Peace

[RiverNotch]

Edit 1:
Boiling milk on the skin of the seas,
fluttering into a shower of tin
as the flesh of the waters tear into the shore,
stings his wrinkled feet.

Walls of chalk built by giants long-dead,
locked in a battle of physics and time
with the treacherous salt of the ocean-born air,
guard his raven crown.

His eyes are closed: he dreams of peace and love.
His lips, they beam an honest, youthful smile.
His nape is resting on a blade of stone.

A rainbow glides above his quiet chest.
The dusk outspreads its crimson-sprinkled hands
across the young man's navel, opened wide.


Original:
Boiling milk on the skin of the seas
fluttering into a shower of tin
as the flesh of the waters tear into the shore
bathe his wrinkled feet.

Walls of chalk built by giants long-dead
locked in a battle of physics and time
with the treacherous salt of the ocean-born air
stand behind his crown.

His eyes are closed: he dreams of peace and love.
His lips, they beam an honest, youthful smile.
His nape is resting on a blade of stone.

A rainbow glides above his quiet chest.
The coming dusk outspreads its arc of red
over the juvenile's navel.

[billy]

some really good lines in the poem;

as the flesh of the waters tear into the shore makes the water more solid than fluid and gives it life.

Walls of chalk built by giants long-dead reminds me of Dover and an image i know from the Calais to Dover ferry.

the opening line gives a great image of white capped waves.

my main problem was that i couldn't get a handle on the poem as a whole. i know the title tells of peace but it didn't help me much. of course it could be me that's not firing on all cylinders. wish i could be of more help

[Erthona]

RN

"Boiling milk on the skin of the seas

fluttering into a shower of tin"

These are nice lines except for the fact they have no meaning because there is nothing to tie them to a real world object. If one used an "X" to represent these two lines it would not take away any understanding of the next two lines.

X  
as the flesh of the waters tear into the shore

bathe his wrinkled feet.

I have no idea what the "flesh" of waters is. How is this different from saying "water tears into the shore"? There is nothing that "flesh" refers to that is concrete, nothing to clue the reader what "flesh" in this context means. 

The writer has only included half of the metaphor. For a metaphor to work it has to include both aspects of a metaphor. The image (what the writer is saying the object is the same as) and the object itself. Without both parts there is no meaning/sense about what the dependent clause means. Example:

Trees, the unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world.  This of course is an overly simplified version of a metaphor, but it illustrates a point. If I take away "Trees" from the line, I am left with a dependent clause that has lost all meaning as it is no longer tied to trees ("tied to trees" ). If I create a stanza using the same principle, the following is something it could look like.  

Unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world,           (who are these "Unyielding stately guardians"?)
the nurturer of all things,                                                  (would it be beneficial to know I am referring to the earth in this line)
a little red ridding hood skipping through the forest unaware, (would it help to know even the writer doesn't know what this references? It does sound cool, doesn't it?))
the leaves fall down upon her head.                                    (ah, yes they do, but not on little red ridding hood's head Sorry I neglected to tell  the reader that bit of information. Oh well I'm sure they will figure it out.)

So here is my complete stanza without comments. Compare it to S1 in the poem "Peace".

Unyielding stately guardians of the breathable world,
the nurturer of all things,
a little red ridding hood skipping through the forest unaware,
the leaves fall down upon her head.

As one can see, by removing the noun (the object of the metaphor) that makes these dependent clauses a sentence, one takes away all meaning. I'm sure these things make sense to the writer because the mind supplies what is missing. Unfortunately the writer does not include this information in the poem.


As this is mild I'll stop here.

Oh yes, the double line spacing is not my idea. When I formatted it, it was normal spacing.

Dale

[RiverNotch]

Thank you for the feedback, billy, Dale.

"my main problem was that i couldn't get a handle on the poem as a whole. i know the title tells of peace but it didn't help me much. of course it could be me that's not firing on all cylinders. wish i could be of more help"

I won't give the 'surprise' away, but the basic gist of it is that around the young man lies in peace in a "violently described" shore. The imagery of the first two stanzas may have overpowered this whole idea, however, but I can't really be sure until I see what others think of the whole.

"These are nice lines except for the fact they have no meaning because there is nothing to tie them to a real world object. If one used an "X" to represent these two lines it would not take away any understanding of the next two lines....
....I have no idea what the "flesh" of waters is. How is this different from saying "water tears into the shore"? There is nothing that "flesh" refers to that is concrete, nothing to clue the reader what "flesh" in this context means.
The writer has only included half of the metaphor. For a metaphor to work it has to include both aspects of a metaphor. The image (what the writer is saying the object is the same as) and the object itself. Without both parts there is no meaning/sense about what the dependent clause means...."

I was trying to be direct with the show of imagery; when I imagine those first three lines without any guessing, I see sea-foam (the boiling milk) scattering into a mist (shower of tin) as the waves break (flesh....into the shore), and the whole thing seems clear enough, especially with the furthered images of a coast, to convey this without having to be direct. If other people see it that way too (and I think maybe billy already does, so that's one), then I don't think I'd have to edit it--the whole point of those first two lines anyway is to reinforce this one image of the coast.

