Help | About | Suggestions | Alms | Chat [0] | Users [0] | Log In | Join
 Search:
Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments   

Wreck of the Poor Anchor (Free verse) by Dovina
(In 2075 a deep probe assembles sensor data, beams murky images, and builds a story from intelligence, no longer artificial.) It began in the village of Dover where a pier extends, called London. A species of ground squirrels, plentiful in the region, lent fleas to the local rats. As for the rats, they subsisted, in houses along the shore, in and out of schooners along the quay. not often seen by day— “The cats kill them,” said the sailors, “or the rat-catcher does,” and the schooners sailed rat-free. But by night, along the wharf, rats waited, gamboled in the warehouses, perched on pilings, watching. When the Poor Anchor came from San Jose and moored at the London pier, a thousand small, glinty eyes glowed among the shore. As a matter of routine, and to impress the locals, the crew put shields along the hawsers, but did not take up the gang plank at night, and now and then a rat slithered on to find a glutton’s fare. The rats were glad aboard the ship, each female birthing a hundred, maybe more, offspring every year. Having fired the rat-catcher, a year and a half before, the Poor Anchor sailed amiably from Dover for home, and from the broad Pacific came a cable announcing members of the crew had died, had died of plague. And to the world of seamen the curt message spread with bone-scorching fire, “Beware the Poor Anchor, wantonly childish, doomed.” Even her crew abandoned ship, fled to shore or safer craft. So drifting alone, Poor Anchor sank, while fatted rats gasped in the open sea.

Down the ladder: Ghost in My Swimming Pool

You must be logged in to leave comments. Vote:

Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
 GraphVotes
10  .. 00
.. 20
.. 00
.. 20
.. 00
.. 00
.. 10
.. 10
.. 00
.. 00
.. 10

