Anti-Catholic poetry in Cnd Lit class

[Vaclav]

The implication that Christianity was behind Nazism is again false. the Nazis, in particular Hitler and Himmler despised Christianity as soft and Jewish. they prefered Nordic paganism

You ought to read Mein Kampf and some of Hitler’s speeches. He discusses Christianity often and very much in a positive light. He especially likes the idea of Christian religious education.

While there were tendencies of many nazis to embellish the Nordic mythologies of Germany in an effort to build a strong sense of nationalism, it is unwise to chalk all of Nazism (and fascism) up to paganism.

Not true. the first Christian ghetto was established by the City Council of Venice in 1516. In many cultures different groups have always occupied their own sections of cities.

As far as Marking Jews (and others) with special marks, this is a MUSLIM practice

Who did it first is a rather juvenile argument. It does not detract from the fact that Pope Paul IV issued a Papal Bull to create a ghetto for the Jews of Rome and later Popes brought this to other Italian cities.

Second, he goes off the rails when he equates Christianity to Nazism. How then can he explain that the Church saved more Jews (800,000) than any allied nation?

This is very true and it should also be noted that some Catholic officials, such as Bishop Roncalli (later John XXIII) saved thousands through his office as Apostolic Delegate to Turkey and Greece. For this Pope John XXIII was named a Righteous Gentile by the state of Israel. And he was not the only Catholic official to be so honoured.

The author quite clearly vents his anger at the Church, which has some historical truth to it, but certainly was not the primary factor behind the Holocaust itself.

 

[cpayne]

Sorry it took a while for me to get back here. A comment and a question:

I remember a student in one class I taught (a Christian student) who absolutely despised Donne’s Holy Sonnet XIV, because she thought the images were blasphemous. Actually, I agreed that they hit the borderline, but it’s still one of my favorite poems. I don’t think I ever did convince her that Donne was really, truly a devout Christian.

I agree that poetry / art, including Christian art, can be provocative. It can also do other things, however, such as present a complete worldview (speaking of Dante). I think the anger that was expressed here (over the top, by the way) was misdirected, but understandable. It was misdirected because Ani’s original comment didn’t warrant the reaction; it was understandable, because so much “art” today IS gratuitously shocking, and it gets tiresome quickly. But Ani wasn’t not defending anything gratuitously shocking; it was simply misreading her comment to think she was. In fact, the four repeatedly quoted lines are not even from the poem under discussion! So why introduce them, considering the specificity of the OP?

That’s the comment. Here’s the question: Ani, what is Encounter Education? Is it some kind of actual program or curriculum? Or is it a method, or what? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Eliza10]

The way to get notice and popular acclaim in poety or art today is to shock. Slander what is sacred, and you’re in. Layton is legion.

 

[bones_IV]

You ought to read Mein Kampf and some of Hitler’s speeches. He discusses Christianity often and very much in a positive light. He especially likes the idea of Christian religious education.

While there were tendencies of many nazis to embellish the Nordic mythologies of Germany in an effort to build a strong sense of nationalism, it is unwise to chalk all of Nazism (and fascism) up to paganism.

Who did it first is a rather juvenile argument. It does not detract from the fact that Pope Paul IV issued a Papal Bull to create a ghetto for the Jews of Rome and later Popes brought this to other Italian cities.

This is very true and it should also be noted that some Catholic officials, such as Bishop Roncalli (later John XXIII) saved thousands through his office as Apostolic Delegate to Turkey and Greece. For this Pope John XXIII was named a Righteous Gentile by the state of Israel. And he was not the only Catholic official to be so honoured.

The author quite clearly vents his anger at the Church, which has some historical truth to it, but certainly was not the primary factor behind the Holocaust itself.

Many people seem to forget that John XXIII was acting under Pius XII’s orders.

 

[Vaclav]

Many people seem to forget that John XXIII was acting under Pius XII’s orders.

True, and Pius XII has gotten a really undeserved poor reputation in a lot of histories on World War II.

