Time, purveyor,
purloiner, surveying
osprey: all things prey to you.
White teeth, strong gums,
skin taut like a drum’s,
and lust burnt to ashes by
the third eye.*
Pages are shaken into dust,
like those who write them. Why
the dead reappear to die
again, or the gods we trust
in their rows upon rows,
there is one above them all - there is one who knows.**
Original
Time, purveyor,
great surveying osprey,
all things prey to you. Youth,
white teeth, strong gums,
skin taut like a drum’s,
and lust burnt to ashes by
the third eye.
Pages are shaken into dust,
like those who wrote them. Why
the dead reappear to die,
or the gods we trust
in their rows upon rows,
there is one above them all - there is one who knows.
(07-03-2023, 08:15 AM)busker Wrote: Or perhaps he does not
Time, purveyor,
great surveying osprey,
all things prey to you. Youth,
white teeth, strong gums,
skin taut like a drum’s,
and lust burnt to ashes by
the third eye.
Pages are shaken into dust,
like those who wrote them. Why
the dead reappear to die, reappear only to die again (?)
or the gods we trust
in their rows upon rows, seems like there should be another line about what happens to those gods, like what happens with the reincarnated dead
there is one above them all - there is one who knows. move this down to make it the last line (?)
(07-03-2023, 08:15 AM)busker Wrote: Or perhaps he does not
Time, purveyor,
great surveying osprey. —period. All things, prey to you. Youth, —I really like the idea. But, "purveyor" doesn't mean anything in this sentence*. Not even metaphorically. What is Time, literally or figuratively, selling in relation to the rest of the poem? Unless, time isn't the subject and the "you" is referring to something else (god?). This may be a syntactical issue, but I read it like "Time, great surveying osprey. / All things, prey to you." It's a beautifully articulated sentiment. If Time isn't the subject and I have to read a Wikipedia article to fill in the blanks, then I'm not so sure.
white teeth, strong gums,
skin taut like a drum’s,—This is my favorite line. The use of the possessive at the end is genius.
and lust burnt to ashes by
the third eye.
Pages are shaken into dust,—"shaken" is a past participle. Saying "pages are shaken" is the equivalent of saying "swimmers are swum". You either need the gerund " are shaking" or remove "are" and go with "pages shake into dust".
like those who wrote them. Why
the dead reappear to die,
or the gods we trust
in their rows upon rows,
there is one above them all - there is one who knows.
Thanks, TqB, Kynaston
TqB - there is probably one less line. Will give it some thought
Kynaston- good point about the ‘purveyor’. The original line had purloiner / purveyor as in the edit, have restored it otherwise yeah, it doesn’t make sense
‘Pages are shaken’ is grammatically fine. But it’s better to pair it with ‘those who write’ - have done that
Regarding Wikipedia articles, that depends on how much the reader knows. These are fairly standard cultural references that people should be aware of - certainly more so than of American popular music as an example. The footnotes are to help those who mightn’t be aware.
(07-04-2023, 01:33 PM)busker Wrote: Thanks, TqB, Kynaston
TqB - there is probably one less line. Will give it some thought
Kynaston- good point about the ‘purveyor’. The original line had purloiner / purveyor as in the edit, have restored it otherwise yeah, it doesn’t make sense
‘Pages are shaken’ is grammatically fine. But it’s better to pair it with ‘those who write’ - have done that
Regarding Wikipedia articles, that depends on how much the reader knows. These are fairly standard cultural references that people should be aware of - certainly more so than of American popular music as an example. The footnotes are to help those who mightn’t be aware.
True, I didn't mean "pages are shaken" is necessarily a grammatical issue. It just reads awkward. And the edit does the job, so that's cool.
Is Nasadiya Sukta really a "standard cultural reference"? I'm not sure, but I hope it is because it's a very interesting hymn. I suppose the idea of "the wiki link" is giving my old man brain some trouble. I think, either a poem references or is related to a thing or it doesn't or isn't. And either you want to give a nod to that reference or you don't. The wiki link seems like a cheat. In my opinion, you can either write it straight and the people who know will know (although, the link between these two poems is very tenuous), or you give a hint in the poem or title that it is related to something else. Personally, I would have subtitled the poem "Or Perhaps He Does Not after Nasadiya Sukta", because the poem works perfectly well on it's own without this relationship, but if you want to give a nod to the inspiration, then it does that too. The link just seemed like a lack of confidence. But, then again, I'm used to reading books with paper pages you can't click on, so what do I know.
