Revision 3

Jesus seems photo-shopped
to look brighter, lighter—

so light, in fact, he floats.
It only shows one side

and that makes me wonder
if he hides his ugly side.

He's framed as a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven, candlelit eyes
—Mel Gibson blue—

a pillowy gaze without desire
and looking up        to his dad.

I wonder if this face could engage
or enrage empires—

its heroin stare doesn't inspire.
Maybe people look to him to see the light

show—the radiant show, the halo show,
the skin show—fair faced

and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach.

---

Revision 2

Jesus seems false—photo-shopped
to look brighter, lighter;

so light, in fact, he floats.
It only shows one side

and that makes me wonder
if he hides his ugly side.

He's framed as a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven—candlelit eyes,
Mel Gibson blue—

his pillowy gaze without desire
and looking up        to his dad.

I wonder how he ever enraged
or engaged empires;

his heroin stare doesn't inspire.
Maybe people came to him to see the light

show—the radiant show, the halo show,
the skin show—fair faced

and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach.

---

(Removed an em dash at the end of "photo-shopped" on 6/30.)


Revision 1

Jesus seems false, photo-shopped
to look brighter, lighter;

so light, in fact, he floats.
It only shows one side,

and that makes me wonder
if it's his ugly side that hides.

He's framed as a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven – candlelit eyes,
Mel Gibson blue –

his pillowy gaze without desire,
and looking up        to his dad

with a history of violent behavior.
I wonder how he ever enraged

or engaged empires;
his heroin stare doesn't inspire

visions of an historical force.
Maybe people came to him to see the light

show – the radiant show, the halo show,
the skin show – fair

and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach.

---

Original version, titled "The Light Show"

I never cared for Jesus – I like bad boys.
And blondes. He wasn't blonde, but he looks like it in his pictures.

They always seem false, photo-shopped
to look brighter, lighter;

so light, in fact, he floats.
Some pictures only show one side,

and it makes me wonder
if it's his ugly side he hides.

People say he's a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven, his gaze perfectly desireless,
and always looking up        to his dad,

to his bad dad
with a history of violence.

I wonder how he ever enraged
and then engaged an empire

with insipid stares that don't inspire
visions of an historical force.

Maybe people came to him to see the light
show – the radiant show, the halo show,

the skin show – fair and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach.

(06-15-2016, 10:14 AM)lizziep Wrote:  I never cared for Jesus – I like bad boys. I don't think this period should be here, "and blondes" isn't a full sentence - it should be part of this one.
And blondes. He wasn't blonde, but he looks like it in his pictures.

They always seem false, photo-shopped
to look brighter, lighter;

so light, in fact, he floats.
Some pictures only show one side,

and it makes me wonder
if it's his ugly side he hides.

People say he's a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven, his gaze perfectly desireless,
and always looking up        to his dad,

to his bad dad I don't think this line is necessary - it's said with more subtlety in the next line. It might be a reference to your opening line (I like bad boys) though, but even then you could just add bad to the preceding line.
with a history of violence.

I wonder how he ever enraged
and then engaged an empire I think he first engaged and then enraged an empire (if you're talking about Jesus). The empire wouldn't have cared enough about him to be enraged if he hadn't first engaged a following. This is a minor nit, not a big deal.

with insipid stares that don't inspire
visions of an historical force.

Maybe people came to him to see the light
show – the radiant show, the halo show, I think you give away your cleverest line in the title - I already knew what was coming because of it.

the skin show – fair and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach.

I think you have some interesting thoughts here, and I usually dislike poems about religion. I think you should change the title, as, like I said, it gives away the best line in your poem, and reduces it's impact.

(06-15-2016, 04:01 PM)Wjames Wrote:  [quote='lizziep' pid='212245' dateline='1465953276']
I wonder how he ever enraged
and then engaged an empire I think he first engaged and then enraged an empire (if you're talking about Jesus). The empire wouldn't have cared enough about him to be enraged if he hadn't first engaged a following. This is a minor nit, not a big deal.

Thanks for your thoughts! I will change the title with the first edit -- thanks for calling that out. What I had in mind here was how the Roman empire was persecutorial toward Christianity and then made it the official religion under Constantine. However, I can see how that could be confusing because he first engaged a Jewish following and then enraged the Jewish elders. I'll have to think on this and figure out a clearer way to express myself.

While typically the format you chose (non-rhyming couplets with irregular length) rubs me the wrong way, I think it suits your lines perfectly. This is a lovely poem, full of irony and poignancy and just enough fuck-the-man-ness.

Wjames offered up some solid thoughts on the piece. I have just a few more: I don't think your first two lines live up to the rest of the poem, they seem too chatty. And the two "always"s you have don't do a lot for you imo. For "people say..." instead of people could you put a more specific/interesting group in there? I think a couple of well placed modern references in the first half, like your Hampton Whites and light show towards the end, would make this stand out even more.

