Divisions

[Seraphim]

R

A long time ago I had a poem up somewhere, and several people remarked how it had struck a chord because they'd had a similar experience; and each one related their experience. Funny thing is, not only were their experiences of different natures, none of them were along the lines of which  I'd been thinking.  What I took away from that is the opinion people will fill in the blanks in a way which relates to them, if we leave them an opening.  By editing out the unessential, people will personalize the poem. A critiquer won't, as much, but a reader will; and, for my purposes, the nature of the catastrophe is unessential, although there are hints along one thread of possibility. But if someone devises their own, I don't think it interferes with the allegories. By me naming it, it fixes one thing firmly in place and eliminates personal possibilities.

Just my take.

---

Also [I'm hoping] the changes I made in S1 open up other possibilities on the literal level, but clean up some misgivings I had on the allegorical. Originally 'we' ate the bread and drank the wine, but now it doesn't specify that - leaving open the possibility N is the only one eating and drinking.

If it’s about other people’s experiences being conglomerated into one abstract poem why don’t you write it in thirdperson instead?

First person is more immediate and personal.  Also, the narrator is not omniscient.  The reader only knows what the narrator knows and feels. There is a distance between the reader and the third person figure. The reader only knows about the third person what the narrator knows - and that information maybe incorrect, based possibly on bias and rumor rather than knowledge.

So first person because I want the reader to know what the narrator is experiencing.  If I wanted to show a perception, then I’d go third person.

---

It’s not about the readers experiences being conglomerated into the poem. It’s how other people relate the poem to their own experiences.

---

Since no one’s delved I to the metaphorical, I suppose it’s OK for a spoiler now.

If we look at S1 as being literal, it’s a father and son - but no mother - in the picture. Their relationship is strained. Perhaps the loss of the mother is the catastrophe. Perhaps the father is dying or, perhaps, is already dead, and the son is sitting with the dead, as the practice was called. So when we get to S2, which has a literal and metaphorical meaning: the sparrows’ home has been destroyed, and the narrators home has been destroyed. ‘It no longer feels like home’ works for both, not one or the other.

But let’s suppose S1 also has a metaphor going on. The narrator has a literal physical father, but also a spiritual father, in Christianity. We notice again the feminine aspect of the triune, the Holy Ghost, is not present. Perhaps the loss of the spirit is the precipitating catastrophe, or a side effect of the Father dying or dead. The act of communion is strained and ineffective. However we view the catAstrophe, the son’s relationship with the Father is strained. So now S2 has a second metaphor: the tree as N’s religion, or possibly the church (pillar of the church reference). Similar reference with ‘his eye is on the’ sparrow.

Just a side note, the United Methodist Church is currently in the process of a major split over human sexuality. I did resist the urge to indicate N was gay. Thought that might be too much...