| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
A Walk in the Park (Free verse) by Dovina Swaying gently in breezy park
skipping, tripping
mellow sun
grass waving
skirt fanned out
as if it saw you
an arm of womanhood
beckoning come
I knew how I looked
and loved what I knew
the essence of style
was me
was strong
could win battles
as a lily wins a bee
Then upon a rose
my flowing skirt did catch
jerked back
as fatherâs hand had years ago
when playing on a ledge
A little rip I heard
a scar in pink chiffon
its partner on my heart
Turning back along the pretty path
the road that brought me here
no more wise, no less giddy
for I am pretty just the same
no scar can hide the way I am
Up the ladder:
I Really Don't Care
Down the ladder:
Under Trees
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.571429
Posted: February 2, 2006 5:34 PM PST; Last modified: February 2, 2006 5:34 PM PSTWeighted score: 5.6915636 Overall Rank: 1983 Comments:
[8]
LilMsLadyPoet @ 207.69.139.134
|
2-Feb-06/7:30 PM
|
Reply
aww...I like this! It suprised me with where it went! The first two stanza are so strong...could stand alone and on there own just fine, IMO.
[n/a]
Dovina @ 67.72.98.89
> LilMsLadyPoet
|
3-Feb-06/7:11 AM
|
Reply
It does take a strange turn in mid-poem. I almost left it at two verses, but thought it too girly cute.
Quite nice.... no, very nice. Probably I like it cause its feminine. Well written, and the ending strikes out well.
It's a girl thing, yes, but I was hoping the ending would give broader meaning. Thanks.
Wonderful, stanza 2 in particular.
Asways happy when a man relates to this sort of thing. thanks.
Blushing, aren't you?
Nice. I especially like "as a lily wins a bee."
Grammetically, it should be, "as lilies win bees," but I liked it better this way. Thanks.
"skirt fanned out as if it saw you" is good, but personally I think you should try to get over it. Happens to everyone, if we're lucky enough.
How did you feel, then, having gotten over "it", when your skirt fanned out, as everyone's does sometimes?
Oh, I meant "it" generally. The whole metaphor.
That's a strong ass rose. Maybe go with rosebush instead. I can't believe I'm saying this but your ending is actually not mysterious enough. Good imagery though.
I cannot believe that someone who can be as distantly vague in his imagery as you ar sometimes, could not take "rose" as the thorn of a rose stem. Are you being impish?
Sorry not to be mysterious enough for you. The whole female mystique business escapes me. We're not nearly as mysterious as men.
I've always got a little impishness in me but you say and I quote "my flowing skirt did catch jerked back as fatherâs hand had years ago when playing on a ledge". Either your father's as weak as a rose stem or the rose was as strong as your father. Of course I realized you meant it caught on a roses thorn.
As far as the mystery of men goes: In a cartoon I was watching with my neice and nephew a girl asked a magic scull why guys were so hard to understand. The all knowing skull replied, "Because men are simple".
If you quote a poem like this, which lacks punctuation, and string lines together, it's appropriate to insert commas at line ends. In this case, it changed the meaning somewhat.
Is that why they believe a magic skull?
No matter how you punctuate it it's still a bit of a stretch.
Maybe the magic skull was a woman's. It certainly was insistant upon getting the last word in.
And I do insist. It's a stretch - giving birth. Maybe that's why we're better at it.
if you mean thorn you should probably write thorn. Or thorny rose.
Yes, I've had enough flak to know I should change that. My father was a gardener, and when he said "rose" he meant "rose bush, look out for thorns."
Aha! The connotation of rose for you is personal, I think that's lovely, but the reader might pause there or question it.
maybe you could write a poem about the way your father comunicates. Are there other shorthand words he uses?
Yes, and thanks for the suggestion.
