I looked around your portfolio and saw lots of really interesting opportunities for me to learn. Then I found "Judge Not." The title sounded a bit overused, but the explanation,
"A plea for equality of religions and avoiding religion based war."
drew my attention to it anyway. So I targeted it for my next review.
Here is a poem that on the surface seems trite and cliche', and then suddenly comes together as a powerful, amazing call for calmness and an end to religious violence.
But then who am I? Just one Reader of this wonderful work of art. Other Readers will come away with their OWN understanding . . . . their own meaning.
Which is exactly what this poem is conveying. That's why under the surface, it is amazing . . . .
I hope my opening line in this review, especially the first phrase, did not offend too much. But let me explain. You see, the first couplet starts with a rhyme that just seems so cliche . . . judge and fudge.
However, having read the entire poem twice and going for my third attempt (after closing my office door so others will not hear me read it aloud), I return to the opening line with a smile on my face. It is indeed the surface . . . the cliche' of religion, that causes us to be susceptible to the antithesis of your plea:
"Help others learn if they wish;
In their ignorance don't fish."
So the opening rhyme, juxtaposed against this deep couplet, reinforces the meaning of the poem . . . . at least as I hear it.
And the deeper couplet . . . how powerful. Incidentally, if there is only one little minor suggestion I can make, it would be to put a comma after learn as well as after ignorance in that couplet. Interesting that this is the only place I find any punctuation problems . . . I wonder if that is by your choice as well?
But again, who am I but one Reader?
By the way, I love it when a poem can educate, especially ORALLY. For one, invoking the God "Ram" is a stroke of total creativity. But for two . . . . I always read this as rhyming with Sam . . . not Calm. Very interesting . . . .
Back to sharing with you the Reader's experience:
As you know, I subscribe to a philosophy I call multi-valence. Consider that the ultimate practice of this is religion. With this in mind, I love the couplet,
"It is easier to teach,
than to follow what we preach."
Excellent! And then the next couplet, as stated above, caused me, the Reader, to pause and reflect on its meaning as well as the entire poem:
"Help others learn if they wish;
In their ignorance don't fish."
You see, this couplet, nestled in the middle of the poem, pulls it all together, from cliche' to powerful . . . juxtaposition already noted, and establishes the meaning of the poem.
This is EXACTLY what needs to end when it comes to the way religious people try to spread their own understanding of the meaning in the message they have heard. They are as enthusiastic about this message as I am this poem. But they do not recognize Multi-valence . . . with emphasis on the prefix. Instead, they believe their own interpretation is the only and best interpretation.
For me to declare that my own understanding of your poem here is the ONLY and the BEST understanding, and then maybe even add that if you do not agree with my understanding you will burn in hell for all of eternity . . . . . THAT is fishing upon one's ignorance.
But again, back from meaning to mechanics . . . yes, in these two lines you have inspired me to reflect further upon the entire poem. This in turn caused me to return to the poem a second and third time.
I find another example of surface versus deeper meaning. Interestingly, it is also a merger of meaning and mechanics. Throughout the poem, you are trying to maintain seven syllables per line as a structure to the poem. In an attempt to help you find potential opportunities for pruning and/or fertilization of this organic work of art, I originally wrote:
I read the line,
"To fight by his name, inspired}
as eight syllables, rather than seven. This can be remedied by removing the preposition, "To."
But then is it eight syllables or seven? Who am I, but one Reader. Another may have his or her own interpretation. I certainly wouldn't fight over this. It is just a poem. My understanding . . . the meaning I get from it . . . . is as valid as the next Readers . . . but no more valid than that.
But what if I was to say, "Those who don't read "ired" as two syllables should give up poetry." . . . . there I'm fishing in the ignorance of persons just wanting to get it right. There I'm using their lack of confidence, their inability to recognize and accept artistic license, their lack of the knowledge of anomaly . . . to convince them that MY valence is the right valence.
And the poem is right,
Your and their god is the same,
Differing only in name.
Yet, why do we fight over religion? No religion preaches anything but love and tolerance.
So thus, if there is a line that would make sense to be an anomaly to the seven syllable structure, it would be the two lines:
To fight, by His name inspired!
Of this game, He must be tired.
both of which could be interpreted as seven or eight syllables. Would it be foolish for me to declare that any Reader who says "no, that's seven lines" is going to burn in hell for the rest of time? Of course!
Really cool.
And if . . . as you read this review . . . you are thinking "I never even dreamed to establish that meaning" . . . . then you are experiencing the Poet's end of what I mean by "multi-valence!"
The muse speaks to us, and often we do not know what it means. We just listen . . . .
. . . . . and then we decide how to name our poem. Judge Not may be a bit overused, but so is religious war. And who am I to judge? I should not judge. I should read, reflect, learn my lessons, and thank the Poet.
Thank you!
Do not change a thing about this poem. Even the punctuation. Great work! I love it!!!
Dan Sturn
|
|