Wills

[dukealien]

Wills


To be among the Late, yet exercise
One’s Will - this, we should closely scrutinize.
For how do dead men hope to realize
In death, what they could never otherwise?

Before his Lateness sets in, no man can
Command the nation to enact his plan
Of distribution to those of his clan
Or to some charity, if he’s a fan.

Yet written, signed and sealed beyond regret,
His Will has force of Law.  How did he get
Such privilege from Lords who wouldn’t let
Him, living, smoke a joint or cigarette?

Perhaps this unexpected reverence
For Wills of dead men is a consequence
Of anarchy if heirs fought over pence
And pounds without the Late one’s guiding sense.

Hence Constitutions - of the Late - are fit
For our obedience.  Posthumous writ
Holds anarchy at bay, our legal kit
The Late ones’ writings - we just live in it.

---

After some time spent  revising my own Will, I was out walking my doggerel yesterday morning...

[Leanne]

There's a whole lot of wisdom here -- as absurd as it sounds, you're onto something. "Surely you must be mistaken. Doesn't one have recourse to law in this matter?" "I'm sorry sir, you're wasting your breath. The only thing I can suggest is that you die immediately."

[RiverNotch]

I think though the variation of line 05 makes the rhythm a good deal less horsey, the slight stumble on "sets in, no man" is just a bit too distracting.

On the thought of stanza two: well, a man can, but that would mean a man would lose his possessions, and I don't think even priests are Christs before sainthood xP

On the thought of line 12: aren't cigarettes still legal?

Nevertheless, stanza 3 is one beautiful sounding-and-showing stanza. It sorta reminds me of The Merchant of Venice....

On the thoughts of stanzas 4 and 5: the conclusion feels way shallower than the set up, perhaps because it doesn't consider enough options. And again, the deal with stanza two....

Overall, this poem doesn't work for me thought-wise, again because the conclusion feels all shallow, unfinished. But sound-wise, excluding overall the last stanza, whose use of the "it" rhyme and somewhat unnatural dependence on commas/dashes betrays too well the natural weakness of your rhyme scheme, this is very good. Sound-wise, you are very capable, and I think if you had let this fester a bit more, and if you'd given the whole matter much more thought, you'd probably have let out a more comprehensive and thus more brilliant argument, with the work still being a poem.

Although I suppose this is in the poetry-for-fun bit, so do what you will, or whatever Crowley said.

[dukealien]

Thanks, both.  I'll stipulate that posting it the day after it was written left many rough spots.

@RiverNotch - thanks for the serious critique of such light verses.  My reading (writing?) is that the closing stanzas shouldn't disappoint because the opening stanzas are less profound than you found them.  On the other hand, I take political philosophy pretty seriously.

As you noted, it's rough; just looking over it again, I see where the first "anarchy" could change to "violence," avoiding repetition; with enough such nips and tucks, it might pass.

(In the States, there are many places where an innkeeper is not only forbidden to let patrons smoke, but forbidden to smoke, himself - in his own domicile and place of business!  If anything, tobacco smoking is more persecuted than pot smoking since the same claque which disdains the former indulges in the latter... somewhat the way those who at least affect to abhor pederasty are more than comfortable with abortion.  Yada vice, yada virtue - it's the way of the world.  Another reason it's better to be ruled my dead men - even though white and male - rather than live people, though they be ever so rainbow-hued and multi-gendered:  it's the difference between the vaunted rule of law and the much-feared rule of [living] men.)