Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceIdeas of March
[sung to a Sousa beat]
===Text restored===
Ideas of March
[sung to a Sousa beat]
Shuffling off to Babylon to be born
again, in knife-sharp lines of infantry,
they march past tanks and massed artillery,
machinery themselves -- No pause to mourn
the dead, to feel the baking heat or the dust
that cakes itself in every liquid pore
and blinds the eyes -- Just marching onward -- Just
the thought of vengeance to be theirs once more --
Eyes forward, not to note the weeping mother
by the burned hut, or spy the ragged children
that gather in gangs, whispering to one another,
"They killed my father; one day I will kill them" --
Forward they march, to serve their country well,
to die again, and be reborn in Hell.
===
Ooh, goody! A spanking... I mean, a poetry discussion!
Shuffling off to Babylon to be born
Shuffling to a march tempo? Nothing like having the image and the meter correspond.
No, no; you're supposed to sing the thing in a march tempo. I even have the tune, which thankfully, given my voice, I can't sing onto an mp3). These guys are marching, in the sense they're still walking in rhythm, but they're "shuffling".
shuffle
verb
1) Walk by dragging one's feet along or without lifting them fully from the ground.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/shuffle
You have a funny idea of what constitutes marching.
Well, I've actually never marched for 330 miles (the distance from Basra to Baghdad). Have you?
But I'd expect the troops at the end of a 330-mile forced march to be dragging their feet.
You seem to have left the "Basra" starting point out of your poem, Dunce.
But even if the troops in question were shuffling along on a 330-mile march, dragging their feet to a Sousa marching tune, they wouldn't simultaneously be it in "knife-sharp lines."
It's time to stop arguing and face facts:
Your army is either marching in well-regimented lines with knife-like precision, or they are shuffling along and dragging their feet. Having them do both makes your poem read like self-contradictory nonsense.
If you wish to improve your poem, swallow your misplaced sense of pride, select on image, and stick with it.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceThe resemblance to "Shuffle Off to Buffalo" is too noticeable to have been accidental.
It wasn't accidental; but it's trivial, in that it has nothing to do with the song.
So the resemblance to the song "wasn't accidental" but "it has nothing to do with the song"?
Correct. The line is not accidentally in the poem, but the subject and theme of the poem have nothing to do with those of the song.
Post by Michael PendragonThat's Dunce logic for you!
Again, this is the time for you to make another call: you can either have what appears to be an unrelated song reference in your poem, or you can change a word or two so that the line no longer evokes the song. Since you claim there is no connection between your poem and the song, the choice should be obvious.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceWhy marching off to war should be compared to beginning a theater company's beginning a road tour after having folded on Broadway (my understanding of the phrase's origin), is anybody's guess.
I actually got the phrase from the song, which isn't about that at all, but no matter; The line came into my head decades ago, on rereading Yeats's line about "slouching towards Bethlehem" - just a memorable phrase in search of a poem.
Whether the song is about that or not is arguable.
No, it isn't, dumbass. The song is about honeymooning in Niagara Falls.
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/c/craftg/histhrs%20169/shuffle%20off%20to%20buffalo.pdf
As noted below (you really need to read through a post prior to responding), the honeymooning couple are Broadway performers. It's a witty passage in the song. After Niagara Falls (a symbolic counterpart to the Broadway show) the couple will "shuffle off to Buffalo, " taking their show (marriage) on the road (of life).
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonWhat the explanations proffered on the internet fail to take into account is that the film it appeared in, "42nd Street," is about... Broadway.
The songwriters incorporated a Broadway phrase into their song -- which was sung by Broadway performers who would have spoken in Broadway-oriented phrases.
As to your "memorable phrase," it's still in search of a poem.
Wrong again. It's been in a poem for over a decade.
I am not denying that your piece of antiwar doggerel is a poem. It is. It's not a very good poem, but it's a poem nonetheless.
I am saying that it needs to find a poem that it actually has some relevance to.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonIt certainly doesn't fit in an antiwar piece.
Thanks for your opinion, but I think it fits just fine.
For this reader, it conjures up the image of soldiers, with top hat in one hand and walking stick in the other, doing a song and dance number. Since this is obvious not the sort of image you want your to create, it is only to your benefit to remove the intentionally-unrelated reference.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. Danceagain, in knife-sharp lines of infantry,
Wouldn't being "born again in Babylon" constitute a conversion to Islam? Or are you claiming that our soldiers morph into religious zealots because you believe the War on Terrorism derives from religious motivations on the U.S.'s part?