Arithmetic Mean: 5.571429
Weighted score: 5.153681
Overall Rank: 5214
Posted: January 15, 2007 7:57 PM PST; Last modified: January 15, 2007 7:57 PM PST
View voting details
Comments:
[7] Ranger @ 86.131.61.212 | 16-Jan-07/2:17 PM | Reply
I quite liked some of it but then as Stephen will tell you, I'm incapable of disliking anything, and as rockmage will tell you I have no talent, so it's a pretty pointless compliment.
[n/a] Dovina @ 75.82.85.162 > Ranger | 16-Jan-07/2:28 PM | Reply
You don’t like everything, as you have just said, and said before. And rockmage cannot even find a simple 3 he left in plain sight on one of my poems. So who is it again who has no talent?
[7] Ranger @ 86.131.61.212 > Dovina | 16-Jan-07/2:32 PM | Reply
This ain't ego-talk. I was just trying to cover up the fact that I had nothing useful to say :(
[n/a] Dovina @ 75.82.85.162 > Ranger | 16-Jan-07/2:35 PM | Reply
Thanks for reading, then voting.
[n/a] Dovina @ 208.127.72.160 > Dovina | 17-Jan-07/1:52 PM | Reply
And thanks again for commenting on the poem, instead of using it for a soap box.
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 63.212.164.24 > Dovina | 20-Jan-07/11:01 AM | Reply
How can it possibly irritate you that people use poem comment sections as soap boxes? Watching people guff on other people's poemes is the whole point of poemeranker. Even if it wasn't, who cares about a pile of guff every now and again? You can ignore it, in which case it's as good as nothing, or you could be mildly diverted by it, in which case it's better than nothing. In conclusion: you fail.
[n/a] Dovina @ 75.82.85.162 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 20-Jan-07/3:08 PM | Reply
How could you possibly interpret my comment as irritation? It was obviously a rebuttal to rockmage’s profusion of nonsensical comments having nothing remotely to do with the poem or common sense or admission of his failure to find the 3. Ranger at least addressed the poem, something you might consider doing every now and again. As for guff strewn about these pages, I’ve strewn as much as almost anyone. To say that I “fail” on such trivial and unsupported grounds is like claiming to have found a monkey egg in your stew. Either of these might exist in places and stews, but they’re much smaller than you suppose.
[7] Ranger @ 86.140.66.243 > Dovina | 21-Jan-07/3:19 AM | Reply
It was a typo; the angel meant to say 'you foil', as in, you foil the deep space radio station's research by covering poemeranker with foil. Time Team 3000 will be tearing their hair out over this.
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 63.212.164.24 > Dovina | 21-Jan-07/9:19 AM | Reply
What? You say how outrageous it is to interpret your comment as a sign of irritation at irrelevant commentary, then you jabber on about how irritating irrelevant commentary is. "Ranger at least addressed the poem"! Do I think you're actually in a state of irritation when you see a guff comment? No! You're secretly pleased because it gives you a chance to show how mature you are. You feel you have a RIGHT to be irritated, and cannot help but exercise it. There is absolutely no thought behind any of your responses -- you may as well be on auto-pilot. Snooty, empty-headed girl auto-pilot. Yet again you fail.
[n/a] Dovina @ 75.51.248.14 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 21-Jan-07/2:26 PM | Reply
Irrelevant or guff comment does not irritate me; I thought I had said that clearly. Not clearly enough, it seems. And to say it more clearly would only sound more snooty. Carry on with the guff, please; call me names; who really cares? You fail, not me.
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 63.212.164.24 > Dovina | 21-Jan-07/2:46 PM | Reply
Oh, I see. NOW you weep. You fail so badly even your failure has failed.
[n/a] Dovina @ 75.51.248.14 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 21-Jan-07/2:48 PM | Reply
Wow, you take this as weeping? There is no communicating with you!
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 63.212.164.24 > Dovina | 21-Jan-07/3:07 PM | Reply
I was amused to learn the other day that women have better peripheral vision than men. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Women have always lacked the capacity for intense focus, yet their multi-tasking skills (ironing, hoovering, nattering, watching TV) are second to none. Peripheral vision is an important part of effective multi-tasking; the ability to spot a discarded badmington racket from a hundred yards in poor visibility is not.
[n/a] Dovina @ 75.82.85.162 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 22-Jan-07/3:24 PM | Reply
May I suggest that strong peripheral vision does not necessarily mean a lack of capacity for intense focus? Of course, it’s perfectly all right to hold a notion without logical basis. We women do it all the time. Just a peripheral notion, of course, and a bit snooty.
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 80.47.120.22 > Dovina | 14-Jul-07/6:38 AM | Reply
May I suggest that you're a dunce.
[n/a] Dovina @ 71.208.187.159 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 15-Jul-07/5:15 PM | Reply
Yes, and thank you for asking. You may also suggest that both men and women should be required to grow facial hair.
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 80.47.120.22 > Dovina | 16-Jul-07/1:45 PM | Reply
I may not suggest that. Only mens may grow facial hairs. Womens aren't allowed. I myself maintain a 3-4 mm layer of stubble, because it enhances my grizzled features, making my excellent jaw line even more excellent. I only shave it down before meeting my idiotic clients -- a ritual which vexes me greatly, because it means I must wander around nude-faced for a couple of days, waiting for the Excellence to return.

Womens, on the other hand, should have pure, delicate features, unsullied by the loss of innocence which comes facial hairs and the capacity for rational thought.
[n/a] Dovina @ 204.10.126.202 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 17-Jul-07/3:20 PM | Reply
Why would anyone add "s" to "men" and "women," words that are already plural? Bowls!
[7] Ranger @ 86.150.1.238 > Dovina | 21-Jul-07/5:57 AM | Reply
You have presumably not seen this:

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/pieku/
[n/a] Dovina @ 74.40.191.3 > Ranger | 21-Jul-07/5:05 PM | Reply
Well that explains it.
[9] deleted user @ 64.140.228.50 | 18-Jan-07/5:21 AM | Reply
No constructive critisism to offer. I quite like tis as it is.
[7] ecargo @ 167.219.88.140 | 18-Jan-07/10:07 AM | Reply
I've read this a few times. I like the story telling aspect of it, but at points it gets wordy and the story itself is a little thin as told. In order for a straight narrative poem to work, I think the story needs to be stronger--a ballad form would suit this (okay, maybe it just made me think of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" by Gordon Lightfood, for obvious reasons, but I think that's a good illustration of why that song/story works--the ballad form, the interesting language, the ship's backstory, etc.).

I think part of the problem may be that there's no one to connect with--if you read, for example, Zodiac's poem about Cook dying, it's the people in the poem that really make it work; we identify with the dying Captain, the native girl. This lacks any such personalization/identification. Even something like "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" connects us with the ship by making it something living--maybe it's the focus on the rats that doesn't work for me here. The prologue seems unnecessary, tacked on; doesn't advance anything, IMO, and isn't really ever followed up in any way. In general, too, this gets a little too anthropormorphic for me (the glad rats, the amiably sailing ship).

