Outfoxed edit 0.0000001 dale

[tectak]

Tomcat Foxtrot,

This is an excellent poem if your intention is to run off 95% of your readers as it includes an abundance of "foxhunting" nomenclature (some of which is not in the dictionary) to thoroughly confuse anyone who is not intimately familiar with the vomitous and barbaric sport/pastime called foxhunting. Foxhunting, where a large group of men, and sometimes women, armed with projectile throwing weapons, as well as a number of trained hunting dogs try to run to ground a vastly out number and overpowered fox, with the sole purpose of killing the poor creature. Should the poor creature actually win through against such odds (to the shame of these people who trying to drive a thumb tack with a sledgehammer and somehow beyond belief fail), he has the enviable life to lead of an overtaxed heart which will surely fail him soon enough, and so these "hunters" in their bumbling clumsiness manage to succeed even when abysmally failing such a simply task.
So, I assume this is an "elitist poem", reserved only for the noble blue blooded brethren who have been initiated into the arcane brotherhood of fox-hunters.          

OK, all sport aside, I've killed my fox   On to the poem.

Seriously, there are a number of fairly obscure words that should be footnoted as their particular definitions are way down the page and difficult to find in a number of cases. I recommend these words: Pinks (jackets), Reynard (the fox), couples (two paired dogs), beck(stream), quarterers (I never did find this one, I assumed it was doubled couples), and Texels (sheep). Two of these my spell checker doesn't even recognize, so I do not think I am out of line when I say they are obscure. Maybe I'm wrong, but to my way of thinking it is difficult to get much from a poem if the person doesn't understand the words. Just a thought.

The iambic tetrameter holds up well through the first two stanzas, and although still on meter, the lines become less than smooth in S3. In S4 L3 we've chucked it altogether. Awkward line in S5 L4 is definitely off meter, unless you meant to change to change to trochee in mid stream. Ah, back to form in S6, probably the best stanza in the bunch. S7, on meter, however the L4 rejoinder is weak at best, which makes for a weak ending. That you also don't return to couplets on this last stanza hurts it some in terms of making it weaker.

When the lines are sharp, they bring energy to the poem, and enhance/supplement the content, when they are not, they do not. Yes, as I read back over it, it is pretty much that simple. when the lines are on it keeps the poem moving. Even when they are technically correct, sometimes they are not good enough as they drain energy from the poem. The first line that caught my eye was.

"We'll have his brush today, we will!"

It is iambic tetrameter, however when I read it, it causes me to slow down. I feel as though I am digging a shovel into the ground with every foot. Slowing down drains energy away from the poem. Plus just beginning and ending with we will and we will, you just try to camouflage the first one by a contraction. Anything for a rhyme I suppose? On this same note it is often just the phrasing that seems to slow the pace:

"He's turned, get couples back on scent"

It is not so much the "He's turned" but what follows, pace wise, seems to lack a sense of urgency. Compare this to a line in the same place in the next stanza:

"his mare is up and run'in spooked"

this line reads much quicker. It energizes the reading, instead of sucking energy from it. Just in general we rarely want to drain energy from a poem, but especially in a poem of this type where the action is driven by frenetic energy anyway, one certainly doesn't want to do anything to take away from that. So even though it seems as not a big deal, in this particular poem, I think this should be given attention.

This line reads a bit awkwardly "and who'll know then which way he went!"

Should probably read "and who will know which way he's gone!" Of course it must rhyme so the "went" stays and the "gone" goes! Possibly still keep the other changes of dropping the "then" and changing odd contraction of "who'll"  to "who will" so it reads:

"and who will know which way he went!"

By kicking out the word "who'll" which is generally pronounced as a diphthong, like hoo-uwl, although properly "hool", but either way it seems to me to be energy draining, whereas the alternative above keeps going the nice bouncy pace which is the rule for most of this poem.

"to stay this chase. We'll make a kill!"

One other note: S3 L4 Definite object needed? "to stay this chase. We'll make a kill!" Should this not be "the kill" as what is going to be killed is known. We are not going to kill a fox, we are going to kill the fox upon who's trail we're on. See, fox is specific. Also, the use of stay can be confusing. "to stay this chase" sounds very similar to, "to stay the course", which gives the reader a completely differently read than was intended. Using "stay" to mean "to stop or halt" is the 6th definition of the word, not a particularly well known usage. All of this combines to slow down the reading at minimum and halt it at worst.   



