The Pheasant, Wizard Award Winner Options

[Guest_Nina_*]

James

You are most welcome

Nina

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi James

My post obviously didn't come across as I wanted it to  (well it was late and I was tired).  

There is no suggestion he was especially wicked, heartless, brutal nor inhumane (interesting concept for a bird)  nor took any pleasure in the killing
I didn't mean to suggest your poor persecuted pheasant was any of those.  In fact in my post I said:

My feeling is that your pheasant had a need to turn to violence and shoot his attackers

I wasn't trying to compare your pheasant with Cathy's Knight, though you read it as such.  

I was looking at a notion of someone in their fight for survival being driven to go much further than is necessary for self preservation, which is what Cathy implies in her tale (or that is how it appears to me).  

Also in my mind was the question of when the underdog has the upperhand and the power is his, will he abuse it or not?

With regard to war.  With the exception of trying to stop the evil of the Nazis in world war 2 which was totally justified (I probably wouldn't be sitting here talking to you if Hitler had succeeded), most wars are a fight for power and control.

Well, those were the weird wonderings of my mind after reading your poem, so I will shut up now and go and cook the tea.

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

Thanks again for popping back and sticking with this.

I think it must be me who didn't quite make myself clear - not you :)

>>I didn't mean to suggest your poor persecuted pheasant was any of those.  In fact in my post I said:
>>My feeling is that your pheasant had a need to turn to violence and shoot his attackers

Nope I didn't misunderstand that. I was just stating the situation as compared to Cathy's character - not rebuffing any comment you made at all, sorry.

>>I wasn't trying to compare your pheasant with Cathy's Knight, though you read it as such.

I did, yes. Weren't you? I though that you were in order to do what you mention in your next point...

>>I was looking at a notion of someone in their fight for survival being driven to go much further than is necessary for self preservation, which is what Cathy implies in her tale (or that is how it appears to me).  

I agree; in that specific verse, her knight comes across as all those things I was saying the pheasant wasn't. To me her knight goes way beyond self-preservation - almost into what, today, we would call war crimes - but that only applies to that verse; I really have to re-read the whole.

err, so I actually think we're agreeing?

WW2 was also a fight for power and control. All wars are that (as you indicate) - with economics thrown in. The Nazis simply wanted to control just about everywhere for the greater good of Germany and fascism. And there's a good chance that I wouldn't be sitting here, replying to your non-posts, either.

Your mental wanderings are far from weird (something about which I know a great deal) and very much appreciated.

A cooked tea... that takes me back to my childhood. Apart from toast, don't think I've had one since. Just checking when the next train to London is from central Hampshire - they are very frequent - and the journey is quite quick - so if you'd kindly hang on a few mins...

James.

[Guest_Jox_*]

You're very kind, Nina, Thank you very much.

[Guest_Jox_*]

© 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.


*Graphic provided by
Celtic Castle Designs

Reference: TC 0259 AB (06/01/2005)

The Pheasant
by TC

Pheasant! Pheasant! Pheasant!
All guns trained on the bird
which suddenly appeared,
diving from above.

Too late!
The pheasant opened-up
with his machine gun:

the shooting party were slaughtered.

(end)

[JLY]

James, this seems like some kind of reversal of fortune. Are our aviary friends turning their rage against mankind?
JLY

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi, James,

I can usually throw myself off the edge and comment on your poems, but his has me uncomfortably puzzled; I am not sure quite what it is. It is not quite utterly sureal (at least by your standards, lol! ), but definitely not normality. Am I missing a metaphor somewhere, or do you just dislike wanton murder of pheasants?

Your bemused friend,  
Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi John and Fran,

Thank you both for commenting. I thought the poem was one of my most obvious ones but since you kindly ask...

This is surrealism, unfortunately. Oh that it were reality! OK, if I’ve not been obvious enough, here’s part of my personal credo - not religious in a godly sense (of course) but part of my personal "religion", I suppose, Views I hold very deeply, anyway and I didn’t intend to express much, except via fiction. However...

I'm not against killing animals for food. Indeed, shooting is probably the most humane way and the birds do have an almost free life prior to being murdered. Much, much  better than say, battery farming and equally better than abattoirs. Humans need to eat and can be the kindest killers in the animal world. No argument from me there (although some of my socialist veggie friends would, most certainly argue).

However, I live in an area where pheasants are bred, loosed and shot for sport. Many are subsequently eaten but that is not the prime purpose of the Brits and foreign visitors who pay up to £1,000 for their day’s sport.

