(For G.W. because I do understand)
And then she said into the stillness:
I will not be ashamed anymore
You can keep your original sin,
your shallow garden, your sly serpent.
They can suffer for Adam if they wish.
But I will weep no longer for Eve.
Keep, too, your tree, that trap baited
with lovely fruit. I have sufficient
guilty knowledge to last my life.
Finally, do not think that you exile
me into the wilderness. I go
willingly. There, I will find honest
trees, wise beasts and innocent waters.
And I will worship the earth and sky
with gentle dances of green rhythms.
Copyright 2005. All rights reserved.
50 comments:
Wow. Awesome poem. What's the story behind it?
Considering that you're a Christian, isn't this poem disrespectful of God? I'm not trying to fight. I'm just curious.
I meant to add that it's powerful and well-written, but its message of rejecting God makes me uneasy.
Well, first the story on how the poem came to be.
Sometimes I teach a poetry class for the local college's continuing education department. After one class a few years ago, one of my students came up and spoke to me about her religious beliefs. Basically she said that she rejected the "male-oriented" mainstream religions that forced women into secondary roles. She believed in a Goddess and felt that such belief predated the current religions. (There is quite a bit of historical and archeological evidence to back up this belief; she is not a nut. She's educated and intelligent and lives a good, moral life [yes, non-Christians can do this].) Anyway, she felt that I could understand her viewpoint even though I disagreed with it. She took my class several times -- she's very talented poet with several published pieces -- and we became friends.
We live in the Bible Belt Buckle so she has kept hidden her religious beliefs over the years because she didn't want to be harassed. Regretfully, she was correct in thinking she would be. Recently she slipped up and told a person who immediately spread the news, and the gossips are having a good time with it. Of course, the rumors have it wrong. (They're saying she's a witch now.) She feels her job is in jeopardy now. (She teaches high school.) Although she could easily sue the school if they fired her for her religious beliefs, there are always ways around that. Ways to make her job unpleasant. Ways to get her to quit. She doesn't want to quit because she enjoys teaching, and she's only about five years from retirement.
She called me the other night and expressed her fears and anguish over what was happening. We talked quite a while, and I gave what encouragement I could.
Anyway, I wrote Pagan back when she was in my class, and I felt like posting it, a show of support, I guess. I do a lot of things by impulse, and this was one of them.
As for it being disrespectful to God, well, I don't think so, but maybe you do. As a writer, I'm going to write things from other viewpoints besides my own. These viewpoints -- for example, of villains threatening to release a virus in a major city -- are not going to be mine, but I'm going to present them as forcefully as I can, as truthfully as I can. I'm a workman trying to be worthy of my hire.
That's an interesting way of looking at things, Tech, but don't you worry that the skill of your writing could convince a person of a viewpoint that you don't hold?
I'm wondering about this, and I just thought of it. The Bible talks about a double-minded man being unstable in all his ways. Are writers unstable because of having to hold so many viewpoints in their heads?
And I'm not saying you're unstable in any way. Just writers in general seem to have that reputation.
I don't understand, but I am not G.W.
I just realized that G.W. are my initials, too! I'm not G.W. in this poem! :)
Mark, what is unclear about it to you?
"Honest trees" made me stop and think. Then I thought trees can't speak so they can't be dishonest. Is that right?
Well, actually, Slim, that's not what I was intending by "honest trees." I was referring the belief held by many naturalistic religions that nature is somehow better than man, that animals are wise because they know their place in the world and don't seek above it.
However, everyone reads a poem differently because they see it through their own experiences and knowledge. So considering 'mute' trees is certainly valid.
I think I'm happier that trees can't talk! We'd never get any peace if they did. :)
Gloria did raise an interesting question, Tech. Do you worry that your writing might influence someone to choose something wrong because you wrote a villain too well?
No, I don't worry about someone choosing to be like my villains. If I've done my job right, I will have written the heroes just as interesting and more worthy of imitation.
