Mignon, Carl, David, Rick, and John,
Thanks all of you for coming back. It's much appreciated.
Mignon,
Thanks for the research. I hadn't known that either. I guess that's one problem with writing a poem that uses references I haven't properly researched! Useful to know that changing that title removes that reading.
Carl,
Thanks for clarifying what was confusing about the spoken part. I went back and changed put the spoken part in italics. I guess "intervention" without "divine" was a bit cryptic. And yes, the new title isn't really doing that much steering. I'm pleased that the poem's obscurity isn't preventing you enjoying it.
David,
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Callin
The post-intervention misreading keeps on stubbornly asserting itself.
|
Are you saying that even with new title, which doesn't mention intervention, you think of an intervention (other than divine intervention)? Could you say what sort of an intervention and what leads you to that reading?
Rick,
Thanks for coming back, that's useful to know.
John,
Thanks for your detailed thoughts on this. I think you're likely right that there's some confusion with the theme. Or at least, I think the poem probably doesn't quite make the sense I wanted it to, even if I explained it.
I wrote the poem after reading someone write about being addicted to opiate-based painkillers as a young man. When he finally quit, he found he had no tools to deal with anxiety, having been protected from it for so long by the opiates. He'd never learned how to face it, how to cope.
So the analogue here, then, was that Daniel, having been protected by God -- having been invulnerable -- is more vulnerable afterwards. The new beasts -- real or imagined -- are drawn to him because of this, because of his vulnerability, his unmarred skin is like a beacon. Daniel sees the world as threatening. And huddles in his bed, hiding from it. His mind sculpts the world into predator shapes. His den is "homemade" in that sense. He is "less blessed than other men" because the protection he once had wasn't a blessing after all.
So I initially wanted two meanings of intervention (divine and substance-misuse related). But, as I said previously, having the word "intervention" in the title, it seemed to take on too much weight when people tried to interpret the poem, without obviously helping to steer them in the direction I wanted. And no one seemed to spot the "divine intervention" aspect.
Plus I've never had a substance-misuse/addiction issue like the man whose troy I read, so it didn't really feel like my story to tell. Whereas, I do know a fair bit about anxiety, and (unhelpful) ways to avoid facing it, which is why the man's story stuck in my mind. You don't need drugs to avoid facing your fears. So I figured the maybe poem didn't really need the "intervention" aspect. But now I'm thinking it doesn't fit the Daniel as well if it's read that way (which wasn't to say it was perfect in the first place).
I definitely do see how you read it as about trauma/PTSD: He's traumatised by the real lions, and now imagines predators everywhere. Which is another issue for the poem.
On the sea metaphor, I think you have a point, and David raised a similar one, I think. In the first draft, there was more of the sea metaphor: the new beasts "prowled the shore". I was thinking of the sea as the unconscious, as the place of dreams, but the poem could do more suggest that. At the literal level, there is the definitely the question of why the sea is in the poem.
Often, if a poem works for me and works for others, I don't mind so much if we read different things into it. And while it does seem to work well enough for some readers, I'm not even sure if it quite works for me yet.
So hmm. Lots to think about. Thanks for pressing me on this one.
Thanks again everyone,
Matt
Hybrid Mode