Now I just wonder; why do you still post in novice? ;D

-jc

(06-16-2016, 04:22 AM)justcloudy Wrote:  Now I just wonder; why do you still post in novice? ;D

-jc

Cause I'm an idiot
I meant to put it in mild. I'll PM somebody.....
Thanks for pointing that out.

Thank you Wjames and justcloudy! I have posted a revision, and I hope it's to your liking!

Your comments were very helpful.

I like this, very clever. Maybe some em dashes around "photo-shopped" a la

Jesus seems false—photo-shopped—
to look brighter, lighter;

End of L4 no comma before "and"

L9-10 use full em dash, not hyphens (cut and paste the ones I put in above. Also in MS Word under insert-->symbol-->special character. Causes phrase to become parenthetical, has added benefit of driving milo insane.

L11 - no comma before "and"


Maybe:

"show—the radiant show, the halo show,
the skin show so—fair (nice chance for extended alliteration)

Good poem, really enjoyed it.

dale

Hi Lizziep,

I don't remember seeing the original post, but this revision is a lot stronger. Some comments for you below:

(06-15-2016, 10:14 AM)lizziep Wrote:  Jesus seems false, photo-shopped--Great opening line! It really pulls me in.
to look brighter, lighter;

so light, in fact, he floats.--Nice play off the idea of the ascension.
It only shows one side,

and that makes me wonder
if it's his ugly side that hides.--Love the thoughts behind this. Maybe personalize it a bit to make the line read stronger: "if he hides his ugly side"

He's framed as a role model:--Good use of framed.
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up --again nice subtle nod to the resurrection

to heaven – candlelit eyes,--love the modifier
Mel Gibson blue – --especially nice after his passion movie

his pillowy gaze without desire,
and looking up        to his dad--Clever use of spacing to mimic the activity.

with a history of violent behavior. --I get the OT/NT Angry God/Loving Savior dichotomy but this line feels out of place. I think the poem would probably be better if you cut it. It  could have its own poem but I don't think it's actually this one. We are focused on the "head".
I wonder how he ever enraged

or engaged empires;
his heroin stare doesn't inspire

visions of an historical force.--You might even be able to cut this line and end the thought on inspire above, which is another loaded term.
Maybe people came to him to see the light --Wonderful break here

show – the radiant show, the halo show,
the skin show – fair --this is also a nice progression, it reads well, and it the use of fair on the same line as skin points subtly to another issue.

and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach. --And now we have a reference to the atonement. Very subtle placement.

Very much enjoyed the read.

Best,

Todd

Dale: thank you for taking time with the piece and for teaching me some new tricks! I love dashes, so I'll be making good use of those. I'll try to pay more attention to my commas going forward.

Todd: Thank you for helping me trim the excess and the distractions. I appreciate the honesty and encouragement. I personalized the 'ugly side' line like you suggested; is it ok that those two stanzas now both end in the same word?

(06-25-2016, 11:15 AM)lizziep Wrote:  Todd: is it ok that those two stanzas now both end in the same word?

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm sure some people might get hung up on that. If it bothers you is the main thing.

I liked the poem on the first read and the revision has been an improvement.

Very cool poem.

(06-15-2016, 10:14 AM)lizziep Wrote:  Revision 2

Jesus seems false—photo-shopped—
to look brighter, lighter;

so light, in fact, he floats.
It only shows one side

and that makes me wonder
if he hides his ugly side.

He's framed as a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven—candlelit eyes,
Mel Gibson blue—

his pillowy gaze without desire
and looking up        to his dad.

I wonder how he ever enraged
or engaged empires;

his heroin stare doesn't inspire.
Maybe people came to him to see the light

show—the radiant show, the halo show,
the skin show—fair faced

and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach.



Revision 1

Jesus seems false, photo-shopped
to look brighter, lighter;

so light, in fact, he floats.
It only shows one side,

and that makes me wonder
if it's his ugly side that hides.

He's framed as a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven – candlelit eyes,
Mel Gibson blue –

his pillowy gaze without desire,
and looking up        to his dad

with a history of violent behavior.
I wonder how he ever enraged

or engaged empires;
his heroin stare doesn't inspire

visions of an historical force.
Maybe people came to him to see the light

show – the radiant show, the halo show,
the skin show – fair

and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach.



Original version, titled "The Light Show"

I never cared for Jesus – I like bad boys.
And blondes. He wasn't blonde, but he looks like it in his pictures.

They always seem false, photo-shopped
to look brighter, lighter;

so light, in fact, he floats.
Some pictures only show one side,

and it makes me wonder
if it's his ugly side he hides.

