[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Glenn Wright

Quote:
I didn't see this initially, but it's a good point. To me it's not the word that's the issue, it's that it's associated with women and not men. I think you're generally ok if you associate it with both.

I passed over the line without thinking about it, but you are going to get alarm bells from feminists. And your poetry should be on the right side of feminist thought. —Nick McRae
—————————————————————————————————————————-

Hmm. Don’t alarm bells go off in your head when you aren’t allowed to write anything for publication without an imprimatur from some panel of feminists? (or bishops? or MAGA school board members?). Just asking.

I guess I'm mainly just highlighting how it could be read by some readers. I've had a line land poorly (and unexpectedly) for some because of a similar reason. If you haven't had many readers before it's worth noting, but what you do with that info is your call.

[John Riley]

Glenn, I expected the “pearl-clutching” reaction that entirely misses the point. Comparing promiscuous with monogamous underscores what is happening. First off I don’t wear pearls and I wish someone could find something new to say in that situation. It’s pretty worn out. Fox needs to come up with something new. I simply tried to point out that calling a woman promiscuous is so 1965. Yes, it is judgmental by design. The word was invented as a way for people who do wear pearls to call a woman a slut. If you truly cannot see how that differs from monogamous that may the root of the problem. It’s simply a dumb thing to say there. Maybe call her unfaithful? That is much closer to her being dishonest than promiscuous.

It’s always interesting the things that set people off. One of my favorites is when someone is called out for their insults. Why do people fight so hard to maintain their insulting words? I had an uncle who was a kind man who hired African Americans and treated them with dignity, always fair, who also insisted he’d used the “n-word” his whole life and damn well would use it until he died. I noticed that when I was twelve or so and still have no answer for why insulting and degrading words are so dear to people.

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, John—
“Promiscuous” seems like exactly the word that someone like the speaker in the poem would use to characterize the woman in the relationship. It’s not a word that I could ever imagine using in my own conversation, but it suggests precisely the element of deception and hypocrisy that the proposed situation implies, and that would be necessary for a person to pretend to be virtuous while involved with other people on his or her wedding day. Judging from the heat of your reaction, it got just the reaction I was hoping for.

[John Riley]

If that is actually your intent, that’s it’s suppose to be an indication of the narrator’s crassness than I have to say you certainly fooled me. The narrator isn’t presented as any one with a personality. There is nothing else in the poem to indicate his voice isn’t to be trusted or that his pov is so corrupt. There are no other indicators.

It needs to be pointed out again that all I did was suggest that promiscuous is not a word used today. That, yes, it’s a word to denigrate women for having sex. That I stand by because it’s obvious. Then the reaction was the accusation was I was a pearl clutching cancel diva.

As I’ve said also, and I promise this is the last time I’ll say it, to say she is unfaithful is a word that fits the dishonest motif much better. It isn’t that a man says she’s having too much sex but that she’s being dishonest about it.

Maybe go back before the pearl clutching?

[Matt Q]

Hi Glenn,

"Men with secrets, insecure, pretending to be rich"

Do we need to be told the men are insecure? You could instead leave the reader to imagine why men with secrets would pretend to be rich, rather than tell us that it's because such men are insecure. Let the reader do some of the work. Show us what such men do, and let the reader consider the motives. That way the reader is more involved in poem, and the reading experience is enriched.

"Promiscuous brides carried white orchids like shields of purity"

A similar question: do we need to be told why would a bride-to-be would want a shield of purity, would want to present herself as (more) pure? Could the reader not be left to figure it out?

"Purchasing protection from painful truth, I give you this pot of white orchids and this poem as a proposal."

Again, I'd say you're spelling things out here. At this point it's pretty clear what white orchids signify in this poem. In fact, the first stanza makes the association with lies, corruption, and false appearance of innocence very clear, and the following stanzas have elaborated it. The reader will not be confused about the intended symbolism of white lilies at this point. So, if you just wrote, "I give you this pot of white orchids and this poem as a proposal.", the reader can work out what this implies, that the N has some secrets he/she wants to hide, wants to present him/herself as other than he/she is.

best,

Matt

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, Matt—
Thanks for weighing in. My tendency to want to over-explain is something I struggle with, and your critiques are helpful in forcing me to justify the inclusion of each word. I’m discovering that this is a particular problem for me in non-met poetry where minimalism is the driving principle.

In reviewing, I simply couldn’t justify “insecure.” In fact, I think it confused the point I was trying to make about men who manufacture false personas to deceive the people they pretend to love. I seemed to be giving them an excuse for this dishonesty. Thus, I chopped it.

I kept “shields of purity” because I like the irony of the fragile orchid petals serving as a shield for the disapprobation directed at the brides like arrows, and I like the military imagery.

In the last three lines, the speaker is inviting the lady to join him in seeking protection from the painful truth. (Here is where the reader might speculate. Is he unable to establish a real romantic relationship for some reason? Is he impotent? gay? hideously deformed? or ironically does he simply prefer the freedom and honesty of such a pretended relationship? He’s lying to society, but being perfectly honest with the lady.) The “purchasing” makes the financial/business nature of the bargain clear and makes “proposal” as the last word carry a double meaning: a business proposal and a marriage proposal. That’s why I kept line 18.

I appreciate your thoughtful and perceptive critiques.
Glenn

[David Callin]

Hi Glenn. The N's implication of himself in what appears to be the whole corrupt process is interesting. I'm just surprised you find it so corrupt. I'm not saying you're wrong, on occasion, but these seem to me to be very specific circumstances. Could you make more of that, with less generalising on your part and more individualism on the part of the characters? I just wonder if that would be better, and more interesting, than your making the plain claims about marriage in general.

Or maybe that's what you've done, and I've just misread it? That's quite possible.

Cheers

David

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, David—

Your post made me go back and think about what point I was trying to make. I was trying to discuss, from the point of view of a man, the demands that society imposes on our sexual behaviors. If society forces us to behave in a way that we are unwilling or unable to conform to, then to whom do we owe our faith and honesty? Should we conform to a code of matrimony in which we and our partner are miserable? Should we use deception to circumvent society’s unreasonable demands? Do we owe it to our partner to be honest about engaging in such deception? Is it only fair to permit the partner the same license to deceive?

One might question whether this is still relevant in today’s tolerant and permissive society, but as John pointed out, words like “promiscuous” still carry a heavy weight of disapproval, and people still make vows in churches—admittedly less frequently than in the age when people communicated in the language of flowers.

So I really wanted to focus more on the general ethical issue and less on a particular character.
Thanks for helping me to clarify that in my own mind.
Glenn

[David Callin]

And thanks for clarifying it for me, Glenn. I'll put my thinking cap on again.

Cheers

David

[Matt Q]

Hi Glenn,

Originally Posted by Glenn Wright

I kept “shields of purity” because I like the irony of the fragile orchid petals serving as a shield for the disapprobation directed at the brides like arrows, and I like the military imagery.

I like "shields of purity". I was more wondering if you need to say why the brides needed/wanted to have such a shield. So, I was wondering about "promiscuous". If you were just to write, "Brides carried white orchids like shields of purity as they paraded to the altar", we'd be left to wonder why they needed "shields of purity", and need to supply our own answer. So, "promiscuous" is what I thought was maybe more explanation than you needed.

If it doesn't work just to simply cut "promiscuous", it might be worth seeing if you can find a way to write so that the imagery gives us enough clues that it works without an explanation.

I also wondered if you'd considered "veils of purity", since a veil is something one hides behind, conceals one's (true) face. And is, of course, bridal. Still, it might not work as well with "carried". And I can see that shield works as protection.

best,

Matt