| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Call upon the wrath of god on ye (Other) by Imago Call upon the wrath of god on ye
who see fit to tamper with such purity
of that which once lost can not be found
for such diseased ticks must be picked
and squashed between ones fingers
lest they spread their scurge upon that fertil ground
for once the soil is soured
within all fruit it bare the disease lingers
no blooms we see from those deflowered
call upon the wrath of god
for the wrath of god is truth
and it maybe the only cure
call upon the wrath of god
and the seed you sow may grow and bloom
into something that is pure
Up the ladder:
it's all about the aeroplanes
Down the ladder:
forever mourning
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 5.4
Posted: October 28, 2004 9:17 PM PDT; Last modified: October 30, 2004 11:33 PM PDTWeighted score: 5.0476813 Overall Rank: 6876 Comments:
Explaining a poem is like calling it a riddle. I prefer to glean what I can without explanation. You could title it "Child Abuse," since your title is redundant anyway. Using King James English detracts unless you are consistant. Grammetical problems in lines 5, 8, and line 3 of S2. Good use of the tic Overuse of the wrath of god, unless you do more with it than say it four times. A lot of criticism? Yeah, but I agree with what you're saying.
Normally I don't give away the meanings but in this case I made an exception. Hoping it would make the reader re-read the poem and thus think about it more. Many poems use the first line as a title. The Use of King James English is in reflection of the biblical reference. If one of your lines is in latin does the rest of it have to be? Line 3ofS2 Give me a suggestion. Maybe to seperate May and Be? I also see how you would prefer "bares" over "bare" in line 8. I will definately consider re-writing the last stanza. I kinda see where your coming from but till the muse finds me I'll have to live with what I've got. Thank you for your insight. I hope you don't take my response as hostile.
I value your opinion and look forward to more critiques from you.
Here's a suggestion: punctuate.
richa bumface est. cum puellis cantat. "cur cantas cum puellis?" caecilius rogat. richa inquit: "bumface sum."
"pestis! furcifer!" caecilius exclamat. multus sanguis fluit.
richa is a bumface. He sings with the girls. "Why do you sing with the girls?" asks Caecilius. "I'm a bumface" says richa. "Pests! Scoundrels!" yells Caecilius. Much blood flows.
Dictionary.com: definition 6. for soured: Of or relating to excessively acid soil that is damaging to crops.
for blooms: The flower of a plant. (no flower ie. no bloom) for deflowered: 2 To destroy the innocence, integrity, or beauty of; ravage (not just women) for fruit:definition 3,4,and 5 A plant crop or product: the fruits of the earth. Result; outcome: the fruit of their labor. Offspring; progeny "Call upon the wrath of god on thee" Is like a curse (A pox upon thee) As far as half archaic speech half common speech. Go to church or drama schools. Poetry isn't about speaking proper english It's about redefining the language. If you like free verse then you must understand that. Child abuse is something that must be overcome. no revenge can compensate for the damage it does. Only through acknowledgement can you begin to reverse the damage. The truth will set us free. Thank you for your input it was quite challenging.
Except "Call upon the wrath of God on thee" is such an awkward line. Is "Call upon" a command? Or does it mean "I call upon"? If it's a command, then it makes no sense because you're saying "You call upon the wrath of God on you", because "thee" means you. What you should be saying is something like:
"Call upon the wrath of God, to fall upon those who see fit to tamper with..." If it means "I call upon", then it's still awkward, because you're saying "I call upon the wrath of God on you", which is full of ambiguities. Are you calling upon a wrath of god that's sitting on someone? Are you calling upon the wrath of God whilst standing on someone? Or are you calling upon the wrath of God, to fall upon someone? You want the latter, but the sentence as you've written it could be read all three ways. There are other problems with this poeme, mostly due to a lack of punctuation. In short, what you have is a garbled mess :(
Dictionary definition for thou or thee:
\Thou\, pron. [Sing.: nom. Thou; poss. Thyor Thine; obj. Thee. Pl.: nom. You; poss. Youror Yours; obj. You.] [OE. thou, [thorn]u, AS. [eth][=u], [eth]u; akin to OS. & OFries. thu, G., Dan. & Sw. du, Icel. [thorn][=u], Goth. [thorn]u, Russ. tui, Ir. & Gael. tu, W. ti, L. tu, Gr. sy`, Dor. ty`, Skr. tvam. [root]185. Cf. Thee, Thine, Te Deum.] The second personal pronoun, in the singular number, denoting the person addressed; thyself; the pronoun which is used in addressing persons in the solemn or poetical style. "Call upon the wrath of God on thee" is a decluration or a curse ie. "A pox upon thee" .It's an answer like you should call on god's wrath to be your vengence. In short either you get it and go with it or you don't. You guys are tough. I like that. Art thou he that should come? --Matt. xi. 3.
