The Sky (version 3!)

[CalebPerry]

The Sky (version 3)

It’s sad, this loss of innocence.
The ever unyielding Truth has come
to “save” us. The sky has been debunked.

The skies were once the Heavens, a place
where mankind’s benefactors dwelled,
plotting our future and salvation.

Heaven has been erased, replaced
by ozone, a vacuum, an empty space;
the Sun gods, the Greek gods are gone,

found only now in song. The One God
and the One Son have tickets to Barbados.
Where will we go when we are dead?

Not there. Seemingly, not anywhere.
Not to clouds on freshly sprouted wings.
Not to a party in God’s lair. We simply end.

Held tightly to the ground in a slender
cloak of sooty air, we soldier on
with science as our only friend.

===============

The Sky (version 2)

It’s sad, this loss of innocence. The ever
unyielding Truth has come to “save” us.
The sky has been debunked.

The skies were once the Heavens, a place
where mankind’s benefactors lived,
plotting our future and salvation.

Heaven has been erased, replaced
by ozone, a vacuum, an empty space
sans spirits, Sun gods, Greek gods

and the One God with his One Son
(always under his father’s Thumb).
Where do we go when we die?

Not there. Seemingly, not anywhere.
Not to clouds on freshly sprouted wings.
Not to a party in God’s den. We simply end.

Held tightly to the ground in a slim
blanket of sooty air, we soldier on
with science our only friend.

============

The Sky (version 1)

It’s sad, this loss of innocence. The ever
unyielding Truth has come to “save” us.
The sky has been debunked.

In eras past we knew it as the Heavens,
starting with Greek gods who ruled
from peaks no human could inhabit.

Sun gods, other countless deities,
also occupied the place, until the One God
came with the One Son, followed by

the joyously Redeemed, dressed in white
and sporting sprouted wings, who colonized
the strangely solid clouds. Today

it’s just an empty space. Ozone burns
the lungs, vacuum boils the blood,
presaging our necessary end.

Held tightly to the ground in a paper
blanket made of air, we soldier on
with science our only friend.

☙

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

This is clearly written and easy to follow.

Generally in my experience your poems speak to a very personal experience of yours, and that is their strength. Here, you are doing something different, I think - the poem is largely a general history of man's experience of the divine. To my mind, this is harder to make poetry out of, and I don't think you have entirely succeeded. My fave bits are the opening and the ending, which have some unexpected imagery to them.

Cheers,
John

[Macavity]

Great use of debunked

[CalebPerry]

Thank you, John and Phil.

I thought I had written something brilliant, but I guess not. John, you like the beginning and end. Can you be more specific about the middle? Anything you say will help.

==========

Okay, without changing the poem drastically (and without posting a new version), I've made changes which, I think, add crispness to the language. Let me know if it reads better to you.

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

OK, I'm back, basicallt to repeat what I said in my first comment, but I'll try to be more specific. Yes, the langauge is crisper now and I think more engaging. But to me, the poem suffers from a lack of attachment to the human. It's history, but conducted in generalities, in abstractions. It sounds like a lecture, and I miss the human element. For an example of how a somewhat lengthy history can be tied to the local, the human at every step, here is Cisco Houston:



Oh - I also think just SKy would be a much better title! My 2c.

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

Thank you, John.

The two critiques I got on the other forum were both positive, but maybe they aren't as sophisticated as you are. The problem for me is that I have no personal attachment to the sky. I wrote the poem only because I was thinking of the contrast between the sky as Heaven and the sky as thinning air, ozone and ultimately a vacuum. There's really no personal angle I can put on it. I'll try, though.

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

I think that's a good handle for a poem - the sky/sky contrast - but I just feel like I'm being lectured in the poem, with a list of generalities rolling by.

However, since you got two positive comments on the other forum, I'd go with that and think about where you might send this off. There's Amethyst, for instance, though they like positive takes on spirituality, is my suspicion.

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

No, I'll put together a new version, and then I'll choose between them. I'm beginning to understand what you mean. Tying the sky into the person would be more powerful.

Sorry I didn't comment on any of your poems yesterday. I'll do that later today.

[jisbell00]

That would be nice, I'd like that!

As for your poem, I like your idea of two versions.

Cheers,
John

[David]

Great use of debunked

Yes, I like that too. And I think the poem, as a whole, is more successful than John suggests, so you can make that 3:1 in your favour now, Caleb.

It's true, there are generalities in there, but I think you enliven them with your language / word choice. (Oddly enough, it's the didactic approach, which John is referring to, which I often think is an element in his poems. I have mentioned that before, haven't I, John? But I don't always object to it there either. Again, it depends on the language.)

Cheers

David

[CalebPerry]

David, I just saw your comment, which I greatly appreciate.

However, I followed John's recommendation and changed the poem. Please let me know which version you think is better. Personally, I think they both work.

John, never before has one person's crit compelled me to do such a thorough rewrite. I do like the results.

(I'll post on your poems a little later.)

