The Sentinel

[Caleb Murdock]

In a modern pedestrian plaza, barely noticed
As people passed, from the corner of my eye
I saw, and then stopped to behold, a great tree,
Not yet in leaf, rising from the paving stones
As if they were its natural element.

This was not some planted sapling left to die,
As they often do, by indifferent bureaucrats;
This was an emperor unfurled, with massive,
Muscular arms outstretched to grab the sky,
Or embrace and comfort a frightened world.

Oh, I was surely surprised to see this giant,
Majestic even among buildings twice its height;
Yet I felt pity, too, to see it imprisoned
By brick and stone; for by whatever method
Trees embrace, this tree would die alone.

No son or sister shared its air; its race,
Conquered by man, turned into little more
Than a source of boards. Sadly I turned away,
When out from the branches came a windy moan,
As if the tree would have the final say:

"Do not pity me; my race is not undone;
If storm, drought and famine could not kill me,
Man will not succeed, though he may try.
The glaciers tried, and so did fire from the sky;
From every patch we rise, and always shall.

"Look not to us, but to your own, for greed
Will end you; man has never learned to share.
And when your poisons finally suffocate you,
We shall still be here, casting up our seeds
To mingle in the wind and land everywhere."

Chastened by this sentinel of hope, I felt
A cautious glow, that things which might seem lost
Or fallen low, might flourish still—but then
A lick of warm wind turned my hope to dread:
I realized that this was May, not March
(Long past leafing), and that the tree was dead.

Alternate closing line:
(Long past leafing); the tree was already dead.

===========

The problem with this poem will be immediately obvious to some of you. The poetic device of having an inanimate object speak is probably a little too old fashioned for current poetic tastes. But since I believe that tastes change, and that what's considered archaic now may come back into style, I'm not too concerned about that. What really concerns me is that the tree's speech may be too grandiloquent, so much so that the poem may degenerate into comedy. The tree is a tree, not a Roman senator. Also, I wonder if I should be calling the tree a "sentinel" since it isn't actually guarding anything.

This poem is based on an actual experience in which I was admiring a magnificent tree in New York City, and then suddenly realized that it was dead. Paving stones had been laid right up to the trunk of the tree, which probably caused the roots to suffocate.

[Leanne]

Caleb, perhaps you're not reading a lot of contemporary poetry, as there is definitely no stricture against personifying or even anthropomorphising and using the voice of an inanimate object.  In this case, it serves as a voice for the narrator's conscience and does so well.  Though set in an urban environment, this has an oddly pastoral tone to it, which is pleasant to read.  It reminds me of a favourite poem of mine, Municipal Gum by the Indigenous Australian poet Oodgeroo Noonuccal.  

Some thoughts below.

In a modern pedestrian plaza, barely noticed
As people passed, from the corner of my eye
I saw, and then stopped to behold, a great tree,
Not yet in leaf, rising from the paving stones
As if they were its natural element.

This was not some planted sapling left to die,
As they often do, by indifferent bureaucrats; -- as they often are
This was an emperor unfurled, with massive, -- is unfurled the best adjective to apply to the metaphor of emperor?  
Muscular arms outstretched to grab the sky,
Or embrace and comfort a frightened world.

Oh, I was surely surprised to see this giant,
Majestic even among buildings twice its height;
Yet I felt pity, too, to see it imprisoned
By brick and stone; for by whatever method
Trees embrace, this tree would die alone.

No son or sister shared its air; its race,
Conquered by man, turned into little more
Than a source of boards.  Sadly I turned away,
When out from the branches came a windy moan,
As if the tree would have the final say:

"Do not pity me; my race is not undone;
If drout, storm and famine could not kill me, -- *drought
Man will not succeed, though he may try.
The glaciers tried, and so did fire from the sky;
From every patch we rise, and always shall.

"Look not to us, but to your own, for greed -- this entire stanza might be better removed, as it's a little heavy-handed and doesn't add much except to preach.  I think the enduring nature of the trees as discussed in the preceding stanza serves as a nice lesson
Will end you; man has never learned to share.
And when your poisons finally suffocate you,
We shall still be here, casting up our seeds
To mingle in the wind and land everywhere."

