Posts: 1,139
Threads: 466
Joined: Nov 2013
ICONOSTASIS, edit two
Piety turned
my heart to stone.
Now let me cover this rock
in gold leaf, in the delicate
browns of flesh, in flashes
of red and rich azure;
let it not remain gray,
empty, almost modern,
ultimately the kinder home to moss
which knows only compromise
[Image: https://melkite.org/assets/img/landing/c...hodoxy.jpg]
Posts: 113
Threads: 11
Joined: Apr 2014
(05-31-2016, 01:45 AM)RiverNotch Wrote: BASILICA
Piety turns
the heart to stone. // I'm taking this to be a general statement about feelings and piety (which I understand), and that you're not talking about a specific person.
Let me cover this rock
in gold leaf, in the delicate
browns of flesh, in flecks
of black and rich azure -- // Covering the gray stone is symbolic, of course, given that the stone is already a symbol for a person's hardened feelings. But I don't understand the symbolism. Why do you want to put a pretty face on someone else's hard-heartedness? Or is it, somehow, your own hard-heartedness?
let it not remain gray,
empty, almost modern, // Not sure how "modern" fits in, although it's interesting.
ultimately the kinder home to moss // Not sure which is the kinder home to moss, the bare stone or the decorated stone?
which knows only compromise. // You've lost me with the compromising moss.
It's pretty obvious that the symbolism in this poem has great meaning to you, but any reader/listener who doesn't share your symbolism will have trouble understanding it -- unless it has an obvious meaning that I've missed.
As long as we're on the subject of piety, I completely agree with your initial statement in the poem. Pious people are often very hard-hearted. My best friend from childhood, who had a naturally loving nature, became an evangelical minister, and his world philosophy is about as hard-hearted as it comes. He believes that his own parents went to hell because they were non-believers, and he believes that I'm headed there too.
Posts: 326
Threads: 90
Joined: Apr 2013
RiverNotch, this is a fascinating short poem that you've got here but ultimately I am unsure of what you mean by it. It seems to be filled with symbols which to me could be interpreted in various ways. I'm not sure how much of a critique I can offer in terms of alternative word suggestions etc when I don't know your exact meaning, so instead I suppose this is more of a thought process I am going through as I go through your poem and hopefully this may be of some help to you.
(05-31-2016, 01:45 AM)RiverNotch Wrote: BASILICA -- I am taking the title to be symbolic of 'an important place of worship' or 'a church with great importance'. I think Basilicas are all catholic (damn I should have checked that first) which could indicate that this is specifically a reference to catholicism. My actual first thought upon seeing the title was 'St. Peter's Basilica', but I tried not to let that sway me towards anything, even though I could possibly see other parts of the poem that would suggest a connection with St. Peter.
Piety turns -- The line break makes sense here instead of having it all on one line.
the heart to stone. -- As an opening statement it is quite powerful and sets the whole premise for the poem. As a symbol a 'heart of stone' could be seen as cliche, but I think that there are other more important factors at play here, so for me its inclusion is fine.
Let me cover this rock -- Because of the use of 'stone' in the line before this could be seen as a continuation so it would be 'Let me cover this stony heart...' However you could also be talking about a cave, a building, the planet earth. Perhaps the ambiguity is good and what you were going for. Also 'rock' for me is the possible connection with St. Peter whose name means 'rock'... I am trying to tell myself that this is all just a coincidence because of my initial thought about 'Basilica'. However because the etymology of the word 'Peter' and it's roots is torn between 'stone' and 'rock' which could be seen in different ways, then I'm also thinking if you may be including both 'stone' and 'rock' as a way of covering all aspects. Yeah I know... I think way too much.
in gold leaf, in the delicate -- gold leaf as an architectural feature is what a Basilica would be decorated with and also as a symbol this would work, denoting a place of importance.
browns of flesh, in flecks -- the use of 'brown' flesh could be seen by some as an exclusion of some peoples, others may see it as a compromise that really means all peoples. The thought the keeps on cropping up for me is people of the Middle East area, ie Jesus country. If this is the 'delicate brown flesh' colour that is intended could the use of 'Olive skinned' be of any help in defining. Yet again, it could be of symbolic meaning??
