12-28-2015, 09:43 PM
Many thanks to billy and dukealien for all of your comments- they are very much appreciated!
Dukealien, whilst I am in fact a native English speaker, your deduction was not far wrong as my handle has Germanic roots, and also over the past few months I've been engaged in an intensive course in the language- almost certainly the cause of the inversions. Rest assured your detective skills are admirable!
To respond to your enquiry about the capitalisation of 'He', I did so to signify the seeming omniscience of the character, allowing him to sit back and comment on the events he observes from a position of superiority. The capitalisation (hopefully) implies a distance between the character and the masses on whom he remarks, and thus also shows his character as being diametrically opposed to them. i.e. whilst they are shallow, superficial, purposeless but happy, he is complex, has depth, purpose, but is ultimately envious of them. Thus this reading of the poem (with the character being perhaps an upper-class aristocratic figure, is solely focussed upon the key message that perhaps ignorance truly is bliss. With knowledge does not necessarily come happiness, and a numbed existence is one without pain).
Also, the capitalisation may make the reader think the character to be God, which is an alternative (but not wrong) reading of the poem as being about the conflict between God and religion to give purpose and faith, and Lucifer (as the Beast) who restrains man but allows for him to be happy, indulging in hedonistic pleasures.
Regarding the tone and the character's attitude to the Hoi Polloi, I tried to convey a sense of both contempt and deep envy, particularly in the first stanza: they 'laugh', 'jest', 'drink', and are 'merry' but the use of 'achingly' in 'achingly blissful', attempts to imply that the happiness of the masses causes great pain to the speaker, who is envious of how happy they are despite being 'breathtakingly ignorant'. As the poem progresses, the speaker recognises that their happiness is not despite their ignorance, but rather due to it.
He wants the masses to become enlightened, like himself, recognising that the truth of the human condition might be 'Painful? Yes.' but as they begin to, in the final stanza, they are held back by: fear, their own psyche, and possible a Lucifer type figure, in the form of the Beast, and they once more retreat back into ignorance, finding reality too painful. So the speaker goes from envious and contemptuous to pity them at the end of the poetry, whilst also pitying himself for having to face the pain. His view on the condition of the masses (their superficiality, purposelessness, rootlessness) does not change throughout the poem- he hates them for it. But he becomes slightly more empathetic to their plight, but at the end once more finds himself envying their 'intoxicating naïvety and compelling simplicity', just as he did in the first stanza.
To conclude this rather convoluted point: the speaker is envious of the masses throughout the poem due to their ability to be happy, whilst still feeling contemptuous of their emptiness, mocking them in the fourth stanza (the Gucci one) for the emptiness of their relationships. He tries to enlighten them, but fails.
Billy, thanks for your comments on my use of commas, it has been duly noted. I've taken out the repetition and understand your point about many stanzas saying the same things. When you commented: 'needs a reworking. as is it's too far away from this reader to take seriously.' on the last line of the third stanza- 'Herding its prey'- did you mean that the line needed reworking or the entire stanza? And what did you mean by it being too far away to take seriously? Is it too metaphysical/not grounded enough in reality? Thanks a lot for your help.
Would really appreciate comments on the changes made- Billy, your comment about a darker, shorter poem hidden in the version I posted have been noted. The Gucci stanza has been stripped, but I couldn't bear removing it in its entirety because I feel it lends a certain humanity and realism to the rest of the poem, as well as articulating the superficiality of existence in a more subtle way. Thanks for taking the time folks
Dukealien, whilst I am in fact a native English speaker, your deduction was not far wrong as my handle has Germanic roots, and also over the past few months I've been engaged in an intensive course in the language- almost certainly the cause of the inversions. Rest assured your detective skills are admirable!
To respond to your enquiry about the capitalisation of 'He', I did so to signify the seeming omniscience of the character, allowing him to sit back and comment on the events he observes from a position of superiority. The capitalisation (hopefully) implies a distance between the character and the masses on whom he remarks, and thus also shows his character as being diametrically opposed to them. i.e. whilst they are shallow, superficial, purposeless but happy, he is complex, has depth, purpose, but is ultimately envious of them. Thus this reading of the poem (with the character being perhaps an upper-class aristocratic figure, is solely focussed upon the key message that perhaps ignorance truly is bliss. With knowledge does not necessarily come happiness, and a numbed existence is one without pain).
Also, the capitalisation may make the reader think the character to be God, which is an alternative (but not wrong) reading of the poem as being about the conflict between God and religion to give purpose and faith, and Lucifer (as the Beast) who restrains man but allows for him to be happy, indulging in hedonistic pleasures.
Regarding the tone and the character's attitude to the Hoi Polloi, I tried to convey a sense of both contempt and deep envy, particularly in the first stanza: they 'laugh', 'jest', 'drink', and are 'merry' but the use of 'achingly' in 'achingly blissful', attempts to imply that the happiness of the masses causes great pain to the speaker, who is envious of how happy they are despite being 'breathtakingly ignorant'. As the poem progresses, the speaker recognises that their happiness is not despite their ignorance, but rather due to it.
He wants the masses to become enlightened, like himself, recognising that the truth of the human condition might be 'Painful? Yes.' but as they begin to, in the final stanza, they are held back by: fear, their own psyche, and possible a Lucifer type figure, in the form of the Beast, and they once more retreat back into ignorance, finding reality too painful. So the speaker goes from envious and contemptuous to pity them at the end of the poetry, whilst also pitying himself for having to face the pain. His view on the condition of the masses (their superficiality, purposelessness, rootlessness) does not change throughout the poem- he hates them for it. But he becomes slightly more empathetic to their plight, but at the end once more finds himself envying their 'intoxicating naïvety and compelling simplicity', just as he did in the first stanza.
To conclude this rather convoluted point: the speaker is envious of the masses throughout the poem due to their ability to be happy, whilst still feeling contemptuous of their emptiness, mocking them in the fourth stanza (the Gucci one) for the emptiness of their relationships. He tries to enlighten them, but fails.
Billy, thanks for your comments on my use of commas, it has been duly noted. I've taken out the repetition and understand your point about many stanzas saying the same things. When you commented: 'needs a reworking. as is it's too far away from this reader to take seriously.' on the last line of the third stanza- 'Herding its prey'- did you mean that the line needed reworking or the entire stanza? And what did you mean by it being too far away to take seriously? Is it too metaphysical/not grounded enough in reality? Thanks a lot for your help.
Would really appreciate comments on the changes made- Billy, your comment about a darker, shorter poem hidden in the version I posted have been noted. The Gucci stanza has been stripped, but I couldn't bear removing it in its entirety because I feel it lends a certain humanity and realism to the rest of the poem, as well as articulating the superficiality of existence in a more subtle way. Thanks for taking the time folks