Dogs and Existential Nihilism, A poem for voices Options

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi,

[JJ advises me that this intro might be off-putting. I do want the poem critted (as well as the intellectual integrity) so if you're not into philosophy, that's fine - please ignore the intro and go straight to the work, below. Thanks, J.]

I'm anxious that the ideas-sequence and (sorry to sound pompous) the conceptual integrity of this is ok. Any input you care to offer will be carefully considered.

Although I’m discussing Existential Nihilism, I think I have a tendency to confused that with the original Nihilism of Nietzsche. If you’re into philosophy and feel I’m doing that please let me know. My knowledge is very limited.

If you think it’s rubbish, please tell me - but I shall want to know why, of course.

Thanks. James.

=====================================================
© James Oxenholme, 2005. I, James Oxenholme, 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 This work is posted as an unpublished work in order to elicit critical assistance, only.

(Writer Change from PF to MB)
January, 2005.
Grateful thanks for first crit received from WMW.
More grateful thanks to Fran and Nina for their helpful suggestions.

MB !-207 AD

======================================================

Dogs & Existential Nihilism
- a poem for voices

Sotto voce Reading 1:

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Council Member A:

The Universal Council
is now sitting.
Order! Order!

Council Member B:

The first case before us:
A petition from Earth, concerning
their dominant species: Humans.

Council Chair:

Not them again,
we dealt with People only
a few hundred Earth years ago.
What in Heaven's name, now?!

Dog:

Your Lordships,
we dogs are
here this day to
please for humans:
their nihilism has gone
existential.
we fear for them.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Digression from
Parallel Universe:

The Grand Inquisitor:
(Robin Goodfellow-Day)

Point of order!
But is this not
prose or drama,
masquerading
as poetry?
How do you answer
that charge?

The Poet: (maybe)

As a nihilist? I don’t!
It matters not.
To suit your value-system,
I’ll simply say thus:
I felt this presentation
best in verse.

The Voice:

Continue!
Onwards, downward,
ever closer to a
non-existent truth:
the meaning of the infinite
universe which cannot exist
in human concept but
cannot end either.

-------------------------------------------------------

Sotto voce Reading 2:

O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth's sleep at all?

Dog:

Humans believe in gods no more -
faith in nothing, save Science.
Changing the planet so fast,
few species will survive.

Sotto voce Reading 3:

Fear not! said he; for might dread
had seized their troubled mind,
Glad tidings of great joy I bring,
To you and all mankind.

Council Member A:

Scientists, the modern priests;
Religion dying.
So we programmed
the next stage for your planet.
Your humans believe in science,
for the while.

Dog:

You are God;
you are the gods?
Von Daniken was right?

Council Chair (for is it He?):

No, my friends.
You make a critical error.
You think we exist.
Goodbye.

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

Robin Goodfellow (Puck) - Midsummer Night's Dream, William Shakespeare
Robin Day - deceased British tv political interviewer. Renown for introducing a hard interviewing technique.

Readers:

The readers should be positioned on stage in a circle with the Sotto voce in the centre. Each should face the audience. Budget allowing, all readers should wear all black. The lighting should be dim but the speakers clearly visible. Unless a reader is actually reading, their head should be bowed... except for the Council Chair, who should always appear alert and dominant. The narrator will read the titles of the speakers and other details (all in blue) before they deliver their piece.

The nine readers as follows (in order of first appearance):

Narrator (Do not double-up)
Sotto voce readings (Do not further double-up)
Council Member A
Council Member B
Council Chair
Dog (Do not double-up)
Robin Goodfellow-Day (If doubling-up use Council Member A)
Poet (If doubling-Up use Council member B)
Voice (If doubling-up, use Council Chair).

If needs be and the narrator is very clear it might be possible to double-up on other roles but this is highly undesirable.  If it does happen, readers should certainly use different voices for different roles. In case of need, a doubling-up guide is given.

Sotto voce readings - credits:

1 - (Drama) - William Shakespeare, “Macbeth”
2 - (Poem) - Wilfred Owen, 1914/18 - “Futility”
3 - (Carol) - Nahum Tate, 1700 - “While Shepherds Watched”

=====================================================
=====================================================

EARLIER VERSION OF SAME WORK:

Copyright etc.
PF !-207 AB
December 2004.


