RoR: Forum

I put this up to show some insight to how John worked in crafting his poems, as well as adding to the Desiderata controversy of changing another's work...
(Edited by robert malcom on 1/13, 5:12pm)

Post 1

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 7:41am

Thanks, Rev'.

It's the kind of guidance I was looking for.

Ed

Post 2

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 9:07pm

Robert,
I've been reading and re-reading this since you put it up. There are really good phrases in the re-do, but on the whole, it falls very short of the original, in my opinion.
Most of all, the original introduces and situates the "craven" soldier succinctly, and contrasts their spirits without contrivance.
I don't dislike the phrases Sherman objected to in the final line, I don't find them overstated. It is a moralistic poem, to be sure, a sort of Aesop's fable, but with what economy has he told the story!
I am not really a contrarian, you know.

Post 3

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 11:29pm

Thank you, Robert.

My writing improves each year, but no measure of time nor even a broken sword at my neck, could squeeze good poetry from this wretch.

I liked them both. Sherman points out that reading Sill first leaves a positive emotional residue that he is benefactor to... but reading Sill first also clouds Sherman's thunder. I don't know how I would feel if I'd read them in the opposite order (and then there's the matter of having less skill at appraising poetry than nearly anything else).

I loved the differing perspective of the sword as the mechanism for contrasting cowardly behavior from courage. To a carpenter with a hammer everything looks like a nail, and a coward can see reasons to flee in everything but the reasons to fight, and those he'll not look at. I don't know which version does that contrast the best for me.

Post 4

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 10:27am

Steve, you sell yourself short as a critic of poetry!
I agree about having read them in reverse order. Let's find somebody to do that.

Post 5

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 9:01am