| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
-750,000 in Rwanda (Free verse) by ALChemy See how the Tutsi
sleep dead in heaps
and still they lie there
where they die.
Too many for the census takers,
calculators, estimators.
Too many for the senses to take.
Hear our silence
serenade the merciless raid.
The order's called.
The triggers pulled.
The flash, the bang,
the flesh explodes.
and in the air
the smell still hangs
of a rotting sweetness
in churches and streets.
wreaking our futures bleakness
Touch the ground
unsettled ground
desecration abound
There are more bodies
than bullet shells
stabbing children
snapping thier necks.
Save the bullets
for mom and dad.
Kids are easier to kill.
Up the ladder:
The makings of a killer
Down the ladder:
Broken Sonnet
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.8
Posted: June 7, 2005 3:27 PM PDT; Last modified: June 12, 2005 7:01 AM PDTWeighted score: 6.4 Overall Rank: 781 Comments:
If you still don't understand why your 'Red Alert' was chopped, Dan GB, then take a look at this. It reads well, it's emotionally involved without getting squishy, it's what you can call a hard-hitter. But poems like these are not without risk: in losing objectivity. I would say that too much objectivity was Dan's specific problem. So it's a walk on the knife edge, or however the saying goes.
The last stanza is a bit too moralistic to my taste. Or rather; the images represent a (predictable) stereotype.
Very good up to the last verse. I'd end it with "Kids are easy to kill." When you get preachy, it loses a lot of force.
I think you might be right about the last verse.
It was a bad Idea to drop pop culture into this and the shame on you message is redundant. The second verse was intended to point out the rest of the worlds ignorance to what was going on but I think I can change the last part a little to add to my point. But I'll have to work on that later.
I assume you are talking to me, but it's hard to know. If you will click on "reply" under a comment, then your response will be placed like mine is here under your comment.
Try it. You can always delete your comment by clicking the little red x.
Thank you Dovina. I'll drop that last verse. I look forward to reading some of your work soon.
Okay, sleep isn't worth keeping in the second line just for the rhyme. Also, as far as I know, most of them didn't die in heaps, as the poem suggests. At least, it would be extremely impractical to get people into heaps and then get them to wait while you killed them. If I were a warring tribesman, I'd kill them wherever they were and THEN put them in heaps. Assuming they didn't find a way to do it, that kills about your whole first four lines.
Also, check this out: "KIGALI (Reuters) - The 1994 Rwandan genocide claimed 937,000 victims according to a census the Rwandan government conducted in 2001, a cabinet minister said on Sunday." So, apparently the census takers and calculators, et al, did do the job and you've got the wrong figure in your title (unless you're counting only Tutsis, which isn't exactly fair.) I don't understand fire brigade. I mean, yes, there was burning, but I think you mean the term to mean the people shooting, not the people burning. The firing squad is never called a fire brigade. The fire department is. "bleekness" -> bleakness.
First off. "Sleep" is used to evoke a peaceful innocent image to contrast with the following lines. Secondly. "Heaps" can also mean a great amount and true some were piled into heaps also. The word dead is in front of heaps which in english usually means they're dead first. "Sleep" once agian is just meant figuratively. The bodies were left to rot. That is why line 3 and 4 are there. Thirdly. I did mean just the Tutsi. Genocide is specified. It's no less unfair than talking about the Jews killed in the Holocaust without mentioning the Russian soldiers. Which is done all the time. Shame on you Spielberg. A third of the way into the killing no one could keep track of how many were dead. They couldn't keep up with the death toll. Hense the last lines of verse 1. Finally. I did mean fire brigade but I do see now how the following lines may have confused you. Originally long ago I wrote "Hear the sirens" but I wanted to point out our (USA) ignorance of what was happening at the time so I changed it to "the silence" then to "our silence". Right now I'm considering changing it to "Hear our silence
serenade the deadly raid" I appreciate that point that you made and I apologise for the mispeling.
Yes, I know. "Sleep" is always used like that. It's in so many poems you start wishing for dead people doing something else. Or for people actually sleeping instead of only figuratively sleeping and really being dead.
I don't think that's what "heaps" means. At least, that's not how it looks in the poem. Especially since we've all already heard about the Rwandan dead ending up in REAL heaps (that is, in piles) though they didn't die there. One way or another, the stanza is a little confusing or misleading. "The word dead is in front of heaps which in english usually means they're dead first." No it doesn't. Besides, you say they're "in heaps ... [lying] where they die." My logic is 1) They're in heaps now. 2) They're where they died. 3) Ergo, they were in heaps when (ie, just before) they died. And I don't see what you're getting at. At least, I don't see how this applies to any of the concerns I raised before. Yes, I know the bodies were left to rot. But the point is, it's not too many for the census takers, figurative or otherwise. The truth is that REAL census takers REALLY DID take a census and find out how many died, so if you just want a way to say they're left to rot and there are too many of them, you might consider saying one that's true, like, oh, they're left to rot and there are too many of them. (Also, the census takers naturally counted the dead by counting the number left and comparing that figure with an earlier census, so it would logically be easier, if not more humane, if more people have died - not harder, like you're suggesting.) I don't understand why a fire brigade is present. If I'm missing something (out of my American ignorance) please let me know. The bigger point is - and this is true for most poemranker users, not just you - when writing a poem you HAVE TO MAKE SURE SOMETHING IS LITERALLY TRUE before you can make it figuratively true. You can disagree, if you like, and I'd like the chance to explain why it's a must. But I do wish you'd just take my word for it.
