Source
r/OCPoetry•
walpen

Sonnet over Heraclitus

Feedback Received!

When you broke open his ribs
for the golems held within,
you were thinking about fire.

When he bore into your chest
with vague fingers, you accepted
the roiling beasts in the murk.

When guts were gliding on guts
and lungs in each other’s slots,
all of your names came apart.

When you drank the whole river
and washed yourself in his Ur,
you were not yet Abraham.

Then, two souls rechristened in coupled holds
did, like all men, not know what to be called.

1 2

Posted Aug 20, 2016, 1:23 AM UTC

311
dmslyr•

Honestly, I feel a little intimidated by this piece. It seems very mechanically efficient and very intention oriented. Good job.

2
walpenOP•

Thanks, mates.

1
ActualNameIsLana•

I don't know if I have the intelligence to comment on the whole of this piece. I just want to comment on the remarkable oddness of this form. It's written in tercets, not quatrains. Each line has seven syllables in various types of feet, not ten in constant iambic pentameter, and the rhyme schema is, well, I think we can politely call it "murky", not a blatant ABAB.

And yet... it holds its own quite well as a sonnet anyway!!

2
walpenOP•

Thanks mate. I feel like "sonnet" is so amorphous at this point that one can call almost anything a sonnet and get away with it.

And yeah, at this point I'm so accustomed to slant rhymes that the scheme exists only in my heads.

1
WovenRoses22•

I like this a lot. I like the mix of biblical imagery: golem, beasts, Ur, Abraham, souls, fire (a list right out of Revelations).

2
walpenOP•

Thanks mate

1
Gummyfail•

I want to come back to this work when I have more time, but I'd like to at least say this piece shows exactly why I gravitate towards your work (and see my own work bettered in it)

2
walpenOP•

Thank you, bud.

2
Gummyfail•

I'm just gonna do this is bullet points, because essays aren't my strong suit:

The blending of mythologies being grounded in Abrahamic ones gives it a sense of sacredness that going the traditional Greek rooting probably wouldn't have.

your use of the word vague automatically made me think of Joyce's love of that word.

You showed that the volta is all a sonnet really needs to be a sonnet, as long as the volta is as decisive as yours (it made me consider whether Larkin's High Windows is a sonnet or not).

The third stanza is weak, very weak, compared to every other stanza, but the last line in it makes me want to reconsider it. The other two lines are the only ones in the pieces that feel like imagery for the sake of it. Consider playing with the Liver being the organ you mention instead. I think that'll be a stronger move.

I think the title is distracting because of the mention of the form it barely is.

I don't necessarily think this is your best piece I've read, but I think it has the strongest sense of mysticism.

If you extend the piece I believe there is space for Gilgamesh/Noah that would fit tonally and thematically.

Every line felt like it came from a different place and time. It works really well and I'll probably read it again, but I need to know more about Heraclitus first.

2
walpenOP•

Thanks, this is really helpful.

You're totally right about the third stanza. I was reaching for a sense of consubstantiation but it doesn't really land--I'll see what I can do if I come back to this.

To cut short the Heraclitus connection: he a) took fire as a divine, organizing principle, b) linked dry/fiery spirits with wisdom and virtue and watery/wet spirits with drunkenness, stupidity and debauchery.

1
Gummyfail•

no problem. You mind popping over and seeing if my first stanza works on my new piece? I've been fixated on it and can't figure out if it makes any sense.

1