People say he's a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven, his gaze perfectly desireless,
and always looking up        to his dad,

to his bad dad
with a history of violence.

I wonder how he ever enraged
and then engaged an empire

with insipid stares that don't inspire
visions of an historical force.

Maybe people came to him to see the light
show – the radiant show, the halo show,

the skin show – fair and gleaming in his Hampton Whites,
in a time long before bleach.

Lizz,

I think you did a wonderful revision and the work takes a much better form. The original extended beyond itself in a few areas but I have to admit I preferred the S1 of the original a little better. Of course, as the first version progressed S1 did seem a bit out of place.

Good work Lizz
Enjoyed reading

Luna

I like the poem, liz, how a fake light blinding masses is the source of jesus' legacy. it humanizes the diety. brilliant connection to mel too, how the silver screen has the same effect. the only stanza that doesn't fit thematically (for me) is

I wonder how he ever enraged 
or engaged empires;

telling a roman of a coming kingdom will get you killed; how does jesus' prophecy fit with the light facade? 

thanks for the read

-kole

Thanks for your input Kole! I appreciate you taking time for my pieces. I'll consider your thoughts and see if there's anything I can change.

lizziep

---

(06-26-2016, 12:17 AM)LunaDeLore Wrote:  Lizz,

I think you did a wonderful revision and the work takes a much better form. The original extended beyond itself in a few areas but I have to admit I preferred the S1 of the original a little better. Of course, as the first version progressed S1 did seem a bit out of place.

Good work Lizz
Enjoyed reading

Luna

Thanks for reading, Luna! Yes, I think that the original first line was a good hook, but it became more confusing over time. It was a trade-off.

lizziep

Fair enough, but if "it's in no way intended to be a comment on history," then why allude to history? why say "I wonder how he ever enraged / or engaged empires" if we're talking about a painting and not a person? and if this is to mean present tense empires as well, then shouldn't the line be in present tense? what christian-inspired wars have occurred since the painting of the sallman? I'm not a historian, but weren't the crusades the last christian-inspired wars? is it accurate to say the sallman enraged a empire? 

is 'he' the appropriate word for a painting? in this line, "He's framed as a role model" i can clearly read a subject of a painting, but in lines like "Jesus seems false" and 'how he . . . enraged" is not equally successful in distinguishing the 2000 year old man and the 20th century image.

perhaps the poem should further establish a disassociation with the painting and the historical figure, more clearly treat the subject of the painting as fake rather than blending references to the man who you apparently believe was real enough to enrage.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: if the poem is questing the sallman only, then why allude to the historical jesus at all? (historical jesus is slightly oxymoronic, i'm thinking, but i digress) 


bottom line is that it's your poem, but to my eyes, there are no questions in this piece, only a commentary on a painting with a reference to history that doesn't fit.

again, to my eyes, the questions would arise if the reader clearly understood what you're trying to ask: how does a corny white guy in a painting piss off empires?

my humble opinion

good luck with it

Kole, I must have deleted my comment right as you were posting yours. I deleted it because I thought it was coming across as argumentative, and that's not the atmosphere I want to cultivate. I'm sorry if this has caused any confusion for you or the forum.

I appreciate your thoughts here and I will give that issue more attention.

if you ever feel like my reading is off, don't hesitate to call me out! your comments made me dig deeper (and ask more questions) which you said was a goal of the poem.  well done

(06-30-2016, 09:25 AM)kolemath Wrote:  if you ever feel like my reading is off, don't hesitate to call me out! 

I don't think I'm allowed to, in all seriousness. And, they say that, if you have to defend or explain you work, then your poem has failed. I fail all the time, I'm just too proud to admit it sometimes

The reactions I'm getting to this piece are all over the map. Some people think it's full of flaws and others think it's provocative in a good way. I'm always so excited to put my pieces up to see what people think, then I come away more confused than ever! I guess that's the process

Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that we were good ><

No sweat!

hugs all around! ><

(06-15-2016, 10:14 AM)lizziep Wrote:  Trying out something different. Riverproof is me proofreading the work (to the best of my unprofessional, but professionally obsessive-compulsive, abilities), and as such is expected to be immediately addressed, in the poem if an unconscious decision, in a reply if conscious. All else, actual crit, which in this case, however long my last note is, is fairly short, I think -- I'm just feeling especially wordy today.

Jesus seems false—photo-shopped— Riverproof: Photoshopped? Or is that the more modern spelling? Also, the em dash at the end of the line makes the construction wrong: remove it.
to look brighter, lighter; Riverproof: This is where the em dash should be; starting a parenthetic with an em dash then ending it with a semicolon is I believe bad form.

so light, in fact, he floats. As much as I love the punch rhythm, I'm still missing the "that" -- but this may just be me.
It only shows one side

and that makes me wonder
if he hides his ugly side. Exactly!

