Contend You Not

[Erthona]

.

Contend you not then with the untrained mind,
Conspire it will the scalpel to evade,
It flees on fearful legs its thoughts to blind,
Some semblance of false pride that it may save.
Contend you not with those too eas’ly hurt,
Anemone, are they who thus do live,
Feelers at will, recall, when to its work,
Your reply, it has nothing there to give.
Contend not with those beyond all assail,
With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,
Your not invited to their carnival,
No worth to lean against the gate and bide.
The coin of proverbs can’t be give’ or spent,
Those who desire wisdom only to rent.

—Erthona


Yes, I am aware of how horrid this is, and you may point out its flaws should you wish, though I doubt will bring many new ones to my attention. What I could use are suggestions to work out the syntactically tortured parts which is about 70% of the poem. But regardless, feel free to slice and dice as it is not that often I put something out in this poor of shape, but I have done all I could. So maybe take pity on the poor thing and help it along.

Thanks,


Dale

[billy]

at first i thought this would be an easy re write


then realised it's a sonnet will have a good read when i get back...though i'm not what one would call sonnet material

[geoff]

Hello Dale,

I saw your comment about syntax. I feel like sonnets often lend themselves to inverted structures. I'll see what I can offer and maybe you'll like an idea or two.

.

Contend you not then with the untrained mind, ...I feel like the "you" is not needed in this line. Being an imperative already, it feels extra and is a bit awkward in structure. to keep the meter, another adjective could possibly go before "mind"
Conspire it will the scalpel to evade, ....I take it that "scalpel" is the subject "it". Perhaps some commas before and after "the scalpel" will help the flow and understanding
It flees on fearful legs its thoughts to blind,...again, a comma may be needed after "legs"
Some semblance of false pride that it may save.
Contend you not with those too eas’ly hurt, ...again, my preference would be to remove the "you" and adjust the line as needed to meet the meter. Perhaps an elaboration on what is hurting these people (e.g., "with those too eas'ly hurt by....) could help make the poem a bit less abstract
Anemone, are they who thus do live,
Feelers at will, recall, when to its work,
Your reply, it has nothing there to give....this line the and two above it went a bit over my head. I don't fully understand just how the "they" are living (from the line "thus do live"). Whose work? Where is "there"? For me, I am missing something entirely because I am never able to get my feet set
Contend not with those beyond all assail,...the "all" felt like a filler word to me
With strong walls thick that let no mote inside, ...I understand if you wish to keep for effect, but "strong, thick walls" would really make the wall stand out to me more and make it more of a force in the line
Your not invited to their carnival,...."You're"
No worth to lean against the gate and bide. ...my favorite line in the poem
The coin of proverbs can’t be give’ or spent, ....for a poem that really strays from the verb "to be", I disliked it being used here. "can't be" isn't very helpful as a phrase. Even just saying something like "The coin of proverbs never give' or spent" would give a similar effect in a slightly stronger way for me
Those who desire wisdom only to rent.

—Erthona


Yes, I am aware of how horrid this is, and you may point out its flaws should you wish, though I doubt will bring many new ones to my attention. What I could use are suggestions to work out the syntactically tortured parts which is about 70% of the poem. But regardless, feel free to slice and dice as it is not that often I put something out in this poor of shape, but I have done all I could. So maybe take pity on the poor thing and help it along.

Thanks,


Dale

Hope maybe one or two of these ideas may help!

-geoff

[Erthona]

Thanks, geoff,

The idea which I guess does not come across well, is this is basically advise to not waste ones time trying to reason with these three types of people. The first is the subject changer, the second is the person who draws in upon them selves, appearing hurt in some way, The third is the the one who can't be confronted because they have a defense to what ever you say. Each is described with the opening "Contend you not..."

I could easily incorporate the commas, and will.

The first line I could write as "Contend not with the untrained mind," but as this is a sonnet it requires two more syllables, thus the "you" and "then". Which I agree is poor, but I cannot leave the lines at four feet.

"another adjective could possibly go before "mind"" In this case I would have to disagree as we are talking about someone who in provincial and uneducated, but very much believes what he believes and will not be swayed from it.

