This is one of the most moving poems i have ever read

[George Armstrong Custer]

Agree with Ian and Keith's views - not well structured and a rather mawkishly reductive amalgam of the phenomenon of a secularist striving to express a form of spirituality. This can certainly be seen as being representative of our increasingly secular times where, ironically, people still have a need to express their thoughts on death in spiritual terms but lack what was once the ubiquitous theological knowledge of the major religions to do so. However, it is not entirely a phenomenon of our times, and similar conceits have been expressed far more eloquently in prose in the past - most famously, perhaps, in Sullivan Ballou's genuinely moving letter to his wife Sarah, and written not long before his death at the American Civil War battle of First Bull Run:

But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the gladdest days and in the darkest nights . . . always, always, and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath, as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by. Sarah do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again . . .

The poem under discussion seems to me to be in the nature of the sort of quasi-religious vision often seen in sci-fi or fantasy movies, where lost souls are in some kind of limbo beneath headstones until the burial site is visited by a descendant and they are thereby 'released' to - apparently simultaneously - go 'home', roam, and lurk around living descendants. The immediate families of the Great War dead of the BEF (ethnic contingents apart) were far more likely to have cleaved to the Christian theology which aspired to provide a decent burial and accorded respect to the mortal remains of the dead, and to their final resting place, but which held that the essence of what survived of the deceased had long since fled those bones and the tomb in which they were interred. But when all is said and done, when it comes to judging individual approaches to dealing with death and its aftermath for those who mourn, perhaps it's best to paraphrase John Lennon:

Whatever gets you through the night

It's alright, alright

Whatever gets you to the light

It's alright, alright

George

[Aurel Sercu]

I am with Ian on this, I find the poem far from moving. I in fact have no idea what the poet is trying to convey. As Ian says it bears no resemblance to any theology that I understand.

Hi Keith and Ian,

Of course, it is all a simple matter of taste, and "heart and brain", as Peter wrote.

But I couldn't help being puzzled by "it bears no resemblance to any theology that I understand." I agree, but does it have to ?

Aurel (very unspiritual )

[IanA]

As for the technicalities; it's a little jarring in places but a bit of an edit would sort that out. However, are the technicalities really so important? Poetry can be a deeply personal art-form, for the both the poet and the reader, and if just one reader gets satisfaction from any poem then that poem "works". And with this particular piece we have clear evidence that more than one reader has taken pleasure from it - which means, of course, that it's "done its job" admirably.

I have this uneasy feeling that if I were to begin discussing the technicalities of poetry with your good self, I would soon be out of my depth. But here goes nuffin... The writer of the piece in question has chosen a very simple form, which can in itself be robust and direct, but I would submit that for such a form to be effective it must be 'tight'. Imagine reading heroic couplets and coming across a line with eleven syllables in it - it wouldn't be wrong, it would be ludicrous. Poetry is, to my mind, a concentrated art form where every word is weighed carefully and judged - 'a bit of an edit' should never be needed and, if the poet is worth his salt, deeply resented.

As for personal satisfaction and people taking pleasure from it - I agree with you but shall continue to peer disapprovingly through my lorgnette from my ivory tower.

[kevmc]

Isn't this topic a reflection of the modern way of things?

A thread is started which expresses a strong emotion to someone's written word.

Before you know it the "destroyers" move in.

Kevin

[squirrel]

Depends on how you approach it. Whether as a piece to raise feelings and emotions or as an acedemic piece.

Only the very best poets achieve both and there are few of those about.

Seems to have stirred the interest of both sides of the argument.

[salesie]

I have this uneasy feeling that if I were to begin discussing the technicalities of poetry with your good self, I would soon be out of my depth. But here goes nuffin... The writer of the piece in question has chosen a very simple form, which can in itself be robust and direct, but I would submit that for such a form to be effective it must be 'tight'. Imagine reading heroic couplets and coming across a line with eleven syllables in it - it wouldn't be wrong, it would be ludicrous. Poetry is, to my mind, a concentrated art form where every word is weighed carefully and judged - 'a bit of an edit' should never be needed and, if the poet is worth his salt, deeply resented.

