posting it to begin with. I have no problem with a little discussion in threads, but there is a real danger of derailing her thread, which is not fair to her.  Please keep all comments _from this point on_ in the discussion centered around ways she may improve _this _particular piece and save the poetic discussion for the appropriately named forum. I appreciate your consideration on this matter.

Gumby


----------



## JRBurgher (Mar 19, 2012)

I think your poem is insightful, thoughtful, and for me personally, a little difficult to understand.  Each time I learn a little more about your thought process I take a fresh look at it with a new perspective and I appreciate it more.

I don't know if I would call women's contribution as insignificant as a grain of sand, but anyone who has been in a sandstorm knows, there is power in numbers.

I personally would be proud of this.

JRB


----------



## saintenitouche (Mar 19, 2012)

JRBurgher said:


> I think your poem is insightful, thoughtful, and for me personally, a little difficult to understand.  Each time I learn a little more about your thought process I take a fresh look at it with a new perspective and I appreciate it more.
> 
> I don't know if I would call women's contribution as insignificant as a grain of sand, but anyone who has been in a sandstorm knows, there is power in numbers.
> 
> ...



Thank your very much  I find it hard to understand after looking at it objectively, which admittedly I have done at the request of bloggsworth, because of its lack of organization. I think once my ideas are more formatted it will be easier for a reader to jump to one idea to the next.


----------



## saintenitouche (Mar 19, 2012)

Olly Buckle said:


> What my friend from student days used to call "Happy prole syndrom".  "I wish I had been born a poor Italian peasant believing devoutly in the Maddona and her saving powers", no I don't, If such a person exists (Doubtful) he is a used, exploited, fool, and who wants to be that?



I agree that I should not envy, but when some days when I don't reap as much benefit from "fighting the good fight", I feel like this... and after all that is what poetry is about, how we feel. Of course, the tone is supposed to convey that I do not really believe in this attitude, but I am merely despairing, another thing I have to make a bit more clear, how I'm gonna do that I'm not sure yet :/


----------