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

Yes, I prefer your new version myself. For instance, I'm glad this stanza has been replaced:

Sun gods, other countless deities,
also occupied the place, until the One God
came with the One Son, followed by

It read to me a bit like "And then, in October, we move into the marketing phase of the project..." Your new version at no point strikes me that way, and I appreciate that in your rewrite. I no longer feel buttonholed at a cocktail party.

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

Ha ha. You got me laughing: "And then, in October, we move into the marketing phase of the project..."

I understand where you are coming from, but thanks to David, I now see the original version as better than I did. If I ever get a book published, I will include both versions with an explanation.

I think the original version is more clever, but the newer version is clever enough. I'm satisfied with both.

Thank you for paying so much attention to this one, and for helping me see your point of view.

[jisbell00]

[David]

I could go with either of these, Caleb. Each one has its own merits, and it's hard to choose between them.

Cheers

David

[CalebPerry]

Thanks, David! I think the second version is too choppy, so I'll be trying to smooth that out. (Well, maybe not -- I just read it again.)

Sorry for prompting you to come back for another look -- I shouldn't do that.

[ton321]

Hi Caleb

Love the idea of the piece, sky and the blue azure of innocence and idealism.


Tony

[CalebPerry]

Thanks, Tony.

Both versions 1 and 2 had defects. I think version 3 is probably the final version.

Asking people to come back and look at this a third time is asking a lot. I hope you will.

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

I'd say that likely is your best version. I like Barbados - it reminds me of the end of this song:



Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

Thanks, John. I've been working so hard at this poem since I got home that I feel like I just cooked a banquet.

Now it's time to look at your poems.

[jisbell00]

Well, it's certainly the time of year for banquets!

I do think your poem has come along over the revision process. I for one feel it's better poetry now, as poetry: I don't know how you feel about it, but to my mind, the edit was worth it.

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

The people on the other board didn't like the joke line about the "Son" being under God's thumb, and I felt I had to remove it (they were right that it didn't belong in the poem). Also, I wanted more flow in the poem.

I need to say something to you, and I might as well say it here.

I came back and posted again on the Prophet poem, but now I see you have another poem up. First, I think you are posting your poems a little too fast, to the extent I am feeling a bit overwhelmed. I am trying to post a comment on the majority of your poems because you have been so attentive to my poetry. If everything you wrote were clear to me, that would not be a problem. But your poems that are full of references make me feel like am playing with a Rubric's Cube. I'm not a person who likes puzzles, who likes to figure things out. To me that's hard mental work.

Now, the most sophisticated poets are the ones with a great deal of knowledge in their heads about the classics, but I think I've made it clear that I am not one of those people. As such, critiquing your poems that have a lot of references can be exhausting to me, especially given my various health problems that make me tired all the time, and especially if I feel I have to look up the references. I'm not saying that you shouldn't write and post poems with references, but I do think you need to post your poems more slowly. Don't forget that there are only about five people participating in the forum now, if that.

I'm sorry to be blunt. You know that I think you have a lot of talent, so I hope you won't be too hurt by this.

[jisbell00]

Hi Caleb,

I didn't mind the Son line, but it's true, a lot of Americans may not like that. Everyone's different.

I'm not offended by your comment about my posting. I'd thought the prophets poem wouldn't get any more comments- it had drifted pretty far down the board - and that's one reason I decided well, I'll just post my next poem in that case, since PAt allows a poem a day. But I sympathize iwth you and David, who both argue that I get fewer comments as a result. If people want to discuss S4 in the prophets poem - which has been a real obstacle for you at reading, you being the only commenter it's had - I am very happy to work on making it more limpid, while the other poem, "In the Madhouse," sits on the back burner. I just like ot be working at something and as you may have noted, the prophets poem was sliding into oblivion when I posted the next one, it was kind of you to resurrect it.

I do make my poems as simple as possible and work hard at that. The trouble is, my mind is convoluted and full of random data with which I think.

Oh - I would also propose, in my turn, that a poem which has had 168 views, while other poems have had 3, might be ready to be released from the top spot on the board.

Cheers,
John

[CalebPerry]

Well, I had promised early this morning to comment on Prophets this evening. I would have posted sooner, but I became consumed with version 3 of The Sky.

I'll comment on the Madhouse tomorrow. Right now I need to start working on my 2023 taxes.

Despite everything I've said, I consider you to be a brilliant poet at times. At other times you're just perplexing.

There's a manic quality to you, by the way, which I'm sure you are aware of. You came on this forum years after I did, yet you have far surpassed me in posts. Sometimes it seems that you live here. And that's fine. I just think you should post a little more slowly.

[jisbell00]

That's a very kind comment, Caleb. I have a friend to whom I asked a month or two ago what she thought when she first met me forty years ago. She said, "I thought you were strange," and I said "I am strange!" So perplexing seems quite in order.

I suspect I function in hypomania a lot of the time, despite the pills. I brought out three solid books of criticism in a year last year, and my fourth is well on its way. I also have 28 poetry MSS, which makes posting almost too easy. Your idea of commenting on "In the Madhouse" tomorrow, not today, thus strikes me as splendid.

Cheers and happy holidays,
John