You are a dunce of the highest order. I have just explained to you why "Call upon the wrath of God on thee" makes no sense. One of the steps in my explanation was to point out that "thee" means "you". Your response was to paste a dictionary definition which says that "thee" means "you". Well done!!!!!!!11
If instead I wrote. "Shame on you." in the first line or "may god have shame on you." would that be different. Ok we've agreed that thee means you. so lets define
"You" and I quote :"Used to refer to an indefinitely specified person; one: You can't win them all." But I understand your confusion with this so I will change "thee" to "Ye" because I value your opinion so much. Even if your an insulting asshole.
No, you idiot! That wouldn't make it any better! For one thing, "May God have shame on you," is not at all what the expression "shame on you" means, so, Great work! God doesn't get ashamed, since he makes all rules regarding shame and normalcy anyways, and, as any schoolchild knows, spends most of his time Gloriously Nude. God BRINGS shame upon people. Excellent use of the language, man!!!!!
For another thing, "may god have shame on you" isn't the same kind of phrase as "Call upon the wrath of god on ye" is. In order to be structured the same way, it would have to be, "Call upon the shame of God on ye," which doesn't make any more sense than your original. For another thing, you've totally missed the point! All you have to do, you fucking clod, is "Call the wrath of God upon ye/thee/you/whateverthefuck." That's how you do it. And here's an interesting sideline: The Bible wasn't written in King James English, you fucking moron!!!!! It was just re-written in King James for people using it during King James's time, and after awhile everyone thought it made them sound kind of cool and powerful, when really it just made them all sound like dolts and hopeless anachronisms. In short: forget all this Biblical reference gobble; you just thought it made you sound intelligent and poetic. I hope you're feeling horribly horribly wrong about that now.
> All you have to do, you fucking clod, is "Call the wrath of God upon ye/thee/you/whateverthefuck."
The thing is that it's a command, so it still sounds dodge if you say "Call the wrath of God upon thee". Commands are in the 2nd person. Because thee means you, you're commanding someone to call the wrath of God upon themselves! Is that really what he means? He should get rid of the you/thee/ye altogether, and put: "Call the wrath of God to fall upon those who see fit to..."
P.S. zodiac, I just noticed that you addressed this point in a post below. I would add that given that the first line (+ title) of this poeme are nonsense, and that there doesn't seem to be a particularly nice fix that would fit with the rest of the poeme, the best solution is to scrap the whole thing. It's garbled Beyond Thunderdome anyway :(
There is not a single piece of poetry published in the last hundreds years that is written in an archaic manner for no reason. Look in any poetry journal or magazine. Poetry is about communication. Why sabbotage your own poem by being so convoluted. What you seem to have done here is to think of an idea then substitute prosaic words (the idea) for poetic words (the poem).
For instance: "no blooms we see from those deflowered". The reason I interpreted it as once you chop the heads off flowers they never flower again (which would be incorrect) is because otherwise all you are saying is flowers which have had their flowers taken away are not flowering which is a tautology. Why say it.
Here's a poem for example. "Whilst the bells ring" By Richa.
The archaic line is a reflection of the bible. Meaning you should think of the line in biblical terms. I will admit the "no blooms" line is redundant at some level but so is "Dead men tell no tales." That doesn't mean it doesn't have a secondary more poetically implied meaning.(Kill the snitch). I do believe you're all quite smart but to state these arguments with little if nothing to back them up seems somewhat arrogant.
Ace call again, you dim! The word "whilst" isn't archaic in England - where richa lives!!!@!1!@!
"to state these arguments with little if nothing to back them up seems somewhat arrogant."
It's not archaic, but it's the province of dims-only.
I think it is ace that an angel's lack of genitalia can define its masculinity. Well done. But how do you sing.
cum puellis :(
Then we are back to where we started. By 'no blooms we see from those deflowered' what you mean is that those who lose there innocence never show the same vitality again. That is as specific as the metaphor allows. Therefore you are saying that all non-virgins have no vitality. The metaphor also implies that the a 'deflowered' flower will never bloom again. This is incorrect. This is an example of the problem with the poem. Metaphors must be tight, they must track, this one is literally redundant (the way you mean it) and open to misinterpretation (the way the reader reads it).
What I am saying is no different from what any other member of a poetry site will say. The use of excessively archaic language when the poem works without is a no-no. Metaphors that are open to misinterpretation are not good metaphors. Also when I said published, I meant a piece that a respectable publisher would put in their magazine. 'Whilst the bells ring' has a good last verse but the title alone would be enough to get an editor to throw the poem in the bin.
