fathers

[milo]

at night, I snuck down like a thief
you took a picture of me
stealing pictures in my grief
and just to show you loved me

you shared with me your whiskey toast
upon your breath, your flame
and then to show you loved me most
you took away my name

Oh father thou, oh father thou
I eat the flesh and drink the blood
and if you could be with me now
I’d take the lash and take the good

bread and wine is bread and wine
bread touches bread and no one bothers
your blood is yours and mine is mine
but everyone must kill their fathers


Did you know – oh, did you know
where Trojans go? Well, but of course
if you look within the book
you’ll find them there, they’ve grown quite horse.

I’ll lay this raft upon the waters
laden with your severed head
wrapped in lace as my three daughters
skip double dutch and rhyme me dead

[dukealien]

at night, I snuck down like a thief  "snuck" an informality that sets a tone
you took a picture of me
stealing pictures in my grief
and just to show you loved me  setting the (father?) up as affectionate

you shared with me your whiskey toast  which the enjambment modifies and embroiders
upon your breath, your flame
and then to show you loved me most
you took away my name  amid the story turns and reversals, the meter in this stanza is exact

Oh father thou, oh father thou
I eat the flesh and drink the blood
and if you could be with me now
I’d take the lash and take the good  this line shocks on different levels - the eye-rhyme, the surprise of the whip

bread and wine is bread and wine
bread touches bread and no one bothers
your blood is yours and mine is mine
but everyone must kill their fathers  this line is very good, and important, but still problematic - see below


Did you know – oh, did you know
where Trojans go? Well, but of course
if you look within the book
you’ll find them there, they’ve grown quite horse.  This stanza is playful in its allusions

I’ll lay this raft upon the waters
laden with your severed head
wrapped in lace as my three daughters
skip double dutch and rhyme me dead  the playfulness continues

In moderate critique, this is engaging and could be more disquieting if it didn't let the reader off with apparent humor.  Rhyme is used neatly and, mostly, unobtrusively; so is meter, with deft variations.  Very nice.

The theme of murdering the father is very Freudian and discovered with a turn here (much as Freud himself allegedly discovered it).

Use of italics is effective - here they imply a heightened tone, maybe a little histrionic when addressing the father-icon more directly, even nattering a bit.  It almost seems, with the repetitions on first line of the middle stanzas, that the speaker is orating, a device rather than sincere disapproval or hate.  (In fact, there may be a degree of insincerity throughout, which gives the piece added depth.)

Two spots for consideration:  first and foremost, that important line, "but everyone must kill their fathers."  It is, of course, grammatically problematic since "everyone" is, perversely but definitely, singular (compare with "everyone must kill his father").  But you can't say that for the sake of the rhyme with "brothers," and treating "everyone" as plural widens its effect.   Fortunately (or designedly) informality was introduced right at the beginning, so informal grammar on the part of the speaker has a foundation.  In any case, the only edit that comes to mind is replacing "their" with "the," better grammar but altering the meaning.

And second, "double dutch" on the last line.  My spell-checker insists "dutch" should be capitalized; I disagree.  But I do think it should be "double-dutch," hyphenated, which finesses that idea and provides the reader with a little direction in a crowded line.

That's all I've got.  Enjoyed it.

[milo]

at night, I snuck down like a thief  "snuck" an informality that sets a tone
you took a picture of me
stealing pictures in my grief
and just to show you loved me  setting the (father?) up as affectionate

you shared with me your whiskey toast  which the enjambment modifies and embroiders
upon your breath, your flame
and then to show you loved me most
you took away my name  amid the story turns and reversals, the meter in this stanza is exact

Oh father thou, oh father thou
I eat the flesh and drink the blood
and if you could be with me now
I’d take the lash and take the good  this line shocks on different levels - the eye-rhyme, the surprise of the whip

bread and wine is bread and wine
bread touches bread and no one bothers
your blood is yours and mine is mine
but everyone must kill their fathers  this line is very good, and important, but still problematic - see below


Did you know – oh, did you know
where Trojans go? Well, but of course
if you look within the book
you’ll find them there, they’ve grown quite horse.  This stanza is playful in its allusions

I’ll lay this raft upon the waters
laden with your severed head
wrapped in lace as my three daughters
skip double dutch and rhyme me dead  the playfulness continues

In moderate critique, this is engaging and could be more disquieting if it didn't let the reader off with apparent humor.  Rhyme is used neatly and, mostly, unobtrusively; so is meter, with deft variations.  Very nice.

The theme of murdering the father is very Freudian and discovered with a turn here (much as Freud himself allegedly discovered it).

Use of italics is effective - here they imply a heightened tone, maybe a little histrionic when addressing the father-icon more directly, even nattering a bit.  It almost seems, with the repetitions on first line of the middle stanzas, that the speaker is orating, a device rather than sincere disapproval or hate.  (In fact, there may be a degree of insincerity throughout, which gives the piece added depth.)

Two spots for consideration:  first and foremost, that important line, "but everyone must kill their fathers."  It is, of course, grammatically problematic since "everyone" is, perversely but definitely, singular (compare with "everyone must kill his father").  But you can't say that for the sake of the rhyme with "brothers," and treating "everyone" as plural widens its effect.   Fortunately (or designedly) informality was introduced right at the beginning, so informal grammar on the part of the speaker has a foundation.  In any case, the only edit that comes to mind is replacing "their" with "the," better grammar but altering the meaning.

And second, "double dutch" on the last line.  My spell-checker insists "dutch" should be capitalized; I disagree.  But I do think it should be "double-dutch," hyphenated, which finesses that idea and provides the reader with a little direction in a crowded line.

That's all I've got.  Enjoyed it.

Hello

Thank you so much for the excellent feedback.  as for the hyphen on double-dutch, that is an easy fix.

Your other concern with "fathers" is much more problematic as, you are correct it sets up the image of everyone having multiple fathers each rather than the intended, multiple people with a single father.  I am going to need to ponder on this as the solution.  Of course I could go the easy/lazy route of "bread touches bread without a bother" but I am unsure if I like the diction so I am going to think on it a bit more.

Once again, thank you so much for your feedback

best

[dukealien]

"but still all men must kill their fathers?"

Today, "men" as generic for everyone would draw objections; in years past it would be understood as mankind (though not really).  And "mankind" remains singular.

Looking further into the precedent rhyming line than its final syllable might turn something up, but it's a good line.

[milo]

oh, shit, I just remembered the title is fathers too

I definitely don't want to switch to the bother/father rhyme now.

sigh

[dukealien]

oh, shit, I just remembered the title is fathers too

I definitely don't want to switch to the bother/father rhyme now.

sigh

You're allowed to change the title 

[milo]

oh, shit, I just remembered the title is fathers too

I definitely don't want to switch to the bother/father rhyme now.

sigh

You're allowed to change the title 

no, that would literally ruin the whole damn thing, it wouldn't really mean the same at all.  Part of the dichotomy is the narrator, now a father dealing with the trauma from his own father and recognizing it as a universal condition.

[dukealien]

oh, shit, I just remembered the title is fathers too

I definitely don't want to switch to the bother/father rhyme now.

sigh

You're allowed to change the title 

no, that would literally ruin the whole damn thing, it wouldn't really mean the same at all.  Part of the dichotomy is the narrator, now a father dealing with the trauma from his own father and recognizing it as a universal condition.

I can see that now (and you do a lovely job of explaining without explaining!)