With "Contend you not with those too eas’ly hurt,"

I think I could change it to "Contend not with those too easily hurt,"
but that does throw the meter doesn't it?

"the "all" felt like a filler word to me"

Yes, probably true in that it is slightly redundant, but generally I am OK with it as it can be read as extremely impregnable. That is to say, a out of all the errors here, this bother's me less than most, and if I could get the other errors to that level I think I could live with the poem. I think we both know that this will never approach a perfect poem form wise. However, I do think the content is worthy as a father's advise to his child about what kinds of people to not waste ones time on.

for a poem that really strays from the verb "to be", I disliked it being used here. "can't be" isn't very helpful as a phrase. Even just saying something like "The coin of proverbs never give' or spent" would give a similar effect in a slightly stronger way for me

Originally it read

"The coin of proverbs can’t be given or spent,
On those who desire wisdom only to rent."

Which I think is much more clear, but did not fit the form, so I altered it. It's quite strange, I am no great writer of sonnets, however, I do not generally have too much difficulty turning one out well, but this one has bedeviled me form the start, and the more I work with it the worse it gets. Quite perplexing really.

Anyway, thanks for the input, should you have anything else to say on the matter, I am all ears.

Dale

[billy]

based on this;
What I could use are suggestions to work out the syntactically tortured parts which is about 70% of the poem.
i came up with this;

It's folly to Contend the untrained mind, or ['Tis]
which Conspires with the scalpel to evade,
and flee on fearful legs with thoughts to blind,
a semblance of false pride that it may save.
Do not contest with those too eas’ly hurt,


i need some help wit the next line.
it's like legaleaze is it a real anemone?

Anemone, are they who thus do live,
Feelers at will, recall, when to its work,
Your reply, it has nothing there to give.
Contend not with those beyond all assail,
With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,
Your not invited to their carnival,
No worth to lean against the gate and bide.
The coin of proverbs can’t be give’ or spent,
Those who desire wisdom only to rent.

.

Contend you not then with the untrained mind,
Conspire it will the scalpel to evade,
It flees on fearful legs its thoughts to blind,
Some semblance of false pride that it may save.
Contend you not with those too eas’ly hurt,
Anemone, are they who thus do live,
Feelers at will, recall, when to its work,
Your reply, it has nothing there to give.
Contend not with those beyond all assail,
With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,
Your not invited to their carnival,
No worth to lean against the gate and bide.
The coin of proverbs can’t be give’ or spent,
Those who desire wisdom only to rent.

—Erthona


Yes, I am aware of how horrid this is, and you may point out its flaws should you wish, though I doubt will bring many new ones to my attention. What I could use are suggestions to work out the syntactically tortured parts which is about 70% of the poem. But regardless, feel free to slice and dice as it is not that often I put something out in this poor of shape, but I have done all I could. So maybe take pity on the poor thing and help it along.

Thanks,


Dale

[tectak]

.

Contend you not then with the untrained mind,From the initial posting I debated the placing and, frankly, the use of "contend". The "then" does not help. What are you saying here. " Do not attempt to use an untrained mind"?
Conspire it will the scalpel to evade, Conspire with it, the scalpel to evade
It flees on fearful legs its thoughts to blind, This line is out of reach of rescue. It is almost defiantly nonsensical...and you know it
Some semblance of false pride that it may save.
Contend you not with those too eas’ly hurt,
Anemone, are they who thus do live,
Feelers at will, recall, when to its work,Drop the line start caps and do a prose run. Then bring it back home. Try " Do not contend with those of fragile form"
Your reply, it has nothing there to give. drop it
Contend not with those beyond all assail,Do not raise arms in wars you cannot win
With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,
Your not invited to their carnival,
No worth to lean against the gate and bide.
The coin of proverbs can’t be give’ or spent,
Those who desire wisdom only to rent.