Or the "machines" of religious zealots. You can't deny that religious zealotry is a big factor in the various U.S./Islam conflicts, including the Iraqi invasion.
You're nuts.
You're trolling (again).
No, George. Americans are not warlike, vindictive people (to my unending chagrin). The majority of us are mealy-mouthed liberals who (like several NY newspaper articles at the time) used the terrorist attack to ask themselves "Why do they hate us?" and "What can we do to appease them?"
Americans all want world peace, an end to hunger and disease, and shiny happy people (of all races and religions) holding hands. But we also want to protect our homes and families, and if that means going to war against terror-supporting regimes, so be it.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonI was in New York City on the morning September 11, 2001. Had you lived through that experience, you'd know damned well that nobody gives a flying f__k about Islamic religious beliefs.
And if you'd been in Baghdad for the preceding 8 years, and lived through that, you'd know damned well that "nobody" over there gives a flying fuck about American beliefs.
Except that they do. They call us "The Great Satan" and blame us for the "Cancer that is Israel"s not having been eradicated by them in the Six-Day War.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceI suppose "knife-sharp lines" could apply to soldiers marching in parade formation -- although the I see the overall shape as being rectangular.
Well, I've got these guys marching up to and into Baghdad, in narrower columns - by 2's or 3's. That's probably counter-factual - most likely they were driven up in trucks - but having them march makes for a more dramatic poem. "Driving up to Babylon" just didn't work.
Narrow columns aren't used in precision marching displays. That's the formation a platoon takes when simply moving from one post to another...
You neglected to mention the distance in your poem as well.
And, again, if it's a 300-mile march, the "knife-like" precision of the marchers sounds ridiculous.
I'm not trying to bust your balls here -- any literate person reading your poem is going to be struck by that discrepancy.
Post by George J. Dancehttps://www.alamy.com/the-us-marine-corps-silent-drill-platoon-performs-precision-marching-and-rifle-drill-movements-during-a-salute-to-service-halftime-show-at-a-carolina-panthers-vs-miami-dolphins-game-at-the-bank-of-america-stadium-charlotte-nc-nov-13-2017-throughout-the-year-sdp-performs-at-numerous-large-scale-events-across-the-country-and-abroad-official-marine-corps-photo-by-cpl-damon-mcleanreleased-image183949483.html
Unfortunately, that's precisely what your "knife-sharp lines" imply.
Post by George J. Danceand for which "knife-sharp lines" would hardly apply. It's more of a trudge than a march.
Post by Michael PendragonPost by George J. Dancethey march past tanks and massed artillery,
Nothing like shooting for the obvious.
It's wasn't 'obvious' to me whether the soldiers were marching in solitude, or in the middle of, as part of, a war machine. That's one reason for mentioning the tanks and artillery. The other is put the reader in the right frame of mind for the next line.
An invading army in a modern day war is going to pass tanks and artillery at some point in their march.
Why do you think I put them in? "Infantry" alone doesn't tell you it's an "invading army in a modern day war" - adding "tanks" and "artillery" helps supply that information.
Soldiers marching through Babylon to a Sousa tune are probably *not* going to be of the Iraqi variety.
In any case, this is one of your poem's lesser evils. My point is that instead of simply noted that they see "tanks" and "artillery," you might (just might) describe these in interesting, novel, or even metaphoric terms.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceInteresting words I haven't used in my (kept) poetry, and a rather clever near-rhyme (-REE).
That was the other reason, of course.
I don't even know what "(-REE)" rhyme you're referring to. The near-rhyme in question is that of "baking"/"cakes" (How-ja do? How-ja do? How-ja do?).
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. Dancemachinery themselves -- No pause to mourn
Soldiers seen as a "lean green fighting machine"... who'dda thunk?
It isn't an original observation that soldiers are taught to act like machines, rather than thinking human beings - nor did (do) I claim it is. It's in there because it says something true and important about these soldiers in the poem.
Yes, and that's the problem. Your poem has nothing to say apart from repeating a couple of peacenik tropes
You're only up to line 4, remember? But go ahead: where are these "peacenik tropes"?
I cite lines 9-14.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael Pendragonthat it would be mercifully politge to refer to as clichés.
Mentioning weapons in a war poem is worse than "clichés"? I seem to remember your poem about the feasting horse having cannon in it. Have you taken your own advice and cut those out?
Once again, you are playing the dunce in order to evade the issue.
My statement that "Your poem has nothing to say..." refers to your *entire poem,* not just to lines 1-4.