Chastened by this sentinel of hope, I felt -- perhaps guardian rather than sentinel -- he is not watching, but is still protecting, so to speak
A cautious glow, that things which might seem lost
Or fallen low, might flourish still—but then
A lick of warm wind turned my hope to dread:
I realized that this was May, not March
(Long past leafing), and that the tree was dead. -- this is the better of the two alternatives, in my opinion -- a strong closing line

Alternate closing line:
(Long past leafing); the tree was already dead.

[Caleb Murdock]

Thank you so much! Those small fixes will be easy. Rewriting the poem without the anthropomorphizing wouldn't have been easy. I'm glad that it doesn't appear archaic.

Thank you for the spelling correction. At first I had "draught", and then I had "drought", and then I settled on "drout". I don't know why I didn't look in the dictionary.

The difference in these lines is very interesting:

This was not some planted sapling left to die,
As they often do, by indifferent bureaucrats;

This was not some planted sapling left to die,
As they often are, by indifferent bureaucrats;

If I leave it as "do", the "do" refers to "die"; if I change it to "are", the "are" refers to "left". "Are" is probably better.

Thanks again! You've eased my mind regarding the main concern I had about the poem.

[Achebe]

In a modern pedestrian plaza, barely noticed - what was barely noticed? the plaza, or the tre in L3? If the tree, then the 'I saw' appears to be incorrect. If the plaza...then that's hard to believe
As people passed, from the corner of my eye
I saw, and then stopped to behold, a great tree,
Not yet in leaf, rising from the paving stones
As if they were its natural element. - nice line

This was not some planted sapling left to die,
As they often do, by indifferent bureaucrats; - 
This was an emperor unfurled, with massive, - the This was' repetition doesn't sit well. Also, 'unfurled' isn't the best choice of word here. If you're going to stick with 'emperor', then perhaps you should revisit 'planted sapling' above and replace with 'common sapling' or the like, to have some connection between the two lines.
Muscular arms outstretched to grab the sky,
Or embrace and comfort a frightened world.- 'frightened' is a distraction here. I'd suggest a more neutral adjective.

Oh, I was surely surprised to see this giant,
Majestic even among buildings twice its height;
Yet I felt pity, too, to see it imprisoned
By brick and stone; for by whatever method
Trees embrace, this tree would die alone.

No son or sister shared its air; its race,
Conquered by man, turned into little more
Than a source of boards.  Sadly I turned away,
When out from the branches came a windy moan,
As if the tree would have the final say:

"Do not pity me; my race is not undone;
If drout, storm and famine could not kill me,
Man will not succeed, though he may try.
The glaciers tried, and so did fire from the sky;
From every patch we rise, and always shall.

"Look not to us, but to your own, for greed
Will end you; man has never learned to share.
And when your poisons finally suffocate you,
We shall still be here, casting up our seeds
To mingle in the wind and land everywhere." this entire strophe is unnecessary. The poem is about the tree's seeming survival, not man's fate. 

Chastened by this sentinel of hope, I felt - yup, 'sentinel' is wrong here. 'Messenger' is ok, but sounds ugly
A cautious glow, that things which might seem lost
Or fallen low, might flourish still—but then
A lick of warm wind turned my hope to dread:
I realized that this was May, not March
(Long past leafing), and that the tree was dead.

Alternate closing line:
(Long past leafing); the tree was already dead.

===========

The problem with this poem will be immediately obvious to some of you.  The poetic device of having an inanimate object speak is probably a little too old fashioned for current poetic tastes.  But since I believe that tastes change, and that what's considered archaic now may come back into style, I'm not too concerned about that.  What really concerns me is that the tree's speech may be too grandiloquent, so much so that the poem may degenerate into comedy.  The tree is a tree, not a Roman senator.  Also, I wonder if I should be calling the tree a "sentinel" since it isn't actually guarding anything.

This poem is based on an actual experience in which I was admiring a magnificent tree in New York City, and then suddenly realized that it was dead.  Paving stones had been laid right up to the trunk of the tree, which probably caused the roots to suffocate.

Yes, having a non human object speak isn't a widely popular device today, except in children's poetry and satire.