Like this?
call upon the wrath of god for the sword he yields is truth and through his word procure A spot of holy ground and the seed you sow may grow and bloom into something that is pure
Like a song of hope that deviates from the thing hoped for, covering it over in pretty prose. If child abuse is the object of god's wrath, then this is hardly how it resolves. A more forceful ending seems appropriate.
More forceful like killing them or castration maybe. It doesn't stop the cycle though. God said in the bible "My sword is truth".
Truth is a powerful thing. Look what it did to Nixon.
More forceful than procuring a spot of holy ground through his word. More forceful than a seed growing and blooming, in between which processes lies a host of work. More forceful that simply turning into something pure as if itâs a gentle ride.
I admit I don't know the complete solution. Only god does. Truth though is definitely a step in the right direction. It is disappointing that there is no pill you can take to make it go away but sometimes you have to put it in god's hands and just admit the truth. People can be fucked up. The acceptance of that fact allows you to step above it if you are strong willed enough to do so. It ain't easy. Niether is the truth. Also by letting others know about what happened to you and by who. Can protect you and others from further harm.
I wish you would stop ignoring me when I comment on your work. You went off in another direction, this time as before, and did not address what I was trying, in a constructive amnner, to tell you.
rigiditus nippulatum, et clampostona ingratiae solorum solarum, slapadiddle dildatum
The first line is, I'm afraid, grammatical nonsense. Permit me to explain. If you call on something, especially someone's wrath, you call on it to do something. Thus, if you want to keep the 'upon, you would have to add a verb later on, and say something along the lines of 'Call upon the wrath of God To fall on them'. Elsewise, you can rid yourself of the upon and keep the rest as it is [with one exception I'll get to in a moment] -- 'Call the wrath of God on them' -- which would be the equivalent, more or less, of your 'Pox on thee' example.
Secondly, it should be (as in my rewritten versions) 'on THEM', due to the fact that 'Thee' is the singular pronoun. As it stands, you're telling the abuser to call the wrath of God on himself -- an admirable sentiment, perhaps, but not very practical or likely. Besides, to make it work as it is, you'd have to change the tense in the second line to 'Who sees' -- again, 'Thee' being singular. Also, the fourth and fifth lines are just plain silly. And the spelling's a disaster.
On and upon are the exact same thing. Look it up. Thee: refer to top definition can be plural.("god shed his grace on thee")To call upon something and to call something are 2 diferent things.
I am not god I can't call his wrath but I can request it. I wish you guys would bring proof to back up your argument. By the way I like your poems.
Written in the other way is blasphemous.
definition for Call on or Call upon:
To order or request to undertake a particular activity: called on our friends to help.
Please... listen very carefully:
Take a look at your example, "called on our friends to help". Do you see anything there even halfway grammatically similar to the line in your poem, "Call upon the wrath of god on ye", other than the phrase "call upon"? There isn't anything. Your friends are people; wrath is a thing. To make your comment example even slightly correspond to your poem, you'd have to say, "Call upon the help of our friends on us." That, of course, is gobble. On the other hand, to make the poem line similar to your comment, you'd have to say "called upon God to bring his wrath upon ye." This is just fine. THAT'S HALF OF THE FUCKING POINT. But it still doesn't take care of -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s point that you don't know who's calling or where God is. If you're telling the abuser, or whatever, to call the wrath of God upon themselves - well, that doesn't make sense, does it? All they'd have to do is pretend they didn't hear or understand you, and there'd be no wrath, would there? Or maybe you meant, "[I] call the wrath of God upon ye". Then why didn't you just say so? Oh, because it sounded deeper this way. Well, I hope you see what kind of mess that's gotten you in. But I bet you just didn't know what the fuck you were saying. You thought, in some dim highschool English lit fashion, that the way you get wrath to fall on someone is to tell it, the wrath, "Call upon the wrath of God etc. etc." It's as if I called you on the phone (which I wouldn't) and said to you, "Find yourself and tell you to come over for videogames and cornchips." Am I right? Sheesh! Even the Jameses weren't that dim.
Are you a) new to english b) attempting to sound smarter than you are or c) all of the above.
You can't have reduplicated prepositions in english that split the object
I most strongly disagree with all of you.