Heaps does mean both and is meant to mean both. They were both in piles and scattered around and they were just left there were ever they may have died. most of the heaps were in buildings were they scrambled for safety while being shot. Although they may have been put into piles much later. This poem is transporting you back in time closer to the actual event. not talking in hindsight. I will repeat DURING the killings the people reporting the death toll couldn't keep up. The title reads like a headline to help put you closer to the moment. It's as if you were taking a tour of Rwanda just days after. I did if you remember concede to the "fire brigade" line and even plan on changing it although I don't know if it's entirely untrue. It was something I forgot to change earlier on and I am humbled and embarrassed by it. Thanks for bringing it up again. And as far as Literal Truth. Aside from maybe the "Fire Brigade" everything else is true if it's interpreted correctly but I understand that not everybody reads the same poem the same way. That's just a risk I choose to take. I hope your not reading this the wrong way because your input has helped me tremendously with this poem and I hope that help extends to further postings that I may put up. Thank you my fellow American.
Oh, okay.
Are you SURE it's all true? Were you there?
What does that have to do with anything?
I think this is a very bad poem. It doesnât hit hard, it hits the spot where the blowâs already been taken. And if it did not affect you, eleven years ago, this poem certainly will not change that. And how is it âemotionally involvedâ? It deals with the Rwanda genocide in a kind of moralistic tone of voice, the âwe all are guiltyâthing, and then, in the commentaries, itâs about sleep and dead and heap, blahblahblah, very abstract, technical, not personal at all â it should have known at least ONE name of a Tutsi family for it to become more then what it is now: simply a flat piece of socalled âinvolvedâ poetry. So whatâs your next piece about? Bosnia? Darfur? The famine in North Korea? The Cultural Revolution? Iraq, maybe? Kyoto?
If it did not effect you eleven years ago you're probably a sadistic fuck who tortures little animals for pleasure. No poem could possibly capture the true horror and sadness of what happened there. This poem is just an echo to remind you that such terrible things did take place. It doesn't hit YOU hard. Try not to be so arrogant as to speak for everyone. It's just your opinion. It's vagueness allows you to incorperate your own experiences instead of insisting you feel sorry for one family. It asks you to put yourself in this place and see it how you may. Of course it's moralistic would you prefer I take the side of the Hutu or the many governments that insisted it wasn't happening. Or just pretend I'm not pissed at both. In the end this poem is written by me for me as all poems are. If you can't see it, hear it and feel it the way I do that only means that your not like me. Those places you listed at the bottom can all be pasted over the name Tutsi in the poem if you want to see that it's all part of a much bigger picture.
You seem to be under the impression that to make a poem affecting, you just need to write about something terrible and affecting. Or, at least, you seem to think that if you read a poem about, oh, the Challenger explosion and aren't moved, it's because you're just insensate to the tragedy of poor Christie McAuliffe thinking she's just getting this free ride into space and then all of a sudden she's a gas drifting slowly down into the open mouth of some giant Atlantic carp.
In other words, you're not getting it at all. In other words, the following poem should be the most moving you've ever read: "ON CRUSHING THE HEADS OF KITTENS INTO THE MOUTHS OF STARVING ORPHANS ....Splat! .....Ummmm...." All the rest of your so-called points (not in the poem, you ninny, in your comment immediately above this one) are barely worth discussing. Here's the short version: 1) Nobody's saying they only want to feel sorry for one family or ignore the scope of the tragedy and everything. But also nobody's managing to incorporate their own experiences or do put themselves in the place, or anything else to get a leg up on this poem. And why should they (your customers, as it were,) be required to do all this work anyway? Surely it's worth having people read your poem to put a little bit more effort into it yourself and make it effective on its own? 2) As far as "this poem is written by me for me" goes - well, that's poemranker's commonest lie. Notice you're posting these poems on POEMRANKER and asking (if only by implication) for people to read them and give their opinions. 3) Try to imagine you've never heard of Rwanda or Tutsis or anything else. Actually, I'll make it easier: "Tlatelolco (free verse) by zodiac After they bazooka'ed the residencia we all turned out in the big Plaza of Three Cultures in Mexico City to agitate. The guardia civil was wearing white gloves to identify themselves. Afterwards, we rode trains out to the ocean." Well? Moved? No, because you don't know or remember what happened at Tlatelolco just before the 68(?) Olympic Games there. What if I told you over three thousand were killed and taken in freight cars and helicopters to the ocean, and that parents still alive in Mexico don't know if their children died that night? If you feel something now, it's from the event, not the poem. If you don't feel something, it's because it's simply not a good poem. You see how that works? Don't you think it was my responsibility as writer to make the poem moving or carry the feeling of Tlatelolco even for people who didn't know about (or appreciate) the actual event? No? Then sorry, there's nothing I can do to help you.
