Glenn, James, Alex, Max Joe, Jim, Susan, Alessio and John,
Thanks everyone for you comment on this. You've given me lots to think about.
The poem has proven less clear in its intentions than I'd thought it would.
"Useless eaters" (unnütze Esser) was a term used in Nazi propaganda to describe disabled people, depicted as requiring assistance from the state but incapable of offering anything in return. Among other things, the propaganda stressed the financial burden disabled people placed on the state and on able-bodied workers and families. A programme of forced sterilisation of disabled people beginning in 1933 (inspired by the USA, who'd already been doing this for a couple of decades) was followed in 1939 by a programme of mass extermination (Aktion T4). The question of how to kill disabled people effectively in large numbers was addressed by the development of gas chambers disguised as showers, a strategy that later also came to deployed in the concentration camps.
I'm wondering it the phrase "useless eaters" is not as well known as I thought. Or perhaps the issue is that it always solely applied to disabled people? I'd be interested to know.
Glenn,
I'd intended the "we" to refer to disabled people in receipt of social security -- the "useless eaters"; it's useful to know that didn't come across. I certainly don't want the poem to be read as an endorsement for genocide, again useful to know that my intention here hasn't come across.
James,
I'm glad this is working for you in some respects. You said you were still thinking, so I'd be interested to know where your thoughts ended up.
I'd also be interested to know more about your comment that the holocaust is the "ur-placeholder for this sort of thing". I guess to me, it seemed specifically relevant to the poem. The gas chambers disguised as showers were, after all, developed specifically for disabled people, who'd first been depicted as useless and burdensome. Disabled people were, apparently, the most acceptable/palatable -- or the easiest -- place to start. And the modern right-wing narratives do have dark echoes (and here, sadly, I include the current Labour government). The "unacceptable" burden on the tax-paying "hard-working families", the sanctity of work ("Work actually frees people" as Iain Duncan Smith said on breakfast TV the last time massive cuts were imposed on financial support for the disabled), the depiction of disability benefit claimants as cheats and malingers etc. But maybe I've misunderstood your point? Perhaps the poem doesn't make the context clear enough? Or perhaps you’re very correctly pointing out that I’m far from the first to draw these parallels?
Re L3, is it the alliteration of "choked and choicest" that you find overdone, of the alliteration of "each eats enough"? Or the combination, maybe?
Alex,
I'm glad the context came across. Yes, comparison with the Nazis can be a risk, but it's a comparison I wanted to make. I wasn't that happy with "desperation", a bit too abstract and maybe not quite the right word anyway. I'll look at that section again. I'll also give some thought to a volta prior to the last one. I wasn't really intending the poem to turn strongly before the final line, but it's certainly something worth thinking about.
Max,
"choicest cuts" and "foreign holidays" certainly should work against the social security claimants reading, but it's the part of the narrative over here.
A quote to illustrate: "You know there are people getting Chinese [takeaway] deliveries every night [...] It does get your back up [...] you get a free car if you’ve got [disability social security]. [...]. Why should I work and others get it for nothing?".
There's currently a lot of outrage here about people with significant mobility issues being given "free cars", although, of course, this isn't quite what happens: instead there's a lightly subsidised leasing scheme (the company running it gets some tax breaks). Anyway, people on (disability) benefits living it up while others toil and have less is definitely a trope over here. Useful to know it doesn't translate.
Joe,
The poem clearly reads more ambiguously than I’d thought it would with regard to the speaker’s beliefs (once the final line arrives). On reflection, I don’t think I mind that much if the read still sees self-loathing. Internalisation of stigma is very definitely a thing. So, I think I’m OK if there's ambiguity as to whether or not the N actually believes the propaganda, or whether the N is heard as speaking mockingly / satirically / bitterly. Though hopefully the poem doesn't read as if it condones the overt views of the speaker – or the gassing ...
Jim,
Thanks for your detailed reading of this. Useful to know how this came across. I'm wondering if, if the Nazi connotations of "useless eaters" had come across, the final line would have been less unexpected (though hopefully still something of a shock).
Susan
Thanks for letting know how you read this. I'm pleased all that came across, including the dehumanisation and its potential consequences.
Alessio
I'm glad you liked the poem. As I said to Joe, internalisation of stigma/persecution definitely happens, and while that wasn't quite what I was after here, I'm not sure that's a problem for the poem.
John
I'm glad you like the poem, and read it as satire. As to the last line, I think your point may be similar to James's. As I said in greater detail to James, the gas chamber reference seemed quite specific to the subject matter of the poem. That said, maybe the close is too easy a move. I'll definitely be giving some thought to where else I could take it.
Thanks again everyone,
best,
Matt
Linear Mode