Your gift:
Poets, if they're genuine, must also keep repeating "I don't know." Each poem marks an effort to answer this statement, but as soon as the final period hits the page, the poet begins to hesitate, starts to realize that this particular answer was pure makeshift, absolutely inadequate to boot. So the poets keep on trying, and sooner or later the consecutive results of their self-dissatisfaction are clipped together with a giant paperclip by literary historians and called their "oeuvre" . . . I sometimes dream of situations that can't possibly come true. I audaciously imagine, for example, that I get a chance to chat with the Ecclesiastes, the author of that moving lament on the vanity of all human endeavors. I would bow very deeply before him, because he is, after all, one of the greatest poets, for me at least. That done, I would grab his hand. "'There's nothing new under the sun': that's what you wrote, Ecclesiastes. But you yourself were born new under the sun. And the poem you created is also new under the sun, since no one wrote it down before you. And all your readers are also new under the sun, since those who lived before you couldn't read your poem. And that cypress that you're sitting under hasn't been growing since the dawn of time. It came into being by way of another cypress similar to yours, but not exactly the same. And Ecclesiastes, I'd also like to ask you what new thing under the sun you're planning to work on now? A further supplement to the thoughts that you've already expressed? Or maybe you're tempted to contradict some of them now? In your earlier work you mentioned joyâso what if it's fleeting? So maybe your new-under-the-sun poem will be about joy? Have you taken notes yet, do you have drafts? I doubt that you'll say, 'I've written everything down, I've got nothing left to add.' There's no poet in the world who can say this, least of all a great poet like yourself." The worldâwhatever we might think when we're terrified by its vastness and our own impotence or embittered by its indifference to individual suffering, of people, animals, and perhaps even plants, for why are we so sure that plants feel no pain; whatever we might think of its expanses pierced by the rays of stars surrounded by planets we've just begun to discover, planets already dead? still dead? we just don't know; whatever we might think of this measureless theater to which we've got reserved tickets, but tickets whose life span is laughably short, bounded as it is by two arbitrary dates; whatever else we might think of this worldâit is astonishing. But "astonishing" is an epithet concealing a logical trap. We're astonished, after all, by things that deviate from some well-known and universally acknowledged norm, from an obviousness we've grown accustomed to. Now the point is, there is no such obvious world. Our astonishment exists per se and isn't based on a comparison with something else. Granted, in daily speech, where we don't stop to consider every word, we all use phrases such as "the ordinary world," "ordinary life," "the ordinary course of events." . . . But in the language of poetry, where every word is weighed, nothing is usual or normal. Not a single stone and not a single cloud above it. Not a single day and not a single night after it. And above all, not a single existence, not anyone's existence in this world. It looks as though poets will always have their work cut out for them. - From Wislawa Szymborska's Nobel Prize acceptance speech
Szymborska must have realized that Solomon, who claims to have written "The Preacher," Ecclesiastes, was distraught over meaninglessness, and that he said, "nothing is new under the sun" as an exaggeration, meaning that nothing is worthwhile. I suppose itâs okay to use the Bible to illustrate points other than the authorsâ meaning; Iâve done it too. I think the point would have sounded more credible if some nod to the authorâs probable meaning had been given.
Solomon never "claimed" to be Ecclesiastes, that claim was made about Solomon by others. Certain modern scholars are now moving away from that belief, in part because the Hebrew used in Ecclesiastes would not have been in common use in Solomon's time. Your interpretation of the meaning of Ecclesiastes is simplistic.
Of course!
The book was written by a son of David who was king in Jeruselem. Whatever. And the writer really meant that nothing is new! And, oh yes, he shows no sign of despondency.
Do you feel that "nothing is new" is more, or less, of an exaggeration than "nothing is worthwhile"?
I beg to differ. First of all 'Ecclesiastes' which is derived from the latin title Ecclesiasticus, is NOT a person's name. It means- â he Church book. If this book had been written by a King of Jerusalem it would be in the Torah, and it is not. The Authors name is Jesus Ben Sirach'. The book was translated into Greek by the author's grandson in 132 BC. This translation was eventually adopted into the bible of the Greek church. Hence the name.
Secondly, by the end of the book the author concludes; "Fear God, and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man.' 12:14 The author laments that life 'means' pain and sorrow and death. But then he explains that each has a choice; to be wise or to be foolish. The entire book is peppered with examples of the good things in life; Love, youth, food, drink, friendship, wisdom. As much as you possibly can, fill your life with these good things, and rejoice now, while you're still a sentient being. I think what Szymborska's says regarding Ecclesiasticus is hogwash.
Whoever wrote it claims to be the son of David and a king in Jeruselem. Only Solomon fits. I think it's a beautifully written book, which Szymborska apparently fails to appreciate as shown by making light of "Nothing is new under the sun." I don't think the writer meant that entirely literly. The book contains many images, and I think this one expresses his unhappy conclusion that, even after gaining all he strove for, happiness still eludes. He tries to show that following God's righteousness is the only hope for happiness, but I sense that even in that he finds less than he hoped for.
