[Paula Fernandez]

Hi Glenn--

Personally, I do not mind at all a sincere devotional poem. Thank you for this thoughtful contribution to that venerable tradition.

I have thoughts...

1) I'm pretty sure that the Vedic religion was polytheistic and would not be copacetic to this very Christian notion of God. I'd drop the Upanishads.

2) the line "ubiquity, omnipotence, omniscience" is ponderous for me... I kind of wanted the rhyme (L2/L3) to be "...into being/...all-seeing" which would open you up for language like all-moving, ever-present, etc., which don't have that dry theological "omni"-aroma.

3) I liked the turn to science language in the second stanza. "Fathoms" works for me as deep understanding of a profound perplexity (which you are!). The idea of God as a black hole is magnificent and the coolest moment in the poem (for me). Loved it.

4) The language in the third stanza is a nose-dive in turns of complexity and interest from the previous stanza. Feels a little like the pablum on the back of a fundamentalist's pamphlet. You want to talk about freedom here, so find an image as awesome as the black hole to carry freedom for you. Maybe stick with something in science?

5) The end couplet takes us back to the science imagery. The idea of the stars burning with God's love for you is very intriguing--actually quite pantheistic. I love it.

Thank you so much for sharing this poem with us.

Paula

[Glenn Wright]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Paula! And welcome! I’m pretty new here myself.
Let me share my thoughts on the points you brought up.
1) My understanding of Vedic Hinduism is that the philosophy and mythology are sharply separated. The Upanishads are mainly philosophical treatises. Brahman is identified as the “ultimate reality” or eternal “cosmic principle” that brings forth the other principles, but Brahman is so impersonal that the “love” of Brahman for individual humans is very different from the “love” of the New Testament God for his human children. In the mythology, however, Brahman is presented more anthropomorphically. What I was going for was the universality of the human desire to know God and the belief that He wants us to know Him in some way that all religions share.
2) I was deliberately choosing recondite, hard-to-penetrate words in L2 to suggest the difficulty of conceptualizing God.
4) I agree with you that there is a lapse in tone in S3. I need to think more about bringing lines 9-12 into unity with the rest of the poem. Your idea of using science is a very good one.
Thanks for taking time to share your responses!
Glenn

[John Riley]

Glenn, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't want to hear from me. My comments seem to be rapidly misunderstood. When I comment I'm usually more focused on if a poem works thematically or structurally, or even cognitively. There are many more skillful people here to talk about the meter.

In your last poem, I did not dive too deeply into the theology. What I tried to do was point out that the analogy you made fell apart because the metaphor had too many holes in it. There is no meaning to come when you compare Abraham/Isaac to the Crucifixion. It's happened again.

I see you did a quick search about the Upanishad in your response to Paula. But I have to ask a question. Can you think of any religion or belief system with a philosophy "sharply separated" from the mythology? Why would Hinduism have separate philosophies and mythologies? Why is Christian mythology more intricate to Christian philosophy than Hinduism? What is the difference between beliefs and philosophy? These are big big questions that could keep someone working for several life times and still not answer. But you do a Google search and make a bold statement. That's that. Let's move on.

It's an unintended slur to say Brahman is "impersonal" and his love differs from Yahweh's. I know little about Hinduism--am not a Hindu with hurt feelings--but I know enough Hindu believers and have read enough to know Braham is an intricate part of their lives, as are the other gods they interact with. Brahman may seem distant and strange to someone unfamiliar with the religion and culture but that's not true for believers. I know from my daily practice of Buddhism that Eastern religions engage the mind differently, more thoroughly, IMO, than Christianity, but it is still an emotional connection.

There I go again with the religion but to be fair this is a poem about religion that tosses in another religion without understanding it. You assume the Christian revelations are just like the Hindu revelations for the interest of your poem. It's another giant assumption/comparison that does not work. Maybe you think I'm picking on one thing too much but truthfully it is indicative of the rest of the poem. You start with generalizations about the Christian god, toss in another religion, and then you focus on you. BTW, if you turn away from the Christian god you don't spend the night alone. You end up in eternal hellfire.