He's framed as a role model:
chiseled jaw, cheekbones rising up

to heaven—candlelit eyes, Riverproof: Why suddenly separate candlelit eyes with an em dash, when it as a detail is essentially used the same? Is it for emphasis -- in which case devoting a whole stanza for it is emphasis enough. Remove all the em dashes here, replace them with commas, and remove the (even without the em-dash change, completely unnecessary) comma already in place.
Mel Gibson blue— Role model? This moment of irony (and considering the Passion, double so) feels perhaps a little too clear for the poem. [Note: have nothing against the man, just swaying with the wind here]

his pillowy gaze without desire
and looking up        to his dad. That's a heck of a long space. What is it for? To me, it reads as a defect -- the speaker, even if devout, doesn't seem the sort in his current polemic to give so much reverence to the father -- than a point of interest, but to others perhaps otherwise, so I'd suggest just going with your gut here.

I wonder how he ever enraged
or engaged empires; Riverproof: Colon instead of semicolon.

his heroin stare doesn't inspire.
Maybe people came to him to see the light

show—the radiant show, the halo show,
the skin show—fair faced I liked how you broke light and show, but then following it up with a series of essentially synonymous shows (even skin show, different enough, feels too tied/tired) massively weakens it. I'd prefer actual description over this -- and then, perhaps, "skin" something. As for the weird construction with "came to him to see the light show....fair faced and gleaming in his Hampton Whites", I think at this point it's excusable, with the vividness of (what I hope to be turned into) the description of the light show being enough of a distraction.

and gleaming in his Hampton Whites, Riverproof: Comma unneeded, I think.
in a time long before bleach. 

I've seen the Sallman head before this, but I never actually knew its name -- with this poem, I looked again, and for that you already win me an approval. But then you lose that by focusing on Jesus, rather than on the icon of Jesus -- that is to say, even though the title is specific, it isn't for me reinforced enough, so that it seems like all icons, ultimately all representations, of Jesus become over-sentimental, over-delicate. The solution for me would be slight additions to the start, perhaps "Jesus here" instead of just Jesus -- not a copy of the head itself, since this works fairly well as a more general critique of such depictions of Jesus in general.

In fact, this poem feels like it would be better if it just worked as a general critique of 'over-sentimental, over-delicate' icons of Jesus, rather than the Sallman head specifically. The Sallman head immediately strikes me as balanced in the sense that it has the capacity to split its audience clean in two: one group, the group your speaker seems to belong to, sees the aforementioned, while the other sees the exact opposite, with the clear, 'manly' look in his eye, the strong angles on his face, and, considering this image was made in the 1940s, the fact that this light is surrounded by darkness -- both senses, I think, are a little off, understandable considering the individuals' situations (I personally saw the same as the speaker first, but perhaps because I just came off of watching, again, Pasolini's Il Vangelo secondo Matteo, where his Marxist impulses make Christ a little bit more revolutionary that he was), but absolutely worthy of such skewering, at least from my devout perspective for the sake of temperance. And surely there are many more works, most of them probably not even considered for liturgy, that are really that bad, that are more worthy of veiled critique -- but of course, now I seem to critique myself, because simply reinforcing the specificity of the poem to the Sallman head without actually pushing the Sallman head into the main body of the work works well enough. 

Of course, if you happen to be talking about something else -- worse still, if you happen to be critiquing not the Sallman head nor its especially soft-hearted followers specifically, but the whole image of Jesus, I'd suggest much, much more subtlety in your attack, since all this poem should end up is a smug little note on a smug little view of a [relatively] smug little picture, again referring to Pasolini's film, to the image I'll link to below, and ultimately to the Gospels themselves -- easy to start, for such subtlety, with the now thrice-mentioned "here", right after "Jesus" in the first line. But I wouldn't recommend that -- it's much harder to fight a whole idea while working within it, rather than fight it with a brand new one, and that would mean destroying this already well-standing piece. Aye, well-standing -- to end, I really like this.

image removed. you can leave a link if you want to but we try to keep images in non-workshop threads. thanks, ella/mod.

Quote:Riverproof is me proofreading the work (to the best of my unprofessional, but professionally obsessive-compulsive, abilities), and as such is expected to be immediately addressed, in the poem if an unconscious decision, in a reply if conscious.

??? Are you saying the OP must address your notes immediately? All the OP is required to do is consider comments, not take action. If I've  misunderstood PM me and I'll take down the note. ella

RiverNotch: I will look at your critiques. Thanks for spending time with the piece.

I am going to ask that you remember that this is my work and not yours -- demanding that I make certain changes or respond to you in a particular way is inappropriate and a boundary violation. Please refrain from doing this in the future.

Best,

lizziep