Now, I think people who kill for sport should, themselves, face similar murder. Why not? I would love to see pheasants take arms and attack-back. Why should humans simply take pleasure by wrecking others’ lives - even if the others are birds. The shooting (if not for food) is wanton murder. We try to kill foxes for coming in and murdering chickens without cause - why should we be exempt?

The UK is currently in the process of fox and stag-hunting bans - will take another year unless by any chance, Labour lose the 2005 election and the shooting Tories win. I see no reason (and I have written work about this in the past - though I didn’t think them good enough to post) fox hunters, themselves should not be hunted down and torn apart like we do to poor foxes (which is far worse than shooting pheasants). I don’t agree with the animal welfare protestors that “Meat is Murder” - well, it is but legitimate for feeding ourselves. But the opportunities for sport are endless, so why make the animals suffer for our sadistic pleasure?

Here’s the end-lines from an unfinished piece - which I may be tempted to work on now... (I know it needs a lot, it has been abandoned for two years, so not for crit - just to show my views).

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

No! I trip and fall to the ground. Suddenly I realise that the dogs and humans are upon me. I catch sight of the men's uniforms - all bright and clean; too clean - a brilliant blood red.

I struggle to right myself but the first dog is sinking his teeth into my neck. I shake my head violently. he briefly lets go. I rise to my feet but am set-upon by another dog and then another and then they all join in. I feel one tear at my throat but after a feeling  like a cut I feel no more. My head is jerked round and I see that dogs are at each of my legs. Since I lost the feeling there quite a while ago it is like looking at someone else's legs being torn apart. There is no sensation. My mind begins to wander again. Something is happening. all the countryside has grown. The fresh coolness of Spring has turned into the burning aridness of high Summer. I think a dog is at my chest - I can feel that - or is it the hot summer sun? The season is changing again. It is Autumn. The leaves are peacefully drifting down. I an tiring. I try to stretch my legs but something is stopping them - Oh, yes, I think it must be the dogs. The pace of the changing seasons is accelerating again. It is Winter now. the snow is falling and cold is descending. I look for somewhere to sleep. this seems as good a place as any. I will sleep here while I wait for my Spring to return - I wonder if it'll be as good as the last?

I seem to hear some distant words. I think the man in red said "Foxes are vermin you know," and the man in black reply "so are Jews". I must be imagining things.
---------------------------------------

So, yes, I equate killing for sport with fascism. An elitist sorting of World-order based on malicious prejudice - in this case that humans are more important than animals. Why are we? Only because we think we are. Ask the pheasants (peasants) - I doubt they’d agree. Ah but they can’t speak human, can they - or was it because the Jews might have big noses? All inferior. We obviously have the right to kill them all. Human life is so much more important. Why? Oh, because humans say so. Must be true, then. (Of course, we’ll re-define what is human some times to suite the political conditions, too).

Makes the RC church look holy in comparison - see, despite many people thinking I hate Catholics (100% untrue) or Catholicism (untrue) or the RC Church (blame them, more than hate them), none of them are my top-target. What is? Simple - our species: Humans, me included. We‘re the ones who cause most of the misery and havoc on Earth - via so many ways.

That’s why I wrote the poem.

Thanks for asking, all the best, James.

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi James,

I was definitely missing the intention. Your prose brings it home viciously - made me feel queasy reading that. Thanks...

However, I didn't see that in the poem. This may well be showing my lack of experience - perhaps others who know more about poetry and have known you longer may see more clearly. Else I am inclined to wonder if it is just a little too pared down ... wait and see what else is said.

As an aside, if the pheasants too over the world, they'd start by hunting down mankind for sport, but they'd no doubt end up just as bad (Animal Farm).

Regards,  :dragon:
Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran, thanks for your reply and sorry to make you queasy.

However, my message is not violence; it is peace. We should only kill animals when we have to for our lives' sake (and many people are far more extreme than that).

My poem did not contain anything like as much as the info I just gave in prose. It did not attempt to link wanton violence towards animals with fascism and so on. (Ironic you should say pared-down - I have just replied to your posting in the story thread about that very topic - a cross-over between poetry and prose).

In prose, I think what the poem says is "Why should pheasants not have the equal right to murder people, if people insist on murdering pheasants?" That's all. The rest was an extension - a reason for the poem, I suppose.

I hope the poem said that - did it not? If not, I shall have to revise, yes.

