[Jayne Osborn]

"Blasphemy"? Well, that's easier than the Pygmalion comp, for *!~^ sake!

Jayne

From the competition page in Literary Review magazine:

The next subject is 'blasphemy'; poems must rhyme and scan (max 24 lines), and reach this office by 25th September.

44 Lexington Street, London W1F 0LW. Fax: 020 7734 1844
editorial@literaryreview.co.uk

[John Whitworth]

You know, that is a really interesting subject. What would be really blasphemous nowadays? Christ in a bottle of urine doesn't cut it. On the other hand suggesting that Mohammed was a mythical figure (for which there seems some evidence) probably does.

[Adrian Fry]

All that Pygmalion moment business having proved too gnomic to inspire, I am eager to have a go at this one.

John, you're right that blaspheming against Christianity just doesn't seem to bother any but the most lunatic churchgoers. Blaspheming against Islam is a little more risky. Play safe and declare that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist.

[John Whitworth]

What about saying that a gold medallist in the Paralympics is not a nice person.

[Roger Slater]

The fellow did apologize, John, so maybe he's not all bad.

All I have in the can already that mentions blasphemy is this very slight little thing:


Best Wishes

Although I'd never wish you dead
and never wish you ill,
I will not stoop to blasphemy
if it should be God's will.

[Jayne Osborn]

What about saying that a gold medallist in the Paralympics is not a nice person.

To me, blasphemy surely involves the "taking God's name in vain" kind of thing?

My dictionary gives the definition: the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things

This one's a little more prescriptive than you might think, IMO, John.

Jayne

[Roger Slater]

Doesn't the "or sacred things" part throw it wide open?

[Terese Coe]

You're on a roll tonight, John! =)

So this is a humor contest, eh? Nothing seriously blasphemous allowed?

[John Whitworth]

Ah, Jayne, but it has to be OUR God. And what is that? For many people it is Socialism. I love pissing those guys off, which isn't at all difficult. But for more it is a sort of mealymouthedness. For instance, about six months ago I found myself writing a poem about a paedophile in Heaven, or such a heaven as he would imagine, full of ten year old boys in exiguous costume. When I had written it I realised it was quite unsaleable. Blasphemous, don't you know, for suggesting that such a person could have a good side - like Benjamin Britten for example, though his boys were a little older, about twelve. Or Jonathan King, the pop impresario. Many/most gay men of my acquaintance might fit in here, but it doesn't do to say so. I might dust the poem off, I suppose.

[Simon Hunt]

I haven't tried one of these before. Is one able to submit, say, a mildly blasphemous scanny and rhymey old poem that has recently earned a middle-of-the-table finish in, say, an Eratosphere Bake-Off--you know, just hypothetically? Or is there an understanding that submissions are new and purpose-written?