05-27-2021, 08:30 PM
Hey Paul-
First time through I was a bit put off, sensing that the poet was professing a moral high ground.
Second time through I noticed that the 3 stanzas may well represent the 3 Abrahamic faith traditions- Jewish, Christian, Muslim. I'm going with my second reading, as I believe you write with intent. Further, I interpret that the stanzas come in the order that each tradition appeared.
I came to this understanding because I have often heard each of the 3 refer to the "other" as having "their God". I have always found this quite unusual, because as Abrahamic traditions they all point to the same deity.
Since this is MISC , I'm not going to do a line-by-line, but may come back later to do so.
You don't need to affirm or deny my interpretation, but it's what I'm sticking with.
Thanks for the read,
Mark
Ok Paul-
This may be MISC, but I'll offer comments, below:
Their God
Their God allows outrageous things
to poke and prod their hopeful hearts,
and thrash at their too delicate wings. I trip on "too" every time
Their God allows they name their sins "sins' " is possessive in this case, and needs an apostrophe
mistake, and lets them on their way May need to re-work this line : "sin's mistake" oddly puts the mistake on the sin, and not "they".
Also, "allows they name" is unusual phrasing vs "allows that they name". Read the first line aloud and maybe you'll hear what I mean.
with their anecdotes in their coffee tins. "their" doesn't seem necessary here, one too many "their" there
Their God allows our terrorist This is the stanza that causes me trouble. Why not "their" instead of "our"?
imaginations to exist
like we're newborns stupidly making a fist. I think this line needs to be re-worked, esp "stupidly" ("clumsily" ?) .
Maybe:
Their God allows their terrorist
imaginations to exist-
that some are born raising a fist.
Or something like that.
The problem I see with S.3 is that "our terrorist" seems confusing, eventhough it is "their God" that is allowing "our terroist imaginations...": this last stanza (for me) equates "terrorist" with "our", when it is usually one group calling the other group the terroists. Yes, yes, I get that it is "their God" allowing this, BUT I can't help but read it the way I do.
OK, Paul, that's what I'm thinking.
Mark
Their God allows outrageous things.
First time through I was a bit put off, sensing that the poet was professing a moral high ground.
Second time through I noticed that the 3 stanzas may well represent the 3 Abrahamic faith traditions- Jewish, Christian, Muslim. I'm going with my second reading, as I believe you write with intent. Further, I interpret that the stanzas come in the order that each tradition appeared.
I came to this understanding because I have often heard each of the 3 refer to the "other" as having "their God". I have always found this quite unusual, because as Abrahamic traditions they all point to the same deity.
Since this is MISC , I'm not going to do a line-by-line, but may come back later to do so.
You don't need to affirm or deny my interpretation, but it's what I'm sticking with.
Thanks for the read,
Mark
Ok Paul-
This may be MISC, but I'll offer comments, below:
Their God
Their God allows outrageous things
to poke and prod their hopeful hearts,
and thrash at their too delicate wings. I trip on "too" every time
Their God allows they name their sins "sins' " is possessive in this case, and needs an apostrophe
mistake, and lets them on their way May need to re-work this line : "sin's mistake" oddly puts the mistake on the sin, and not "they".
Also, "allows they name" is unusual phrasing vs "allows that they name". Read the first line aloud and maybe you'll hear what I mean.
with their anecdotes in their coffee tins. "their" doesn't seem necessary here, one too many "their" there
Their God allows our terrorist This is the stanza that causes me trouble. Why not "their" instead of "our"?
imaginations to exist
like we're newborns stupidly making a fist. I think this line needs to be re-worked, esp "stupidly" ("clumsily" ?) .
Maybe:
Their God allows their terrorist
imaginations to exist-
that some are born raising a fist.
Or something like that.
The problem I see with S.3 is that "our terrorist" seems confusing, eventhough it is "their God" that is allowing "our terroist imaginations...": this last stanza (for me) equates "terrorist" with "our", when it is usually one group calling the other group the terroists. Yes, yes, I get that it is "their God" allowing this, BUT I can't help but read it the way I do.
OK, Paul, that's what I'm thinking.
Mark
Their God allows outrageous things.