of black and rich azure -- -- 'flecks of black' I can see in architectural/decoration terms but it's meaning or significance escapes me. The use of the word 'flecks' seems very specific, like you may have wanted a word that describes a visual effect at the same time as possibly having a negative connotation like in the way that you can 'stain' wood.
let it not remain gray, -- Could this be a separate sentence starting here?? As it stands the whole thing is two sentences and the second sentence is one hell of a long sentence but is it too long?
empty, almost modern, -- the use of 'modern' here is interesting.
ultimately the kinder home to moss -- what is a kinder home to moss? A rock? Something natural? Technically and biologically it would be somewhere constantly moist/damp and with not too much sunlight. But 'moss' is obviously a symbol, but a symbol of what... I'm unsure. They have no seeds, they grow in places that other plants would never grow - which is in some ways a 'compromise'. Bearing in mind the title I could possibly see moss as pious pilgrims going to places like St. Peter's Basilica, the pious life could easily be seen as a life of compromise...
which knows only compromise.
I don't envy the fact that you have to read what I just wrote, I never checked over it again, it may be crazy and nonsensical and other things I'm not sure of. What is for sure though is, it is way too much for 'mild critique' so I apologise if it was a bit too much, it does seem to happen a lot.
Cheers for the read, I have enjoyed the various paths of discovery that it has taken me,
Mark
 wae aye man ye radgie
Posts: 1,139
Threads: 466
Joined: Nov 2013
@Caleb Murdock: I thank you for and fully appreciate your feedback! Responses:
It is supposedly the speaker's heart covered; I have changed it.
For a moment, I had forgotten the implications of "heart of stone", but I think the blend of meanings work well, and undoubtedly it makes the whole thing more true. That said, this isn't really meant to be some sort of indictment on piety, just on certain applications of it, which I am sure your friend may have forgotten.
The bare stone. I thought that was syntactically clear, but now I don't know.
@ambrosial revelation:
Most of them are, and that was my mistake. This was supposed to lean more Orthodox -- but anyway, the sense in following either one is what's meant here, so I'm not sure I need to change it. That is, until I consider a later point.....
And so my point on "heart of stone" having the right blend of meanings.
"stony heart" seems more correct, and I think I should have used it, instead, but it does seem repetitive, with rock getting the point across equally well (at least to me), and rock does add that element of St. Peter which, however unintended, is appropriate.
.....which is that all that imagery is supposed to invoke Orthodox icons. Browns of flesh was a simple description: most of the icons I've seen used browns and yellows for flesh, yet I've already put gold leaf in; and flecks, too, but in retrospect the wrong word. And so, I've changed the title to "Icon", although that feels equally inadequate -- perhaps "Fresco"? -- and changed "flecks of black" to "flashes of red", which keeps the sonics, while adding a fuller (and more symbolically appropriate) image.
I seem to have a problem with overlong sentences. The next clause could be a new sentence, sure, but I myself keep clumping it with its older brother, especially since "it" (and again, I really don't know how to clarify this) is supposed to still refer to the unpainted stony heart of the first. So, the change to semicolon, though, as with the title, it's not a satisfying one.
The kinder home to moss is the unoccupied stone -- explaining the specific meaning of the moss would be a cop-out, so I'll just say that you almost nailed how moss "knows only compromise", and leave it at that. Almost -- biologically speaking, it also tends to compromise its hosts -- and another more spiritual meaning that you didn't quite get.
It is surely "too much" for mild, but I tend to give too much even in novice, so I don't really care --- plus, the more the crit, the better, yes? And I enjoyed the read; it wasn't that {  } nonsensical, and, more importantly, it gave me a whole lot of relevant points to digest. Many thanks!
First edit posted up top; first draft spoiler'd.
Posts: 23
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
I really liked the read, I think I also don't get all the symbolism, but I don't think it matters, it stands on it's own anyway.
I only have a very short comment, I lack a sort of "how to" in it..As in, how can I (whomever the poem is written to) let you cover the stone heart with gold and azure?
Do you want help, should I step aside and let you do the work, something else altogether? Have I been holding you back from doing this before? Maybe it is all, whichever the reader can do?
Thank you for sharing this poem!
Posts: 37
Threads: 5
Joined: Mar 2016
River, this may sound a little odd, but I think you're missing a line. It just seems to me that you need one more phrase to tie it all together and make your intent and your meaning clear. I'm really not sure what that line would constitute. I suspect, as such, that this crit may be borderline useless. Ah well. 
