Death of an Armed Guard (version 2)

[CalebMurdock]

Death of an Armed Guard (version 2)

[FranktheFrank]

My first thought is wordy, with too many asides
and explanations. But it is an interesting last stanza.
1. How did he choose a painless death
2. what did he do to hasten his own death
3. and why did he choose to die at all.

[CalebMurdock]

I appreciate your comments, Frank. You make a lot of good points.

I am more of a narrative poet than anything else, and narrative poems tend to be verbose. The asides and explanations are things I purposely write into my poems. However, I may have overdone it in this case. I am still revising the poem.

One of the problems in relaying this experience (which really happened) is that a lot of it doesn't lend itself to poetry, which is supposed to be beautiful. Two armed guards wheeling a bin filled with money out of Macy's doesn't lend itself to lyricism.

I have written my metaphysical philosophy into the poem. It is my belief that every person chooses the time and manner of his death (on an unconscious level, of course). (People who are into "New Age" philosophies will understand what I am doing.) As for the shot being painless, the human mind doesn't process extreme pain well, so the pain often doesn't register in the brain at all. Getting shot happens so quickly that I am sure it is painless (if it kills you; if it doesn't kill you, then you live on to feel the pain). People who have had their limbs ripped off by sharks (and such) say that they felt nothing.

As for the shooter, he has created bad karma for himself, and in that way has ruined his life. But it isn't just karma. For the rest of his life he'll have to live with the fact that he is a murderer.

I'll be back in six to eight hours. Thanks again for the critique.

[FranktheFrank]

Okay, fine, I write mostly narrative too.
Bob often tells me to cut. The virtue of
a prose narrative poem is that it explains a lot
but it can be overdone. The pleasure is often found
in the plot, the story if you like. Economy of words
is important though as it isn't prose per se.

Shock is the reason people don't feel pain in serious
accidents. Shock can save their lives. But shock can
also kill. I have experienced shock after an accident
and it is so terrible I cannot describe it. There is
a period of calm but eventually this wears off then
shock kicks-in with a vengeance.

As to frequency of posting, I'm sure the admin: Michael
MV can help you out there.

[BobBradshaw]

I like the subject. It’s a bit unusual, but there are many poems these days about violence, particularly about Gaza.

I echo what Ieuan said in his first comment. The poem is wordy, and I was left with the same questions he had. I hope to find answers to those questions in the next revision. Good luck. I’m looking forward to it.

[BobBradshaw]

A couple examples of excessive explanation:

but scattering isn’t quite enough on this bright
and blackened day.
…
I’m consumed by thoughts
that shock me:

[CalebMurdock]

Frank, regarding "economy of words", I generally agree with that. However, some years ago the winning poem in the Rattle yearly contest just went on and on and on and was very repetitious. Everyone has different ideas about what makes a good poem. This poem about the guard could have been vastly longer if I hadn't been focussed on writing concisely. (Please note that I prefer some British spellings, like "focussed" instead of "focused".)

Regarding why people don't always feel pain, I developed a slightly different opinion over the years. I do believe the brain can process only so much pain at one time. In the case of a bullet strike which kills the person immediately, I think it happens so fast that the brain can't process the pain. I don't think the guard had time to feel shock. So my assertion that it was a painless death is going to stay in the poem.

My comment about, Am I posting too many poems?, was meant to be polite, as I don't want to overwhelm anyone. I will read the rules again. Having just joined this forum, you haven't seen anything I've written, so I have a lot of poems to post. Over the years at the other forum, some of my poems didn't get much of a response. It is those poems that I'll be posting here, along with any new poems I write.

Thanks for your feedback, Frank.

[CalebMurdock]

A couple examples of excessive explanation:

but scattering isn’t quite enough on this bright
and blackened day.
…
I’m consumed by thoughts
that shock me:

Thank you, Bob. I accept that you think I included too much explanation/commentary, but let me share my general opinion on this. A poem that is all action with no asides or commentary from the author can make a very stark, dull and uninteresting poem -- more like a fast-action crime show than a work of art, which is what poetry is supposed to be. The truth is, all poets add commentary to their poems. The important thing is to not do it in a way that isn't too obvious.

To me, neither of the things you mention above are unnecessary comments in this poem; they provide context and motivation for the speaker. However, I accept that you think they shouldn't be in there, and I'll try rewriting the poem without them. I can imagine that you also feel that my comment that plate glass doesn't provide much protection from a bullet should also be eliminated. Who knows, maybe the resulting pared-down poem will be improved.

Over the years, one thing I have realized is that there are dozens of rules about what makes for good poetry, but the rules are constantly changing, and not everyone follows them or wants to. For example, mentioning a mythical golden chariot in a poem would break a lot of people's rules (as old fashioned, if nothing else), yet the two poets who have commented on this poem in the other forum didn't have a problem with it, and one of them even liked it.

Thank you for your feedback.

[CalebMurdock]

I like the subject. It’s a bit unusual, but there are many poems these days about violence, particularly about Gaza.

I echo what Ieuan said in his first comment. The poem is wordy, and I was left with the same questions he had. I hope to find answers to those questions in the next revision. Good luck. I’m looking forward to it.

I just noticed this comment. I am going to do a new version which includes a lot of cutting, but I will post it here only if I like it.

I gather that Frank's name is actually Ieuan. How is that pronounced?

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

I just tried cutting the poem down drastically, but I couldn't, as fifty percent of the poem is personal commentary. That is, in fact, what I think the poem is about: My thoughts and experience of a murder I witnessed.

