I love the simple balance of nature
That lives without kings or democracies
– Only divine instinct, rivers and trees.
I love all, watch long and long, leaves and fur.
The scent of sweet frankincense and of myrrh,
Of rain, of forest, and of every flower;
All this I love, and every gleaming hour
As no other hour could ever occur.
The Hand that has so shaped and formed all things
And works the bellows that breathe in the soul,
This Hand that holds within my life and death,
Was no clumsy hand. Who, after all, brings
Art to life, but a master pure and whole?
So I love all He works with every breath.
Court of Lions
Where poetry is roared like the sceptre of a king.
Rafael
Kaosar (Raatkiranii)
Abdur Rahman
tielansari
danielabdalhayymoore
Seth
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 29, 2009 at 9:31 pm
michi
Another excellent piece. The sentiment is well explained and the reader has a chance to share your appreciation. But, while I deeply enjoy your descriptions, I grew confused with your metering. Perhaps this is because our accents differ?
October 29, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Rafael
If you can point out a specific issue, I can perhaps address it.
October 29, 2009 at 11:11 pm
michi
Because you asked I shall attempt to explain this, but I want to stress that I don’t feel this is a bad poem, even though I will point out what I see as room for improvement.
“Only divine instinct” in line three, for example. In the first two lines, you set up an almost iambic metering, but then the mouth trips over these three words. “onlydiVIIIINE IIIINstinct”. Ok, fair enough.
But then “rivers and trees” has its own little flow to it, just talking sounds. But when you pair the sound-meter of these with the meaning, to me it feels that “divine instinct” is one unit, “rivers and trees” another. Looking at the words perhaps you intended “divine” to describe all three?
Perhaps you could bear with substituting “sacred” for “divine”? Then “instinct, rivers and trees” can all flow together.
Hahaha, not sure that made any sense, sorry!
Ok hahaha I’m not really good at explaining this, and I’m not that fantastic at it myself. I just want to see this poem go from good to excellent! Here is an example of something where I made use of metering to assist the flow:http://bluetreebranches.blogspot.com/2009/10/riparian-glory-for-friend.html
October 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Rafael
I had this beautiful analysis that I was about to post as a comment, but then my new three-month-old kitten decided to attack my keyboard. Which is kind of the point I wanted to make by emphasizing “divine instinct” as the governing force of nature, a force of divine command and fiat, direct and contrasting (seemingly) with the world of human institution. Yes, the first two lines do have an iambic swing, but the third line I have my doubts concerning whether “divine instinct” carries the emphasis because it is metrically so, or whether I’m just imagining that it does because of the assonance of those strong i’s. Either way, I feel it serves a purpose (trochee or not), and substituting “sacred” doesn’t carry the same connotation for me, nor makes the poem that much more interesting. If this entire poem was strictly, unflinchingly iambic, it would probably not only bore me to tears, but I would also likely consider it a humiliating failure lacking creative vision. Maybe I’m wrong, I’ll have to hear from Seth about it, my main critic-cum-metricist.
October 30, 2009 at 8:37 pm
michi
Kitten! Hahaha
I think if I heard you said it aloud all of my petty comments would be immediately rendered foolish. I’m sure it’s just the way I say these things in my head, you know? Best of luck!
October 30, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Rafael
Another thing as well, since I mentioned something about contrast (this is something I picked up from reading Fussell’s _Poetic Metre & Poetic Form_ based on Seth’s recommendation and since reading it I’ve been encouraging others to do so well). This is to point out that the nature of having rhymes (especially conjoined in a couplet) makes for a particularly savoury opportunity for wit when those rhymes can be drawn from two very contrasting things: democracies/trees being a hopeful attempt at such; death/breath another. Fussell also makes the point that in a poem of exacting quality, all of the end rhymes would be significant to the poem, almost like a short-hand summary of it: Nature/Democracies/Trees/Fur/Myrrh/Flower/Hour/Occur/Things/Soul/Death/Brings/Whole/Breath.
October 30, 2009 at 8:54 pm
michi
Oh neat, a summary indeed.
Well it would be silly to waste a rhyme on the inconsequential, so that makes sense. Does Fussell recommend crafting the poem around your chosen paired words? Is that what you did here? This piques my interest as I stopped writing rhyming poems some 10 years ago, as they always sounded shallow compared to the depth and flow I could express from freeverse. Perhaps this technique is the solution.
October 30, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Rafael
Fussell’s book as he states himself is not intended as a guide for how to write poetry (he himself states that it is absurd to think that every poet crafts his every poetic brilliance conscientiously as opposed instinctually). His book is to teach people to appreciate the value of measured poetry (he also takes much time to explain the limitations of “free verse”). Find a copy and read it.