Dogs & Existential Nihilism

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

The Universal Council is now sitting.
Order! Order!

The first case before your Lordships:
A petition from Earth, concerning
their dominant species: Humans.

Not them again, we dealt with them
only about two hundred years ago...
What on Earth now?!

My Lords, we are dogs
Here this day to please for humans.
their nihilism has gone
existential. I fear for them.

Order!
But this is prose -
or maybe drama,
masquerading as poetry?
How do you answer
that charge?

As a nihilist? I don’t!
It matters not.
To suit your value-system,
I’ll simply say thus:
I felt this presentation
best in verse.

Continue!
Onwards, downward,
ever closer to a
non-existent truth:
the meaning of the infinite
universe which cannot exist
in human concept but
cannot end either.

“-O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth's sleep at all?”

They believe in gods no more -
they have faith in nothing but Science.
They are changing the planet too fast,
too few species will survive

“Fear not!" said he; for might dread
had seized their troubled mind,
"Glad tidings of great joy I bring,
To you and all mankind”

Those Scientists are the modern priests.
Religion was dying so we
programmed the next stage
for your planet.
Your humans believe in science,
for the while.

So, asked GSD, you are God?
You are the gods?
Von Daniken was right?

No, my friends.
You make a critical error.
You think we exist.
Goodbye.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

2 - (Poem) - Wilfred Owen, 1914/18 - “Futility”
3 - (Carol) - Nahum Tate, 1700 - “While Shepherds Watched” [/b]

[Guest_jayjay_*]

James, I have no idea whether or not your take on existentialism is right or wrong, nor do I think this is rubbish.

What I do feel is that you have, like a bat in sunshine, entered the wrong medium.  This should be presented in a more erudite forum where it might find itself a more natural constituency (and more reviews.)

I see you have prefaced this with an apology and a plea to philosophers.  I haven't been around the site long enough to know how many plhilosophers frequent it, but I imagine they are few and that your detailed request may flummox some regular users.  

It is, ofcourse, your prerogative to post whatever you think may entertain, inspire or challenge your readers.  Personally, I find this meets only the latter, and as such may have been more appropriately entered elsewhere.

These are personal observations and I expect them to be challenged, but I think honesty an important aspect of writing.

JJ

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi JJ,

Brave man; thanks for popping in!

I did have this posted in Socrates for a few days but received no comments. It occurred to me that, asking for a complex crit was too much, hence the posting here. (The level of crit should be the only difference between the two forums - besides it is the same audience).

Love the "bat in sunshine" by the way - use it quick in something, else I may!

I have no idea who, on MM, knows anything about philosophy. But if they do, then they almost certainly know more than I; I am simply dipping my wings in (too keep the cool, maybe?)

This, however, is not philosophy per se. It is perhaps verging on drama - but I think it is so short that “a voice poem” is the best slot for it. (Anyway poetry / drama merge often).

It is an attempt to use philosophy in a dramatic way to ask the age old question... the one which is best answered by "42." Still, seeing as no one has yet given a definitive answer which I'm content with, I thought I'd keep asking.

"but I imagine they are few and that your detailed request may flummox some regular users."

I'm very relieved that I got to your reply before Alan did. For I'm sure he would say that the majority of what I do on MM is flummoxing. So no change there.

I'd be delighted if it would "entertain, inspire or challenge" my readers - what a bonus. But if I were only trying to do that I would have posted in the forum for exhibition pieces. No, this is here because it is unfinished. It needs comments; it's still in school - not been sent out to work, yet.

I think the only way in which I could follow your suggestion would be to post at a different lit-crit site than MM. But the strange thing is that whatever bizarre, strange, challenging, outrageous, insane, obscure etc things I have thrown at MM, I have always had some useful feedback. So we'll see: I do have faith in MMers to offer some useful crits on this (after all, the intro is not the work... it is the work - a poem (because the writer says so) that is up for crit. After a couple of weeks, we shall  know. I hope I'm right and can demonstrate the amazing insight, flexibility and near-insanity of MM members in rising to offer crits. If not and I'm wrong I really have no idea where else is more likely to offer the sort of comments I need.

Of course, in a way, you’re actually proving yourself wrong. You’re on MM. You’re offered a crit. It is honest and it does offer advice (including the intro - not part of the work, luckily - might be over-complex). So thanks for all that JJ; I shall put a rider on the intro in a moment.