But I look at my writing as a form of reporting. A reporter is supposed to report the truth. A writer reports fictional truths.
Yes, I know fictional truth seems a contradiction, but bear with me. Any good work of fiction has to have some sort of truth as its foundation. Otherwise the writing seems false. So a good writer is writing truths about events that might not have happened but seem like they did or could.
Let's try again. I see writing as this. A writer creates characters. He tries to make those characters as real as possible. The characters must have needs, desires, loves and hates. Once a character is constructed, then that construction starts to point the character in a certain direction. If you have other characters who want to go in the opposite direction and then place all of them on a collusion course, you have conflict and an interesting story.
Even though you're writing and plotting the story, you have to aware of who those characters are and what they want so that they behave consistent with their goals. With me?
Anyway, once those characters are in motion, I am reporting their actions. If I've created strong enough characters, they will carry the story, even make choices that surprise me (this, by the way, is quite annoying) as they pursue their desires. Some of those choices are not ones that I would ever make in my life.
My writing is not intended to be moral instruction. Maybe it is because I tend to make my heroes people that I admire despite their flaws, but it's not that I'm trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just reporting what happens.
If we're lucky, Mama Rose or Jean will weigh in here as they have a firm grasp on the art of writing fiction and might be able to explain it better.
That sounds a mite false to me, Tech. I'm not a writer so I don't know, but it sounds like you're saying a writer isn't responsible for what he writes and how it affects other people. Isn't this the excuse that the porn industry uses to justify its work?
Interesting how when I first read this poem last night, I thought how lovely it was. And after reading it again, after reading the comments, how it might read differently. I think peoples words and suggestions do influence our thoughts and perceptions. But, ultimately, everything is about our own personal choices. We all have control over that. This piece may not agree with my own chosen belief, but it isn't my place to say what someone else should choose. I haven't walked in their shoes or lived the experiences they have that got them to where they are in their own personal thinking.
Wait...
I think I am rambling. I could go forever on this subject...sorry.
Oh...and I still think the poem is beautifulfully illustrated.
beautifully...
I think intent plays a part in this, Patriot. The porn industry is quite aware of why they're making those films; it's not to teach people how to knit.
The intent of the poem is not to convince anyone of any particular religious belief. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm just telling about a pagan's choice. If that choice seems compelling to someone, then the compulsion is coming from within, not applied externally by me.
Are you really just telling about a pagan's choice? You prefaced the poem with the statement "because I do understand." It seems to me this was more than just a poem about a pagan's viewpoint, but an affirmation of it. Maybe you just were tired of her being harrassed and wanted to stand up for a friend, while not necessarily embracing her belief system. I don't know. It just rang kinda hollow that this was just a pagan's pov.
Actually, this statement is what really bothers me...."If that choice seems compelling to someone, then the compulsion is coming from within, not applied externally by me."
I can't buy this. I can buy what came before this quote, that you're not purposely trying to convert anyone to paganism, because I know you, but as an avid reader and wanna-be writer, I almost find the above in quotes offensive. ..."not applied externally by me" ??? It's as if you are implying your words have no influence in someone's decision making process or you have no accountablilty for your words. You have both!
Your words! You're a writer! Of course they are going to influence someone, if you're doing your job right. Do I really have to remind you of the power of words? Because I'm in rant mode and could do a great essay right now about just that thing. :)
If the choice seems compelling to someone, at the very least we have to acknowledge it could be because something was powerfully written. How can you write persuasively about anything and then step back and say your words don't influence people?
I believe we are responsible for our choices and our actions we make in life, ultimately, OF COURSE, but to say what you write has no influence on someone means either you're not a good writer or you're trying to wiggle out of any accountablity for your words. I'm not trying to be harsh..I know you're an excellent writer, one of my favorite authors and the only person I would even consider co-writing anything with, and I know you wouldn't deny responsibility for anything you wrote, so...it's becoming obvious to me I just don't understand exactly what you meant by the above. What did you mean?
