[Carl Copeland]

FIRST REVISION (a true ghazal this time?)

On Receiving a Last Warning from Self-Storage

My treasure, laid up long ago, is going
to auction for the debt I owe. It’s going …

They cast their lots, divide my garments, strip
the Eden rose that, nursed to grow, is going.

They desecrate my chamber. To the wind
go petals, faces, words—a poem going.

Wisdom would cut its losses? Ah, but gains
soothe less than losses ache, you know, in going.

Open your box, Pandora. Let hope go.
All that we cherish here below is going.

My heart is on the block. You’d have me cope?
The mallet hangs a moment. Going, going …


Edits
S2L2: cared for so > nurtured so > nursed to grow
S5L2: All to the Lethe’s shady flow > All that we cherish here below



On Receiving a Last Warning from iStorage

My treasure, laid up long ago, is going
to auction for the debt I owe. It’s going …

They cast their lots, divide my garments, strip
the Eden rose I nurtured so in growing.

They desecrate my chamber. In the sand,
drift petaled faces and a poem groaning.

Wisdom would cut its losses? Ah, but gains
soothe less than losses ache, you know, in going.

Open your box, Pandora. Let hope go.
Better to drown in Lethe’s flow, unknowing.

My heart is on the block. You’d have me cope?
The mallet hangs a moment. Going, going …

[Susan McLean]

Carl,
If you want this to be read as a ghazal, you should keep the last word in each couplet the same, so no "growing," "groaning," or "unknowing." But if you want to just play with the form (which is another valid option), you might omit "ghazal" in your thread title. It is good that you keep your couplets separate and vary the allusions in each. The first sher is quite literal, but the more metaphorical ones feel more poetic. I like the allusion to Pound in S3. S4 is an interesting idea, but rather abstract.

Susan

[Carl Copeland]

Thanks, Susan. I simply couldn’t do what I wanted with six goings. Maybe I picked an unproductive word, or maybe I’ll never feel up to a true ghazal. I’d be happy to edit it out of the thread title, but that’s out of my hands. I really only put it in to get the attention of you and a few others who are into ghazals. You got an allusion that even I didn’t get! I wasn’t thinking of Pound—not consciously anyway. S4 is a bit of economic theory from Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman—not that I know anything about economics, but he passed away a week ago, and I heard something about it in the news.

[Glenn Wright]

I like everything about this poem. The scene of the auction is clearly delineated, and the mock-heroic references to casting lots for Christ’s garments and Greek mythology add to the tone of gentle self-mockery. I didn’t catch the reference to Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro” until Susan pointed it out. You even managed to slip your name into the next-to-last line.
I see Susan’s point about the last word of each sher being the same. Usually it’s the syllable[s] immediately before the last word that rhyme in a classic ghazal. I don’t have a problem with your variation, other than the repetition of “going.” I like it at the beginning and end, but in S4L2, could you replace “in going” with something like “not showing?” This would also set up the evils hidden in Pandora’s box in the next sher.
Glenn

[Alexandra Baez]

Carl, first of all, I was not familiar with iStorage when I came to this, so I imagined it could be some Apple data storage product. Am I the only one who could possibly have such a confusion?

I like the liberties you’ve taken with the traditional ghazal form in terms of its usually repeated end words, and dropping the second-to-end-word rhymes. The result combines some of the litany-like sense of the ghazal with some of the musicality of the lyric--a spunky and contemporary-feeling mix. You do maintain some sense of the ghazal’s staid order by ending and beginning with the same words, and I like the repetition of the end word in the first sher—it works well with the onerous sense of drama you’re trying to create.

Throughout, you create a palpable and consistent mood in a fairly high register, which I like.

As both a belongings gatherer and a gardener, I had a bit of a hard time equating collecting beloved clothes with nurturing a special rose, although I acknowledge that there are some similarities. Still, it cannot be gainsaid that belongings of the sort you represent are neither alive or singular like a rose. I get to wondering to what degree you might have been piloted toward this metaphor by the half-rhyme of “growing.” In addition, you mix metaphors in this sher, an approach that tends to weaken the overall effect of writing generally.

By the end of S2 I’m wondering if you’re talking only about garments, or also other belongings. It might be nice to clarify.