—Erthona
Yes, it is horrid, but if you reconstructed it you would probably find it read more smoothly but retained its..er..horridness.
And there's the rub. It is horrid and you like it that way...otherwise why post it at all? Oh, and I would like it more or less if "contend" became "content"
Best,
tectak

Yes, I am aware of how horrid this is, and you may point out its flaws should you wish, though I doubt will bring many new ones to my attention. What I could use are suggestions to work out the syntactically tortured parts which is about 70% of the poem. But regardless, feel free to slice and dice as it is not that often I put something out in this poor of shape, but I have done all I could. So maybe take pity on the poor thing and help it along.

Thanks,


Dale

[Erthona]

Tom,

I think maybe you are missing the idea of this, which is obviously my fault. I mention this because you state that you would rather it be "content" instead of "contend", which seems to be an error in your understanding of what I am trying to say, again, my fault, not yours. Let me delineate the basic points, and then should you wish to make more comments I would greatly appreciate them, as this sonnet has me quite bedeviled.

This is suppose to be advice from a father to his child as he/she goes out into the world (and yes there is a touch of Hamlet here, but without the satire). The father is advising the child what kind of people to not waste his/her time on. There are three types.

1. "the untrained mind" is the provincial yokel, who knows nothing of the wider world, but has very fixed ideas about how things are. The word dogma comes to mind. This person is puffed up with false pride thinking they know everything there is worth knowing. The "scalpel" refers to reasoned debate, under which the person dogma can not stand up, and so it does the equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears, and and loudly repeating nah, nah ,nah.

2. The second person is the type that is so easily offended, that just about anything offends them in some way. There defense to keep from hearing anything they don't want to here is to withdraw, and cease to engage in the conversation.

3. The third kind is the person who has an answer for everything, despite that it is usually circular logic. Of course this matter little as they are the type to dominate the conversation, and ignoring any input for anyone one else. Thus:

"With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,
Your not invited to their carnival,
No worth to lean against the gate and bide."

The last two lines are the conclusion, it refers to those who do not really want wisdom, just quick answers without having to work for them. Thus: (this was the original version with the "To" added at the front of the second line, but it threw the meter off.

"The coin of proverbs can’t be give’ or spent,
To those who desire wisdom only to rent."
=---------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end, I fear I may have to do as you suggest, and just drop the sonnet form, or maybe Leanne will droop by and put it to rights.

Anyway, thanks for your comments, and if you would like to comment further please feel free to do so, sarcastic or otherwise.

Dale

[tectak]

Tom,

I think maybe you are missing the idea of this, which is obviously my fault. I mention this because you state that you would rather it be "content" instead of "contend", which seems to be an error in your understanding of what I am trying to say, again, my fault, not yours. Let me delineate the basic points, and then should you wish to make more comments I would greatly appreciate them, as this sonnet has me quite bedeviled.

This is suppose to be advice from a father to his child as he/she goes out into the world (and yes there is a touch of Hamlet here, but without the satire). The father is advising the child what kind of people to not waste his/her time on. There are three types.

1. "the untrained mind" is the provincial yokel, who knows nothing of the wider world, but has very fixed ideas about how things are. The word dogma comes to mind. This person is puffed up with false pride thinking they know everything there is worth knowing. The "scalpel" refers to reasoned debate, under which the person dogma can not stand up, and so it does the equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears, and and loudly repeating nah, nah ,nah.

2. The second person is the type that is so easily offended, that just about anything offends them in some way. There defense to keep from hearing anything they don't want to here is to withdraw, and cease to engage in the conversation.

3. The third kind is the person who has an answer for everything, despite that it is usually circular logic. Of course this matter little as they are the type to dominate the conversation, and ignoring any input for anyone one else. Thus:

"With strong walls thick that let no mote inside,
Your not invited to their carnival,
No worth to lean against the gate and bide."

The last two lines are the conclusion, it refers to those who do not really want wisdom, just quick answers without having to work for them. Thus: (this was the original version with the "To" added at the front of the second line, but it threw the meter off.

"The coin of proverbs can’t be give’ or spent,
To those who desire wisdom only to rent."
=---------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end, I fear I may have to do as you suggest, and just drop the sonnet form, or maybe Leanne will droop by and put it to rights.

