A Theologian Considers the Consequence REV 11-25-12

[Todd]

Hi penguin,

Thank you for spending the time and giving me the comments. I can appreciate your statements on science and poetry. When I conceived this one I did a ton of reading and realized very quickly as I was moving through the layers that I couldn't do A Scientist considers...I'm glad I made it to the fourth verse with you.

Well, I've read a fair few attempts to marry science and poetry and almost always a sinking feeling arrives before long. I got to the 4th verse before it arrived so you've done well.

You flung stars like fireflies
to burn holes into night’s hunger,

to ignite the shine of galaxies;

dust infused with the brilliance
of Your image.



The first 2 lines are so good they almost make the 3rd superfluous

You, the cloudless day—
clouds now forgotten, a judgment
beyond remembrance, as the water - I understand the judgment and the waters but not "clouds now forgotten". Surely they come after the cloudless day?
that rose. The ocean does not inhabit - no longer inhabits?
the shell, but each one still speaks
in bloodless whispers
of the drowned lisping
toward that final day - I like what you're saying here but why "lisping"?

I am one of those explain the poem and its failed guys. I think I read that you fall in that camp too. I'll go a little way though. When the bible says that God is light that there is no shadow at all. I was looking for a doxological title for God and went with cloudless day to give a sense of that kind of lack of obscurity. Than I moved to the first biblical (not scientific) example of clouds. Maybe it should be those clouds forgotten. I have specific clouds in mind so probably yes. The shells I want them to be those who died in the flood. The lisping was how I heard it.

when all shall be put to rest
beneath that Tree
brought into uniform motion
with Your presence.



Our fall,

a sacrifice of light

speed, darkness the event

horizon that made You appear

to slow down.



The above verse is where you lose me. It's almost certainly my fault not yours, but it reads like gobbledegook.

--I understand. I'm going to hold back on any explanation for now. It could just as easily be poor execution on my part.

Thank you again.

Best,

Todd

---

Thanks Leanne. I appreciate the comments.

I'm just going to address the revision today, Todd. I must say, I loved every bit of it -- the concept is wonderful and appeals to every nerdy little fibre of my being

A Theologian Considers the Consequence of Relativity on a God Who Is Light

Revision

You flung stars like fireflies
to burn holes into night’s hunger,
 -- have you considered putting "to" up on this line?
to ignite the shine of galaxies;

dust infused with the brilliance
of Your image.



Maybe we should discuss this further. I will almost never break a line on a preposition. I can see how it would work with ignite, but I'm not fully there yet. It feels wrong to me.


You, the cloudless day— -- maybe a full stop would work better here
clouds now forgotten, a judgment
beyond remembrance, as the water
that rose. The ocean does not inhabit
the shell, but each one still speaks -- I'd take out "one"
in bloodless whispers
of the drowned lisping -- lovely ambiguity on the verb, a great use of enjambment (and nice assonance too)
toward that final day

love the edits thank you. I'll incorporate them. Especially the full stop. It fixes a lot of issues.

when all shall be put to rest
beneath that Tree
brought into uniform motion
with Your presence.



Our fall,

a sacrifice of light

speed, darkness the event

horizon that made You appear

to slow down.

 -- I love your interweaving of science and religion, which is especially obvious in this strophe

The days become millennia.
 -- is "become" the best word? I'm thinking something like "the days melt into millenia"
Still You retreat

trapped between

our seconds.



become yeah better to have something visual. I'll give it some thought

We long to resynchronize
 -- were we ever synchronized in the first place?
with the limitless.

The sheen on our eyes shifts

to speed past the horn’s crystal

blast for sound only came first, once.

 -- these lines took a couple of reads for me to get the subject, so I think a little clarification might help here, with emphasis on "for sound only came first, once"

I see the issue now in those lines I think I can smooth it out. By my cosmology we were synchronized before the fall of genesis 3

Our mistake was to believe

that eternity is endless

days, rather than

immutable velocity.



A small side note: "judgment" is the correct spelling in both the UK and the US when used in a legal sense (and I'm going to give God the benefit of being a bit of a lawmaker). In British spelling, "judgement" is really only used for things like "use your own judgement" -- and without the "e" is acceptable as well.

Thanks for clearing up judgment. I got a lot out of your comments.

Much appreciated.

Best,

Todd