I think y'all are being unduly harsh. People have free will, the ability to read and discern what is true and what jives with all that they know of the world.
Some of the comments are a bit like saying no one should read Harry Potter because it's evil.
I don't believe for a second that Tech has rejected God in any fashion. But then I also believe God is larger than a poem that was intended to offer comfort to a friend.
What Trixie said. :)
I do not see this poem as a call to paganism. At least it wasn't meant as such. Perhaps my writing skill is more powerful than I realized ... sigh, no, I can't buy that as much as I would like to. I think this is a case of people bringing their own meanings to a poem, which we all do with any work.
Does that mean I think writers don't have responsibility for their words? No. After all, I wouldn't attempt to get this poem published in a magazine for children, not that an editor of such a magazine would publish it anyway. I think writers have to make some assumptions about their readers. I assume mine are educated and intelligent. I also assume they can make up their own minds.
As for the dedication, I do understand my friend's point of view. I disagree with it, but I can respect its intellectual underpinnings as well as understand her distaste for male-dominated religion.
The poem is as it is. I was moved to write it, I edited it, and I'm satisfied by the result.
It's a beautiful poem. The story behind it is solid. And I'm pleased TECH is secure enough in his beliefs to allow someone else to express theirs (there are many moral non-Christians out there, and in my belief structure, God loves them all--your beliefs will vary).
As a writer, I have no way of knowing how someone else will interpret my work. Poetry, in particular, is subject to wide interpretation based upon so many factors that the intent of the author is nearly irrelevant with respect to how someone else is drawn or repelled by it.
In this case, if TECH had titled the poem something other than "Pagan" would we necessarily interpret it as an affront to God? (And, to be clear, I don't see it as an affront to God.) TECH's intent could have been symbolic in entirely different ways than are obvious from the words chosen for the poem--we as the reader have no way of knowing that unless he specifically tells us otherwise.
That's why the academic practice of dissecting poetry for author's intent (without clear validation from the author what that intent is) is a bit presumptuous (in my opinion).
As for the author's responsibility to society to portray only morally right actions and to condemn others? That's a challenging discussion. It can be couched in the free speech arena. If we say shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is wrong, then there will be people who say it is wrong to portray less than pure motives in literature (and fiction for those who differentiate). If that were the case, we'd have extremely limited reading material available to us. There are people who choose to limit their reading material in those ways, and that is their right; however, it is not their right to limit others' reading material.
As an author, exploration of a range of human thoughts, emotions, and expressions of such is one of my duties. I suspect the people who disagree with TECH on this matter are firm in their beliefs. I doubt I can say anthing that will alter their views.
With free will, people CHOOSE how they respond to what they read, see, and hear. They have the RESPONSIBILITY to think critically about what they have experienced and DECIDE how they choose to act. Someone who chooses to act one way and say something I wrote influenced them to act in that way are responsible for those actions. If they choose to commit a crime, they assume responsibility that. If they chose to volunteer on a hotline to help prevent what I've written about, they assume responsibility for that. I should get no more credit for them choosing a noble path than someone chosing a criminal path. I wouldn't be happy if someone chose a criminal path. Alternatively, I'd be pleased to learn someone was inspired to do good, but it was their choice, not mine. My point is, people may choose either extreme based upon the exact same words I write.
Should I be mindful of how my words may affect my reader? Certainly. That's part of knowing my audience.
I think Jean deserves some applause...
What Trixie said.
--ER
To describe is not to try to persuade. To emphathize is not to agree. Words are powerful, but they are mere shadows of thoughts. The pure thoughts evoked my words are more powerful -- and those are in the mind, or heart, of the reader.
Excellent poem, by the way. Bravo. ... And I wouldn't dismiss the notion of the Creator being female either.
--ER
Grrr. "my" above should be "by."