Aren't you the hero. Sticking up for others.
What Dental Panic said and what was implied were two different things. I just pointed it out. My point is that an event this tragic is impossible to capture on print. So at best a poem can only be a reminder of those events. Considering your responses. This poem for good or bad reasons has at least got you thinking about Rwanda again. That was my goal. It's good to know your feelings about the subject are stronger than this poem or any poem. I write poetry for myself. Then if I get curious I post it. They are two sepperate acts. There is plenty of stuff I won't post for the reason that I only want it for myself but all my poems are originally written for me. To some of you this poem is as annoying as a Mentos commercial but you still remember the product don't you? This poem is cold and heartless in ways and I believe that it has to be.
Aren't you the hero? Oh, no, wait. You're not. Calling somebody who bothered to criticize your poem a "sadistic fuck" was pretty fucking heroic, though.
Regarding, "This poem for good or bad reasons has at least got you thinking about Rwanda again" - well, excuse my French, but that's kind of a load of crap. If you'd only posted the word "Rwanda" and nothing else, it would have gotten me thinking about Rwanda again, so what's the point of the other thirty lines. As far as your assumption that no poem can get close to the experience of Rwanda so it's a bum criticism to say your poem didn't, well that's kind of crap too. At least, a lot of things can get a lot closer than you've gotten. I'm not trying to say you're crap as a poet or anything such. I'd just like to suggest that you try to make your poems more evocative. And, considering our earlier conversation on this poem, true as well. Ask yourself, Even though I'm just writing these poems for myself, don't I think it would be a lot nicer to write good poems for myself than bad poems for myself? Then ask yourself, And isn't it probably the case that I'm just pissed because nobody thought my poem was genius and that's why I'm acting like this?
I did not call that person a sadistic fuck. I only said if you weren't affected somehow emotionally by what happen in Rwanda then you are probably a sadistic fuck. In reply to this comment. "And if it did not affect you, eleven years ago, this poem certainly will not change that." I'm sure DP wasn't implying that Rwanda didn't effect him/her but the comment just plain sounded ridiculous. I'm not pissed about anything. Some liked it some didn't. So what. I was only explaining to you the reasons I wrote this poem the way that I did. If I posted the the suggestion mentioned "Rwanda" It would be a perfect poem for you because every thought that followed it would be yours. But I didn't write it for you so it consists of more words. Most of which you apparently don't appreciate. And that's OK with me.
Resentment was the fuel behind this poem not sadness. The point of all poetry or in that case all art forms is to make an unforgetable impression on people. Few succeed in doing this but it is still the goal. This poem certainly has flaws. It's rythm overpowers the words in some places for instance. It was meant to be a little like a stumbling march and I can see how that can make it sound less emotional. I'm sure you write both good and bad poems for yourself. Do you strive to write the bad ones? Then why imply that I do. You think the poem's bad. I think it has some merit. I concede it has it's flaws. Niether one of us is right. We only have opinions. Others have and will read the poem and think it's great. Let's not assume that they are either morons or geniuses but that they too have a valid opinion. If this poem is so bland and meaningless to you then for god sakes man let it go. Forget about it. Walk away. I sincerely appologize for wasting any of your time and I pray that any more of my posts don't cause you anymore unneeded suffering. I think your a good poet and very insightful but sometimes people just disagree.
A good subject for a poem, but as has been pointed out it is rather spoiled by poor construction and dodgy data. Furthermore I would suggest replacing 'thier' with 'their' in the fourth last line.
The last verse is better now, but look at the grammar and spelling.
desecration abound (number disagreement) There are more bodies (There are - not needed) snapping THIER necks.
Good points.
In this case desecration means "To violate the sacredness of". Did you mean "decimation"? Basically I'm saying sacrilege everywhere. But I see what you were thinking. "More bodies" is a good poetic idea but this poem kind of has a loose rhyme and shortening the line makes it harder to make the "shells" "kill" connection. I considered that one a lot though. Yeah I know "THIER". It's a bad dyslexic habit I have yet to overcome.
I'm not suggesting another word. Desecration is good. It's just that it needs to be either "desecrations abound" or "desecration abounds."
I see now. Good point. Thanks D.
Very amusing indeed. Certainly doesn't deserve its low ratings! Here's a 10 4 U.
ugh.
horrid topic, well portrayed. i think that the single line "hear our silence" is sufficient to convey the "shame on spectators" message. especially haunting is the last verse... 1049 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"But in the air
the song still hangs
and justice floats
away in floods of blood.
Making rivers out of streets"
&
"Ask yourself.
What should we do?
What should be done?
Or be like the rest
and say fuck CNN.
and turn Baywatch back on."
That aside, here's a seven.