11-09-2016, 02:01 PM
Many, many thanks!
for Kim--So with the current title and this dedication I first think that the speaker is describing their soulmate possibly this Kim. That said, when I consider the previous title babel and the opening in Babylon I'm drawn to the Tower of Babel and the idea that there is a loss of ability to communicate and connect. Now nothing will be impossible for them changes to now everything will be impossible for them. So perhaps the poem will leave me with confusion rather than clarity or perhaps it is the soulmates themselves that struggle with confusion and have barriers between them.
The piece was catalyzed by the play "Boy" by Anna Ziegler, and this Kim was the one who invited me to it, as well as the sort-of addressed of the poem. I don't consider her a soulmate, and I was hoping it'd be clear enough that neither does the speaker -- but then again, that clarity I think should only come if the questioning in the penultimate stanza was to be treated not only literally, but also Gnostically. There is an idea I gleaned (possibly mangled) where each human soul is tied to a heavenly one, with the heavenly one being, by its heavenly nature, male, and the human one female, such that the speaker ultimately considers himself, still tied to this "accursed flesh", as woman, his idealized love, the "she with the ruddy hair", as man, and the addressed as already somehow united with her soulmate, somehow "genderless" -- rather, a "hermaphrodite".
So back to the problem. Since it seems it's a bit susceptible to misinterpretation (I also intend to show this to her, as a token of appreciation), I might either return to the original title (although "soulmate" might explain a lot), or remove the dedication (although that would remove....the dedication). What do you think?
1 - Mother Earth--Mother Earth might imply a common universal basis for existence. A state when all was at peace. Then we move through a litany of conquest.
I never considered this as that much of a commentary on conquest, but I suppose it is. Thanks for broadening my horizons.
-- Babalon stole her architects
from Egypt, her engineers from Greece, her doctors
and priests from Israel: that is why our tongues--Babylon is presented as the one accumulating these disciplines and cultures to itself and I can accept that as a conceit for drawing back to Babel. Not that it matters much but it's slightly misleading historically--Babylon/Egypt check. Babylon/Israel I think was next. Babylon/Greece was technically Greece conquering Persia (Cyrus I think though it might have been the Medes at that point) with Alexander. If anything Greece appropriated all of this. My history may be off. It doesn't detract though. It just makes me wonder if your choices need it to tie back to Babel or if you are trying to do more with the arrangment.
I was treating Babylon/Babalon more eschatologically than historically, though -- the whole Whore of Babylon thing. I guess all I can do for this is hope no one treats this as historically.
are tied with Şibboleths. Truly, meat--I'm not sure why you used the other language S, but it's subtle and sort of interesting. I've never seen Shibboleth without an h. Is that a regional spelling?
Actually, I didn't drop the h, at least to those who know what the character is supposed to sound like. That was the intention: to return Shibboleth into being a Shibboleth.
I love the use of meat and how you tie it in to the three philosophers below...The first two we deal with the idea or the one and than the less idealized world we live in. The last one as a gnostic I'm guessing vilified the flesh and body as evil (I'm not as familiar with him specifically but I do recognize the name as an early christian/gnostic).
Funny note: I actually didn't know Plotinus' philosophies, at the time I wrote this. I knew Plato, I knew Valentinus, but not Plotinus -- he's just here as yet another playful jab at Yeats. As for the Gnostic thing, yeah, and it ends up being important.
were grave old men, anxious Jocastas.--This is a great word to break on and start the next line with my mother. Love that (well not too much shouldn't get Oedipal about it).
....Or rather blessed,
the fact that the knowledge of old age--This needs to be smoothed out a bit. It feels awkwardly phrased.
could coexist with the understanding of childhood
confused me, in my youth....--same with this phrasing first strophe line to youth.
Agreed. I'm still looking for a way, though.
to and fro two colonies, my country and your Mexico.--a personal shift for the speaker
I hope not too much. Noting the footnote, the addressed/dedicated to is from Ateneo, the speaker/writer is from UP, and the piece sort of plays into the stereotype of those at Ateneo being kinda bourgeois, and those at UP being kinda down-to-earth militant. We both came from the same high school, though, and thus....