--ER
Thank you, Jean. That was exactly what I was trying to say but garbled the message on the way out.
As well written as Jean's post was, it doesn't answer the true question here. Which is, what is an author's responsibility to edify his/her readers? It's all well and good to say that the readers have to make up their own minds, but authors slant their works one way or another. If authors want to encourage good in this world, then they should write stories that uplift people. To not do so is to encourage evil. I know its not as extreme as this, but in many ways, this applies.
Not every story is or should be sugar sweet and nice. The world isn't like that. The world has murderers, rapists, con artists and other evils. Leaving them out leaves out part of the world and is false. Fiction like that is a lie.
Re, "what is an author's responsibility to edify his/her readers?"
None, unless the author's AIM is to edify, and then only those he or she chooses to edify!
Let's say all we do is "edify" Christians. Uh-oh. Already, we have to start delineating exactly who we mean.
And before long, some people are going to feel edified, and others not.
--ER
"No responsibility." This must be the motto of the modern media and the publishing world. They produce all sorts of violent, sexual movies, TV shows, books, and films, and then they claim they have no responsibility for children and teenagers acting out. And if they stopped, we would still get no relief because the newspapers and evening news tell us everything about sex and violence and report few stories about the good people do. Bad enough that Clinton did the things he did, but they reported it until even small children understood every dirty detail. If America is falling, it's because the media has tripped it. Crystal is right to question any author claiming that they have no responsibility for the results of their words.
Patriot, you have a flair for the dramatic.
However, I don't think you have the right, much less the responsibility, to prescribe to a writer what his or her point of view should be. You don't get to tell people what they may or may not write about.
It sounds to me like you are very afraid of the free exchange of ideas and thoughts. I hope you don't carry it to the extreme of book banning or burning.
Wow. It must be late. I keep trying to come up with a reply to that that won't come across as condescending. I can't do it.
--ER
I never said that authors have no responsibility. I said that I expected my readers to be educated and intelligent and assumed they could make up their own minds.
I recognize that there are irresponsible things to write, even evil things. Such as advocating prejudice or violence. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about an author's right to be true to his or her vision, even if that vision is contrary to the accepted norm.
If I don't write as truthfully and powerfully as I can, then why should I write at all?
What's wrong with a sax and violins?
I was the one who said the following, and I meant it, as a writer, a journalist and a Christian ... and a lot of ther things. Mainly a thinker and a lover of freedom over imposed order.
"None, unless the author's AIM is to edify, and then only those he or she chooses to edify!"
--ER
We all have a duty to our fellow man. What Crystal was saying was that a good writer like Tech can convince a person because his writing is so powerful that it can overwhelm someone weaker. She makes a good point. Tech needs to be aware of how his writing can effect other people. This poem is obviously powerful because of all the responses its getting. Perhaps it's not wise to post it on the World Wide Web where children and people weak in their faith can read it. That's something that a Christian should consider.
LOL on the Web part!
--ER
I don't think that was what Crystal was saying. At all. I wouldn't be putting words in her mouth if I were you.
Yes, there are large, weighty issues involving writers and our responsibilities to the public. But it comes down to this: Our responsibility is to be truthful in our reporting and writing. That truth may be hard facts or emotional or spiritual or even fictional, but that is our sole task. If you don't like the world we show, then change the world. In other words, if you shoot the messenger who brings you bad news, you will still have the bad news, but now you have a body to get rid of, too!
I'm unclear about what Crystal was asking too. I understand how Patriot got that out of her post but if he's right about what she's asking, I disagree and agree with Tech and Jean. :) A writer has to be true to his muse. That's the most important thing and why a writer was put here on earth in the first place. :)
Crystal, usually, I think, one to argue for "personal responsibility," has taken an odd turn here, it seems.
And Patriot seems to give way too much credit to the power of others' words over one's own thoughts.