In a sense, I think he really means that nothing is new, or can be new in the future. Of course, that's easy to argue against, but I think he felt that at some level that it's true. That's worth thinking about, I think.
The man that wrote it never discribe himself as either. That's a protestant lie.
Then you disagree with the English translations in common use?
there are sooooo many translations! I have 6 or 7 different ones. And I know there are more, and if I could read greek or hebrew, well then I would be unstoppable!
As for what christians in this country commonly believe about the bible, there's so much entrenched mythology about the bible, as well as so much that has been left out or manipulated that I believe most haven't got a clue.
Yes, I tend to go with the NIV or the NAS because they claim to follow the best manuscripts and to translate without added or subtracted dogma. Still I realize many uncertainties exist as to how closely even these match the writers' originals, all of which are lost.
That's complete bullshit. They don't 'add' dogma but they mislead. I believe those versions where translated from King James and not from Hebrew or Greek. Unfortunately some scholars thought it would be better to translate entire thoughts instead of the words. because fewer and fewer people were reading the Bible they assumed it was because it was written in a old version of english; it wasn't easy to read or understand.
Unfortunately one of the side- effects of this is that it becomes inaccurate. these are general purpose translations at best. But there are errors, as in poetry, words have connotations as well as denotations.. Have you read the gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdalene? Oh and if you can get your hands the the Jerusalem Bible buy it. it will set you back 30 smackers but it's worth much more. It's one of the few things the catholics did right. Maybe you can talk someone into getting it for you. A birthday present.
Sorry, your comment got stuck as I was revising mine.
I said that the NIV and the NAS claim to translate from the best manuscripts. Statements to this effect are in their introductioins. They claim to have used the best available Hebrew and Greek texts, not the King James. I cannot verify or deny these claims. I have read the gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdalene, and have browsed the Jerusalem Bible. It's been awhile but I found them interesting.
You are absolutely right. I was under the wrong impression. Ecclesiastes was written by a son of David, king of Jerusalem. Though there is some controversy about which one. Ecclesiaticus is a completly other book. Thank God we had this conversation. Also NIV is translated directly from hebrew & greek. They adhere the philosophy that the intention of the words is what needs to be translated and not the literal words. On their website they give the example of the word 'Vanity', in Greek the word literaly translates as vapor. After much consideration they decided to stay with the traditional 'vanity'.
Thanks for helping me pull my head out off my ass.
A good woman admits her mistakes. "She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue." Proverbs 31:26 NIV. Most of what I've heard you say is like that.
I got lost. Did you agree that son of David almost certainly doesn't mean 'in the first generation after David' (as Christ, for example was a Son of David, and not even literally so, since Joseph, his connection to David, wasn't his real father)? Also, that 'King of Jerusalem' probably doesn't mean a literal king of Jerusalem or, at least, it means a displaced heir during one of the exiles? If not, for shame.
We were discussing the NIV and its reliability as a translation. Also, we were talking about who the writer claims to be. You've raised another interesting subject, perhaps better left to another thread.
"Pseudepigrapha, from Greek pseudos = "false", "epigrapha" = "inscriptions"â see Epigraphyâ are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded. For instance, few Hebrew scholars would insist that the Song of Solomon was actually written by the king of Israel or ascribe the Book of Enoch to the prophet Enoch, and few Christian scholars would insist today that the Second Epistle of John was written by John the Evangelist. Nevertheless, in some cases, especially for books belonging to a religious canon, the question of whether a text is pseudepigraphical elicits sensations of loyalty and can become a matter of heavy dispute. The authenticity or value of the work itself, which is a separate question for experienced readers, often becomes sentimentally entangled in the association. Though the inherent value of the text may not be called into question, the weight of a revered or even apostolic author lends authority to a text. This is the essential motivation for pseudepigraphy in the first place."
Many of the writings attributed (by name or implication) to Solomon are now considered psuedepigraphical, because of anomolies with regard to dates, language, etc. It doesn't mean that the works are any less beautiful, inspiring, valuable, etc., just means that they weren't necessarily written by Solomon (or any other kings of Jerusalem).
Oh and I wanted to say that I agree with the philosophy that nothing is new. Maybe different or undiscovered but never new.
Dovina, who's on third base?
Okay, I've looked around, scratched my head. Are we on a ballfield?
I don't know.
295 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