If your only message is that war engenders war, violence begets violence, vengeance begets vengeance, etc., you are simply repeating clichéd peacenik tropes.
"Holy War," for example, attacks the lack of logic in the Islamist position that they are waging a "holy" war -- and destroys the concept of the jihadist as a heroic warrior by pointing out the inherent cowardice of his acts. You may take offense at its angry, war hawk stance, but you're supposed to (it's meant as a wake-up slap in the fact to bleeding heart pissabeds like yourself), but its message is clear, consistent, and wholly original:
Fresh blood still bathes the bomb-scarred street
Where Islam's sheet-clad "martyrs" meet
To chant their savage creed of hate
And dance in Allah's name.
Children with uzis brandished high
Raise vengeful jihads to the sky,
And long to be the next to die
As if it were a game.
Black hearts that beat without a trace
Of human feeling, honor, grace;
Black hoods and burqas hide a face
That bears no trace of shame.
In Syria, Iraq, Iran
From Palestine to Pakistan
Their right to call themselves a "man"
They never shall reclaim.
They claim they kill with Allah's hand
Destroy and maim at His command,
When God has purged the Holy Land
Let Islam bear the blame!
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. Dancethe dead, to feel the baking heat or the dust
that cakes itself in every liquid pore
and blinds the eyes --
Liquid pores (allowing the slightly nonsensical metaphor) would seem prohibitive to the caking of dust motes, but... whatever.
Have you never done any physical work on a hot day, in a dusty place?
Plenty.
Post by George J. DanceFirst, your pores start to sweat, and then the sweat mixes with dust - you end up with the shit all over your exposed skin. Is "cakes" the wrong word? I dunno
Well, I do -- and it is.
"to cover something with a thick layer of something soft that becomes hard when it dries. Her shoes were caked with mud." No, looks right to me.
Her shoes are not "liquid pores," George.
Imagine tossing dust into a bucket of water. You're going to have a bucket of wet slop, not *dried* earth.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. Dance- I like how it went with "baking" - not important wordplay, but such things amuse me when I'm writing.
For "wordplay" to work it's got to do more than just produce a random internal rhyme
"Internal rhyme" had nothing to do with it.
I stand corrected. Try this: Wordplay has to do *something*... *anything*... in order to be worthy of that name.
Post by George J. Dance-- their meanings actually have to correspond to, and play off of, one another.
bingo!
Regarding the definition of "wordplay," yes. Regarding the supposed "wordplay" in your "bakey-cakey" poem? Nah.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceI'm just wondering how blocked skin pores can cause blindness.
I think you've misread. The blowing dust is caking on their skin and blinding their eyes; they're two different effects of it.
I'm afraid that you've miswritten.
I'm afraid that you're wrong.
Post by Michael PendragonYou wrote that "the baking heat or the dust that cakes itself in every liquid pore and blinds the eyes." If the dust is performing two separate tasks, your sentence needs to separate them. As written, the dust forms cakes in pores causing temporary blindness.
The separate tasks are separated, by line breaks. However, I'll consider adding commas at the end of those lines.
Post by Michael PendragonHere's an easy means of correctly punctuating your poetry: write it out in sentence form and punctuate it as if it were a sentence
Yes, Michael; I think that's what we all do. Then, though, comes the matter of putting it back into lines, at which point a lot of end-line punctuation is dropped. However, I can't see a problem with two commas here.
It's a simple matter of clarity.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael Pendragon"No pause to mourn the dead, to feel the baking heat, or the dust
that cakes itself in every liquid pore, or blinds the eyes..."
I don't like the second "or" - the dust does both - and I'd put the first comma after "dust" - but that is constructive. So even if we get nowhere else, this has been worth it.
Post by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceJust marching onward -- Just
Damn! You snipped the line for sense, but that means you sacrificed my most important visual effect in the whole thing: sticking the word "Just" out on the poem's extreme right. IMO, it's the most important word in the poem, and the key to understanding it.
Sticking the word out like a proverbial sore thumb renders the meaning unclear enough for the read for the reader to consider the alternate meaning that their cause is just. Since the soldiers most likely believe this, while the poet obviously doesn't, the temporary ambiguity *should* serve as good poetic effect. Unfortunately, such is not the case here.
The problem is that the remainder of the poem is such a hackneyed piece of recycled bleeding-heart imagery that any satirical wit the juxtaposition of alternate meanings might have produced is thoroughly wasted.