All the best,
Matt
Posts: 580
Threads: 71
Joined: Oct 2015
(05-31-2016, 01:45 AM)RiverNotch Wrote: ICON, edit one
Piety turned
my heart to stone.
Now let me cover this rock .....
in gold leaf, in the delicate .... Second 'in' needed?
browns of flesh, in flashes
of red and rich azure; .... Don't get the the rich azure. Brown skin and blue eyes?
let it not remain gray,
empty, almost modern,
ultimately the kinder home to moss .... Why 'kinder' ?
which knows only compromise. .... Didn't get how compromise was related tithe rest of the pome
~ I think I just quoted myself - Achebe
Posts: 1,139
Threads: 466
Joined: Nov 2013
(06-03-2016, 05:26 AM)Achebe Wrote: (05-31-2016, 01:45 AM)RiverNotch Wrote: ICON, edit one
Piety turned
my heart to stone.
Now let me cover this rock .....
in gold leaf, in the delicate .... Second 'in' needed? No, but I think it sounds prettier.
browns of flesh, in flashes
of red and rich azure; .... Don't get the the rich azure. Brown skin and blue eyes? I was hoping the title had addressed this. Red, azure, gold leaf, browns of flesh -- common colors in orthodox icons.
let it not remain gray,
empty, almost modern,
ultimately the kinder home to moss .... Why 'kinder' ? The rationale behind this being that a bare stone is easier to grow on than one all filled up. Not sure if the rationale is valid, though --- if you prove it to me otherwise, I'll definitely change this.
which knows only compromise. .... Didn't get how compromise was related to the rest of the pome. The rationale behind this being twofold; the first fold, if noted, might render the poem's meaning too prosaic; the second, that a pious person would not normally welcome compromise, especially compromise of the heart, of the feelings and dogmas that form the foundation of his faith.
Thanks for the feedback, Joseph Didis, Mattp, Achebe! I have a feeling I lost you with that last line, though right now I'm a bit tied up as to how I'm gonna clarify this piece -- and now I ask, with that specific part, do I ask too much of the reader? Or maybe this poem's lack of a stinger is truly an aesthetic weakness, rather than the communicative strength I assume it to be.
Posts: 580
Threads: 71
Joined: Oct 2015
So the meaning is something on the lines of - once piety has turned you away from feeling humanly emotions, it's best to cover up that cold, hard inside with gaudy, warm colours, a neat distraction from reality. Both for the onlooker and perhaps the icon himself. Without that distraction, and faced with reality, one's messy humanity will catch up again.
Interesting. Quite smart, actually.
I like it a a lot.
Would it read better in the third person?
Piety turns
the heart to stone.
Now cover this rock
in gold leaf, the delicate
browns of flesh, in flashes
of red and rich azure;
let it not remain gray,
empty, almost modern,
ultimately the kinder home to moss
which knows only compromise.
~ I think I just quoted myself - Achebe
Posts: 1,139
Threads: 466
Joined: Nov 2013
Essentially -- not exactly with the same premises on my part, but with the same logic. I'll mull over the return to third person, but the removal of the "let me" cleans it up mighty -- edit two, coming up could be that I'm a bit too tied to the rhythms of the current wording, so not yet -- hopefully sometime soon, maybe Monday. Thanks again!
Posts: 580
Threads: 71
Joined: Oct 2015
Some parting thoughts at this stage - a month or so ago, I critiqued a beautiful piece by RC James, calling it out for its ambiguity, when in fact it was my understanding that was at fault. The poem read beautifully once he explained what it was about.
Ideally, a poet should not have to explain his poem, but this rule works only if the readership is wide and not, as in this case, limited to perhaps 15-20 regular members of a forum.
Also, not every poem will make sense to every reader on the first, second, third, or fourth attempt. I have never understood the literal meaning of Dylan Thomas's 'I see the boys of summer' or TSE's 'East Coker', but I still find the lines magical. So a poem doesn't need to be necessarily intelligible to be appreciated, but it should always be intelligible to the author, and well written enough to be intelligible to any reader with a little guidance (otherwise it's just nice gibberish).