I appreciate the emergence of a leitmotif in S3 in the form of “petaled faces,” echoing the rose in the previous sher. But what are these petaled faces—some of your belongings? If so, that seems a bit of an odd metaphor—I can get on board with belongings as petals, but not as faces. I presume that the “poem groaning” is this very piece—this self-reference is nice. I got a bit confused by this sentence, though, due to the comma you felt a need to place after “sand” (and I do see why you felt that need). It tends to make me perceive “drift petaled” as a compound adjective, although that doesn’t make sense. Consequently, I perceived the whole sentence as incomplete (yet I know that isn’t your style).

So, wisdom cutting the losses of itself--is this really what you are referring to in the next sher? The phrase seems a bit of an awkward construction. Can wisdom really be lost--or only misplaced? Or are you talking about other losses that have occurred as a result of ignoring wisdom? Or would it perhaps be the individual in question, not his wisdom, that might or might not cut his losses? Or does the “its” here refer to something else altogether? The following sentence, in contrast, has a nice proverbial sense while standing up to my rational examination. It’s cool that you got the idea for this sher from economics theory. Here’s to mixing it up! I like Glenn’s “showing” idea for all of the reasons that he cites.

“Let hope go”—based on context, you seem to be using this phrase not to indicate a parallel to the Pandora myth—in which hope, along with all the miseries, became activated for the first time—but to indicate an abandonment of hope. This apparent perversion of the metaphor is kind of confusing, although it could be regarded as clever as well. Of course, you know me—I tend to favor things a bit clearer cut.

I see and appreciate the name-play in the last sher, but before I started thinking about the expected name-play, I just saw “cope” as another word, and one that felt a bit awkward in context. It feels a bit at odds with the rest of the poem’s tone. But I do love the way you’ve given a new twist to “going” at the end with the dead-on auctioneers' phrase—very clever move there.

[Carl Copeland]

Thank you, Glenn. As I told Susan, I didn’t catch my reference to Pound either, though it may have been an unconscious influence. I did intend a bit of allusive “self-mockery” in S1L1, but that doesn’t seem to be coming across.

There are two ways I could go with this. One is to let this be a ghazal-flavored poem, and that might involve replacing “in going,” as you and Alexandra suggest. The other is to try shoehorning it into classical form, which is what I’m thinking about now. We’ll see what happens. Welcome to the Sphere, by the way!

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by A. Baez

I was not familiar with iStorage when I came to this, so I imagined it could be some Apple data storage product. Am I the only one who could possibly have such a confusion?

Unlikely. I can revert to “… My Storage Company.”

Originally Posted by A. Baez

I like the liberties you’ve taken with the traditional ghazal form in terms of its usually repeated end words, and dropping the second-to-end-word rhymes.

Thanks, but I didn’t intend to drop those rhymes. “Ago is,” “owe. It’s,” “so in,” “poem,” “know, in,” “flow, un-“ and “going” in the qaafiyaa position are all meant to rhyme. If that doesn’t come across, this poem is headed for the dump along with the storage items that no one wants. In fact, that may be what I meant by S3L2!

Originally Posted by A. Baez

As both a belongings gatherer and a gardener, I had a bit of a hard time equating collecting beloved clothes with nurturing a special rose … By the end of S2 I’m wondering if you’re talking only about garments, or also other belongings.

I’m a hoarder like my mother, but clothing was a weakness of hers, not mine. I meant belongings more generally and chose the word “garments” for the allusion that Glenn caught to Psalm 22:18. I did wonder if it would be misleading. The rose represents the dream I cultivated of a rosy life with all those things, and their removal is the stripping away of petals.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

I appreciate the emergence of a leitmotif in S3 in the form of “petaled faces,” echoing the rose in the previous sher. But what are these petaled faces—some of your belongings? If so, that seems a bit of an odd metaphor—I can get on board with belongings as petals, but not as faces.

The petaled faces are family photos—an archive going back generations—but I realize that the reference is all but indecipherable, and I’d like it to be clearer.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

I got a bit confused by this sentence, though, due to the comma you felt a need to place after “sand” (and I do see why you felt that need). It tends to make me perceive “drift petaled” as a compound adjective, although that doesn’t make sense.

Hmm. I avoided “sand drift” and got “drift-petaled” instead. This is the couplet I wrestled with the longest. Back to the mat.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

So, wisdom cutting the losses of itself--is this really what you are referring to in the next sher? … Or are you talking about other losses that have occurred as a result of ignoring wisdom? Or would it perhaps be the individual in question, not his wisdom, that might or might not cut his losses?