My point is if you're a believer and write a poem about that belief that opens with "the infinitude of God" the poem needs to be buried deeply in that religion. It needs to have authority. This one is superficial and the superficiality is first made apparent when you bring in the Upanishad, something you or I know little about.

Dig into what you are saying about your faith. Keep the focus inward the way Blake does. All you say is your god makes you feel "boundless love." Isn't there something more intimate or thoughtful to say about your faith? Maybe I've read too much of Blake and Herbert and Doone-- Graham Greene--on yeah, Baudelaire, and expect too much.

I hope this helps.


P.S. You should mind what Roger said and stop popping your poem to the top over and over. It tends to drown out other poems when you keep yours on top of the pile. It can seem a little rude.

[Glenn Wright]

Originally Posted by John Riley

My point is if you're a believer and write a poem about that belief that opens with "the infinitude of God" the poem needs to be buried deeply in that religion. It needs to have authority. This one is superficial and the superficiality is first made apparent when you bring in the Upanishad, something you or I know little about.

I am not Hindu, but I have a Hindu daughter-in-law. I was not presenting myself as an expert on comparative religions. My point was that all religions seek to know God and imagine a God who seeks to be known.

Since I’m still fairly new, let me make sure I understand the rules here.
If you have a considered opinion on the craftsmanship of a poem, a question on something in a poem that is confusing, or a suggestion for an improvement, you should post here.

If your poem is critiqued in a way that impugns your integrity, makes personal comments about your manners, personality, ignorance or pretentiousness, or if you think a critique shows that the critic might have misread or misunderstood you, you should wait until a bunch of people weigh in, and not get defensive when replying.

Here’s a suggestion. If you have a critique that falls into the second category, how about sending a personal message instead of posting on the Forum and inviting everyone to pile on? This has the added benefit of not provoking a reply that bumps me up the thread.

In a workshop setting, personal attacks are toxic. Let’s be professional.
Glenn

[John Riley]

There it is. Nothing I said was toxic or personal. Nothing. It's a critique of the poem not being serious because the concepts and comparisons are shallow. Instead of mentioning another religion perhaps dig into the one you're writing about. The comparison reads like something thrown into the air on a Ferris Wheel ride. If you write a religious poem it needs to have more roots than leaves.

How is that personal and toxic? It may be tough but it's what I see: a superficial poem about a non-superficial topic.

I wrote no petty, personal insult. Nothing I should have written in a message. I critiqued the poem in hope you'd write a better one. That's what we do here.

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Just a suggestion, Glenn, but you might consider waiting to respond to comments rather than immediately responding to each post. That will give other people a chance to weigh in before they read your rebuttal, and it will speed up the process and maybe cut down a bit on the length of the threads you start.

Originally Posted by John Riley

P.S. You should mind what Roger said and stop popping your poem to the top over and over. It tends to drown out other poems when you keep yours on top of the pile. It can seem a little rude.

Well, I never. Two years here, and I can still be as clueless as a stranded alien. I always prided myself on giving prompt and individual responses and felt let down when other posters waited a week, only to say, “Thanks, folks, your comments are noted.” Turns out, I’ve had it all backwards. My occasionally long and productive back-and-forths with critters must have looked like shameless campaigns for most views. Forget p’s and q’s; I need work on my abc’s.

[Julie Steiner]

Hi, Glenn!

The six me’s and two I’s in the poem emphasize how easy religion seems when it’s just focused on you and God, and ignores those bothersome neighbors who are so hard to love.

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, Julie—
Yes, that is the hard part. And no doubt a much harder poem to write.
Only three commandments are about me and God. The other seven are about me and everybody else.

[Siham Karami]

Glenn, I’m late to he parade here but just wanted to say I think you’ve done a wonderful thing with this poem. It’s very difficult to write a balanced poem on this subject, I think difficult and rare, but it needs to be done in this world that’s lost its way and I found it very moving. Just very moving and eloquent. Thanks for this.

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Glen,

Yes, this is a gutsy topic to take on--a traditional devotional poem. Secular society has had a good run with little to show for it, so... why not?

I agree with YSL, however, that your concept of God here is a very familiar and uninteresting. Contemporary believers are fascinatingly heretical. My other problem is the command in line one.

Rick