I'm not after satirical wit; this isn't a satire, a parody, or a comedy piece.
But you are attempting a satirical stance in the poems closing passages by contrasting the soldiers' "Ideas of March" (yuk! yuk!) with the maudlin images of weeping mothers and children, etc.
Oh, yeah... lose the title.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. Dancethe thought of vengeance to be theirs once more --
Arrgh! matey -- they be sailin' off to settle an old score!
Many if not most of the Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq saw it as vengeance for 9/11. Maybe you're too young to remember all that, but it's not something to trivialize.
How young do you think I am, Gramps?
Sometimes I'm sure you're only 11. But your comments up above ("I was in New York City" etc.) tell me you not only understand what I said about vengeance being the motivator - you feel it yourself. So why were you making fun of the idea?
Then you need to go back and reread it. I am worried about there being other, similar attacks. I am worried about a bomb taking out the Lincoln Tunnel while I'm commuting through it, or about a terror cell opening fire in the middle of Times Square during my lunch break, or a hundred similar scenarios that I'm surprised haven't already happened a dozen time over. I'm worried about my wife's safety when she's taking a bus uptown to her dance classes. I'm worried about terrorist breaking into the Hebrew schools my children attend, or taking out my in-laws' Temple.
What I want is the peace and sense of security that existed before 9/11 -- and that will only be returned when the terrorists have been destroyed (whether through violence, education, or a combination of the same).
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonI was 36-year old (almost 37) and working in Manhattan on the morning of 9/11.
Post by George J. DanceBush got his war because Americans saw it as "vengeance" - fighting back - and therefore not aggression, but justice. "Just the thought of vengeance" (= the thought of vengeance is just) is what powers the war machine.
You're dead wrong.
There was a pervading sense of unreality that morning. We stared at the breaking news images on our computer screens in disbelief. We heard that the Pentagon had been hit as well and that a hi-jacked jet had crashed in Pennsylvania. Then came an announcement to abandon our building (a "landmark" and potential target). Electricity was soon shut off and television and internet were down. Everyone was massing in the streets, walking blindly forward with no destination -- as the tunnels had been closed. Some of people were covered from head to toe in gray dust from the mix of smoke, concrete and human ashes that permeated the air downtown. Military jets were zipping by overhead, and it felt like we'd just been transported back to London during the Blitz. Some people pulled battery operated radios out and people gathered around to listen to spurious reports and theories about how the next wave of the attack would be coming via a wave of car bombs both in the City and in the suburbs.
It felt like Armageddon. I didn't know if I'd ever see, or even get a chance to say "goodbye" over the phone to my family again -- or if they would soon be under attack as well.
I think people felt that way all over the continent, BTW. No one knew if there's be another strike, or where it would occur.
That's right.
And we still don't know if, when, or where the next strike will be.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonThe feelings of fear and utter helplessness that we felt that morning are what fueled the soldiers who served us in the war. Yes, we were angry, but vengeance was only a minor motivation. We wanted to make our homeland safe again -- to ensure that there would never be another day like 9/11.
As the Washington Post put it in a September 11 editorial: "The country responded [to the Pearl Harbor attack] without panic but with an iron determination to defend itself and punish the aggressors. The response today must be as decisive ..." - defense and punishment seen as not only equivalent, but part of a single "determination."
I'm not claiming to be a saint. I'd certainly relish the prospect of Iran, Iraq, Syria and their non-Jewish environs going up in a farmscape of mushroom clouds. But I'd also be almost as willing to coexist peacefully with them.
However, the defense of innocent Americans from homeland terrorist attacks was, and remains, the primary justification for the War on Terror.
Post by George J. DanceAnd as the cliche goes: "We didn't start it, but we will finish it." If "finishing it" meant keeping the country safe, that would be nonsense; that doesn't end. No, "finish it" is all about punishment - vengeance.
That was not our stance.
Politically, my views correspond to those of Machiavelli. The primary duty of a monarch (or a President) is the safety of his people. How he achieves that safety will depend on the aggressiveness of his country's attackers. If ISIL were to sincerely extend an olive branch, I would accept it (albeit warily).
Just as I have always been open to accepting a sincere token of peace from both the Turd and yourself.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceEyes forward, not to note the weeping mother
Ah! The introduction of cloying sentimentality -- how appropriate for the Hallmark Card version of an anti-war poem.
Mothers lose their children in wartime, and houses are burned - that's another unavoidable fact of war. I don't think it's too "cloying" or "sentimental" to at least mention it.