3 - Mexico
-- what a Şibboleth! Our old school's shattered stones--nice sibilance forshadowing the snake-like trumpet vines, the fall of man, and also maybe explaining why you dropped the h to maintain the sonics.
Again, above. But here Mexico is considered a Shibboleth too, for more colonial reasons -- apparently the folks in Mexico usually can't say Mexico, only Mejico. So another colonialism jab -- and, if you've noticed, another tie of the section title to the last line of the preceding, with the very first title being tied to the very last line by "Earth".
are now the home to snake-like trumpet vines, just as your English
is no longer the same as mine, and your Bible grows --beautiful line, and I like the idea of the same language being different. Maybe a reason to embrace the original title.
Ah, yes. And a note that the title really was "Babal", not "Babel", since "Babal" sounds far less sophisticated, as if it really could be a babe's first words. I think yeah, I might be convinced.
is the sweetest sin, so that when Lucifer--Like the parallel return to this line. You may not need the that.
confused his craving for a love, he was cast down--might be stronger without the "a"
Perhaps, although from my reading the rhythm gets kinda shot, for both changes.
to diabetic hell, his eye blinded,--diabetic hell is a nice play on the sweetness above. I sort of get an Odin blinded for wisdom read in this.
his leg severed, yet by the Jewish doctor's hand--not sure about the leg being severed. I'm missing the reference diabetes could bring a removal of the foot.
Really bad cases of diabetes can make its victims susceptible to gangrene, either by diluting sensation so that a serious wound would be found too late, or by weakening the immune system. My grandfather almost got his foot amputated because of it, but that detail is incidental.
I'm also not sure who the Jewish doctor is. It does tie into S1 but it seems like you have someone in mind. Luke was a gentile even though he writes about the fall of Lucifer so I'm not sure who you have in mind.
I didn't -- I only wanted it to tie to the first stanza. I think I'll just remove Jewish, then.
his consoling treats tied shut. Ozy and Millie--treats lost me.
How? I was sort of expecting the loss would come from Ozy and Millie, since that really is hard to follow without knowing it, and it's not as all-known as a lot of other artifacts, but by treats?
were far from old when they raised me,
Dana their "God-hated" maker no man
but child: Plato did speak truth--I wouldn't have followed this without the footnote. It would have simply been something that felt personal to the speaker and a bit inacessible. I'm not a fan of footnotes doing what poems cannot.
So as noted. I might have to look for something a bit more known, or at least "classical" -- say, Elagabalus, or, this time to refer to another written thing of mine, Teiresias. I must also note that this is one very self-referential piece -- "Slabs of meat glued to the bone", "After Ozy and Millie", that return to Yeats, roads, and "the golden shower tree and trumpet vine" -- my ultimate intention is to compile some sort of book.
when he said woman is a child. And yet,
accursed flesh, am I a woman who here stands,
as she with the ruddy hair is man
and you with the mortal light is genderless?--so the babel has now turned toward gender ambiguity and questioning.
Does it work, though, or is it a bit too unsmooth? Again, the issue at this point weighs more heavily on the whole soulmate/syzygy thing, as well as referring to another older piece of mine where the whole point was questioning gender.
4 - Hermaphrodite
-- what a devilish love! It was no storm
but flesh-dissolving bile that broke
the Thoor of Babel, spread
like pâté men across the earth.--and honestly I labored over the last part but it lost me.
Labored as in how connected it was, or labored as in it's confusing, or labored as in it sounds terrible? Or labored as in what Thoor is -- it's the anglicized spelling of the Irish word for tower. I was hoping the point would flower here, that being the whole separation of Man/Ideal from Woman/Physical being compared to the scattering of men and the breaking apart of nations due to God's whirlwind tendencies and man's imperial ones. Hmm....
I was also thinking that besides that sentence on old age/youth, the possible overuse of "yet" would be an issue, but since you didn't seem to notice it....