The latter’s what I had in mind—“wisdom” standing in for “a wise person”—a synecdoche, I guess (about time I learn those words). What “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” isn’t really love, but a loving person.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

Here’s to mixing it up!

Amen.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

“Let hope go”—based on context, you seem to be using this phrase not to indicate a parallel to the Pandora myth—in which hope, along with all the miseries, became activated for the first time—but to indicate an abandonment of hope.

I meant to be consistent with the myth, but the myth isn’t terribly consistent to begin with. The miseries are activated by being released, while hope operates by staying trapped in the box.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

… before I started thinking about the expected name-play, I just saw “cope” as another word, and one that felt a bit awkward in context. It feels a bit at odds with the rest of the poem’s tone.

Right. It may be a name game that’s not worth the candle here.

Thanks for the filigree critiquing, Alexandra! (Does that make sense in English? In Russian, the adjectival form of “filigree” can describe any delicate workmanship.)

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Carl,

I'm with Susan. Since you are writing a ghazal, always a bad move, you should commit to the form and end every line with "going." You should also get your name in some form in the last stanza or whatever it has to be called in a ghazal.

I never let slide a chance to deride the use of this form in English, cementing my position in Palookaville. But, I have to say, you're on to a good topic for a ghazal here. I don't think it would be hard to rewrite your second lines to accommodate the strictures of the Great Ghazal.


Ooo.... also, no reason to actually telegraph the form in a parenthetical to the title.


Rick

[Carl Copeland]

Thanks, Rick. I had no great urge to write a ghazal, but they’ve been coming up recently, and the topic, as you note, felt right. I’ve been getting two kinds of advice—one encouraging free play and the other prescribing greater strictness. At the moment, I’m leaning toward the latter faction (you and Susan).

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

You should also get your name in some form in the last stanza.

Hunt for it.

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

I don't think it would be hard to rewrite your second lines to accommodate the strictures of the Great Ghazal.

That’s what I’m working on now. Not sure it’ll be an improvement, but maybe it’ll be a real ghazal.

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

Ooo.... also, no reason to actually telegraph the form in a parenthetical to the title.

It’s only in the thread title as teaser for ghazal-lovers, but even that was misguided.

[Alexandra Baez]

How do you present multiple quotes from one post of another person in a reply? I couldn't figure it out, so I've presented your words in bold below, Carl.

Thanks, but I didn’t intend to drop those rhymes. “Ago is,” “owe. It’s,” “so in,” “poem,” “know, in,” “flow, un-“ and “going” in the qaafiyaa position are all meant to rhyme. If that doesn’t come across, this poem is headed for the dump along with the storage items that no one wants. In fact, that may be what I meant by S3L2!

Oh, the way that you dispersed the qaafiya rhymes across more than one word is what threw me off. But I did catch the resonances on some level! I wouldn’t let my shortcomings in conscious, imaginative observation discourage you here.

The rose represents the dream I cultivated of a rosy life with all those things, and their removal is the stripping away of petals.

Right--I did get that, it just felt like a bit of a quaint stretch to me, but not a fatal one.

The petaled faces are family photos—an archive going back generations—but I realize that the reference is all but indecipherable, and I’d like it to be clearer.

Oh! Interesting.

The latter’s what I had in mind—“wisdom” standing in for “a wise person”—a synecdoche, I guess (about time I learn those words).

Synecdoche, or metonymy, I guess--they seem to be synonymous based on the info I've been able to find so far, but I somehow doubt they really are. Yeah, I can see the wisdom reference as synecdoche, but if a reader interprets this differently, as is easy to do, she runs into trouble.

What “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” isn’t really love, but a loving person.

Interesting perspective. I have no problem with accepting the abstraction, myself.

I meant to be consistent with the myth, but the myth isn’t terribly consistent to begin with. The miseries are activated by being released, while hope operates by staying trapped in the box.

Oh, in grade school, when I was first introduced to the Greek myths, I had heard that hope was released from the box along with all the miseries--or at least that's my memory of it. You're right, the actual myth is not consistent. Incidentally, I just read that the "box" arose from an incorrect interpretation of the original myth's "jar."

Thanks for the filigree critiquing, Alexandra! (Does that make sense in English? In Russian, the adjectival form of “filigree” can describe any delicate workmanship.)

Inventive expression! But in English, I'd say the figurative connotation of "filigree" is less complimentary--along the lines of unnecessary or excessive ornamentation.