[FranktheFrank]

You have to stick to you guns, Caleb.
If you really believe in something then that is what you should do.
All we ca do is make comments.

[CalebMurdock]

You have to stick to you guns, Caleb.
If you really believe in something then that is what you should do.
All we can do is make comments.

Thanks, Frank -- or Ieuan?

I'm not ignoring your comments, by the way. In every case, I will make an adjustment to the poem to see how I like it.

[CalebMurdock]

Let me make an additional point.

What is this poem about? Is it about a robbery and murder? Or is it about the speaker's experience of a robbery and a murder? I think it's about the speaker's experience.

[CalebMurdock]

I'm knocking this to the top. I've tried to make the language more relaxed but also more poignant. Version 2 is closer to free verse than the first version was. The opening lines of version 1 were horrid.

[BobBradshaw]

The ending is better. I won’t repeat my earlier comments. We can agree to disagree about what makes a good poem.

[FranktheFrank]

Out of the department store come
two armed guards toting cash receipts
to a waiting truck, when out of the air itself
explode two thugs brandishing guns.
The guards scatter, but scattering doesn’t save
them on this otherwise lovely day.
One thug shoots, one guard falls, face down
on the ground with a mortal wound.

How about:

Two guards amble out of the department store
carrying a locked box heading towards
their waiting truck when two masked
figures burst out on them brandishing
sawn-off shotguns. The guards make a break
but are cut down, one ends up face down
mortally wounded.

[CalebMurdock]

Thank you for your feedback, guys. Your suggestions are interesting, Frank -- more masculine than my words.

Since I don't know you well, I think I'll just refer to you as "Frank" from now on. Trying to remember your unusual first name is a challenge for me.

Bob, what do you think of Robert Frost's poem "Birches"? It seems to me that that poem is nothing but asides and tangents, or am I not understanding it somehow?

[BobBradshaw]

“Birches” is filled with outstanding imagery. The imagery complements what commentary there is brilliantly. Without the details and similes no one would remember this poem.

Commenting on something via imagery is another form of “showing”, instead of telling. “Show, not tell” is what this forum advises as a rule of thumb.

Your first stanza by far is the best. It relies on imagery. Your 2nd stanza is the weakest, relying on commentary. Readers visualize details, images, more easily than they do abstractions and judgments.

Bottom line, we see poetry differently. But it’s every writer’s right to choose their own path. I am pulling for you to write good poems, however you do it.

[CalebMurdock]

I've written other poems which I loved throughout the entire poem, only to have other people tell me that this or that stanza was weak because I broke some rule. As a result, I decided to eschew rules and write what I like.

"Showing vs. telling" is one of those rules that poets have come up with over the years, but does that mean there is no such thing as telling well? In poetry, the "telling" is the narrative part. Without the telling, there is no narrative -- unless the narrative is somehow implied by all the "showing", which is not easy to do.

Rules come and go in poetry. There have been so many of them that I have lost track. Another rule is that the poet should not draw the conclusion for the reader, and because of that I've had critics tell me to lop off the last third of my poems. But I've read plenty of poems in which the poet drew the conclusion for the reader, but wrote it in such a lovely way that the poem was still pleasing. I've also written poems in which critics excised the middle, leaving only the beginning and end, and so eliminated any background information from the poem.

There is also a rule that the poet/speaker should not mention himself in his poems, that somehow making the poem personal by saying "I" ruins it.

I think I'm going to post some of those poems that people have criticized because I broke some rule. I won't tell you which ones they are, though.

[FranktheFrank]

You are free on here to post what you like, Caleb, how you like and when you like.
This is a critique forum however and it is assumed you are posting for critique.
If you don't want critique it may serve you well to post 'No critique' in the heading.
And I guess we will do as you ask.
I've had negative responses to my poems here. That's life.
It's a tough old world. I respect your desire to write unencumbered
by negative reviews. I, on the whole, have received an education
and pleasurable fellowship here.

[BobBradshaw]

“Show, don’t tell” isn’t a rule. It’s a general guideline meant to be helpful. There are no rules here. You can just ignore that guideline. As Ieuan said, this is a critique forum. If you don’t want constructive criticism, write “No critique” in each post’s heading.

There are many fine poems written without imagery. Robert Creeley has written some. Poetry depends on music. If the music is just right, one can get away at times without imagery. There is no one way of writing good poetry.

[CalebMurdock]

Neither of you guys are understanding me. I wasn't saying that you shouldn't offer your honest critiques. I was simply sharing my point of view that poetry has become encumbered by rules, and that I don't think the rules benefit poetry any. I wasn't talking about the rules of the forum; I was talking about the rules or "guidelines" that poets apply to their own and others' poetry. Whether they are called "rules" or "guidelines" makes no difference.

I'm also not complaining because you aren't being nice-nice to my poems. That's not what I want. But if I feel that your advice is influenced by your acceptance of a bunch of rules that mustn't be violated, that does influence my response to your critique. The idea that a poem can't have any "asides" in it is, to me, just one more rule. Maybe some day you'll come to like well-written asides when you see them; but if you never do, so be it. Even so, I always do a little rewriting in response to criticism to see if the poem has been improved, and often it has been. For example, I'm going to take another look at stanza two to see if I can improve it, since you don't care for it, Bob.

One of the rules that people kept throwing at me was that poetry should be written with an economy of words. I do, in fact, agree with that. But then five or six years ago, Rattle Magazine's annual contest was won by a woman who wrote a never-ending poem about the veins on her hands which had started to pop out as she grew older, and her poem went on and on and on and on, repeating itself, with no economy of words whatsoever, and for that she got $10,000. So that's one rule out the window.