Many, many, many thanks! I'll change the title, plus try out the changes you suggested regarding Lucifer, and remove Jewish. Okay, I hope that didn't sound anti-semitic.
for Kim--So with the current title and this dedication I first think that the speaker is describing their soulmate possibly this Kim. That said, when I consider the previous title babel and the opening in Babylon I'm drawn to the Tower of Babel and the idea that there is a loss of ability to communicate and connect. Now nothing will be impossible for them changes to now everything will be impossible for them. So perhaps the poem will leave me with confusion rather than clarity or perhaps it is the soulmates themselves that struggle with confusion and have barriers between them.
The piece was catalyzed by the play "Boy" by Anna Ziegler, and this Kim was the one who invited me to it, as well as the sort-of addressed of the poem. I don't consider her a soulmate, and I was hoping it'd be clear enough that neither does the speaker -- but then again, that clarity I think should only come if the questioning in the penultimate stanza was to be treated not only literally, but also Gnostically. There is an idea I gleaned (possibly mangled) where each human soul is tied to a heavenly one, with the heavenly one being, by its heavenly nature, male, and the human one female, such that the speaker ultimately considers himself, still tied to this "accursed flesh", as woman, his idealized love, the "she with the ruddy hair", as man, and the addressed as already somehow united with her soulmate, somehow "genderless" -- rather, a "hermaphrodite".
So back to the problem. Since it seems it's a bit susceptible to misinterpretation (I also intend to show this to her, as a token of appreciation), I might either return to the original title (although "soulmate" might explain a lot), or remove the dedication (although that would remove....the dedication). What do you think?
1 - Mother Earth--Mother Earth might imply a common universal basis for existence. A state when all was at peace. Then we move through a litany of conquest.
I never considered this as that much of a commentary on conquest, but I suppose it is. Thanks for broadening my horizons.
-- Babalon stole her architects
from Egypt, her engineers from Greece, her doctors
and priests from Israel: that is why our tongues--Babylon is presented as the one accumulating these disciplines and cultures to itself and I can accept that as a conceit for drawing back to Babel. Not that it matters much but it's slightly misleading historically--Babylon/Egypt check. Babylon/Israel I think was next. Babylon/Greece was technically Greece conquering Persia (Cyrus I think though it might have been the Medes at that point) with Alexander. If anything Greece appropriated all of this. My history may be off. It doesn't detract though. It just makes me wonder if your choices need it to tie back to Babel or if you are trying to do more with the arrangment.
I was treating Babylon/Babalon more eschatologically than historically, though -- the whole Whore of Babylon thing. I guess all I can do for this is hope no one treats this as historically.
are tied with Şibboleths. Truly, meat--I'm not sure why you used the other language S, but it's subtle and sort of interesting. I've never seen Shibboleth without an h. Is that a regional spelling?
Actually, I didn't drop the h, at least to those who know what the character is supposed to sound like. That was the intention: to return Shibboleth into being a Shibboleth.
I love the use of meat and how you tie it in to the three philosophers below...The first two we deal with the idea or the one and than the less idealized world we live in. The last one as a gnostic I'm guessing vilified the flesh and body as evil (I'm not as familiar with him specifically but I do recognize the name as an early christian/gnostic).
Funny note: I actually didn't know Plotinus' philosophies, at the time I wrote this. I knew Plato, I knew Valentinus, but not Plotinus -- he's just here as yet another playful jab at Yeats. As for the Gnostic thing, yeah, and it ends up being important.
were grave old men, anxious Jocastas.--This is a great word to break on and start the next line with my mother. Love that (well not too much shouldn't get Oedipal about it).
....Or rather blessed,
the fact that the knowledge of old age--This needs to be smoothed out a bit. It feels awkwardly phrased.
could coexist with the understanding of childhood
confused me, in my youth....--same with this phrasing first strophe line to youth.
Agreed. I'm still looking for a way, though.
to and fro two colonies, my country and your Mexico.--a personal shift for the speaker
I hope not too much. Noting the footnote, the addressed/dedicated to is from Ateneo, the speaker/writer is from UP, and the piece sort of plays into the stereotype of those at Ateneo being kinda bourgeois, and those at UP being kinda down-to-earth militant. We both came from the same high school, though, and thus....