As for personal satisfaction and people taking pleasure from it - I agree with you but shall continue to peer disapprovingly through my lorgnette from my ivory tower.

Methinks you may give my technical knowledge of poetry far too much respect, Ian; mainly because I know very little about said technicalities, and don't consider such things when either writing or reading it - all of which reflects my attitude of not caring one jot about the technical purity of any poetic piece.

What I do care about, though, is the effect any poem has on its "audience". It seems to me that by over-focusing on the technicalities we are in danger of placing a straitjacket on our own imagination and emotions. Do we read poetry to admire the wordsmith's ability to stick closely to the "rules and regulations" of convention, or read it to be touched by emotion and perhaps learn something about ourselves and the life we live?

The purists would say that technical perfection increases the emotional impact, that it deepens the "reader's" experience - but I say, not for me it doesn't; I say that I've read quite a few so-called "technically perfect classics" and very few of them actually "struck a chord" within me. The same is true for non-technically perfect poetry, of course; very few of those "struck a chord" within me either - but the point is that whether technically perfect or not, the effect on me has been the same.

To make this point, I would use as an example the following, well known, fourth stanza from "For The Fallen":

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

The other five stanzas are wholly forgettable in that they're pretty standard stuff for their day (September 1914), and have been forgotten and left behind in history's rubbish-bin. Even the poet, Lawrence Binyon, couldn't have reckoned much to For The Fallen; when first published in 1914 it was on page 28, with ten of his other, "forgotten", poems "promoted" above it - yet the four lines of the fourth stanza have achieved immortality because they struck (and still strike) a chord with a whole nation.

Binyon was as established poet at the time, who was undoubtedly an experienced wordsmith with a high level of technical skill, but the rest of his works (including the other five stanzas) are all but forgotten. Do we imagine that technical-perfection propelled Binyon's fourth stanza into an everlasting place in a whole nation's psyche - or was it something else, something that no amount of technical skill can possibly produce on its own; something that is wholly abstract and, thus, completely indefinable, something that lies within a poem's "audience"?

Technical perfection is one thing, striking a chord is quite another . As I said earlier, the poem which started this thread does nothing for me personally, but it does seem to have “touched” plenty of others and I should imagine they don’t care a jot about its lack of technical ability either.

Cheers-salesie.

[IanA]

Salesie - I broadly agree with what you say but 'technique' must have a bearing on poetry. The writer's clumsy handling of such a basic thing as 'do the lines scan?' means that (certainly for me - other folk seem not to be so afflicted) I am abruptly distracted from what the poet is attempting to convey. If the construction of a poem is of little importance to the writer, why does he not write more comfortably in prose? He can be just as sentimental or emotional there without the constraint which adopting such a form imposes. I do not believe that I am 'over-focusing' on the technicalities - I am being kicked in the teeth by them. (Sensitive soul that I am )

Your reference to Binyon is a bit of a red herring - his 'memorable' verse is neither more nor less technically perfect than the rest and it is clearly something other than technique that makes it stand out for most of us. A more fitting comparison, I think, would be 'Woodbine Willie' who also chose rough and ready schemes for his rhymes. How about the first couple of verses from his 'What's the Good?' -

Well, I've done my bit o' scrappin',

And I've done in quite a lot;

Nicked 'em neatly wiv my bayonet,

So I needn't waste a shot.

'Twas my duty, and I done it,

But I 'opes the doctor's quick,

For I wish I 'adn't done it,

Gawd! it turns me shamed and sick.

There's a young 'un like our Richard,

And I bashed 'is 'ead in two,

And there's that ole grey 'aired geezer

Which I stuck 'is belly through.

Gawd, you women, wives and mothers,

It's sich waste of all your pain,

If you knowed what I'd been doin',

Could yer kiss me still, my Jane?

A 'tum-te-tum' sort of scheme, (and slumming it a bit for a classical scholar) but the 'technique' is not the first thing I think about when I hear this. Technique in poetry ought to be like the workings of the internal combustion engine - I don't want to know about big ends and sumps - I just want the car to go when I turn the key. For me, Mr Edwards' tappets are showing...