A person's faith SHOULD be rattled by reading other perspectives. How else does it gain strength? Not by hiding one's bushel, backing into a corner of the world ready to swat at everything that doesn't leave one feeling all warm and comfortable about what one believes!
And, I think the idea that I, as a Christian, should think I'm responsible, generally, for helping boost the faith of any other Christian who may or may not happen by is ... just ... weird.
Knowingly taking action, or omitting action, without regard for the waivering faith of a brother, or sister, is one thing. Tiptoeing through life fearful of offending random fellow believers is just ... weird.
And making ANY blanket statement about what "Christians" should or should not do is just asking for an explosion of sectarian disagreement.
--ER
Wow.
Patriot, I find your efforts at censorship to be much more offensive and destructive than anyting Tech has ever written or any thought that could possibly arise from reading his poem. I think your efforts to stifle something you disagree with is absolutely outrageous.
Wait a minute. Now, the last line about worshiping the earth and sky is pretty explicit, although it being a poem, "worship" might not be interpreted as literally as we're accustomed to.
But as a whole, this poem doesn't rejct "God," which is patriot's main complaint, if you read his-her original comments.
It rejects a patriarchical view, it rejects a meaningful myth too often taken literally, it rejects the guilt trips that some Christians want to lay on fellow believers in an insult to the work of the Cross itself, but it doesn't reject "God" -- just a narrow-minded view of "Him."
--ER
It's not censorship to ask Tech to consider how his poem might effect other people. Obviously he wants it to effect other people or he wouldn't have written it. If you're still confused by censorship Trixie, the dictionary has an excellent explanation with several examples. You will see that what I'm asking doesn't fall under that.
All Crystal and I are doing is questioning whether an author can say that he has no responsibility for the actions someone else might take based on his words. It all falls under the heading of personal responsibility.
Finally Paul (in the Bible for those who are unfamiliar) does speak of "being all things to all people" to keep other Christians from stumbling and to present a perfect witness to sinners.
My humble opinion:
A writer is responsible to no one but His God and himself.
Every individual is ultimately responsible for his own actions, no matter how and by whom his actions have been influenced.
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, and stand before our Creator in his judgement, it is we, on an individual basis who have to answer for ourselves, and our deeds. No one else.
A poem, and it's interpretation, or any other outside influences would never be considered an excuse for sinning against God.
Hmm...all good points, (well, most of them) but, ironically, my own words may not have expressed the crux of my arguement as well as I'd hoped they would. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, (well, not too much anyway) but I do mind being taking to task for things I didn't say and some of y'all (not just Patriot) are putting words in my mouth.
So let's do a little housecleaning first...I didn't object to the content of Tech's poem, which was powerfully written; I didn't object to his sharing a different point of view -- good grief, any decent writer is constantly doing that, especially in fiction, and just about anything we write is going to be a "different point of view" from the readers; I was not passing judgement on someone else's beliefs, but apparently that touched a nerve with a few of you, so I'll repeat that -- I'm not passing judgement on someone else's beliefs; I'm not saying we should take away people's free will or choices about what they read; I'm not saying any author should only write about "good" things, whatever that might be; I'm not saying I should get to pick the topics any one writes about; I'm not saying Tech has rejected God or is calling us all to paganism; I have never burned a book in my life and would never want to censor what someone else writes; (although it would be tempting to edit a few things); and I love the Harry Potter books. The new movie comes out Nov. 18th and the trailer to it looks really good. I don't even think I was writing about personal responsibilty, although, I can see how someone might come to that conclusion. I'm all for free speech, okay?
The ONLY thing I objected to came later in the posts when Tech said, "If that choice seems compelling to someone, then the compulsion is coming from within, not applied externally by me." And since this is going to be a rather long post, I'm only going to address those who actually addressed this objection, otherwise I'll be rambling on for hours.
Look, if you're a good writer, you make your point of view compelling. That's your job. You are not responsible for the ultimate choice your readers make, no matter what their level of intelligence is, and you do have a duty to follow your muse, but if you write something compelling and then say you're not doing anything externally to influence someone, well, that doesn't make sense and it denies the power of words. I object to denying the power of words.