Re: Animal Farm. I don't know but wild animals often kill very nastily... then again, not often for fun (there are exceptions - e.g. foxes). Then again, if they became a comfortable dominant species, who knows...

Thanks very much for sticking with it Fran and I hope you feel better soon.

Best wishes,

James.

[Guest_Cathy_*]

Hi James!

I think you have a very valid complaint and I understand how you feel.  I too agree that killing for food is necessary and ok but to kill just for sport is vicious.  I have to agree with Fran that the poem is too pared down.  I think it could benefit from additions.  I hope I don't offend you but when I read the poem I saw it as cute...the birds getting revenge upon humans...but I don't think you want it read that way.  Use your wide knowledge and understanding of the written word and make the meaning of that poem known.  I believe you have something worth writing about!

~Cathy

[Guest_Jox_*]

Cathy, Hi... thank you very much - very helpful.

You most certainly do not offend me; your (and Fran's and John's) comments are very useful - precisely what I need to shape the work.

I was trying to use a certain cuteness which I had intended to be shattered by the final word "slaughtered" but seems I've not suceeded yet. I must think again.

I am curious on one thing, though:

"the birds getting revenge upon humans...but I don't think you want it read that way"

That was precisely what I did mean in the poem. All the prose I wrote was simply explaining how I arrived at that stage. The poem does not address those other issues. I am addressing them in different pieces (like the prose one from which an extract was taken, but not in this).

Emm.. puzzled now.. I suppose I just have to make the revenge less comical? Less cute?

Thanks Cathy... much appreciated.

James.

[Guest_Cathy_*]

Others may not see it that way James.  Maybe it's just me and my warped brain!  LOL

[Guest_Jox_*]

Cathy, I've already lost my "MM Minimalist" crown to Alan - I have no intention of also losing my "MM's Most Warped Brain" title. Sorry! I'm keeping it.

You have made valid points; I shall think on't and I'm very grateful.

James.

[jgdittier]

Dear James,
I'm still new here at least in my opinion. I think of "new" as not having to feel that I know the members and can then judge how to respond to a posted piece.
I have long thought that modern poetry is not suitable to humor.
Not knowing you well I first responded to "Pheasants..."  as attempted humor. I didn't think of it as successful.
Then reading the comments I learned enough to review in my own mind a concept I'd not thought deeply about before. I'm a liberatarian and so my first thought is to respect the choices of others or differently expressed over here, "buzz off". However, considering man's feral urge to kill wantonly in the name, believe it, of sport, is
difficult to simply put out of one's mind.
Indeed I do believe man lowers himself, perhaps even below most animals, in killing for sport.
That left me with a need to comment on the poem, yet to do so without alienating the hunters or yourself.
For the hunters, may I say that "that's what makes a horserace".
To you, I believe such a topic coming from deep conviction requires
either additional poetic expression to assure that the reader interprets it properly or suitable footnotes.
On second thought, if we all stay friends, my typing finger has been unnecessarily stressed.
Cheers,    jgd

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Ron,

Thank you very much for your interest and comments.

I do (try to) write humour poems - e.g. "Donkeys Cheat At Cards," which I see as humour with no deeper meaning. Then again...

I am certainly not saying that others find my efforts funny but - in general - I think humour can be achieved in any form of writing - even academic papers (sometimes).

My overall target is not really any one group - it is power-bases of mankind - where that power is abused. Now, I judge what abuse is because this is my mind's output. But I'm always happy to argue my corner. In this poem I suppose I am "targeting" sports shooters. However, it may be in every other respect they are decent people and much better than I. So it is really we humans who need to be held to account - and that does include me (at least the last time I looked in the mirror!) (That was an attempt at self-deprecating humour :) )

>>"To you, I believe such a topic coming from deep conviction requires
either additional poetic expression to assure that the reader interprets it properly or suitable footnotes."

This troubles me a bit and for two reasons.

Yes, I do use footnotes - sometimes very extensive. But usually to explain references which would take ages to look-up. I try not to use footnotes to explain the meaning of a poem. I will always explain to critics what I meant if they ask, though. However, I rather think the poem is failing if I need to explain the meaning per se.