[salesie]

I see you prefer the rhythm method, Ian.

Seriously though, I understand the point you're making but, surely, what you're talking about is personal taste not technical ability per se? The piece you posted from Woodbine Willy is, on the face it, pretty damn good - but when we get into it, and give it more thought than just the rattling off of a good little ditty, it becomes pretty superficial in my opinion i.e.:

1) It's a classic scholar's attempt to impersonate a common soldier, and from a technical point of view it lacks consistency. For example, take the line Nicked 'em neatly wiv my bayonet - to truly represent the real "speaking-voice" of a common soldier shouldn't that be Nicked 'em neatly wiv mi baynit? Such a change wouldn't alter the rhythm, but would make for a much better technical impersonation of the common soldier.

2) These two stanzas are rattled off so quickly, I'm left with a feeling that this particular soldier doesn't really care about them 'e nicked wiv 'is baynit, that he's only saying it because he thinks it's what the listener wants to here. The shallowness, and thus lack of true emotion, in this soldier's voice is what many of the so-called educated classes would believe is about the limit that a lowly private soldier's intellect could muster i.e. he's hardy and a good hearty soul really, he knows he's doing a dirty job but, bless him, he doesn't understand enough to get truly emotional about it. Is this a classic scholar, who became a chaplain at the front, repeating what the men he met there thought they should be saying to him? Or is he simply reinforcing a stereotype? Or a bit of both?

3) These two stanzas, in my opinion, simply highlight what I see as a problem with more famous WW1 poetry - it is mostly the voice of middle-class officers (with the odd middle-class ranker thrown in), and when they tried, sometimes, to represent the true-voice of the common soldier they failed.

I could go on with other points but won't - and I'll finish off by saying, the piece you highlight is a cracking little ditty for sure, it has a well-tuned rhythm making it easy to like, but it is technically flawed in that it lacks consistency, and its message is as shallow as the sump in an engine with a dry-sump oil system.

Cheers-salesie.

[Tim Wright]

As a layman who has no involvement with, experience of or experteese in poetry, i have a couple of questions to pose in this fascinating debate.

Why are my views of this work not as relevant as anyone elses, i say verse and others say stanza?

Should we not support the opening up of this niche area (poetry) to the layman?

Is one mans moving not another mans clunky?

It saddens me that something like this whilst a healthy debate is taking on elitist undertones.

I am not a poet, never will be, this piece moved me despite all of its apparent imperfections, is that so wrong?

Tim.

[salesie]

As a layman who has no involvement with, experience of or experteese in poetry, i have a couple of questions to pose in this fascinating debate.

Why are my views of this work not as relevant as anyone elses, i say verse and others say stanza?

Should we not support the opening up of this niche area (poetry) to the layman?

Is one mans moving not another mans clunky?

It saddens me that something like this whilst a healthy debate is taking on elitist undertones.

I am not a poet, never will be, this piece moved me despite all of its apparent imperfections, is that so wrong?

Tim.

I'm actually on your side, Tim - my whole stance is based on a non-elitist approach to poetry. My earlier point about gross sentimentality stemming from notions of passive suffering was not criticism of the poem per se, it was about my own personal tastes. And, as I also said earlier, if any poem "touches" just one person then in my opinion it works as a poem, and the evidence says that the poem in question has "touched" many more than one - so it has "done its job" admirably.

In other words, just because a poem doesn't strike a chord within me personally I will not directly criticise it, or those who like it if it "speaks" to them.

As for, "Is one man's moving not another man's clunky?" Perhaps this piece, that I penned a few years ago, will help explain my own thoughts on this:

Vive La Difference!

Where comes my need to alter wrong,

If all would sing the same old song?

A fool’s ideal to have us cloned,

All alike, manners honed.

Where comes my spur to pass the test,

If no conflict how do we progress?

Made the same our stride stands still,

For that destroys freedom of will.

Where comes my will to stand and fight,

Opposing those who know only might?