Maybe I'm reading too much into what Tech said, but it hit me like a hammer that that's what his meaning was. Words are powerful tools and you can't throw them out there and then say they have no influence. It's like you said, Tech, "If I don't write as truthfully and powerfully as I can, then why should I write at all?" Indeed. And, if you're writing truthfully and powerfully then there IS something being applied externally.
What people do with your words is up to them, how they interpret them comes from their own background and experiences, what decisions they make or don't make based upon what you've written is their choice, but powerfully written words DO matter, DO influence and DO make a difference.
What the writer does with that responsibility is up to him/her and I'm not trying to sit in judgement on what they do with that responsibility either. For pete's sake and by all means, write the stories you were put here to write.
ER: This is very eloquently written...and actually addresses the heart of what I was saying, even if it disagrees with me.
"To describe is not to try to persuade. To emphathize is not to agree. Words are powerful, but they are mere shadows of thoughts. The pure thoughts evoked by words are more powerful -- and those are in the mind, or heart, of the reader. "
Words may (or may not) be mere shadows of thoughts, pure thoughts may be more powerful, BUT it is words that stir those thoughts in our minds and inflame the passions of our hearts. Do our pure thoughts evoke the words or do words stir up our thoughts, form our beliefs, fan our passions? I would argue it is a combination of both and words are much more than mere shadows.
Words do not have any original power, but they do represent our thoughts, and leave their marks in our consciousness and subconsious in very deep ways. What else do we have to express our thoughts, if not words? What influences most of our thoughts and passions, if not words? Our thoughts and passions spring from our own opinions and depend, too, very much on the opinions of other men, which are conveyed through words. Can any picture compare to what jumps into our minds when we say the words, "hell, heaven, angels, God, devils"? There are many other concepts and ideals that can only be shared through words.
Mere shadows to you perhaps, but to me much more. They are a bridge to connect me to you, a rope to throw you when you're alone in sorrows, a way to recall a shared memory and connect to the past, a way to lead others to my opinion or to follow theirs for awhile, a way to share an experience, a way to catch a fire already lit by someone else...lord, I could go on and on. One well turned phrase can reach the hearts of thousands, start a revolution, move us to action...Mere shadows? No, much, much more. For me, words fully compensate any weaknesses they have in other respects. To deny their power and influence is to diminish what you can do as a writer.
Tech, I just want to repeat one more thing, so it doesn't get lost in this post somewhere. I thought the poem was powerfully written and very well done. I wasn't objecting to the poem, but something you said later in your posts. Please keep posting your poems, you know you're my favorite author.
Tech, I think your poem is very moving. I liked it very much.
As to the discussion about whether it's wrong because you are a Christian and the poem's theme is not -- I think it's fine to write something that doesn't stump for your religion. Actually, it's refreshing to read the work of an open-minded Christian.
I am not denying the power of words. I AM flatly denying any ultimate responsibility for what others do with them, whether I intend to influence their thinking or behavior or not. That responsibility lies with them. If that puts me and Larry Flynt -- and David Duke, and Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell -- and every other person in this country with an extreme view, so be it.
On the Paul thing: I'm pretty sure he was talking about how Christians should act toward other Christians, those with strong faith as well as weak faith, IN A COMMUNITY OF CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS.
There are Christians, among others, who gather here to read Tech's writing and to listen in and contribute to the resulting discussion. But this is not a Christian community in the sense Paul was talking about.
I will accept the responsibility that I, as a Christian, have toward other Christians in a Christian community. But this ain't one. Nor is the World Wide Web. Nor is the world at large.
--ER
Techy, this has been your best thread EVer. :-)
--ER
I appreciate all the comments and that you all read the poem and responsed to it some fashion. You've given me plenty to think about.
Post a Comment