JJ, Thank you very much - especially, as I hope - for being the first of the venturesome.

James.

[Guest_jayjay_*]

'in a way,... proving yourself wrong'
My failing to label something as rubbish is hardly a ringing endorsement, but it's different strokes for different folks.  However, it is a situation neither unusual nor perturbing to such as I, James.

By 'useful feedback' I presume you mean how to improve or change the piece and I stand by my original observation that such help might be available on a more specialised forum.  

The 'near insanity' of MM crits (or anyone) is something I'd be disinclined to rely on.  And disparaging potential readers might inhibit the outflow of objective crits, but knowing their audience is a prerequisite for writers.  I have found the site thus far to be populated by sane and considerate persons, but maybe your experience is different.  Near sanity would be a sufficient criterion for commenting on my posts.

JJ

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi JJ...

I didn't take your comments as endorsement, nor condemnation, nor any commentry / criticism at all on the piece per se. I took them as an explanation of why you felt unable to crit. "James, I have no idea whether or not your take on existentialism is right or wrong, nor do I think this is rubbish."

But the one suggestion you did make - to amend the notes - I took up. thank you.

A little selective with the quote methinks there. My actual sentence was:

"I hope I'm right and can demonstrate the amazing insight, flexibility and near-insanity of MM members in rising to offer crits." Clearly as tongue-in-cheek as your reply.

Knowing one's audience is important for writers, agreed. But I think you are making the mistake of confusing an audience with a crit forum. Unfinished work does not, yet, seek an audience per se; it seeks commentators, critics and tutors. The audience must wait (I can't quite hear them banging at the door but...)

I always think that if we have to say something is wrong then we ought to offer a suitable alternative. I think the only way in which your comments fell short of being useful was to fail to offer a suitable alternative forum. Unless I become aware of one which I can trust, I shall stick with MM, thanks.

James.

[Guest_jayjay_*]

I would assume that to post something is 'per se' to offer it to an audience, whether or not it attracts crits, but that's only my opinion.  

I am unsure as to which 'suitable alternative' I might offer - a philosophy forum, perhaps.

JJ

[Cleo_Serapis]

Just poppin in real quick - please do not use Ampersands (&) in your titles...

be back later aligator....

Lori

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi JJ,

Thanks for returning.

>>I would assume that to post something is 'per se' to offer it to an audience, whether or not it attracts crits, but that's only my opinion.  

There is a semantic issue here in which you may be right. But my argument is that, in terms of the arts, an audience really means the final consumers. I am not presenting this as such; I am asking for it to be commentated on prior to presentation - again, semantics but, again, I think, in the context of the arts, we would be wrong to use that terms. "This evening's presentation.." implies a finished piece. What we have on crit forums would be better compared to read-through, rehearsals, script-changes and so on. Most of those have people listening / watching but we wouldn't, in that context, call them an audience.

>>I am unsure as to which 'suitable alternative' I might offer - a philosophy forum, perhaps.

Yes, thanks I gathered you meant that - but I know of none. Besides, this would not stand up to that rigor. All I want to ensure is a coherent intellectual thread (in respect of philosophy) but it is not in the context of logic; it is being considered via an art. First and foremost it is literature (though my question is, is it literate?). I have taken what I believe to be one concept, hinted at a second but very much put my ideas on that. In other words, it is based on the philosophy but goes away from / beyond that - into an area which is surrealistic, and thereby, back onward to religion.

In other words, it's far more me than it is philosophy.

Cheers, JJ.

James.

Hi Lori... didn't realise I had, sorry: I do know that hampers and sand damage IKB but poor memory! At “The Wild Crocodile” was it?

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi James,

I'd had a peek at this in Socrates, and the early editing has helped clarify. The different 'voices' were confusing but now make some kind of Joxian sense.

This certainly doesn't read as any traditional poetry. But you say you are experimenting. I suppose if poetic prose can become a prose-poem, then a poetic script can become a script-poem?