Talk about someone whose shoes no one would volunteer to fill! I’d have hated to have made the decisions he had to make. He must have been a man of exceptionally strong faith.

 

[Cradle]

First of all, I want to say that, somehow, your comments have managed to calm me down a little bit. Still freaked out, but less.

Something I would like to clear up is that I am not required to write a paper or a critique on this poem per se… what I must do is to contribute to the class discussion/critique, as part of the class, not on my own for marks. And, no, my family comes first, especially since this is the last time my graduating sister will take part in this school function, so we all have to be content with my contributing to the class’s online forum.

And yes, we have been looking at how to approach literature, both prose and poetry, but things do turn to other matters, though still related. Example: D.C. Scott and aboriginals in his poetry and how he treated them… the discussion revolved around his awful (and they were) policies in the Department of Indian Affairs and how this was mirrored in his poetry… of course, he was Christian and so the class got around to sort of blaming this for his anti-aboriginal views and also to blaming the Christian society in which he lived… which honestly just made me angry at the fact that so many people who are Christian do not love and show barely a shred of compassion and decency and so give others so much ammo with which to attack the Church and Christiany… But anyway. I can see in my mind what this discussion will revolve around.

As for the suggestion to speak to the prof, thank you, that is exactly what I will do during his office hours. I really don’t know how to approach the poem; I’m not a literature/English major and this is not my cup of tea: I’m taking the course because I don’t have much choice. Hopefully I will have gathered up the courage to discuss this with him by Monday. Although I think he might view things somewhat like Layton, he has, so far, been fairly respectful towards Christianity in class. I will also look at Leonard Cohen’s and see how that fares with Layton, since we are going to be studying Cohen’s writings as well anyway.

Another thing, although it might be slightly off topic. Do you think I should post some poetry written by a Catholic? (It doesn’t really have anything to do with Layton’s poem, but I thought maybe it would give them a hint?) Something by Pier Giorgio Di Cicco, an orthodox priest (ordained 1990) who teaches at U of T and is (at least the last time I checked) Toronto’s Poet Laureate. I haven’t managed to find his stuff on the Internet, but I can see if one of our libraries has one of his collections…

 

[cpayne]

“Ani wasn’t not defending anything gratuitously shocking.” Sorry. This sentence was obviously supposed to be “Ani was not defending” etc.

Talk about confusing.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cradle:

First of all, I want to say that, somehow, your comments have managed to calm me down a little bit. Still freaked out, but less.

I understand. I suppose studying engineering helped me to read literature. Engineering is about learning the reflex of stepping back from the heat of a situation and thinking through the options.

Reading literature, particularly modernist and pomo literature is the same.

Also, as I learned by reading Dante, humility is exceptionally useful. Layton is one of the greats. Not because he curried favour. But because he did not flinch. His poetry draws you in. It has an apparent simplicity which is deceptive because the language goes deep. The language is story upon story upon story.

He is not afraid of ugliness because his grasp of beauty is so tenacious. He loves beauty. Look at his wonderful facility with language. A person could write reams on only those few lines of Red Carpet of the Sun.

It is fitting to bring a spirit of humility to the greats no matter how much the greats provoke us, wound us, snap us to attention, open our eyes.

Learning to read literature is similar to learning to see Art. There are skills to be learned. It is about empirical observation. It is, if you will, a kind of science. It is not about judgment. Judgment is the lowest species of critique.

Cradle:

Something I would like to clear up is that I am not required to write a paper or a critique on this poem per se…

But somehow I believe it would benefit you for the rest of your life.

Cradle:

what I must do is to contribute to the class discussion/critique, as part of the class, not on my own for marks.

I suspect that you might want to start some other threads on some topics which help your understanding. Like the Luther/Hitler connection. And others which do not come to mind right now.

Cradle:

And, no, my family comes first, especially since this is the last time my graduating sister will take part in this school function, so we all have to be content with my contributing to the class’s online forum.

Oh, I see. It is an online critique. Fair enough.