If your problem, however, is with the fact that the imagery of the stanza itself doesn't really seem to go anywhere, well, I'll have to review a few more poems to see whether I should out the symbolism. Anyway, I'd love to see your other comments on the poem.

[billy]

rivernotch;

have a look in the help section so you can quote remarks in replies etc. here

[RiverNotch]

Oh, thanks again, billy.

I appreciate the line about the treacherous sea air. There is a great deal of good assonance going on here. Have you thought about lenghtening it? I imagine this could be a story poem. Perhaps let us in on the character/narrator? From who's perspective is this coming?

Thanks for the feedback. I....don't know what you're talking about with the assonance there, since it's used rather inconsistently in the poem (the only notable use of it that I can hear is in the first line). This isn't meant to be (nor is this ever going to be) a story poem, either, and the speaker is supposed to be your typical, omnipotent voice, and nothing else; I'm focusing on this one scene, and the rich images and nuanced symbols that it presents. I might end up lengthening this, however, if further feedback proves that it's too elusive.

[ellajam]

Hi, River, there were a couple of tripping points for me, I'll point them out below.

Boiling milk on the skin of the seas
fluttering into a shower of tin
as the flesh of the waters tear into the shore
bathe his wrinkled feet.
The flesh tears, bathes, I believe would be correct. The water being able to tear at the shore yet bathe, which seems gentle to me, is a little hard to accept.

Walls of chalk built by giants long-dead
locked in a battle of physics and time This line set my brain to working, I like it.
with the treacherous salt of the ocean-born air
stand behind his crown.
"with" throws me off, maybe more punctuation would help me but I think you could lose it. Stands.

His eyes are closed: he dreams of peace and love.
His lips, they beam an honest, youthful smile.
His nape is resting on a blade of stone. Strong line, made me think of a guillotine.

A rainbow glides above his quiet chest. Not a fan of quiet.
The coming dusk outspreads its arc of red I think coming is wrong, the red comes with dusk, the coming of night.
over the juvenile's navel. Not a fan of juvenile's, it sounds too aloof to me.

Lots of potential here, I need more reads, just wanted to give you a few points to think about for your next edit.

Thanks for the read.

[RiverNotch]

Thanks for the feedback, ella

The flesh tears, bathes, I believe would be correct. The water being able to tear at the shore yet bathe, which seems gentle to me, is a little hard to accept. It's a little hint at how the symbolism's gonna go, but yeah, I suppose I should have been more consistent. I'll change that line later, when other changes have been considered.

"with" throws me off, maybe more punctuation would help me but I think you could lose it. With also throws me off, but I'm not really sure how to change it (losing it will rob the poem of its, er, syllabic structure) so I'll have to think about that.
Stands. The verb refers to the walls of chalk. Notice that the stanza is just one long sentence. 

Not a fan of quiet. "quiet chest" is sort of integral to the 'surprise' I was talking about....I could change that whole stanza, however, just to get the point across better.
I think coming is wrong, the red comes with dusk, the coming of night. Oh, I get. I'll change that later, too.
Not a fan of juvenile's, it sounds too aloof to me. The fact that it sounds aloof sort of drives the whole symbol, but that idea's really more of an afterthought. That last line is a bit rushed, actually; I'm sure I'm keeping the navel, but for the rest of the line, I'll have to really think about first.

[ellajam]

I applied the "stand" to the salt air, walls is just too far away without the help of punctuation to guide me.

[71degrees]

Boiling milk on the skin of the seas
fluttering into a shower of tin
as the flesh of the waters tear into the shore
bathe his wrinkled feet.

Walls of chalk built by giants long-dead
locked in a battle of physics and time
with the treacherous salt of the ocean-born air
stand behind his crown.

His eyes are closed: he dreams of peace and love.
His lips, they beam an honest, youthful smile.
His nape is resting on a blade of stone.

A rainbow glides above his quiet chest.
The coming dusk outspreads its arc of red
over the juvenile's navel.

Really enjoyed your closing end line word choices (e.g. seas/shore; dead/air; love/smile; chest/navel)...almost sub-liminal for me.  Nice.

Not much else I can say that hasn't already been hashed. "His nape is resting on a blade of stone" is an image that stuck out for me. Need that edge in other stanzas...something to bite a bit.  Not sure why, but I kept flashing on Narcissus about half-way through this.  Not sure this is good or bad.

[RiverNotch]

Thank you for the feedback. Your flashbacks to Narcissus sort of fit, I think, since that's sort of the subject of the poem.

New edit. I added punctuation to the first two stanzas, but I'm not very sure if it's well, appropriate, or if it works in clarifying the subjects. I made a somehow clearer version of the first line, but I don't think it's that important, since the image of the stanza seems to have stuck throughout. I also clarified for a bit the ending I was trying to get at, but now that last line kinda feels awkward to me. And the appropriate word changes, as per ella's feedback.