As to philosophy, I have little experience.  A quick glance at an essay by Rorty, and an interest in Santayana perhaps, but Von Daniken?  Derrida? (although there was a wonderful letter in the Independent [British broadsheet newspaper] after his recent death: 'Sir, Thank you for the obitury: I knew Foucault about Derrida until I read it.' Irrelevant, but I couldn't resist quoting it. )

Dogs & Existential Nihilism
- a poem for voices

The title certainly warms what to expect ...

we dogs are
here this day to
please for humans:

Should that be 'please' (dogs can be pleasing, I know) or 'plead'?

The Grand Inquisitor:
(Robin Goodfellow-Day)

Philosophy with humour? I'm not sure that's allowed, is it?

As a nihilist? I don’t!
It matters not.
To suit your value-system,
I’ll simply say thus:
I felt this presentation
best in verse.

I like the half-rhyme that sneaks in when 'verse' is mentioned.

Onwards, downward,

Any direction would do? But down seems reasonable, since words require something.

the meaning of the infinite
universe which cannot exist
in human concept but
cannot end either.

Nice easy stuff to comprehend  

Council Chair (for is it He?):

He (capital) = God?

No, my friends.
You make a critical error.
You think we exist.
Goodbye.

Perhaps a space line before the 'Goodbye'?

In the notes below the 'doubling up' instructions seem unnecessary - if this gets beyond workshop/crit and is performed live then relevant, but complicated at this stage (stage to stage?).

The readers should be positioned on stage in a circle with the Sotto voce in the centre. Each should face the audience. Budget allowing, all readers should wear all black. The lighting should be dim but the speakers clearly visible. Unless a reader is actually reading, their head should be bowed... except for the Council Chair, who should always appear alert and dominant. The narrator will read the titles of the speakers and other details (all in blue) before they deliver their piece.

The nine readers as follows (in order of first appearance):

Narrator (Do not double-up)
Sotto voce readings (Do not further double-up)
Council Member A
Council Member B
Council Chair
Dog (Do not double-up)
Robin Goodfellow-Day (If doubling-up use Council Member A)
Poet (If doubling-Up use Council member B)
Voice (If doubling-up, use Council Chair).

If needs be and the narrator is very clear it might be possible to double-up on other roles but this is highly undesirable.  If it does happen, readers should certainly use different voices for different roles. In case of need, a doubling-up guide is given.

Now I'm off to rejoin the universe as I know it.
Cheers,
Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran and thank you for your very helpful comments.

>>Hi James,
>>I'd had a peek at this in Socrates, and the early editing has helped clarify. The different 'voices' were confusing but now make some kind of Joxian sense.

You’re understanding Joxian? Poor lass!

>>This certainly doesn't read as any traditional poetry. But you say you are experimenting. I suppose if poetic prose can become a prose-poem, then a poetic script can become a script-poem?

Not much I do is traditional per se - but this “format” is, perhaps, a little more unusual than most.

>>As to philosophy, I have little experience.  A quick glance at an essay by Rorty, and an interest in Santayana perhaps, but Von Daniken?  Derrida? (although there was a wonderful letter in the Independent [British broadsheet newspaper] after his recent death: 'Sir, Thank you for the obituary: I knew Foucault about Derrida until I read it.' Irrelevant, but I couldn't resist quoting it. )

Erich von Däniken is not a philosopher per se. He is an historian of sorts. He considers myths, legends and other unexplained situations and weaves an explanation around them.

Here’s the link to his own web site (which I hadn’t seen prior to this reply - my knowledge of him goes back to my school days when many of us were reading his books, especially “Chariot of The Gods.” He considers the odd shapes in the Peruvian Desert and attributes them to astronaut-gods. (amongst many other things). Many people believe in his work; many others reject it.

I quote from his website: http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html

“Born on April 14th, 1935, in Zofingen, Switzerland, Erich von Däniken was educated at the College St-Michel in Fribourg, where already as a student he occupied his time with the study of the ancient holy writings. While managing director of a Swiss 5-Star Hotel, he wrote his first book, Chariots of the Gods, which was an immediate bestseller in the United States, Germany, and later in 38 other countries.