Cradle:

And yes, we have been looking at how to approach literature, both prose and poetry, but things do turn to other matters, though still related. Example: D.C. Scott and aboriginals in his poetry and how he treated them… the discussion revolved around his awful (and they were) policies in the Department of Indian Affairs and how this was mirrored in his poetry… of course, he was Christian and so the class got around to sort of blaming this for his anti-aboriginal views and also to blaming the Christian society in which he lived…

It is wise to stay on topic. Particularly if literature is not your major. Pick one aspect and do that well.

Cradle:

As for the suggestion to speak to the prof, thank you, that is exactly what I will do during his office hours.

Cradle:

I really don’t know how to approach the poem; I’m not a literature/English major and this is not my cup of tea: I’m taking the course because I don’t have much choice.

I understand. I have helped many students pick pop-lit english courses. Most of those students have ended up adding English Lit as a minor to their degree! Why? Because the reading skills and the analytical skills – when they eventually learned them – helped them enormously in the field of their majors.

Cradle:

Hopefully I will have gathered up the courage to discuss this with him by Monday.

If we can help you organize your notes, then you are ahead of the game. Don’t go in trying to teach him. Get your fear and hurt on the table right away but then say that you are in his office to learn and you want his guidance. Then present your notes and ask him to teach you some critiquing skills, some methodology.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cradle:

Although I think he might view things somewhat like Layton, he has, so far, been fairly respectful towards Christianity in class.

Christianity is not only a faith, it is a part of European and therefore World history (because of colonization). Layton as an artist is also part of history. He has a right to ask questions about the value of Christianity. Look at the poem as a question, not an attack. Look at it as a question. And then answer the question. Because remember, Layton was a soul searching for answers. Otherwise he never would have been an artist; never would have been a poet.

Cradle:

I will also look at Leonard Cohen’s and see how that fares with Layton, since we are going to be studying Cohen’s writings as well anyway.

Good plan, since you have to do this anyway. Be careful of your time. Do not be dragged into time-consuming distractions. Remember that Layton wrote 40 books! The Reformation is immensely complex. The history of Christianity is staggeringly involved. You are not a literature major.

Cradle:

Another thing, although it might be slightly off topic. Do you think I should post some poetry written by a Catholic?

No. Your role in that class is not to teach others. It is to learn. Focus on answering the question posed in that one Layton poem. Answer it well. And you will have learned. That will be an honest effort at earning a good mark, although nothing is guaranteed these days. And the effort will stand you in good stead for the rest of your life. If others in your class respect your effort, then bonus for them. If they don’t, what is that to you?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cradle:

And, no, my family comes first, especially since this is the last time my graduating sister will take part in this school function, so we all have to be content with my contributing to the class’s online forum.

Oh, I see. It is an online critique. Fair enough.

Cradle:

And yes, we have been looking at how to approach literature, both prose and poetry, but things do turn to other matters, though still related. Example: D.C. Scott and aboriginals in his poetry and how he treated them… the discussion revolved around his awful (and they were) policies in the Department of Indian Affairs and how this was mirrored in his poetry… of course, he was Christian and so the class got around to sort of blaming this for his anti-aboriginal views and also to blaming the Christian society in which he lived…

It wise to stay on topic. Particularly if literature is not major. Pick one aspect and do that well.

Cradle:

As for the suggestion to speak to the prof, thank you, that is exactly what I will do during his office hours.

Cradle:

I really don’t know how to approach the poem; I’m not a literature/English major and this is not my cup of tea: I’m taking the course because I don’t have much choice.

I understand. I have helped many students pick pop-lit english courses. Most of those students have ended up adding English Lit as a minor to their degree! Why? Because the reading skills and the analytical skills – when they eventually learned them – helped them enormously in the field of their majors.

Cradle:

Hopefully I will have gathered up the courage to discuss this with him by Monday.