That depends on *how* it's introduced, and how openly the poet displays his heart on his sleeve.
In this case, the troops pass by the weeping mother and the burnt houses, without noticing them, and that's it. Of course you wouldn't know that when you read the line.
Post by Michael PendragonPost by George J. Danceby the burned hut, or spy the ragged children
[who] gather in gangs, whispering to one another,
"They killed my father; one day I will kill them" --
So we kill their fathers, which begets them killing our sons... which begets their sons killing the fathers of the ensuing generation... and war becomes a neverending vicious circle...
Sure; but it stretches back into the past as well as the future. The American soldiers killed the Muslim fathers because Muslim terrorists killed Americans in 9/11; Muslim terrorists killed Americans because Americans killed thousands in Iraq War I and the subsequent bombings of Baghdad; and so on in that direction.
Your opinion of Americans is insulting, Dunce.
I think they're essentially no different from Canadians, or anyone else in the world FTM. I understand that you might consider that insulting.
I should hope that in this regard, the majority of human beings held similar beliefs. What I find insulting is your depiction of Americans as vengeful savages.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael Pendragon"During the September 11 attacks of 2001, 2,996 people were killed (including the 19 hijackers) and more than 6,000 others injured.[1][2] These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes (including the terrorists), 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon.[3][4] The attacks were the deadliest terrorist act in world history, and the most devastating foreign attack on United States soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941."
Yes, Michael; not something to joke about, as you were doing earlier with your "Ahhhr matey" schtick.
I was making fun of your word choice -- and letting you hear how it came across. Hopefully, you will correct that flaw as well.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonThe war on terror is to prevent an attack like this from ever happening again.
You really think the wars in Iraq (3 times now), Libya, Syria, and now Yemen have made America safer than it was before then? I'd call you nuts, but that might sound like an IKYABWAI.
Safer, yes. As safe as we had been in the past, no.
However, when what are essentially third world countries are busy protecting themselves from an invasion, they have far less time and resources with which to conduct terrorist attacks.
So, yes -- I think that if there had been no War on Terror the death toll among American Civilians would have been astronomical at this point.
"The current situation of Afghanistan is related to a big cause - that is the destruction of America," he added.
"The plan is going ahead and God willing it is being implemented, but it is a huge task beyond the will and comprehension of human beings. If God's help is with us this will happen within a short period of time.
"Keep in mind this prediction. This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it (America) will fall to the ground." -- Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, 11/15/2001
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1362463/Taliban-leader-vows-to-destroy-America.html
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceLike playing Tit for Tat.
Like the Hatfields and McCoys. No bad guys, no evil empire or race - only people motivated by the same idea: getting revenge is getting justice.
You're clueless.
Yet you're the one who thinks invading other countries makes the U.S. safer: "War is peace," and all that. (BTW, do you know what book that slogan came from?)
Yes, I've read Orwell.
I'm also aware of "Peace Is Our Profession" from "Dr. Strangelove."
However, when the enemy is crashing jet planes filled with American passengers into American buildings and the Pentagon, there are only two options: Fight or wait in fear for the next attack... and the next... and the next... and the next...
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonThe Islamic terrorists have sworn a "jihad" against American, and boasting of our immanent "extermination." This isn't about vengeance or justice: it's a matter of survival.
And what do you think they're motivated by?
Fear for themselves. Fear for the safety of their loved ones.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceEnough of this senseless killing! Let's all lay down our sword and shield, run off to Canada and sing "Kumbaya."
I wish; but I don't expect all humanity to change because of one poem. If even one person understands it, and gets the conclusion, that would be a win for me.
Naturally you'd miss the sarcasm in my remark.
Or just not give a fuck.
Right.
Post by George J. DancePost by Michael PendragonPost by George J. DanceForward they march, to serve their country well,
to die again, and be reborn in Hell.
Condemning men who answer the Country's call to Hell? That's it bit steep, isn't it, George?
Yes, it is; and it's a controversial line. Remember, though, that I don't believe in an afterlife. The Hell I'm referring to is the one the soldiers found in Baghdad over the next decade.
What you believe and what beliefs you've expressed in the poem are two different things.
You cannot expect readers to know that you're an atheist and are only speaking about a metaphorical Hell (which, btw, would be written in lower case).
"“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.” - William Tecumseh Sherman.
That's 2 constructive suggestions from you, 2 more than I'd hoped for. Thank you for reading and commenting.
That's two that your wounded sense of pride allows you to accept. There is a lot more that you could take from my comments which would prove to your poem's benefit.