[Caleb Murdock]

Achebe, thank you for your feedback.

"barely noticed as people passed" modifies "a great tree".  However, I understand that the object is quite a distance from the modifying language.  I'll re-examine that part of the poem.  Leanne didn't mention it, so perhaps it was understandable to her.

Forty-five years ago I used the word "unfurl" to mean "reveal", and people questioned it then.  In my old age, "unfurl" still has that meaning for me; and in this case it also rhymes with "world".  However, I'll find a different word.  I'll probably just go with "revealed".

I looked up "sentinel" and one of its lesser meanings is "anything that stands at attention".  However, between "emporer" and "sentinel", I'm giving the tree too many identities.  I actually like "messenger" and may go with that.

The stanza that the two of you want me to cut is one of my favorites, so the preachiness may have to stay.  I always felt that it was the stanza before which was the weaker one.  And I remember when I wrote the poem how important it was to me to have the tree speaking for two stanzas to give the poem a particular balance.  If you see trees as the vanquished, then the tree would have a right to make moral judgements about its conqueror.

Thank you again.  I was wondering why this poem, which I spent years crafting, received only one crit.  In the final analysis, I don't think many people like it much.

[Caleb Murdock]

I got a notification telling me that Achebe had left an additional comment, but now I can't find it.

[Achebe]

Yeah, I deleted it because you'd already addressed the issue in your previous post

[Caleb Murdock]

Okay. It still sounded like you were making an interesting point -- sentinel is okay, but not sentinel of hope (that was as much as I could read). This poem isn't bad, in my view, and I'd like to scrub out the imperfections.

[tectak]

Hi caleb,
the "problem" you pre-empt with this poem is not so great so I will
not touch on it. There are, though, significant issues which DO glare out to this crit. Some may say pedant, but see what you think.
Best, tectak

In a modern pedestrian plaza, barely noticed You may not believe in rhythm, but this first line, like most first lines, sets the pattern...let's see if it repeats.
As people passed, from the corner of my eye This will do,but the capitalisation of the first word"As" makes the opener convoluted. "as" implies chronological conditionality. Simultaneity. It is strongly linked to the first line and should NOT suffer from the misconception of another sentence by capitalisation.
I saw, and then stopped to behold, a great tree, Rhythm. Not meter. Not syllable counting. Just that 'ol black magic...rhythm. Do you need the "and" word?
Not yet in leaf, rising from the paving stones Predictably now, it gets messy. Your are extending this sentence way out beyond tipping point. The "and" does not save it.You would be better, I believe, to end the first sentence after "tree". Period. Next sentence. "Not yet in leaf, it rose up from the paving stones, as if they were its natural element". This is not perfect, but it emphasises the principle. You use "As" again, but this time the linkage SHOULD be even more emphasised because you have the non-definitive "its" and "they" to pull in to the body of the sentence;accordingly the simile must be close-coupled. As an example of the pointlessness and vexacious use of capitalising every line, this takes some beating.
As if they were its natural element.

This was not some planted sapling left to die, Hmmm. Must be a better way of using language than by opening a stanza with a disassociated "this". The last time you mentioned a tree was several lines back in a different stanza. I know what you mean, but "describe" the tree at every opportunity, don't just call it "this". "Rooted firm and proud, unlike some sickly sapling left to die
by fleeting and indifferent bureaucrats,
this was an...."

As they often do, by indifferent bureaucrats; Not a good place for a semicolon. Even worse because of the next line start. You can surely see why the forced fashion of caitalising every line faded out over 60 years ago. Let's not go backwards
This was an emperor unfurled, with massive,
Muscular arms outstretched to grab the sky,
Or embrace and comfort a frightened world. Good.Like this. Nice thinking. You are "picturing" what you see and I see it, too.

Oh, I was surely surprised to see this giant, Bad. Don't like this. What's with the "Oh"? Over-used Muse. A quick re-write of this line without the theatre.
Majestic even among buildings twice its height; Period.You have just written a sentence. Majestic is for school-kid essays and footballer's physical excesses.
Yet I felt pity, too, to see it imprisoned The sentiment is good but you have colonic discharge. Again, I see what you want to say but am puzzled as to why you do not say it. What do you think " for by whatever method trees embrace, this tree would die alone" means.Method? Embrace? Whaa...?
By brick and stone; for by whatever method
Trees embrace, this tree would die alone.