Secondly, I do expect the reader to bring something to a poem - their own mind. Therefore, I am not comfortable with "a proper interpretation." If an interpretation is required that is up to the interpreter (i.e. the reader) - what you suggest is not the flexibility of interpretation, it is a rigid prescription, is it not? Once I have created the poem with a certain meaning in mind, it is interesting to see the various interpretations which people make. If you took it to be humorous (albeit a failed attempt at) that is interesting, too. Cathy did suggest it was a little too over that side for my meaning and I think you make a similar point. I may adjust it, then.. but to be honest I never find anything with guns in to be funny. I utterly hate them. So I do have a philosophical problem there. For me, guns always mean serious. I shall have to think on that.

On this point, if you return, might you please tell me what additional poetic expression you had in mind? (I’m stumped on that one). Thanks in advance.

>>On second thought, if we all stay friends, my typing finger has been unnecessarily stressed.

emm you’ve lost me here, sorry Ron. Your typing was not wasted; I appreciated your comments but that is not mutually exclusive with us remaining friends, is it? I would have thought that if you were willing to take the trouble to comment as you have, that was a very friendly and helpful act - and I’m grateful. Thank you.

All the best, James.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi James

I read your poem a couple of days ago, while I was at work but I have been so busy that I haven't had time to post.  I understood the point you were trying to make about the pheasant getting revenge on the humans.  The word slaughtered makes for a brutal ending giving a picture in my mind of a massacre taking place.  

The poem reminded me a bit of a poem I used to read as a child, from a book by Heinrich Hoffman called Struwelpeter.  You can read it here, though the ending isn't as final as yours.

My instinctive feeling about Pheasant is a sadness that this bird is being brought down to the low level of humans.  Having killed them in that way, the bird is now no better than they were and this is why it makes for uncomfortable reading.

Mind you I found reading your story much more painful reading, particularly the last paragraph.

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Nina,

Hello and thank you. Thanks also for taking the trouble to return and comment.

I have read the poem to which you referred but have not quite set it in my mind yet - I have bookmarked it so that I can return; I think it needs some thought - not as obvious as would appear at first (or I'm simply thick - which may be the case).

I appreciate your focussing on "slaughtered" because that was precisely why I used it. A brutal and final word. I tried to make the poem look a little "nice" at first until the shooting - then that word.

I agree about the bird being brought down to our level - and Fran thought as you because she mentioned "Animal Farm." I suppose I have to say that, generally, humans do try to be better to other animals than many other animals do to each other. Nevertheless, killing for sport is fairly uncommon, I believe, so is an especially unpleasant human trait.

My personal feeling is that the humans got what they deserved. I don't blame the pheasant. However, to take your point... you're right - if, say, the Israelis and Palestinians stopped attacking each other than maybe peace? On the other hand, how do the repressed defend themselves if turning the other cheek fails? Have they any alternative but to stoop to violence? I have no  panacea, of course. I simply ask the questions.

I have decided to update that story and will post on MM for crit when I have done so. Of course, the problem now is that everyone knows the ending. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your comment - I didn't mean to pain anyone but, on t'other hand, it is good to have a reaction to one's efforts.

Thank you very much Nina; you have caused me to think more.

Best wishes, James.

[jgdittier]

Dear Jox,
From my point of view, in depth discussions of a piece of poetry is the greatest reward I'd want for mine. Thus I hope you discount my comment about the typing finger.
I suppose the area where we underlap our views is re "deep conviction" in poetry. Since when reading poetry we can't see expressions, nor eyes, hear vocal inflections, etc., and poetry often says so much in so few words, all seem to me to establish a situation where interpretation is difficult. It would therefore seem that as soon as this fact was recognized, some means to deal with it would be adopted. I assume the early poets found that they preferred the potential for misinterpretation and it has become as aspect of poetry.
I find a parallelism even now, tho of the slightest importance. In writing verse, if I shorten a word in order to maintain the cadence, I show the apostrophe. I am strict about cadence and do not want my reader to stumble over whether a normally three-syllable word be
pronounced with just two. It seems to me to be a favor for the reader. But no, I was quickly told that modern style requires the word to be fully spelled out, inferring that it's up to the reader to pronounce it as I intended. I've similarly never seen why.

As to how to assure that the thrust of the piece is properly interpreted, I'd totally leave that to the descretion of the writer. It's just that when I've written what I call "think pieces", they've usually been unintentionally confusing which was not my goal.

Cheers,    jgd

[jgdittier]

Dear James,
For an example of a "think piece" failing

http://p070.ezboard.com/fthepoe....3.topic

It's called PC Football.

You may have to join ezboard but it doesn't cost and you won't be spammed
Cheers,    jgd