(07-04-2023, 01:33 PM)busker Wrote: Thanks, TqB, Kynaston
TqB - there is probably one less line. Will give it some thought
Kynaston- good point about the ‘purveyor’. The original line had purloiner / purveyor as in the edit, have restored it otherwise yeah, it doesn’t make sense
‘Pages are shaken’ is grammatically fine. But it’s better to pair it with ‘those who write’ - have done that
Regarding Wikipedia articles, that depends on how much the reader knows. These are fairly standard cultural references that people should be aware of - certainly more so than of American popular music as an example. The footnotes are to help those who mightn’t be aware.
True, I didn't mean "pages are shaken" is necessarily a grammatical issue. It just reads awkward. And the edit does the job, so that's cool.
Is Nasadiya Sukta really a "standard cultural reference"? I'm not sure, but I hope it is because it's a very interesting hymn. I suppose the idea of "the wiki link" is giving my old man brain some trouble. I think, either a poem references or is related to a thing or it doesn't or isn't. And either you want to give a nod to that reference or you don't. The wiki link seems like a cheat. In my opinion, you can either write it straight and the people who know will know (although, the link between these two poems is very tenuous), or you give a hint in the poem or title that it is related to something else. Personally, I would have subtitled the poem "Or Perhaps He Does Not after Nasadiya Sukta", because the poem works perfectly well on it's own without this relationship, but if you want to give a nod to the inspiration, then it does that too. The link just seemed like a lack of confidence. But, then again, I'm used to reading books with paper pages you can't click on, so what do I know.
This might be an interesting topic for the discussion forum. Spoilers, Links, Footnotes etc. I've found they can be a simple credit where it's due, and other times a roundabout way of adding an explanation or context to poem that is not found in the text proper.. I think, as KL said, it can be both at the same time. I've had poems questioned for gathering context from outside the text. Always been curious about everyone's thoughts. If anyone wants to start a discussion thread on this, we could split the thread and keep Busker's thread clean.
(07-04-2023, 01:33 PM)busker Wrote: Thanks, TqB, Kynaston
TqB - there is probably one less line. Will give it some thought
Kynaston- good point about the ‘purveyor’. The original line had purloiner / purveyor as in the edit, have restored it otherwise yeah, it doesn’t make sense
‘Pages are shaken’ is grammatically fine. But it’s better to pair it with ‘those who write’ - have done that
Regarding Wikipedia articles, that depends on how much the reader knows. These are fairly standard cultural references that people should be aware of - certainly more so than of American popular music as an example. The footnotes are to help those who mightn’t be aware.
True, I didn't mean "pages are shaken" is necessarily a grammatical issue. It just reads awkward. And the edit does the job, so that's cool.
Is Nasadiya Sukta really a "standard cultural reference"? I'm not sure, but I hope it is because it's a very interesting hymn. I suppose the idea of "the wiki link" is giving my old man brain some trouble. I think, either a poem references or is related to a thing or it doesn't or isn't. And either you want to give a nod to that reference or you don't. The wiki link seems like a cheat. In my opinion, you can either write it straight and the people who know will know (although, the link between these two poems is very tenuous), or you give a hint in the poem or title that it is related to something else. Personally, I would have subtitled the poem "Or Perhaps He Does Not after Nasadiya Sukta", because the poem works perfectly well on it's own without this relationship, but if you want to give a nod to the inspiration, then it does that too. The link just seemed like a lack of confidence. But, then again, I'm used to reading books with paper pages you can't click on, so what do I know.
This might be an interesting topic for the discussion forum. Spoilers, Links, Footnotes etc. I've found they can be a simple credit where it's due, and other times a roundabout way of adding an explanation or context to poem that is not found in the text proper.. I think, as KL said, it can be both at the same time. I've had poems questioned for gathering context from outside the text. Always been curious about everyone's thoughts. If anyone wants to start a discussion thread on this, we could split the thread and keep Busker's thread clean.
I must confess, I was going to write "the link is the new footnote"—yet, I didn't because I have never read a poem that ever benefitted from a footnote... not even Whoroscope (Beckett was made to add the footnotes, he didn't want them originally).
