[Henry Quince]

Janet, you were right, and then you wavered! It IS Murray, a new one printed in the current issue of Quadrant. I admit I don’t really follow the last two lines.

I’ll remove it in a day or so.

[This message has been edited by Henry Quince (edited August 13, 2005).]

[Janet Kenny]

Henry.
HOORAY!!! I can channel Les

Worse, I DO understand the last two lines. When coupled with my Italian bird-conversations that places me in another plane of existence.
Thanks for telling me.
Janet

[Henry Quince]

All right, Janet, would you have shot at explaining the closing lines to those of us who speak neither Murray-aboriginal nor Currawong-Italian?

What do you think the poem’s aboriginal speaker means when he says that, in the place where he works, he is “held to” his own culture, and how do you interpret “the wry equal humane”?

Henry

[This message has been edited by Henry Quince (edited August 14, 2005).]

[Janet Kenny]

No Henry. I'm not that easily caught
It's between the lines.
Janet

[Henry Quince]

Not trying to catch anyone, Janet. But you said you understood the final lines and I would like to understand them, so I’m asking for a hint.


[This message has been edited by Henry Quince (edited August 14, 2005).]

[peter richards]

Have you ever noticed how unreliable actors are? Just as a familiar face pops up on the screen and you're saying: "look! there's mad Max", it turns out the bastard's pretending to be someone else this time.

In the cases of e.g. Eastwood, De Niro, and whatever that Ozzy geezer's called, it might be said that the roles don't change very much. They're surrounded by different actors and the given a new name for the role, but otherwise, maybe like poets, they have something like a recognisable voice (mien, in the actors' case).

So if a poet should deliberately use a voice as part of the poem, as is the case here, then you may see the difference between the Kevin Costners and the Peter O'Tooles of this world in the extent to which he/she succeeds.

Oh shit, what am I babbling about. Never mind. Is it not such that the aboriginal voice assumed here would be uncomfortable with a phrase like 'ethnic plurality'?

p

[Mark Allinson]

O.K., Henry - I will have a crack at it.

But first of all, have I missed something? Where does the idea of this poem by Murray being spoken by an aboriginal person come from? It seems like straight autobiography to me. But I might be wrong. Anyway, my reading is based on the assumption that this is Les, or a very Les-like persona, speaking.

We need to recall the last two stanzas:

Nothing else intense
happened to us, in this village.
My two years’ schooltime here
were my last in my own culture,

the one I still get held to
in this place, in working hours.
I love the wry equal humane
and drive in to be held to it.

It all comes down to what "my own culture" means. I take it to mean the Australian culture - the mateship, ocker culture, which the speaker, perhaps like Les himself, has always stood outside of, as a sort of "weirdo" - maybe a bit of a poet-loner.

But it remains the culture the speaker still gets "held to / in this place, in working hours", when he has to relate to others, who still live in their own culture.

And he says he loves "the wry equal humane" - which I read as a very succinct encapsulation of the Australian character. A wry-sense of humour, profoundly democratic and "equal", and a certain sense of kindness, characterise this culture. And he adds that he "drive[s] in to be held to it" - the culture he no longer "lives in" full-time, but only in "working hours", when social contact occurs.

Although, what Les has to do with driving in to work, I have no idea.

Anyway, that's my reading.



------------------
Mark Allinson

[Henry Quince]

The animal references in S2 and S3 and the “my own culture” certainly said “Aboriginal” to me. But you could be right, Mark, though it doesn’t seem to quite square with Les talking as himself. He was from a bush family as you know, and went to school locally, afterwards attending a “town” high school (Taree). If his “own culture” refers to the general Aussie culture why would he couple it with only two years of his schooltime?

It could refer to his bush culture as opposed to the wider Australian, but then I can’t see how that works with the driving in at the end.

But Janet understands it. I’d like to hear her take on all this.

Henry

[Janet Kenny]

It's his own voice. Read other poems and reflect.

The last thing I need is an argument about "what does it mean Mummy?"

Had enough of that from people whose five year olds could draw better than that.

Use all those instincts which consensus poetry discourages.
Over and out.

Janet

PS:
Mark's right. And the "driving in" is metaphorical.

It's not simply the Aussie culture but the cooperative and forgiving rural, poor culture where wild creatures had, for a child, a reality as strong as human things. His source or creative spring. The pain of being shoved into the wider world of adults and depression and cruelty and the retreat represented by his chidhood world.



[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited August 14, 2005).]

[Henry Quince]

Well, that put me in my place, didn’t it? Oh-so-artistically-superior Janet patronises poor benighted mortal who admits when he doesn’t “understand” something?

So a desire to “understand” a poem (a word she has just used herself and I’m sure uses quite frequently on these boards) is now equated with a five-year-old’s take on non-representational art? Over and out indeed.

In case anyone else wants to comment on the “voice” or other aspects of this poem, please be aware that I plan to remove it sometime tomorrow. It’s a new poem only just published and shouldn’t remain here long or get listed in search engines.

==========
Edited to add that the above was written before Janet’s grudging additions above.

[This message has been edited by Henry Quince (edited August 14, 2005).]