No son or sister shared its air; its race, I fear there has been a glitch in the Matrix. Are we past, present or future? The tree, you say, is contemporaneous. What's with the "shared", "turned" past tenses? The poor bloody tree is not dead yet and you already have it in a coffin(pun).
Conquered by man, turned into little more
Than a source of boards.  Sadly I turned away,
When out from the branches came a windy moan,
As if the tree would have the final say: The repetition  of the "as" word, combined with the use at line starts, is becoming predictable and so tedious.

"Do not pity me; my race is not undone; Good grief, nested colons. Why?
If storm, drought and famine could not kill me,
Man will not succeed, though he may try.
The glaciers tried, and so did fire from the sky;
From every patch we rise, and always shall. Hmmm. This is verging on pretentious whilst stating a great big patently obvious nothing. You will now try to get and allegorical message to Man from the Trees. I don't think this could ever work BUT that is not a reason for not trying. Go for it

"Look not to us, but to your own, for greed
Will end you; man has never learned to share.
And when your poisons finally suffocate you,
We shall still be here, casting up our seeds
To mingle in the wind and land everywhere."

Chastened by this sentinel of hope, I felt
A cautious glow, that things which might seem lost
Or fallen low, might flourish still—but then
A lick of warm wind turned my hope to dread:
I realized that this was May, not March
(Long past leafing), and that the tree was dead. I would be lying if I said I saw this coming, but it seemed to surprise you, too. I am not convinced of the points you almost make other than superficially. Talking trees are fine because you almost made it clear that you were speaking on the trees behalf....but you said some crazy things for a dead tree. I think you need to get the seriality of this piece better organised. Cut out the weak similes, stop capitalising ever line, get your colon problem sorted out and convince me that the tree is really dead  

Alternate closing line:
(Long past leafing); the tree was already dead.

===========

The problem with this poem will be immediately obvious to some of you.  The poetic device of having an inanimate object speak is probably a little too old fashioned for current poetic tastes.  But since I believe that tastes change, and that what's considered archaic now may come back into style, I'm not too concerned about that.  What really concerns me is that the tree's speech may be too grandiloquent, so much so that the poem may degenerate into comedy.  The tree is a tree, not a Roman senator.  Also, I wonder if I should be calling the tree a "sentinel" since it isn't actually guarding anything.

This poem is based on an actual experience in which I was admiring a magnificent tree in New York City, and then suddenly realized that it was dead.  Paving stones had been laid right up to the trunk of the tree, which probably caused the roots to suffocate.

[Caleb Murdock]

Tektac, you've given me a great deal to think about.

Capitalizing every line is something I did since I was young, and I have finally started to abandon it.

The switch in tense was thoughtless, and I'll correct it (thank you for pointing it out). (After examining the poem further, I'm not sure I made any mistakes in the tense.)

Regarding the rhythm/meter, well ... that's a very long discussion.  I take many metrical liberties, and want to do so.  I try to make my poetry more rhythmic than prose, but I don't want to throttle it with too much regularity.

I'll re-examine this poem with all your crits in mind -- and I mean that seriously.  Tonight, or soon, I'll go over every line and re-examine it/them with your comments in mind.  Thank you!

[tectak]

Tektac, you've given me a great deal to think about.

Capitalizing every line is something I did since I was young, and I have finally started to abandon it.

The switch in tense was thoughtless, and I'll correct it (thank you for pointing it out).

Regarding the rhythm/meter, well ... that's a very long discussion.  I take many metrical liberties, and want to do so.  I try to make my poetry more rhythmic than prose, but I don't want to throttle it with too much regularity.

I'll re-examine this poem with all your crits in mind -- and I mean that seriously.  Tonight, or soon, I'll go over every line and re-examine it/them with your comments in mind.  Thank you!

