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 This work is posted as an unpublished work in order to elicit critical assistance and other helpful comment, only.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_Nina_*]

Hi J

An intriguing poem, though I'm not sure I fully understand it.  I knew nothing about Klaus Fuchs, so thanks very much for the wikki link.  It made fascinating reading.

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

all pretence, lies, obviously Klaus turned his back on the country he adopted, had a different creed and was not in the least bit loyal.

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

perspectives.  How differently we see and view the same questions, words, life.  

Harwell needs this man -
I’m your friend, Klaus -
help me to keep you there.
We need to convince them.
subterfuge, the MI5 Investigator pretending to be his friend to get him to talk and trip himself up into revealing that he is a spy, sealing his own fate.


perspectives -
only things
which matter.


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

again you mention perspectives.  I find Klaus' change of perpective quite hard to understand.  He was welcomed into Britain in the 1930s, having fled from pre-war Nazi Germany. He got his doctorate here and apart from being interred as a German citizen, Britain was good to him.  What happened to loyalty?

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

so having the pint with the MI5 investigator cost him his freedom.

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?
mental-partition wall makes me think of the iron curtain.

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

very smooth operator, pretend to be Klaus' friend and get him to give himself away, thus sealing his fate and putting himself in prison

                         ...Good man, Klaus.


I have to say that I have no sympathy for Klaus.  He should have remained loyal to the country that in effect saved him from death in a Nazi Concentration camp.  What loyalty did he have to Russia?  What drove him to treason?  Money? Greed?  

A couple of suggestions for you to take or leave as always your choices.
[add] {delete}

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

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

thanks for the read

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina.

>N>An intriguing poem, though I'm not sure I fully understand it. I knew nothing about Klaus Fuchs, so thanks very much for the wikki link. It made fascinating reading.

Thank you for popping in, critting and reading that, Nina. At present I’m critting something of yours - so when I’m late again please understand! :)

>N>all pretence, lies, obviously Klaus turned his back on the country he adopted, had a different creed and was not in the least bit loyal.

Yes, in the first verse all is harmony. The divisions are shown later. Fuchs was German and a communist - so her retained his original loyalty, not loyalty to the UK or USA (he was Harwell’s Director and also worked on the Manhattan Project).

>N>perspectives. How differently we see and view the same questions, words, life.

Indeed.

>N>subterfuge, the MI5 Investigator pretending to be his friend to get him to talk and trip himself up into revealing that he is a spy, sealing his own fate.

That is correct. The FBI and MI5 had been working together and virtually knew the truth - but it may not have stood up in court so they needed him to self-convict.

>N>again you mention perspectives. I find Klaus' change of perspective quite hard to understand. He was welcomed into Britain in the 1930s, having fled from pre-war Nazi Germany. He got his doctorate here and apart from being interred as a German citizen, Britain was good to him. What happened to loyalty?

He retained his original loyalty - never changed it. (I’m not defending him - just trying to explain).

>N>so having the pint with the MI5 investigator cost him his freedom.

No, not at all... I think there was a steak and kidney pudding as well but that would have been too exciting to pur in the poem.

>N>very smooth operator, pretend to be Klaus' friend and get him to give himself away, thus sealing his fate and putting himself in prison

Yep.

>N>I have to say that I have no sympathy for Klaus. He should have remained loyal to the country that in effect saved him from death in a Nazi Concentration camp. What loyalty did he have to Russia? What drove him to treason? Money? Greed?

It was loyalty to both communism and Germany (his original loyalties). Russia was a “friend” of DDR. (again, explaining, not justifying).

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

A couple of suggestions for you to take or leave as always your choices.
[add] {delete}

A beer; {a} kinship?

Yes, that’s good. Thanks.

help me {to} keep you there.

Ditto, thanks!

Thank you, Nina.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi J

Thank you for popping in, critting and reading that, Nina. At present I’m critting something of yours - so when I’m late again please understand! :)

LOL, I should have held off critting you then and maybe I shouldn't continue the discussion, then again I can't resist.

He retained his original loyalty - never changed it. (I’m not defending him - just trying to explain).

OK thanks, so in other words he used Britain to escape from a country that threatened to kill him and probably killed those members of his family who didn't leave Germany  as according to wikki he was born into a Jewish family.  Once war is over  he says "wham bam thank you mam"  and runs straight back to Germany/ Russia as if the sun shines out of their *****  quite frankly he deserved everything he got.

>N>so having the pint with the MI5 investigator cost him his freedom.

No, not at all... I think there was a steak and kidney pudding as well but that would have been too exciting to pur in the poem.

A good steak and kidney pie was wasted on him.  He should have dined on saurkraut and maybe the acid would have lain heavily and given him lots of discomfort.

bah humbug.

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

>J>Thank you for popping in, critting and reading that, Nina. At present I’m critting something of yours - so when I’m late again please understand!
>N>LOL, I should have held off critting you then and maybe I shouldn't continue the discussion, then again I can't resist.

:) Tomorrow maybe - but I’ll get there!

>J>He retained his original loyalty - never changed it. (I’m not defending him - just trying to explain).
>N>OK thanks, so in other words he used Britain to escape from a country that threatened to kill him and probably killed those members of his family who didn't leave Germany as according to wikki he was born into a Jewish family. Once war is over he says "wham bam thank you mam" and runs straight back to Germany/ Russia as if the sun shines out of their ***** quite frankly he deserved everything he got.