In the United States, Erich von Däniken won instant fame as a result of the television special "In Search of Ancient Astronauts," based upon his first book. In 1993, the German television station SAT-1 started a twenty-five part TV series with and by Erich von Däniken, entitled "Auf den Spuren der All-Mächtigen" (Pathways of the Gods). In 1996, the American TV company ABC/Kane produced a one-hour special, filmed all over the world, entitled Chariots of the Gods - The Mysteries Continue. This film was broadcast on the ABC network on September 26th 1996. In 1996/97 ABC/Kane produced another documentary with Erich von Däniken (seen on the Discovery Channel). In Germany, the biggest TV network, RTL, showed the film on November 26th, 1996. 7,7 million viewers in Germany alone watched the program. Today, Erich von Däniken continues his filming with ABC and RTL.”

Dogs & Existential Nihilism
- a poem for voices

>>The title certainly warms what to expect ...

One tries!

we dogs are
here this day to
please for humans:

>>Should that be 'please' (dogs can be pleasing, I know) or 'plead'?

It was both, so I opted for “please.” They plead to please because they know the right mind of man far better than man, in his insanity, knows his own mind. Simple really! :)

The Grand Inquisitor:
(Robin Goodfellow-Day)

>>Philosophy with humour? I'm not sure that's allowed, is it?

You need to listen to more Monty Python. Besides, much humour is philosophical (even if little academic Philosophy is humorous). However, it was not an attempt at humour; you over-estimate my intention. (Thank you).

As a nihilist? I don’t!
It matters not.
To suit your value-system,
I’ll simply say thus:
I felt this presentation
best in verse.

>>I like the half-rhyme that sneaks in when 'verse' is mentioned.

Ah! Thank you. That was intentional. generally, I don’t think part of a poem can rhyme and part not. However, in this case, this is the only interjection into the poem by the poet - so I thought a distinctive poetic voice was both justified and useful.

Onwards, downward,

>>Any direction would do? But down seems reasonable, since words require something.

Nope; the words were carefully selected. They are indicating that the Human race is down and out (or heading in those directions, anyway). Progress (onwards) leads to regress, in other words (and it often does - deforestation to supply us with more agro-crops is an excellent example).

the meaning of the infinite
universe which cannot exist
in human concept but
cannot end either.

>>Nice easy stuff to comprehend  :speechless:

Surely this is nothing special? Isn’t it simply the old question - I’ve been asking it since I was a child and I am sure the majority of the population have, too. Put in prose: Humans cannot comprehend (on the one hand) anything which is infinite, nor (on the other) the end to everything. So what happens? The universe (in our understanding) cannot go on for ever - but neither can it simply end. (Taking the Universe in its original meaning to mean everything). parallel universes etc are a bastardisation of the word “Universe” but, even so, the same conceptual problem will occur.

Council Chair (for is it He?):

>>He (capital) = God?

Well spotted!

No, my friends.
You make a critical error.
You think we exist.
Goodbye.

>>Perhaps a space line before the 'Goodbye'?

Excellent idea.  But I was trying for the “Weakest link” effect... “You are useless. Goodbye” where one expects, deserves an explanation for an outrageous statement but is immediately dismissed before one is offered. So I wanted no delay in the “Goodbye” element. Nio slowing at all.

>>In the notes below the 'doubling up' instructions seem unnecessary - if this gets beyond workshop/crit and is performed live then relevant, but complicated at this stage (stage to stage?).

Probably so and I could have excluded it from MM but I wrote it for staging so I showed it here. I was inspired by TS Eliot’s directions for “Murder in The Cathedral” where he stipulates that the knights and tempters ought to be played by the same actors. The outfits were suggested to me by a production of “Equus” (Peter Schaffer’s play) I once saw - black is very effective. And I wanted the Chairman to appear omnipresent (God).

>>Now I'm off to rejoin the universe as I know it. Cheers, Fran

Ah don’t be like that, Fran... come back, please...

Anyone else?

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hello again, James.

>>You’re understanding Joxian? Poor lass!

I don't think so... but I'm beginning to recognise the symptoms, lol.  :)

>>Erich von Däniken is not a philosopher per se. He is an historian of sorts.

Ah, that man. I shall refrain from further comment (says the scientist who grew up near Glastonbury).

>>The title certainly warms what to expect ...
>>One tries

Indeed one does ...  

>>Any direction would do? But down seems reasonable, since words require something.
>>Nope; the words were carefully selected. They are indicating that the Human race is down and out (or heading in those directions, anyway). Progress (onwards) leads to regress, in other words (and it often does - deforestation to supply us with more agro-crops is an excellent example).

Ah, an excellent idea - thank you for pointing that out. Sorry I missed the impliaction first time round.