Anyway, thanks for your comments, and if you would like to comment further please feel free to do so, sarcastic or otherwise.

Dale

Hi Dale, if we're getting personal, this is a problem for me, too. I had no problem with the ethos...in fact, as you have posted this before it rather pleased me that I felt then as now. I like consistency.
It is that bloody word "contend". Look, it has two distinct and clear meanings, each easily defined. It can mean "to tolerate" and it can mean "to assert". You are using the "tolerate" definition and hope that is all. You are making the concept harder than necessary by dogmatically biting down on the " Contend you not..." bone.
See how much easier it becomes when "Contend you not..." could be rewritten as "Do not tolerate..."
I think that I am in danger of washing the baby away with the bathwater to stick to with this but I contend that the language is semantically out of character. Tell me I'm wrong.
Best,
Tom

[Erthona]

Tom,

"Do not tolerate..."

Except that is not what I am saying, I am saying "do not strive with", in other words don't waste your time with these kinds of people, to "not tolerate" would mean just the opposite, it would mean to fight against them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry to dispute you, but I do not think contend means either ""to tolerate" or "to assert", but certainly not "tolerate". Neither are stated as synonyms (see below) after definition.

Contend:

1. to struggle in opposition: to contend with the enemy for control of the port.
2. to strive in rivalry; compete; vie: to contend for first prize.
3. to strive in debate; dispute earnestly: to contend against falsehood.
4. to assert or maintain earnestly:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
synonyms

dispute
go after
grapple
meet
oppose
push for
resist
vie
battle
emulate
encounter
face
jostle
litigate
oppugn
rival
skirmish
tug
withstand
----------------------------------------------------
I would still appreciate your input if we can get beyond this contentious problem.

XOXO

Dale

[tectak]

Tom,

"Do not tolerate..."

Except that is not what I am saying, I am saying "do not strive with", in other words don't waste your time with these kinds of people, to "not tolerate" would mean just the opposite, it would mean to fight against them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry to dispute you, but I do not think contend means either ""to tolerate" or "to assert", but certainly not "tolerate". Neither are stated as synonyms (see below) after definition.

Contend:

1. to struggle in opposition: to contend with the enemy for control of the port.
2. to strive in rivalry; compete; vie: to contend for first prize.
3. to strive in debate; dispute earnestly: to contend against falsehood.
4. to assert or maintain earnestly:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
synonyms

dispute
go after
grapple
meet
oppose
push for
resist
vie
battle
emulate
encounter
face
jostle
litigate
oppugn
rival
skirmish
tug
withstand
----------------------------------------------------
I would still appreciate your input if we can get beyond this contentious problem.

XOXO

Dale

Yes, Dale...this is interesting. My comments were lateral. I still contend that there are two clear definitions but did not mean to imply that there are no others...emphasis on "clear".
To "contend with..." is most certainly synonymous with "toleration by acceptance" but I admit I am stretching it a little...acceptance may well mean defeat in adversity.
Any way I look at that line "Contend you not..." gives me trepidatory horripilations...it just leaves a gaping chasm of uncertainty in my understanding . I guess that is why I misinterpreted your narrowly defined meaning for my more global semantic. I see your problem but for me the solution would be surgery not supplication. Get rid.
Best,
Tom7

[Erthona]

Tom7 where did the other six go.


I still do not see how to fight (contend) is the same as acceptance (tolerate). fight=acceptance? Nope, just don't see it.

Sorry,I am not trying to be argumentative, but the words seem to be close to antonyms, more than synonyms.

Dale

[tectak]

Tom7 where did the other six go.


I still do not see how to fight (contend) is the same as acceptance (tolerate). fight=acceptance? Nope, just don't see it.

Sorry,I am not trying to be argumentative, but the words seem to be close to antonyms, more than synonyms.