"Call upon the wrath of god on ye" Is an excellent bit of mockery of those who have no idea how to sound archaic but try to anyway. "scurge" is a nicely subtle way of shortening the line to the author's specifications in the manner of the great Robert Duncan. The pun on "may be" in the fourth to last line is an example of supreme wit matched only by the uncapitalized god, a most original way of indicating the author's displeasure with religion. In short, there are few poems better crafted than this. Thus this poem most certainly merits a score of..... HAHAH Gotcha there. Just kidding. "Call upon the wrath of god on ye" just sounds like an illiterate wanker trying to sound biblical "scurge" should be scourge "it maybe" should be "it may be" Now, since you posted a "correction" I would assume that you would at least fix those utterly guffy fuckups if not delete the whole dribbling amorphous, artless and musicless pseudopoem. However, since you did not, I can only assume that your edit was to get your poem up to the top of the list again and erase the 7 and the 8 you'd gotten (which were really generous) Before you wonder about it, yes I really do mean it. Please, try again. On second thought, don't! -10 of shame-
If you're going to post a revision, at least correct the spelling!
This pope gave up his robes
Celestine V didn't want to be pope and tried to retire to monastery By Tony Staley Compass Editor St. Celestine V When: 1210-1296 Where: Italy What: Founder of an order of monks and pope Canonized: 1313 Feast: May 19 An old saying warns: Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. St. Celestine V may have wished he had heeded that warning. As the abbot of an order of monks, he told the College of Cardinals to stop their fighting, which had gone on for two years, and elect a new pope. If they didn't, he warned, he would call the wrath of God down upon them. So on July 5, 1294, the cardinals elected the 84-year-old abbot as the new pope.
Please, for the love of God, stop cutting and pasting internet tidbits here. Not a single one of them has helped your case at all.
Try... just TRY to understand: "he would call the wrath of God down upon them" is completely correct. The line in your poem, "Call upon the wrath of God on ye", is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. For one thing, the internet line has only one prepositional phrase, "down upon them"; yours has two, "upon", and "on ye," which combine to cause a kind of completely bumming reaction. THIS IS THE POINT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE ALL WEEK. THIS IS MOSTLY WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE FUCKING POEM. For another thing, the internet quote has a subject, "he", which is doing the calling. Yours does not. No one knows who's doing the calling, or who is being called. THIS IS THE OTHER THING THAT'S MAINLY WRONG WITH YOUR POEM. ARE YOU THAT FUCKING DIM??!? SHEESH! GET A LIFE, BUDDY!!!!1!
Formula of Pious Consensus
Among the Pastors of the Saxon Churches Entered into the Public Record at the Synod of Mediasch 22 June 1572_. by Lucas Ungleich [aka Lukas Unglerus], 1526-1600 -:But as many as scorn the Son by their unbelief are condemned, and the wrath of God remains upon them. but the blame falls back on ourselves, who stubbornly resist the divine will, and by our sins call the wrath of God and punishments upon ...
CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM
By Mary M. Bodie "We emphasize the fact which is especially interesting and instructive to us, that it is not Christ alone but His people also - His Body - who will have part in the thrilling scenes of the Day of the Lord. We notice the significant fact, that the living creatures will call the wrath of God into evidence - Rev. 6."
You just proved our point three times.
'He would call the wrath of God upon them' -- NOT 'would call upon the wrath of God on them'. 'by our sins call the wrath of God and punishments upon...' NOT 'by our sins call upon the wrath of God and punishments upon...' 'the living creatures will call the wrath of God into evidence' NOT 'the living creatures will call upon the wrath of God into evidence.' Look. Let me put it as simply as possible. You call UPON or ON something to make it do something. 'I call upon the name of God to witness my oath' or whatnot. Or you call something down on someone: 'I call hours of boring Bible-reading on all illiterate sprogs.' You can't do both.
'I call upon the name of God to witness my oath' so how can a name witness an outh? See if you take it literally it's stupid.
And to take a poem literally and not for It's implied meaning is even more retarded. You guy's would look at a Picasso and say "That don't look anything like a woman."
Comparing your outstanding achievements in the field of buffoonery to Picasso is like walking into a restaurant, filling your keks, and saying "Just because it smells bad doesn't mean it tastes bad."
It's stupid anyway. In any event, you're calling on the name of God so that God will witness your oath. And such statements are utterly bum. Congratulations on grouping yourself with them in a spectacularly dim fashion!
wrath:Punishment or vengeance as a manifestation of anger.
Divine retribution for sin The line can be interpreted as. Request the vengeance of god on those who see fit... It's meant as an answer to "what should I do about these people. Obviously I'm barking up the wrong tree.
Here we go again... Notice that you did not say it could be interpreted as 'Request upon the vengeance of God...'
This is a terrible drooping hobo stain on a brilliant white sofa.
243 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sorry tree huggers.