>>Nice easy stuff to comprehend  
>>Surely this is nothing special?

But we still have trouble with it. (I was being ironic.)  

>>Perhaps a space line before the 'Goodbye'?
>>Excellent idea.  But I was trying for the “Weakest link” effect... “You are useless. Goodbye”

ROFL. I always knew God would prefer to be female.  

Thank you for a great deal of (thought-) provoking discussion, James.

Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran,

I cannot thank you enough. So I won't bother at all.

Sorry, my strange sense of something. Seriously - I do want to thank you very much. You're the only person to have offered any crit whatsoever. And, you have understood the work and helped me understand it more. Also, though our submissions here, others may understand it better.

I think I may, unfortunately, owe an apology to JJ. He argued this was the wrong place to post this and, with your extremely kind exception, it seems he may have been right. I argued that MM was up to the task - and you certainly were, Fran but I think I may have confused people a little too much this time; my fault, not MM's.

Ok, to take your points on:

I don't actually agree with Von D - but his theories are interesting and at least as plausible as any religion I know. You'll notice I use his name in a question, not a statement.

Glad you like onwards / downwards - think I've used it before somewhere but can't remember where. A bit like my name.

Irony appreciated; I can now believe it is special! (Don't disillusion me, please).

You knew God had to be female. Emm.... looking at the World there is much sense in that. (I jest) (Maybe).

And thank you Fran for all the kind thought and help you have offered to this work. It really is appreciated.

Would anyone else care to comment, please; contributions gratefully received. If you don't like it, I can take that easily - just tell me why and I'll be content. Cheers, James.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Would anyone else care to comment, please; contributions gratefully received. If you don't like it, I can take that easily - just tell me why and I'll be content. Cheers, James.

Seeing as you asked so nicely James, I will try and comment.

I must admit that your poem/drama baffled me somewhat.  Firstly because you presented it as a drama then repeated it as a poem, with a number of changes in the words.  I didn't know quite where to start commenting.

I know absolutely nothing about Philosophy.  The poem seemed somewhat mocking in its tone, but left me confused as to what the target of your mockery is.  Is it humankind? Belief in God?  Existential nihilism? Or even dogs?  

By the end of the poem, I was  none the wiser as to  your opinion on the subject, but maybe I am missing something.

Looking at the verses themselves:

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

shouldn't it read that struts and frets its hour upon the stage

So, asked GSD, you are God?
You are the gods?
Von Daniken was right?

this verse made no sense to me at all.  I have no idea what GSD stands for.


Finally thanks James, this board is never dull with you around to stimulate our brain cells  

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

Two big crits in one day; I owe you!

>>Seeing as you asked so nicely James, I will try and comment.

Very kind - thanks Nina.

>>I must admit that your poem/drama baffled me somewhat. Firstly because you presented it as a drama then repeated it as a poem, with a number of changes in the words. I didn't know quite where to start commenting.

The top version is the revision (in bold); the lower the original. Fran said the original was not clear as to the voices, so I made the voices more segregated. But it’s always meant to be a stage-performed play. Sottu to be confusing. (My revisions can be seen from the ref no - AB, then AC, then AD etc. (Though AC is not shown in this case).

>>I know absolutely nothing about Philosophy. The poem seemed somewhat mocking in its tone, but left me confused as to what the target of your mockery is. Is it humankind? Belief in God? Existential nihilism? Or even dogs?

I was not trying to mock (oh dear - will have to look at the tone again - thanks.) . I know very little about philosophy - this is part of my (Very ad hoc and incomplete) learning process. I was exploring Nihilism (the belief that nothing matters) and touching on its Existential “extension” where we might as well all commit suicide because nothing matters. (I don’t agree with the latter and only agree with the former in the overall sense - I don’t think anything does matter in the final analysis but, of course, we all have lives to live so very many things do matter within that context).

>>By the end of the poem, I was none the wiser as to your opinion on the subject, but maybe I am missing something.

No, I’m pleased you were none-the-wiser: I omitted my opinions. I was exploring the area.