No moans from me about human strife,

All in all it’s a part of life.

So when shaping words into sense,

Remember without La Difference,

Every chapter becomes the same

And every story just as lame.

Where comes my desire to think and be,

If all who live are just like me?

© John Sales 2003.

Cheers-salesie.

[Tim Wright]

Salesie.

Thankyou for your considered response.

Please do not think that i was directing my post at you, i merely used the clunky reference to make a point.

I noted your earlier responses and fully accept that you are on my side.

Tim

[IanA]

Ha! I was just about to reply to Salesie and express my guilt for having slightly hi-jacked this thread but, then again, this is a discussion forum and threads have a habit of going off on a tangent. This is not a dialogue between myself and Salesie - and I certainly do not mean to be elitist, I am a professional classical musician, not a poet or English lecturer, maybe that's why the rhythmic aspect of a poem is so important to me. And no-one has, to my knowledge, said that your views are not as relevant as anyone else's - as I said, this is a discussion board and you should feel free to jump in and defend your views and, if you are moved by this piece, I can't see anything wrong in that.

To answer Salsie's points: first, yes, almost inevitably, the accent is dodgy. I know a book, famous in its day, called 'Her Benny' it is set in slum Victorian Liverpool and it surprised me, on reading it, to find that all the kids in Liverpool spoke broad Cockney. Personally, I can live with Studdert Kennedy's (only slightly) odd accent.

Second point: I think it should be rattled off fairly quickly and straightforwardly - it is, after all, a forerunner of 'rap' (gawd 'elp us). I'm not sure about shallowness - I think this is a thinly disguised sermon. Don't forget, you have only a small portion of the whole poem.

Third point: Agreed. But I don't think he failed every time and I'm not sure he fails in this one.

Tim's point of opening up poetry to the layman is pretty much what Salesie and I (without being in any way dogmatic) are doing. Folks reading the poem at the top of this thread or Wilfred Owen or Isaac Rosenberg may never consider rhythm or rhyme form and their vital importance to the subject of poetry in general. Obviously, a deeper satisfaction (not necessarily emotional satisfaction) can be got from a poem if at least some technical questions are understood. Salesie implies that this is not so but I'm not sure he believes it.

[IanA]

Salesie.

Thankyou for your considered response.

Please do not think that i was directing my post at you, i merely used the clunky reference to make a point.

I noted your earlier responses and fully accept that you are on my side.

Tim

What a lot of posts can pop up when you are writing a reply.

Tim, we're all on 'your side'. Do you want to talk about your persecution complex?

[Tim Wright]

Hi Ian.

No complex here, a layman entering the culture section can have no complexes, i love the debate, knowledge, experience and varying views on the forum.

Long may it last.

Tim.

[salesie]

Tim's point of opening up poetry to the layman is pretty much what Salesie and I (without being in any way dogmatic) are doing. Folks reading the poem at the top of this thread or Wilfred Owen or Isaac Rosenberg may never consider rhythm or rhyme form and their vital importance to the subject of poetry in general. Obviously, a deeper satisfaction (not necessarily emotional satisfaction) can be got from a poem if at least some technical questions are understood. Salesie implies that this is not so but I'm not sure he believes it.

I think we only disagree by degree, Ian - you see rhythm as being more important than message, I see it the other way round. And you're only partially right when you say that I don't fully believe that better technical knowledge is not needed for greater enjoyment - only partially right because I say that it's not necessary but I don't discount it completely, and in my opinion the proof of this lies in some of the posts in this thread i.e. evidence to show that very little knowledge of the technical aspects doesn't prevent people from being "touched" by poetry.

And, you say that you can live with Woodbine Willy's dodgy use of language because his rhythm appeals to you. Whereas Tim, and others, say they can live with Michael Edwards' dodgy rhythm because they like his message. Just two sides of a double-headed coin, methinks?

Cheers-salesie.

