‘The Watchskulls of Erringtide’ by Joe Spring

By golly, I think I’ll leave this thread just right here at Episode 2, entitled, “Chorus (really a duo) of Sycophants.”

“The Watchskulls of Erringtide” by South African Mr. Spring is not a perfect poem, and he says so much on this strand; but it does do some remarkable things.

1. The masculine-ending, iambic tetrameter quatrains propel the poem with rugged energy.

2. “Thrum” is not egregious; it fits in neatly with the beating meter.

3. Despite its supposed non-allegorical nature, it certainly touches allegorical-like depths. What I like about it is it reminds me of German Romantic poems, like those of Heinrich Heine (1797-1856), for example. In that respect, Mr. MacKenzie is exactly right. However, the reason I like such attempts, like those of Mr. Spring and Mr. Gosselin, as ineffective as they may be, is they alert us to one of English poetry’s lacks.

4. What I like about Mr. MacKenzie’s literary attacks (which have happened far more frequently with the poems Mr. Mantyk chooses of mine) is that such attacks clear the air with frank discussion, even when Mr. Mackenzie stumbles literarily.

5. I don’t think the imagery was overplayed or flaccid, anymore than, say, some of the imagery in poems of Keats. One of Mr. Gosselin’s insights is his point about how classical the Romantic poet Keats was.

6. I agree with Mr. Salemi that SCP is a site for all levels of ability. He does an excellent job encouraging those he thinks need encouraging. That he consistently disparages my own poetry, tells me he does not think I need encouragement—a fine compliment indeed. [I did appreciate Mr. MacKenzie’s description of Mr. Salemi’s critque as “suddenly morphed”.]

7. Mr. Spring’s rhymed quatrains show some dexterity in rhyme, if not that found in Tennyson’s “The Lady of Shalott”.

8. I agree with Ms. Bryant concerning the musicality of the poem, which “begs to be read aloud”, though this may be the point from which Mr. Anderson departs. For him the imagery seems mediocre. In fact, though I may not like Mr. Spring’s poetry generally, especially the free verse, I find the diction and the imagery exciting in this work.

9. Mr. Salemi mentioned Mr. MacKenzie’s disparagement of poems by Hartley, Wenham and Spring. He also disparaged “Such Things”, offering no shred of evidence. That shows a lack of critical acumen on Mr. MacKenzie’s part.

10. Though I may not agree with Ms. Bryant in her definition of classical poetry, she does accurately bring up the mission of SCP, at least as far as Mr. Mantyk (and many others) is concerned.

11. Mr. MacKenzie is correct in stating that artistic traditions are “destroyed by the incessant showering of praise” of poems on this site, in which I would include Mr. Mackenzie’s own work as well. But that’s okay, even though he personally, like Mr. Salemi, cannot stand critiques of his works, nor do I agree with Mr. Anderson’s definition of doggerel. I have noted on this site that poets who dislike other people’s works call them doggerel, never truly explaining precisely what they mean. Flawed, yes, is “The Watchskulls of Erringtide”, but dpggerel, no.

12. Ms. Cook is correct to note that an “absolute bastard can produce good work”, from ancient times to the present. I think Mr. Salemi gave an excellent example in his comment on British Postmodernist Phillip Larkin.

13. Unlike Mr. Hartley, however, I do think the poem could be tweaked. Which invention could not? However, I do think Mr. Spring should follow the impulse that gave rise to his poem. For what it’s worth, I do prefer the clash of decent writers, like that of polemical Mr. Salemi and principled Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. Salemi, even when he is slamming others, usually brings up literary examples.

14. I enjoyed Mr. Oratovsky’s “Welcome to the asylum”. I personally am not a fan of enjambment; and when I use it I always twinge. But I don’t mind the short sentences in longer lines; that is one of my favourite techniques displayed brilliantly in Shakespeare’s plays, as, for example, when Macbeth returns from murdering King Duncan.

15. I do agree with Mr. Oratovsky about the last word, which I think could still be used (as I have before used “save”, as well, in such a position); but for me, it is the last lines that flag, as if the poet could not quite pull off the profound feeling I get from “The Watchskulls of Erringtide”, certainly one of the best poem of South African New Millennial literature I have read. Polished, it could be brilliant, though I am not quite sure how that could be done. How does one capture such intensity when it comes to a poet and his or her poem. [I see in a later comment Mr. Spring agrees with this thought.]

16. As Mr. MacKenzie is aware, there are no Shakespeares on this site. We have some decent poetry @ SCP, including Mr. MacKenzie’s sonnets; but no one approaches Shakespeare here. Nor should that concern us—too much. No one in the 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries did either. Still, there are so many poetic avenues down which we can go.

17. I am unfamiliar with the sonnet on sonnets that she (Christina Rossetti?) wrote that Mr. Tweedie gives as an example; I am, however, familiar with the one which Dante Gabriel Rossetti wrote. I do think he is correct about Blake; however, what I like about Blake is what he attempted in his grandiose projects, even though he failed miserably in them. I do like “The Owl and the Pussycat”; but it is “The Tyger” that appeals more viscerally to me. That, by the way is why I deeply like “The Watchskulls of Erringtide”.

18. Ms. Darling’s comment, “tight, limiting, perfect for a statement of eternal vigilance” is on target; though, unlike either her or Mr. Zoutewelle, I enjoy the comments on this strand; they show the excitement people feel about poetry @ SCP.

19. What I like about Mr. Mackenzie’s “Syllabus of Errors”, with which we can agree, disagree, or discount, is he puts them forth; so. too, Mr. Salemi’s “Silly Jokes”.

20. Mediocrity, like doggerel, is a term too easily bandied about, stating little about an actual work. I do think that there is an important question here on this strand. How far should we criticize each other’s works. As a more practiced, but unpublished, writer, I am in the camp that says go full throttle, and I definitely include Mr. Phillips too. Though some may not, I generally appreciate the chance to argue points out about my poetry.

21. I disagree partially with Mr. MacKenzie that satire is the most difficult style of writing; yet to reach a level, like that attained by Swift, requires enormous pain, difficult to sustain over the span of an entire lifetime.

My diagnosis is that he is heavily programmed and [therefore] insensitive to the feelings, tastes, and sensibilities of others. Disturbance has many shapes, some less pleasant than others. To try to engage or connect with someone like that is futile, frustrating, can be painful, and is valueless. Like asking a dog to please stop barking.

To not give specifics for a literary criticism, but just proclaim “I like it” or “I don’t like” or “it’s good” or “it’s bad” offers no one anything. Trying to find what in a poem works or doesn’t work, and then trying to articulate it are valuable exercises – for then applying to your own work.