Good egg,
tectak

[Caleb Murdock]

Tectak, I'm adding a note to thank you because you've helped me to improve the poem. I haven't taken all your suggestions, but enough to make a difference. I removed all the unnecessary capitalization, and I made alterations to the first stanza. I always knew that the first line was too long -- six feet! -- so I cut it down; I also rewrote "barely noticed as people passed" (your point about "as" was well taken). The changes improved the rhythm of those lines.

I remember the arguments we had in 2014 about meter, and I don't want to re-open that discussion. However, you've helped me to see that if I stray too far from the meter I've chosen (and yes, I did intend to write this poem in iambic pentameter), the poem does indeed become muddied.

I'm still working on it. Thanks again.

=========

One more thing: You inadvertently confirmed for me that poetry can be rhythmical without being metrical. Metrical poetry will always sound smoother, but rhythm is what I've always aimed for. In a sense, you've given me permission to pursue my muse without restraint, and for that I'll always be grateful. However, in this case I'm going for something smoother, so I'll try to hammer it into shape.

I have a poem for you that you'll either love or hate. It is seven stanzas of pure iambic verse with no variant feet. I can hardly wait to get your reaction.

[jdvorak2]

To me, the coolest changes could come in with a differentiation of the human and natural voices--if you're gonna go Romantic with allegorical personification, why not add a little power?

That would probably mean revising the speaker's section to be more passive. The first stanza could describe the plaza and tree without mentioning the speaker, the second could build the emperor image, and introducing the speaker on the third will underscore how central the tree is in reality. The third and fourth can be combined, too--the idea of the lonely death shouldn't be dwelled over, it's strong enough an image to leave floating alone.
The tree section needs more images--"storm, drought, and famine" did not kill the tree, but all of them could kill the speaker and the readers. If you want to moralize, do it here and do it with extremely powerful imagery and syntax. Be blunt. Be concrete. I think the image of man's self-destruction is central to your intent--I'd keep it as is but move it to the end of the stanza.
The final stanza is fantastic. It elevates the whole poem to a new level beyond that of the Romantics and that of most contemporary poetry. The sentinel and speaker suddenly seem to have some parallel power and characteristics, and the final lines don't bode well for anything--the merely moralizing becomes apocalyptic. The problem, to me, is that one or two phrases throw that finality off. "A lick of warm wind" and "sentinel of hope" both detract from focus and power. I'd just steer clear of metaphors here and stick to imagery.

Really cool concept and strong ambiguity. Definitely worth using some archaic devices--really excited to see where it goes.

[Caleb Murdock]

To me, the coolest changes could come in with a differentiation of the human and natural voices--if you're gonna go Romantic with allegorical personification, why not add a little power?

That would probably mean revising the speaker's section to be more passive. The first stanza could describe the plaza and tree without mentioning the speaker, the second could build the emperor image, and introducing the speaker on the third will underscore how central the tree is in reality. The third and fourth can be combined, too--the idea of the lonely death shouldn't be dwelled over, it's strong enough an image to leave floating alone.
The tree section needs more images--"storm, drought, and famine" did not kill the tree, but all of them could kill the speaker and the readers. If you want to moralize, do it here and do it with extremely powerful imagery and syntax. Be blunt. Be concrete. I think the image of man's self-destruction is central to your intent--I'd keep it as is but move it to the end of the stanza.
The final stanza is fantastic. It elevates the whole poem to a new level beyond that of the Romantics and that of most contemporary poetry. The sentinel and speaker suddenly seem to have some parallel power and characteristics, and the final lines don't bode well for anything--the merely moralizing becomes apocalyptic. The problem, to me, is that one or two phrases throw that finality off. "A lick of warm wind" and "sentinel of hope" both detract from focus and power. I'd just steer clear of metaphors here and stick to imagery.

Really cool concept and strong ambiguity. Definitely worth using some archaic devices--really excited to see where it goes.

Thank you for your positive comments.

You have a vision of the poem which is very interesting.  However, a wholesale rewrite with someone else's ideas in mind would be very difficult.  Hammering the original poem into place took probably a day's worth of hours over many years (I kept getting stuck, and I'd abandon the poem for long periods).  What I'm looking to do now is to remove any obvious defects, smooth out the meter, etc.  However, I'll look over the poem with your comments in mind.  Thank you.