[IanA]

I think we only disagree by degree, Ian - you see rhythm as being more important than message, I see it the other way round. And you're only partially right when you say that I don't fully believe that better technical knowledge is not needed for greater enjoyment - only partially right because I say that it's not necessary but I don't discount it completely, and in my opinion the proof of this lies in some of the posts in this thread i.e. evidence to show that very little knowledge of the technical aspects doesn't prevent people from being "touched" by poetry.

And, you say that you can live with Woodbine Willy's dodgy use of language because his rhythm appeals to you. Whereas Tim, and others, say they can live with Michael Edwards' dodgy rhythm because they like his message. Just two sides of a double-headed coin, methinks?

I don't think I ever stated that rhythm is more important than message - the message is obviously paramount but an inspired choice of rhyme scheme and metre can enhance that message. The reverse must also be true - a poor handling of language, rhyme, rhythm, can impair or disrupt that very important message. The poem under discussion is a case in point - I think you and I are agreed that we don't think much of the 'message' here but, when reading it, the rhythm jarred painfully and would perhaps predispose me to view any content poorly.

Incidentally, I like your poem - but (and you just knew there'd be a but, didn't you?) who, in their right mind pronounces 'La Difference' with a Yorkshire accent?

[George Armstrong Custer]

who, in their right mind pronounces 'La Difference' with a Yorkshire accent?

Only a Tyke like Salesie!

George

[salesie]

...who, in their right mind pronounces 'La Difference' with a Yorkshire accent?

Never heard of poetic licence, Lad?

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

Only a Tyke like Salesie!

George

Do I detect a pincer movement developing from bleak Northern latitudes?

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Ee give owa, thee daft 'aporth, thou's gettin' paranoid. Any more of that and I may replace the avatar of Ms Brooks!

George

[salesie]

Ee give owa, thee daft 'aporth, thou's gettin' paranoid. Any more of that and I may replace the avatar of Ms Brooks!

George

What lowly, unscrupulous device is this? You use Ms Brooks against me? OK, you win - paranoia gone - I'll just have to accept the fact that everyone's out to get me not just you two!

Cheers-salesie (looking over both shoulders now).

[john jerome mcmanus]

Until now I have not crossed this poem since I first read Patrick Lindsay's "Fromelles" (p 279 in the original edition).

At the time I found it very moving and very pertinent to the unknown resting place of the Australian and British of the aforesaid Battle.

Whether written by a "poet" or layman its expression of being 'found', struck a great chord in my heart and I found it very pertinent to the recovery of the Lost of that fateful action.

If I had been able to attend the ceremony that bestowed Lambis Englezos with one of Australia's honours I would have liked to recite it (if I could have kept a dry eye) because it echoed exactly the sentiment that his endeavours achieved.

Regards

Pop

(Sean McManus)

[George Armstrong Custer]

Whilst appreciating that others are moved by the content of this poem, I have to say that the content is the major thing which doesn't work for me. For me it is founded on the ludicrous idea that those buried under a CWGC headstone are apparently trapped there in a sentient state until set free by a visiting family member. And if that doesn't happen the implication is that they are left in some kind of entombed limbo for perpetuity. It seems to me to be a poem for those who have no religion but have a desperate need to believe death isn't the end - but it is a very strange vision of an afterlife, trapped in a grave listening for familial voices before being 'released' - to what? Far more moving and easier to identify with would have been a poem on a similar theme, but which depicted the thoughts of the first family member to visit such a grave after decades, and their reflections upon the significance of that.

George

[squirrel]

Far more moving and easier to identify with would have been a poem on a similar theme, but which depicted the thoughts of the first family member to visit such a grave after decades, and their reflections upon the significance of that.

George

I have tried that after visiting an uncle's grave for the first time George, but even after seven years I still can't find the right words.

[Steven Broomfield]

Personally, I don't like it.

However, it obviously "works" for a lot of people. As "art" it doesn't work, but to express an emotion that many can tap into, it seems to push the right buttons for many people, so on that score it seems to work.

I really don't think it's the most moving poem ever written - Gray's Elegy ticks that box for me - I'm not even sure it would be in my top dozen.

However, if it does what it sets out to do, then I guess the writer achieved what he intended.