Red Fish Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets. What is a man? The same could be said of all religions. What is a man? It is not by my hand that I am once again given flesh. What is a man? Have at you.
Viaene Posted May 16, 2008 Report Posted May 16, 2008 it sounds nice ,but I don't get the last verse (my knowledge of poetic english is quasi nihil :s )
Red Fish Posted May 17, 2008 Author Report Posted May 17, 2008 i probably made it too deep i'll work on it
Viaene Posted May 17, 2008 Report Posted May 17, 2008 That's not what I'm saying, I'm quite good at understanding deep poetry when it's written in my native language. Now I'm trying to do the same in English now, but I need some help.
blind-fitter Posted May 17, 2008 Report Posted May 17, 2008 it sounds nice ,but I don't get the last verse (my knowledge of poetic english is quasi nihil :s ) "Have at you" is an American expression; means nothing in English. Don't worry about not understanding it, 'cos I didn't either.
Tony Baloni Posted May 17, 2008 Report Posted May 17, 2008 Wow. This poem is so deep, it really speaks to me. Especially that last line.
Red Fish Posted May 17, 2008 Author Report Posted May 17, 2008 american expression my backside it was my expression and it was completely original if you do nothing but rely on standardized ideas and concepts to try to understand my poetry you'll never even come close
Tony Baloni Posted May 17, 2008 Report Posted May 17, 2008 Well then I guess I had this totally wrong. I was trying to use the English language and grammar system to decipher the poem.
Lucky Posted May 18, 2008 Report Posted May 18, 2008 Nammy, I'm not being critical here, so don't take it that way at all, K? I sort of liked it, but I just don't get the last line either, and here is why: To my knowledge "have at you" is not an American expression either. To "have at it" means to "go for it" , and that might make some sense. I understand having an individual style, but it seems to me that if you have to explain your words then something about the poem doesn't work. Unless you are the only person you are writing for.
Tony Baloni Posted May 18, 2008 Report Posted May 18, 2008 It's what you say before you swordfight somebody. Common knowledge. http://www.bartleby.com/81/8035.html
Steel2Velvet Posted May 18, 2008 Report Posted May 18, 2008 I'm a bit surprised B-F didn't get the Shakespeare reference. I've always felt he is pretty adept at English Lit. I see the poem as just that - a swordfight (or just any type fight) a person has with themself. The battle within that is caused by conflicting feelings.
Foolonthehill Posted May 18, 2008 Report Posted May 18, 2008 Yeah, that's exactly what I thought S2V. I've been having conversations like this with myself recently.
Levis Posted May 19, 2008 Report Posted May 19, 2008 I think it's based on Freudian concepts. (:beady:)
TheLizard Posted May 19, 2008 Report Posted May 19, 2008 I think people are attempting to find meanings where there might not be any to be found. Or, as the author says, it's about a vampire swordfight. Badass?
Levis Posted May 19, 2008 Report Posted May 19, 2008 Wait, no... it's Jungian. Okay... that's fine by me
blind-fitter Posted May 19, 2008 Report Posted May 19, 2008 To my knowledge "have at you" is not an American expression either. To "have at it" means to "go for it" , and that might make some sense. Well, y'know, I was just trying to make our Belgian friend feel a little better about not understanding the final bit? Of my 43 years on planet Earth, I've spent upwards of 42 in England, speaking English. Granted, for a couple of those years I had minimal language and comprehension skills (insert your own joke here). In all that time, I had never encountered the phrase "have at it", until I saw it used here on SF by American English-speaking persons. I could work out what it meant, without too much trouble, what with being an English-speaker. It may be that the phrase has its origins in English, but the same could be said for most American-English phrases, could it not? Wherever its origins , it seems to be in more commonplace usage over there than it is over here. I'm a bit surprised B-F didn't get the Shakespeare reference. I've always felt he is pretty adept at English Lit. Ouch! That smarts. Adept at the language, perhaps; not so much the Literature. I got a grade C at O-level: indicative of the failings of the English comprehensive school system and the poverty of my work ethic. Never read Shakespeare: didn't realise it made me a lesser person, though. "Have at you": doesn't sound very Shakespearean, to these ears... Are you sure it's one of his? If so, it's hardly one of his best. Strangely enough, much as it might be perceived as one of our "quaint English traditions", I never did get into sword-fighting, either. Thus, I remain blissfully unaware of the sport's arcane terminology.
Red Fish Posted May 20, 2008 Author Report Posted May 20, 2008 I think it's based on Freudian concepts. (:beady:) look don't try to do all that stupid psychoanalytical garbage on my poetry i already told you what it means you don't need to start with your oxford styled fancy education smarts on it i don't even know what frueding means
MuzikTyme Posted May 20, 2008 Report Posted May 20, 2008 it's Jungian. Comforting that someone other than me even knows that word/person, much less the philosophy behind it/him. Wasn't his first name Carl, too? See what/whom designed this great site? Wow!!! I just became aware!!!
Levis Posted May 20, 2008 Report Posted May 20, 2008 What roobish... almost everyone knows Jung. Maybe not his 'theory' but they know OF him anyway. He was Freud's (ugh) crony after all ... till he came to his senses. Phew.
MuzikTyme Posted May 20, 2008 Report Posted May 20, 2008 Wow! Thanks for biting. Though, your bite's not very hard at all! Grow some teeth as well as theory. Thanks for your contributions!
Levis Posted May 20, 2008 Report Posted May 20, 2008 I think my more than slight disdain for Freud and his so-called 'theories' is fairly well-known in these parts. I mean, Jung at least admitted he had no proof for what he said, but what right did Freud ever have to claim his methods were 'scientific'? Twit. :beady:
Kevin Posted May 20, 2008 Report Posted May 20, 2008 Levis' dislike of Freud borders more on the pathological rather than the logical ...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now