Are you suggesting that you’re not sympathetic to him there? Don’t hold back... :)

>N>so having the pint with the MI5 investigator cost him his freedom.
>J>No, not at all... I think there was a steak and kidney pudding as well but that would have been too exciting to put in the poem.
>N>A good steak and kidney pie was wasted on him.

Pudding! Not pie. A wonderful steak and kidney pudding - quite a temptation - and with a decent pint, well a few years in Clink seems a minor price to pay.

>N>He should have dined on sauerkraut and maybe the acid would have lain heavily and given him lots of discomfort.

I don’t think you’ve quite forgiven him yet...

>N>bah humbug.

What the Dickens are you talking about?

Thanks, Nina !

By the way, what is your opinion of Burgess, Maclean and H.A.R. “Kim” Philby? Go on, they weren’t all bad...

:) J.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi J

I don’t think you’ve quite forgiven him yet...

nope!

By the way, what is your opinion of Burgess, Maclean and H.A.R. “Kim” Philby? Go on, they weren’t all bad...

Don't worry, you can safely come out of hiding.  I don't have the energy look them up on wikki and form any opinion or condemn them.

Thanks for the discussion, most interesting though I think I'll stick to fantasy and leave the espionage to you.

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

Sorry, I wasn't trying to encourage you to look anyone up.

The reason I mentioned them ("The Cambridge Spies") was because, unlike Fuchs, they were British - so have even less excuse for their treason than him.

The three of them - together with their recruiter, and fellow spy, Sir Anthony Blunt (Master of the Queen's pictures) were the greatest home-grown anti-British spies ever. They operated from WWII through to the 1960s. Burgess was a radio producer with the BBC at one time and Philby MI6's representative to the US Government in Washingrton DC and, later, Head of MI6's counter-Soviet operations - and a Soviet spy.

Just thought you might dislike them a tad more? :)

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi J

Sorry, I wasn't trying to encourage you to look anyone up.
that's ok.  Tempting as it was I didn't look them up, I toddled off and wrapped pressies instead.

The reason I mentioned them ("The Cambridge Spies") was because, unlike Fuchs, they were British - so have even less excuse for their treason than him.
indeed

Just thought you might dislike them a tad more? :)

ROFL, I think I've exhausted the dislike emotion for tonight.  These three may have to wait till tomorrow if I have time or perhaps I should avoid this field.  I'd make a crap spy myself.  For a start I'd get confused as to who's on who's side.

Happy spying

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

If you feel like that, yes you should avoid the world of espionage; morality is a very liquid commodity.

Hope the family birthday goes well!

J.

[Guest_Nina_*]

thanks J



Nina

[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

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Liam

A really big welcome to MM to you. Great to see you found us!

If you have any problems with navigation, questions etc please just ask - we'll be delighted to help.

Thanks very much for these extensive comments and crit, too. I'm in late and rather brain frazzled so it'll be sometime tomorrow before I answer your points and go through your ideas. In the meantime I just wanted to thank you and say Hi.

Until tomorrow, Cheers, J.

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Liam,

Again, thank you very much for your crit and comments. I have upgraded (from AD to AE) this work as a consequence. Please, if you can, let me know if the upgrade helps / hinders / makes no difference.

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

Yes, that would be the case. I can never decide where morality ends and amorality begins; one man's immorality is another's amorality. My favourite writing subject by a long chalk is espionage. It is why I'm in writing. I think most people would say espionage is amoral and yet, and yet.

>L>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

Thank you. That tends to be my main direction in poetry; I don't really do forms, don't understand rhythm and don't like words which don't earn their keep.

>L>But the problem is you've really given away the punch line 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 interfering with what you are getting across, but that suggests to me the structure is hindering the poem.

Sorry, I didn't quite understand this. The punch line is really that Fuchs was made to gaol himself by a seeming "friend" over a quiet chat in a pub. And patronised to boot. The theme is the morality and I tried to develop that throughout.

However, reading through it I understood some confusions and tried to change some words and orders to overcome that. I don't know if I've successfully addressed your concerns?

>L>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 - rewriting the poem without looking at this draft.

Well, I think I knew what I wanted to say - that a brilliant man like Fuchs was ensnared in the most innocious of circumstances by a friendly lunch companion, using fiendish tactics. In that, I was reflecting the radio play. I also wanted to bring those questions of morality to which you alluded.

>L>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.

Ah there's interesting. I really don't mind what conclusions people draw; I almoost never do. I find readers' different interpretations fascinating. I don't want to tell them what to think - I want to put the subject there and see what they do think.

>L>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.

Well, when I brought this to MM it was in its third draft (AC), I amended it after Nina's corrections (AD) and now it is in its fifth draft (AE) so I'm always re-drafting and delighted do to do.

>L>I hope this helps

Thanks Liam. It has resulted in another re-draft as suggested. I hope it makes more sense now.

Cheers, James.

[Guest_PashernatePoet_*]

I think the redraft does work better yes :) - If you're looking for any more advice I'm afraid I'm out of ideas.

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Liam,

Thanks for your assistance; I'm glad you feel it is improved.

Best wishes,

James

[Cleo_Serapis]

Hello James.

An interesting piece! I'll need to research this individual at another point in time. I was a bit unclear as to your nine-years – what reference is this to -  until I read your footnote.

Given this (because I didn’t notice the footnote at first) I wonder if you should put that year in your poem at the start?

Cheers!
~Cleo  :pharoah:

{delete} [add]

A beer; kinship?
Questions: sister? agents?
mad? bad? sane? good?
{d}[D]epends on perspective.

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

{p}[P]erspectives -
only things which matter.