[Erthona]

RN

RiverNotch wrote: "when I imagine those first three lines without any guessing"

As you already know what you mean, why would you have to guess? However your readers do not know what you mean and they would have to guess. What you say they mean is not the first thought that comes to me when I read it. As for symbolism, it was an art movement in Europe. I forget the years. Symbolism simply means the use of symbols. Saying this is like that as you do is not symbolism. I thought maybe you were referring to the French Symbolism movement of the latter half of the 19th century. However-

Baudelaire was probably the best known of the French symbolism movement. Here are two examples from one of his poem "Anywhere Out of this World".


"I look and see myself angelic! I die and love
—Let the window be art, mysticism,—
To be reborn, wearing my dream as a crown,
In that previous sky where Beauty flowered!"

                           -----

"But alas, here below is master: its spell
Nauseates me even unto this safe haven,
And the impure vomiting of Stupidity
Forces me to hold my nose before the blue."

Much use of symbols here, but except for the second line the rest seem attached to something defined, the most obvious are:

myself angelic
dream as a crown
impure vomiting of Stupidity

As this seems to have little to do with your poem, or maybe I'm not seeing it, that you say you are using symbolism bypasses me. Sorry, I'm not good at guessing.

Dale

---

RN

RiverNotch wrote: "when I imagine those first three lines without any guessing"

As you already know what you mean, why would you have to guess? However your readers do not know what you mean and they would have to guess. What you say they mean is not the first thought that comes to me when I read it. As for symbolism, it was an art movement in Europe. I forget the years. Symbolism simply means the use of symbols. According to that definition you do not use symbolism. I thought maybe you were referring to the French Symbolism movement of the latter half of the 19th century. However-

Baudelaire was probably the best known of the French symbolism movement. Here are two examples from one of his poem "Anywhere Out of this World".


"I look and see myself angelic! I die and love
—Let the window be art, mysticism,—
To be reborn, wearing my dream as a crown,
In that previous sky where Beauty flowered!"

                           -----

"But alas, here below is master: its spell
Nauseates me even unto this safe haven,
And the impure vomiting of Stupidity
Forces me to hold my nose before the blue."

Much use of symbols here, but except for the second line the rest seem attached to something defined, the most obvious are:

myself angelic
dream as a crown
impure vomiting of Stupidity

As this seems to have little to do with your poem, or maybe I'm not seeing it, that you say you are using symbolism bypasses me. Sorry, I'm not good at guessing, so there must be something wrong with me that I don't get your poem.

Dale

[RiverNotch]

RN

RiverNotch wrote: "when I imagine those first three lines without any guessing"

As you already know what you mean, why would you have to guess? However your readers do not know what you mean and they would have to guess. What you say they mean is not the first thought that comes to me when I read it. As for symbolism, it was an art movement in Europe. I forget the years. Symbolism simply means the use of symbols. Saying this is like that as you do is not symbolism. I thought maybe you were referring to the French Symbolism movement of the latter half of the 19th century. However-

Baudelaire was probably the best known of the French symbolism movement. Here are two examples from one of his poem "Anywhere Out of this World".


"I look and see myself angelic! I die and love
—Let the window be art, mysticism,—
To be reborn, wearing my dream as a crown,
In that previous sky where Beauty flowered!"

                           -----

"But alas, here below is master: its spell
Nauseates me even unto this safe haven,
And the impure vomiting of Stupidity
Forces me to hold my nose before the blue."

Much use of symbols here, but except for the second line the rest seem attached to something defined, the most obvious are:

myself angelic
dream as a crown
impure vomiting of Stupidity

As this seems to have little to do with your poem, or maybe I'm not seeing it, that you say you are using symbolism bypasses me. Sorry, I'm not good at guessing.

Dale

I'm sort of afraid of giving it away, but anyway, I thought symbolism, even of the 19th century kind (from which this was primarily derived, yes), didn't need to be explicit about the symbolism? Granted, I haven't read that much symbolist poetry, and I don't really go out of my way to study this, but of what poetry by Stephane Mallarme and Arthur Rimbaud I've read so far, even if they use certain pieces of sense in symbolizing other objects in their poems, the whole thing their poems suggest still seem well-hidden. I note, for one, Mallarme's Toast, which doesn't seem to say anything about its actual topic, the topic beneath the whole image of the seascape.

"Nothing, this foam, virgin verse
Depicting the chalice alone:
Far off a band of Sirens drown
Many of them head first.

We sail, O my various
Friends, I already at the stern,
You at the lavish prow that churns
The lightning’s and the winters’ flood:

A sweet intoxication urges me
Despite pitching, tossing, fearlessly
To offer this toast while standing

Solitude, reef, and starry veil
To whatever’s worthy of knowing
The white anxiety of our sail."

Although perhaps "virgin verse" is the one thing that defines the poem's true subject; nevertheless, that's one word, and the title of this current poem (Peace) pretty much follows this same mode of hinting.