I think the story telling is pretty good, though could use some paring. And I like the last line--the "fatted rats" suggesting, intentionally or not, fatted calves (a sacrifice) and "gasping in the open sea" is a good line and image.
[n/a] Dovina @ 75.82.85.162 > ecargo | 20-Jan-07/2:45 PM | Reply
To say that the story is “a little thin” is generous indeed. Perhaps if I’d named the ship Pooranchor, instead of Poor Anchor, the analogy and silliness would pop out. Maybe it did anyway.

I love the "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" and would love to write a ballad form like it, but first I’d want something serious to write about, second more talent. And you’re right, it relates more to rats than people, unlike Zodiac’s Valentine 2 (about Captain Cook) a good poem on a serious subject.

The prologue could be dumped. It’s supposed to show that what we now call artificial intelligence might, in 2075, be smart enough to decipher what’s really going on.

Sorry it’s too anthropomorphic, with glad rats, amiable ship and all – just part of the silliness. Thanks for the helpful comment.
[7] Ranger @ 86.140.66.243 > Dovina | 21-Jan-07/3:16 AM | Reply
*well the road runs down by the butternut grove to old Bill Skinner's stream...*
[4] Edna Sweetlove @ 85.210.201.5 | 19-Jan-07/9:13 AM | Reply
A bit long.
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 206.228.170.72 | 19-Jan-07/9:35 AM | Reply
I went to an Indian restaurant last night on 100th & Broadway, and I swear to God my friend's vindaloo had a monkey egg in it. It was about the size of a ping pong ball, brown, with an outer shell, and some kind of nut inside. It smelt of anise. It wasn't fresh so I'm guessing it was laid in India somewhere and transported to New York in a tupperware container. We discarded it and continued with our meal. -3-
[n/a] Dovina @ 208.127.72.15 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 19-Jan-07/10:06 AM | Reply
A long way from Ye Old Cheshire Cheese and not far from Central Park, if memory serves. Didn’t know you Brits cared for that fiery hot vindaloo, with or without monkey eggs.
[7] ecargo @ 167.219.88.140 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 19-Jan-07/11:57 AM | Reply
Hmmm . . . that's a long way to go, from the Manor, for chicken vindaloo; must have involved quite the complex system of hoists and harnesses to get you there. And you seem to have developed a slight American twang . . . must be my imagination. ;)

I used to go to a place on the Upper West Side called Indus or Indus Valley, or something like that, that was around 98th or 99th and B'way--was very good and relatively inexpensive. No monkey egg specials though.
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 206.228.170.86 > ecargo | 19-Jan-07/12:08 PM | Reply
Owing to a clerical error, I have been temporarily moved to Nude York. And guess what: it was Indus Valley. I asked the waiter why he had put a monkey egg in the vindaloo, and he said "Don't you know monkeys are mammals?" I said "I know monkeys are animals. And animals lay eggs. That's why they have to live in nests. Humans don't lay eggs because they're not animals. They do produce eggs, though -- it's just that they hatch internally. Either way you fail."
[7] ecargo @ 167.219.88.140 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 19-Jan-07/1:06 PM | Reply
How funny--what a teeny, tiny world. -=D_A==,PI so short a distance away--it makes me positively dizzy.

As always, your logic is impeccable. ;)

[n/a] Shuushin @ 65.175.177.241 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 19-Jan-07/1:41 PM | Reply
welcome to the East Coast of these "United" States. I wave in your general direction.
[3] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 206.228.170.86 > ecargo | 19-Jan-07/12:23 PM | Reply
P.S. No harnesses were required for my relocation. It began with an elaborate system of ropes, pulleys, and two-way mirrors. After a great deal of shouting (and countless soilings), I was placed inside a crate. 3 weeks later I had run out of straw to eat. That was when I pulled back the drapes and shouted USA! USA! USA!
[7] ecargo @ 167.219.88.140 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 19-Jan-07/1:09 PM | Reply
Oh dear. Well, at least the twang seems to have subsided.

Drapes in a crate; it sounds, well, NESTlike.

Hope you enjoy your time in NYC.
307 view(s)




Track and Plan your submissions ; Read some Comics ; Get Paid for your Poetry
PoemRanker Copyright © 2001 - 2024 - kaolin fire - All Rights Reserved
All poems Copyright © their respective authors
An internet tradition since June 9, 2001