Dale

I may have to give in graciously to your argument save for the logic of your last statement which omits a boolean NOT . Do NOT contend=put up with ( though without acceptance). Contend seems to have more energy in your use than in mine.
"...she had to make dinner whilst contending with the constand crying of the infant..."
"... by sailing on the tide he had to contend with nothing more than a light onshore breeze..."
... but as I began, I shall end. I believe ( Dylan) you are right in your world, and I am right in mine...but you are righter
I still do not like the word or its placement...and "do not contend with" is of dubious meaning.
Example
Do not fight with a penguin...use a sword, it stays sharper longer.
Best,
Tom

[Erthona]

How about if I changed it to something like "

My child, do not strive with the untrained mind,"

Would that make it clearer in your mind?

Thanks for hanging in there with me on this.

Dale

[tectak]

How about if I changed it to something like "

My child, do not strive with the untrained mind,"

Would that make it clearer in your mind?

Thanks for hanging in there with me on this.

Dale

Hi Dale,
having accepted your very good reason for wishing to use the versatilty of "contend" I fall back on my earlier irksome issue. There is no reason to eliminate the word, just adjust the sentence structure.

Do not contend with those of minds untrained.

Do not contend with those whom words can hurt.

Do not contend with those you cannot beat (not good but you get the idea?)

Hmmm? Don't fight with penguins?
Best,
tectak

[Erthona]

Yeah, I think that could work, and solve my syntax problem. Maybe

Do not contend with those of untrained minds.
Conspire they will the scalpel to evade,
They flees on fearful legs their thoughts to blind,
Some semblance of false pride that they may save.


It is a sonnet and must be careful of the rhyme, and meter.


Thanks Tom,

Dale

[ChristopherSea]

Yeah, I think that could work, and solve my syntax problem. Maybe

Do not contend with those of untrained minds.
Conspire they will the scalpel to evade,
They flees on fearful legs their thoughts to blind,
Some semblance of false pride that they may save.


It is a sonnet and must be careful of the rhyme, and meter.


Thanks Tom,

Dale

Dale, Agreed, that first line should work for you if it still captures the original intent. In the second line, I need to place a 'mental comma' after will to make it work. Does that make sense? For that third sentence, should that be 'flee'? It could be my read that is off (I need coffee)./Chris

[Erthona]

Chris,

When I changed it from "it" to they I forgot to change "flees" to "flee" Good catch.

I am ambivalent about a comma:

"Conspire they will, the scalpel to evade,"

It has the effect of slowing it down, instead of rushing right through, however, I can think of no grammatical reason to choose one over the other. I guess it is a good place for a caesura.

Thanks for the continued feedback. I think we nearly have the first four lines down Only ten more to go!


Dale

[jeremyyoung]

A very interesting poem. The problem I have is with the word 'scalpel'. I understand the point you are trying to make, but it sounds like you are trying to cut them up - in which case it is reasonable for them to be evasive.

I wondered if 'agreement' 'concordance' 'common ground' 'understanding' or similar, might not be better terms.

Thus.... and I have changed a few other things....

Never contend with the untrained mind,
Conspire it will, understanding to evade.
It flees on fearful legs, with which to bind,
Some semblance of the pride it hopes to save.

Ok, I've rewritten it....

[Erthona]

Thanks Jeremy,

It certainly reads more clearly, unfortunately it is no longer in iambic pentameter, and as this is a sonnet...

But that is exactly the problem I've been having with this also, I think I have an answer, then realize it is no longer in the correct meter, or I've blown the end rhyme.

Thanks for the input, I amy be able to use some of it as I reformulate.

Dale

[jeremyyoung]

Thanks Jeremy,

It certainly reads more clearly, unfortunately it is no longer in iambic pentameter, and as this is a sonnet...

But that is exactly the problem I've been having with this also, I think I have an answer, then realize it is no longer in the correct meter, or I've blown the end rhyme.

Thanks for the input, I amy be able to use some of it as I reformulate.

Dale

My apologies if my edit went too far.

I understand your desire to follow the rules. but your use of language is so muscular that providing the rhyming patter is there, I think you might get away with it - it certainly has a Shakespearean ring - and I understand if you respond you are not trying to wing it.

Have you tried saying it out loud as you are writing it? And if so have you tried using an accent? As often the rhythm will fall into place by not using Standard English.