Klaus' Expensive Lunch, A poem Options

[Guest_Jox_*]

© Todd Congreve, 2005. I, Todd Congreve, do assert my right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with Sections 77 and 78 of The Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act, 1988. (Laws of Cymru & England, as recognised by international treaties). This work was simultaneously copyrighted in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. This work is posted as an unpublished work in order to elicit critical assistance and other helpful comment, only.

Upgraded from AC to AD, thanks to Nina's two suggestions and from AD to AE following Liam's call for greater clarity.

Klaus’ Expensive Lunch
by TC

Pub lunch: two men
debate political philosophy.
One creed - one country -
one loyalty - one master.

A beer; kinship?
Questions: sister? agents?
mad? bad? sane? good?
depends on perspective.

Harwell needs you -
I’m your friend, Klaus -
help me keep you there.
“We” need to convince “them.”

perspectives -
only things which matter.

Your side; my side; “our” side,
fought Nazi Germany...
today - different perspectives.

Mental-partition wall:
made of what?
Those same brain cells
with divided loyalties?
How does one cope with
neuron osmosis?
Protect job; freedom; lover?

What price a pint?
Nine years - that’s
post-war inflation.

Come on Klaus; I’m your friend.
Your welfare is my chief concern.
Now, hand me the keys
to your gaol cell...

                          ...Good man, Klaus

(end)



Ref: TC 0432 AD (Started: 25/07/2005)

Klaus’ Expensive Lunch
by TC

Pub lunch: two men
debate political philosophy.
One creed - one country -
one loyalty - one master.

A beer; kinship?
Questions: sister? agents?
mad? bad? sane? good?
depends on perspective.

Harwell needs this man -
I’m your friend, Klaus -
help me keep you there.
We need to convince them.

perspectives -
only things
which matter.

Your side; my side; our side.
Fighting Nazi Germany -
but today?
Today... different perspectives.

What price a pint?
Nine years - that’s
post-war inflation.

Mental-partition wall: made of what?
Those same brain cells which have
divided loyalties?
How does one cope with
neuron osmosis?
Protect job; freedom; lover?

Come on Klaus; I’m your friend.
Your welfare is my chief concern.
Now, hand me the keys
to your gaol cell...

                          ...Good man, Klaus.

(end)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:

This was inspired by a BBC R4 play “Atomic Lunch” broadcast on 25/07/2005.

Here’s the BBC website comment:
Monday 25 July - Atomic Lunch - By Michael Butt

In January 1950 two men meet for lunch in an Oxfordshire pub. One is the Head of Physics at Harwell Research Laboratory. The other is a senior MI5 investigator. One of the most important spy stories of the cold war is about to be revealed.

I would add:

Klaus is Klaus Fuchs - Britain's notorious "Atom Spy" who sold UK /USA atomic secrets to the soviets. His lunch "companion" was a senior MI5 interrogator.

Here‘s a Wikipedia info page on him... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs

[Guest_PashernatePoet_*]

This poem struck me as having something intersting going on in it.

From what I gathered about the piece your drawing the reader more towards questioning amorality rather than morality - a very tasty subject.

So I really just want to help you get that across a well as possible. The fragmented style you've chosen really helps you get the topic across in places - particularly:

A beer; kinship?
Questions: sister? agents?
mad? bad? sane? good?
depends on perspective

.

But the problem is you've really given away the punchline in the second stanza - and the rest tends to confuse the matter. I think the main issue is that the order of the stanzas could be swapped around quite easily without interferring with what you are getting across, but that suggests to me the structure is hindering the poem.

There are a few ways you might like to change this. Personally, I would try - now that you're sure of what you want to say - rewritting the poem without looking at this draft. By that, I'm not suggesting a drastic re-write, though it might seem that way. I don't think any of the lines or verses are particularly 'bad' but I think if you tried re-drafting the piece by focusing on your meaning more than your lines, it would be easier for people to draw the sort of conclusions your after. At first, the re-draft may seem somewhat formulaic but this is usually one of the easiest things to fix in a fit of creativity.

I hope this helps