Ode to a Dead Squirrel and the Nature of Man (Edit1) - Page 2


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Ode to a Dead Squirrel and the Nature of Man (Edit1)

  1. #11
    I love this, and the new changes suit the poem perfectly, but the new ending feels a bit rushed. Excellent imagery, by the way.
    You know when you think about writing a book, you think it is overwhelming. But, actually, you break it down into tiny little tasks any moron could do. - Annie Dillard Hidden Content

  2. #12
    Member AncientCWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia - US
    Posts
    38
    Blog Entries
    5
    I usually am not a fan of rhyming poems, as strange as that may sound. However, I absolutely adore this! It hits me like this: Wow. That's just a day... rather, a walk. A normal everyday walk. So simplistic and something that probably happens quite often. Made absolutely, 100% beautiful. Thank you.

    ~Stay Ahead of the Beasts!~
    ((Please stop by and enjoy some of my work at:
    Hidden Content

  3. #13
    Member AncientCWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia - US
    Posts
    38
    Blog Entries
    5
    In this my loves, I find no fault,
    Because even beasts know no assault.

    Just an idea, I saw you had a few alternatives there, like you were trying to find what you wanted. I think this leaves the word man out, so it's not as obvious, but near any reader will catch the meaning. Even beasts, lowlier than any of mankind, don't harbor such evil.

    ~Stay Ahead of the Beasts!~
    ((Please stop by and enjoy some of my work at:
    Hidden Content

  4. #14
    Banned Martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In the fire
    Posts
    405
    In this my loves, I find no fault,
    seems only Man seeks to assault.

    alternate:
    as your intent was not assault.


    I still find some problems with the above. Firstly, isn't the point that the narrator actually finds fault in the dogs' behaviour? Secondly, surely not all of Man would stop to consider the act as something bad. Then finally, how can we really know the dogs' intent?

    What separates the narrator from the animal world in this your poem, is her codes of ethics, her perceptions of right and wrong. I think the ending should relate more to just her instead of all of Man. Then the best thing about the ending, is that she awakens from her own judgement, she contemplates and forgives her dogs. That surely is a very human thing to do and it actually puts those ethics back in the game as dominating over the instinctive! So this judgement in the end is really out of place for me...

    I do like the edit more, the longer stanzas are better I think, just those final one or two lines bug me, other than that it's a really nice poem. I hope you see what I'm getting at...

  5. #15
    Patron Foxee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hammock strung from two stars.
    Posts
    7,725
    Blog Entries
    3
    The point that man will assault maliciously as opposed to the dogs instinctive (even innocent) reasons for attack, is near the center of the idea of the poem, though.
    Hidden Content in the Daily Dose of Dialogue

    The good and bad of publishing: Hidden Content

  6. #16
    I like the changes! I think Martin's new points are valid, but maybe too "deep" for this poem. I don't think the speaker finds any problem with the dog's behavior, and that is so of the point. It is okay for the dogs to kill a squirrel without purpose because it is their nature, but Man (usually) believes killing in this manner is wrong. I Martin's suggestion to maybe focus on the speaker's ethics rather than "Man" as a whole because that does lead to generalizations. Some people are murderers and have no problem with killing. Plus, more personalization usually makes for a better poem.

    There was one thing I noticed this time that I didn't before. You say "their gifts"...the squirrel was ripped in two. I don't know how I missed it before because you reinforce it with "I fear this babe's been torn asunder", but now that I notice it I like how it adds to the duality of the poem. The speaker wrestles with the idea of good/bad actions, good/bad intent, and here are two dogs with two pieces of squirrel.
    "I am certain that there are two things in life which are dependable: the delights of the flesh and the delights of literature. I have had the good fortune to enjoy them both equally." -Nagiko, The Pillow Book

  7. #17
    Banned Martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In the fire
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxee View Post
    The point that man will assault maliciously as opposed to the dogs instinctive (even innocent) reasons for attack, is near the center of the idea of the poem, though.
    That idea is what for me is tacked on in the end. For can we really make such a distinction? Compare say a fox to North American Indians - the fox will kill off all the hens and take one or two to eat. The Indians will kill only to the extent of what they need. Who is most malicious then, the instinctive fox or the thoughtful Indians?

    For me the last line seeks to show that humans can be evil intentionally, but to differentiate humans from animals in that regard, is quite a hard argument to pull off. Scientifically and philosophically I'd say it wouldn't hold up, but spiritually it might. Though when I read the poem, I'm more reminded of humans ability to feel compassion rather than being malicious, why I think the ending is trying too hard to assert such a point.

  8. #18
    Patron Foxee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hammock strung from two stars.
    Posts
    7,725
    Blog Entries
    3
    Actually, no, it's pretty much accepted that animals lack the ability to reason that humans have. I think, though, that we've both made our points here and Gumby can decide from there.
    Hidden Content in the Daily Dose of Dialogue

    The good and bad of publishing: Hidden Content

  9. #19
    Banned Martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In the fire
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxee View Post
    Actually, no, it's pretty much accepted that animals lack the ability to reason that humans have. I think, though, that we've both made our points here and Gumby can decide from there.
    But that was not my point. My point was if that distinction between reasoning and instinct ultimately makes someone more evil, malicious or intending to assault...

  10. #20
    Patron Foxee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hammock strung from two stars.
    Posts
    7,725
    Blog Entries
    3
    And that would be a terrific thing for the debate thread, would it not? The input into the poem here has been more than adequate for Gumby to decide what direction to take.
    Hidden Content in the Daily Dose of Dialogue

    The good and bad of publishing: Hidden Content

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.