In the case of this poem, I understood what you were trying to say once you pointed out the colours of orthodox iconography. The significance of the azures and reds were lost on me until then. Strangely, I was thinking earlier that 'icon' was meant as a metaphor throughout - but the reason that I thought it a half baked one was that I thought that the colours were thrown in at random. Once I realised that they fit in neatly, my perspective on the poem changed. It's my personal Rivernotch favourite, and one of the seriously good ones on this forum.
So thank you for providing the key, and perhaps do so more often in future.
First person reads just as well, perhaps better. You may not need to change anything.
Supply a picture along with the poem.
~ I think I just quoted myself - Achebe
Posts: 326
Threads: 90
Joined: Apr 2013
I very much agree with Achebe about this poem in how good it is yet also I needed the key to be able to understand it, once I had that key there was a lot more to be found in the poem and it gets better with each read.
I'm glad I commented on it in the manner that I did, by saying that I didn't understand it but also by giving my thoughts as I went through it. That said though, if I were to come to the latest version as a fresh poem I would probably leave a very similar critique as I did originally in terms of style. I'm convinced that there is a way in which a small change can bridge that gap to understanding and supply the key to the reader. Ultimately, only you will really know what that change is, but to be honest I think you are onto something in your reply to me and the quote below.
(06-01-2016, 01:17 PM)RiverNotch Wrote: .....which is that all that imagery is supposed to invoke Orthodox icons. Browns of flesh was a simple description: most of the icons I've seen used browns and yellows for flesh, yet I've already put gold leaf in; and flecks, too, but in retrospect the wrong word. And so, I've changed the title to "Icon", although that feels equally inadequate -- perhaps "Fresco"?
'Icon' is definitely a better title than the previous 'Basilica' but it still doesn't feel quite right. I understand where you are going with 'Fresco' but I think that takes it back in the direction of 'Basilica'. 'Fresco' makes me think Florence, Italian Renaissance and ultimately Raphael and Michelangelo which is definitely leaning in a Catholic direction.
I've been through a few thoughts starting with spelling icon as either ikon or eikon which brings it closer to Orthodox through the Greek language but doesn't change the issue too much. I thought about 'logos' in the philosophy sense but then the religious sense kind of steps on its toes. I went through logic to rationale with the 'e' which would work in many ways because the poem is the narrator's 'rationale' but the word itself is from the Latin which takes us back to Catholicism. My final thoughts were 'sanctuary', related to a holy place 'sanctum' yet with other connotations of refuge and asylum and yet again Latin (I think). There's shrine? Too much? Syllogism?? Yeah I know? And then this new word that I found in the course of looking..
iconostasis or iconostas - (Eastern Church) a screen with doors and icons set in tiers, which separates the bema (sanctuary) from the nave. From Late Greek eikonostasion shrine, literally: area where images are placed, from ICONO- + histanai to stand.
I'll just leave them all and perhaps one might make you think of another idea altogether, or perhaps not, either way etymology is fucking brilliant isn't it 
Mark
wae aye man ye radgie
Posts: 1,139
Threads: 466
Joined: Nov 2013
Thanks again for the feedback. I suppose the next change would be the title, plus that explanatory bit that's escaping even me -- if you, Mark and Matt, remain so convinced, then perhaps I just need to dig deeper. I like "Iconostasis" -- I've loved the word ever since I first heard it, it sounds so good -- and I hear some Iconostases are genuinely made of stone (plus bonuses to hard-heart, being a division between the sanctuary and the nave), so the title. And for the image: I guess it's warranted, both to explain the actual meaning of the colors, and to perhaps explain the poem itself, at least in its second, generally hidden sense, though I'm a bit torn between the image posted above, and the image that follows this post. The images are versions of the Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, which wikipedia explained much better than I probably could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_of_th..._Orthodoxy I considered the original icon, too, but its reds and azures simply aren't vivid enough, I think -- although posted as well is a better version of the image further below.
[Image: http://www.christthesavioroca.org/images...hodoxy.jpg]
[Image: https://www.stpeterslist.com/wp-content/...odoxy.jpeg]
Links to the images:
http://www.christthesavioroca.org/images...hodoxy.jpg
https://melkite.org/assets/img/landing/c...hodoxy.jpg
https://www.stpeterslist.com/wp-content/...odoxy.jpeg
all of which were found via Google search.
|