>>Looking at the verses themselves:

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

>>shouldn't it read that struts and frets its hour upon the stage

Ah! Well... I’m embarrassed here. I put three quotes in italics and credited them in the notes at the end. This is the first of the three. I was not trying to pass it off as my work at all! Sorry. It is actually by Shakespeare from Macbeth, so I don’t feel sufficiently competent to correct it... any way I think the “his” is the chap named Life (he’s personified it). This writing is perfect Nihilism! (About 200 years before Philosophy caught-up). Mind you, you have shown that, however good the work or exalted the writer, we can still offer suggestions. (If we dare!)


So, asked GSD, you are God?
You are the gods?
Von Daniken was right?

>>this verse made no sense to me at all. I have no idea what GSD stands for.

Oops, sorry means German Shepherd Dog (proper name for an Alsatian). The dog is there lobbying on mankind’s behalf (Dogs being just about the only creatures on the planet who seem to like humans and want them to prosper).

>>Finally thanks James, this board is never dull with you around to stimulate our brain cells

Well... what can I say, apart from thanks for reading, thanks for the crit and thanks for the kind compliment, Nina. All very much appreciated.

Happy New Year to you and yours.

James.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Ah! Well... I’m embarrassed here. I put three quotes in italics and credited them in the notes at the end. This is the first of the three. I was not trying to pass it off as my work at all! Sorry. It is actually by Shakespeare from Macbeth, so I don’t feel sufficiently competent to correct it... any way I think the “his” is the chap named Life (he’s personified it).

that will teach me to read things properly.  I did see your credits at the bottom, but wasn't sure what they referred to.  Also I apologise for making the silly mistake of reading your original, rather than the revision.  It seems obvious now that you point it out and I feel a bit foolish.

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi Nina,

There was such a lot to read it does get confusing. I looked at the poem over in Socrates and didn't get it all - plus I'm not sure quite what is expected over there anyway, so I ran away again.

I was puzzled why there seem to be two versions of some work on the site when I joined, but now I think it can be quite useful to see how the poem adapts with crits. This one did make drastic changes.

I think you were very resolute to venture in here. I am not brave - merely willing to set myself up for an argument (at least in some cases) and I had learned on GW that James is helpful and would never 'put down' another writer.

Best wishes,
Fran

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi Fran

There was such a lot to read it does get confusing. I looked at the poem over in Socrates and didn't get it all - plus I'm not sure quite what is expected over there anyway, so I ran away again.

I know exactly what you mean about Socrates.    I wouldn't know where to start with complex crit.  It is much more comfortable here.

I think you were very resolute to venture in here. I am not brave - merely willing to set myself up for an argument (at least in some cases) and I had learned on GW that James is helpful and would never 'put down' another writer.

I am not brave at all. I just think that if someone has made the effort and posted a poem inviting comments, it is only right that we should give them feedback.  For some reason I didn't comment in this thread and when I saw it this morning and James' very polite request, how could I resist.  Though maybe I should have read the thread more carefully before posting.

One of the things I like about MM is how considerate of others' feelings, people are when they post their crits.  I have been on far too many boards where threads have become vicious and nasty because posters are far more concerned with being right than in the effect of their comments on other people's feelings.

Nina

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi again Nina.

There is one thing I miss from GW though - the hug smiley.  :)

The atmosphere here is good, isn't it: friendly and supportive, despite discussions.

However, I'm off topic - I'd better go and feed the kids.

Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Nina, Fran, Hi

Thanks very much for the interesting and supportive debate about posting. I agree with most of what you both say.

The only area I disagree with is your "feeling foolish," Nina. You shouldn't; you mustn't; please don't. I was / am really grateful for your crit (both of you - the only ones brave enough to) and I really don't want you feeling awkward because of a slight oversight amid a very complex piece. Anyway, if you saw my credits but didn’t understand to what they referred that is my fault, not yours and I shall look at that again, thank you.

Hey it’s also in my personal interests that you don’t feel foolish - I don’t want you put-off critting my work - I really appreciate your comments. So, please no feeling foolish. You most certainly are not.

Fran - thanks for your helpful intervention and kind words. I also agree that having the original posting here is useful to show progress, resulting from critiques. I had forgotten that many other boards (e.g. BBCGW) don’t seem to do that so it can be confusing at first.

Might I politely request that neither of you refrain from critting my work in future - I need your bravery and helpfulness. :)

Best wishes, James.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi James

I have no intention of refraining from critting your work in future.  It is a pleasure.

Nina