3 - Mexico
-- what a Şibboleth! Our old school's shattered stones--nice sibilance forshadowing the snake-like trumpet vines, the fall of man, and also maybe explaining why you dropped the h to maintain the sonics.
Again, above. But here Mexico is considered a Shibboleth too, for more colonial reasons -- apparently the folks in Mexico usually can't say Mexico, only Mejico. So another colonialism jab -- and, if you've noticed, another tie of the section title to the last line of the preceding, with the very first title being tied to the very last line by "Earth".
are now the home to snake-like trumpet vines, just as your English
is no longer the same as mine, and your Bible grows --beautiful line, and I like the idea of the same language being different. Maybe a reason to embrace the original title.
Ah, yes. And a note that the title really was "Babal", not "Babel", since "Babal" sounds far less sophisticated, as if it really could be a babe's first words. I think yeah, I might be convinced.
is the sweetest sin, so that when Lucifer--Like the parallel return to this line. You may not need the that.
confused his craving for a love, he was cast down--might be stronger without the "a"
Perhaps, although from my reading the rhythm gets kinda shot, for both changes.
to diabetic hell, his eye blinded,--diabetic hell is a nice play on the sweetness above. I sort of get an Odin blinded for wisdom read in this.
his leg severed, yet by the Jewish doctor's hand--not sure about the leg being severed. I'm missing the reference diabetes could bring a removal of the foot.
Really bad cases of diabetes can make its victims susceptible to gangrene, either by diluting sensation so that a serious wound would be found too late, or by weakening the immune system. My grandfather almost got his foot amputated because of it, but that detail is incidental.
I'm also not sure who the Jewish doctor is. It does tie into S1 but it seems like you have someone in mind. Luke was a gentile even though he writes about the fall of Lucifer so I'm not sure who you have in mind.
I didn't -- I only wanted it to tie to the first stanza. I think I'll just remove Jewish, then.
his consoling treats tied shut. Ozy and Millie--treats lost me.
How? I was sort of expecting the loss would come from Ozy and Millie, since that really is hard to follow without knowing it, and it's not as all-known as a lot of other artifacts, but by treats?
were far from old when they raised me,
Dana their "God-hated" maker no man
but child: Plato did speak truth--I wouldn't have followed this without the footnote. It would have simply been something that felt personal to the speaker and a bit inacessible. I'm not a fan of footnotes doing what poems cannot.
So as noted. I might have to look for something a bit more known, or at least "classical" -- say, Elagabalus, or, this time to refer to another written thing of mine, Teiresias. I must also note that this is one very self-referential piece -- "Slabs of meat glued to the bone", "After Ozy and Millie", that return to Yeats, roads, and "the golden shower tree and trumpet vine" -- my ultimate intention is to compile some sort of book.
when he said woman is a child. And yet,
accursed flesh, am I a woman who here stands,
as she with the ruddy hair is man
and you with the mortal light is genderless?--so the babel has now turned toward gender ambiguity and questioning.
Does it work, though, or is it a bit too unsmooth? Again, the issue at this point weighs more heavily on the whole soulmate/syzygy thing, as well as referring to another older piece of mine where the whole point was questioning gender.
4 - Hermaphrodite
-- what a devilish love! It was no storm
but flesh-dissolving bile that broke
the Thoor of Babel, spread
like pâté men across the earth.--and honestly I labored over the last part but it lost me.
Labored as in how connected it was, or labored as in it's confusing, or labored as in it sounds terrible? Or labored as in what Thoor is -- it's the anglicized spelling of the Irish word for tower. I was hoping the point would flower here, that being the whole separation of Man/Ideal from Woman/Physical being compared to the scattering of men and the breaking apart of nations due to God's whirlwind tendencies and man's imperial ones. Hmm....
I was also thinking that besides that sentence on old age/youth, the possible overuse of "yet" would be an issue, but since you didn't seem to notice it....
Many, many, many thanks! I'll change the title, plus try out the changes you suggested regarding Lucifer, and remove Jewish. Okay, I hope that didn't sound anti-semitic.