03-14-2020, 11:53 AM
I am not a fan of topical, didactic, poems, especially where the central argument references an article wherein the conclusion does not emerge from the facts of the case, despite, the valiant (and futile) attempt of the writer at making it do so:
"If Peterson’s sad story has a moral, it’s that a drug problem is neither a dragon to be slain nor a sin to be ashamed of. It’s a mundane health problem that should be treated scientifically, without heroics."
Why is it not a dragon to be slain? Why is it 'mundane'? Why should one not be ashamed of taking meth and copulating with strangers behind a Nando's?
Coming to the poem,
1) The opening strophe is fine. Thereafter, the rush to conclude that the subject of the poem took 'cancer for war' is the first instance of the poet intruding. "Cancer is war", or a similar third party POV can make the point without the overt hectoring.
2) Similarly, strophe 3. I like 'bundle antiquity into a heavy axe', but thereafter, it's all a feminist tirade in The Guardian.
3) Didn't get the Ganga connection
Trump 2020! KAG!!!
"If Peterson’s sad story has a moral, it’s that a drug problem is neither a dragon to be slain nor a sin to be ashamed of. It’s a mundane health problem that should be treated scientifically, without heroics."
Why is it not a dragon to be slain? Why is it 'mundane'? Why should one not be ashamed of taking meth and copulating with strangers behind a Nando's?
Coming to the poem,
1) The opening strophe is fine. Thereafter, the rush to conclude that the subject of the poem took 'cancer for war' is the first instance of the poet intruding. "Cancer is war", or a similar third party POV can make the point without the overt hectoring.
2) Similarly, strophe 3. I like 'bundle antiquity into a heavy axe', but thereafter, it's all a feminist tirade in The Guardian.
3) Didn't get the Ganga connection
Trump 2020! KAG!!!