You might keep in mind during the editing the idea of needing to keep the pace of the line up. More so in this poem, which of course is about a chase, rather than in other poems. For this poem to work best I think you need not to just give it the words of a chase, but the energetic feel of a chase. I know you know what I am talking about as I have read several of your poems that had this idea incorporated in them.

I'm sure on some of my comments (nomenclature) you will tell me some such thing as "well all of the UK knows about this" which I guess is a slight exaggeration, but still that's at best 64 million, and then maybe you could add in all of Australia, although I doubt most there are as knowledgeable as Leanne about things British, but I'll still give you their 23 million. That gives you 87 million people. Just to make it fair, I'll also add in Canada, even though a lot of Canadians speak French, but we can add in their 35 million, giving you, 122million that possibly know about foxhunting, oh and I forgot New Zealand (JM would kill me). I'll round it up, so that give you and additional; 5 million, bring the total to 127 million who know about foxhunting. So at the extreme limits of credulity we will say that 127 million people are sufficiently aware of foxhunting to not be stumped by these words that I pointed out. I'll even give you 10 million from the US who could know about foxhunting, bringing you up to 137 million people in the world that would know enough about foxhunting to easily read your poem. Still, and subtracting the 10 million I already deducted, there are approx 320 million people in the United States who probably Know nothing about fox hunting...of course I would never accuse you of being an elitist or a snob, simply because you discount 320 million people as not being worthwhile enough to read your poetry. Parish the thought

Dale            

Hi dale,
Many thanks for this. Your technical points will be dealt with in an edit. Some I missed, some l'll resist, but on most I concur.
Ethics.
I have lived all of my life, with a few years out, in fox-hunting spheres. I am NOT against the hunt but no longer follow or support the activity. Foxes ARE a problem whilst alive and a problem when trying to kill them. "Humane" methods like shooting, trapping or poisoning  are unfortunately proven to be, in some cases, the least humane when compared to hunting. So ethically we need to take a view. Question. Do we see a need to control the fox population? Well, having seen SEVERAL times the slaughter which foxes are genetically predisposed to perpetrate, I have to conclude that we MUST cull.
Cull is not an emotive term. We cull many species for the proven good of the population. Shooting is, though, only suitable for largish, surface  living beasts. A large caliber, high velocity bullet will bring down a deer, for example, through shock if the shot is slightly off target. Foxes have no value, escape wounded into dens, lairs and bolt-holes to die long and stressful deaths. Contrary to what you seem to believe, (tongue in cheek?), fox hunters do not carry spears, curmugeons or pointy things on poles. They hunt down the "quarry" and kill it quickly and, some would argue, naturally. i.e. by chase, capture and kill.
So why don't I follow or support the hunt any more? Easy. As I got older I began to look more at absolutes, seeing things in my mind with the benefit of prior knowledge...hunt foxes because you must, but don't expect me to like it.
Terminology.
Hmmm. All is googleable. I have never heard a huntsman call the fox "Reynard" but but is in common usage amongst the illiterate classes...which may explain why you haven't heard it before. More  likely the officionados would use quarry, Basil, Sly, Ol'sly, Freddie.
Pinks, hunting pinks...yes, from Thomas Pink who made the jackets.
Beck. Northern England and common elsewhere, too. Stream, small river, water-filled gully.
Couple you know.
ah....quarterers. NOT a fox hunting term, but used by HUNTERS once their spaniel or labrador has learned to sniff out an area by by "quartering" as a search procedure. Hence no capital letter. Hunters of birds, vermin,game are more likely called "shooters"....but many run with the hounds as well.
Whipper-in. Keeps the hounds in order and often helps out at the kennels or actually cares for the hounds.
Brush is tail, mask is head.
Texel. Extremely popular and widespread breed of pig-faced sheep. I cannot believe you have never shag...er...sheared one. Hasn't everybody?
Why tongue in cheek from me? Well, you can call it culling, you can call it killing....but sport? Never.
Best,
tectak
Note. This was written in 2011 but slightly edited as my opinion adjusted.