If we can help you organize your notes, then you are ahead of the game. Don’t go in trying to teach him. Get your fear and hurt on the table right away but then say that you are in his office to learn and you want his guidance. Then present your notes and ask him to teach you some critiquing skills, some methodology.

Cradle:

Although I think he might view things somewhat like Layton, he has, so far, been fairly respectful towards Christianity in class.

Christianity is not only a faith, it is a part of European and therefore World history (because of colonization). Layton as an artist is also part of history. He has a right to ask questions about the value of Christianity. Look at the poem as a question, not an attack. Look at it as a question. And then answer the question. Because remember, Layton was a soul searching for answers. Otherwise he never would have been an artist; never would have been a poet.

cradle:

I will also look at Leonard Cohen’s and see how that fares with Layton, since we are going to be studying Cohen’s writings as well anyway.

Good plan, since you have to do this anyway. Be careful of your time. Do not be dragged into time-consuming distractions. Remember that Layton wrote 40 books! The Reformation is immensely complex. The history of Christianity is staggeringly involved. You are not a literature major.

cradle:

Another thing, although it might be slightly off topic. Do you think I should post some poetry written by a Catholic?

No. Your role in that class is not to teach others. It is to learn. Focus on answering the question posed in that one Layton poem. Answer it well. And you will have learned. That will be an honest effort at earning a good mark, although nothing is guaranteed these days. And the effort will stand you in good stead for the rest of your life. If others in your class respect your effort, then bonus for them. If they don’t, what is that to you?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Look, I am going to be honest. It has been a long time since I studied or even read Layton. But I do remember what his protege said about poetry. Seymour hated affectations.

A poet himself, his eyes would bug out of his head, his lips would purse, and he would pull a Woody Allen at any hint of affectation in a student’s poetry submission.

I can remember one student in particular whose poetry was very referential, very philosophical, very socialist, but packed with rhetorical questions. Seymour hated those rhetorical questions. And frankly we all did. Why? Because they were dishonest questions. There was no room for the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. It was pure polemic.

I can’t remember if Layton used rhetorical questions per se. But let’s try something. Change every stanza into a question. Not a rhetorical question but a genuine question. Because that was how I believe Layton wrote, given what his student was teaching and given what I do remember about Layton.

Then answer the question. That will save you time. That will give you a focus. That will give you a direction for your research. That will give you solid ground on which to base your questions to your prof on Monday.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The way to get notice and popular acclaim in poety or art today is to shock. Slander what is sacred, and you’re in. Layton is legion.

And you know this how? Let’s see how much acclaim you can garner as a poet. If Layton is legion, then give us your poem.

Condemnation is the easy way out for those who don’t bother to look at what is there.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Axion:

The swastika was not a Christian symbol. It has its origins in pagan Greece and India.

Yes, and Layton says:

Axion:

to twist your Cross into the Swastika
that tore into our flesh like a fish-hook.

The Swastika was an ancient Indian symbol. It was culturally appropriated (ironically) by the ever-referential Hitler for Naziism.

Why does Layton say “twist your Cross into the Swastika”? Why is this turn of phrase juxtaposed with the term “fish-hook”? For a poet, juxtaposition is never never coincidental. It always serves a purpose. What is that purpose here in this poem?

Hint: we know that Layton’s tone is ironical. How does that irony affect the idea of "transformation’ in this stanza?

Axion:

The implication that Christianity was behind Nazism is again false.

Have you examined the concept that certain Reformation ideas influenced the nationalists in Hitler’s era?

Axion:

the Nazis, in particular Hitler and Himmler despised Christianity as soft and Jewish. they prefered Nordic paganism

Oh, they did. But where did the fascination with those ideas come from? What events in German history facilitated that pick-and-choose fashionista mentality?

Axion:

Pity. You should point out the truth of this rubbish.

Let us remember that Layton was not only a Jew. He was a

Canadian

Jew. I recommend that his works not be read with negligence toward the experience of Canadian Jews during WWII. And I recommend that this poem in particular not be read

literally.

After all it is a poem, not a historical tract.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

I remember a student in one class I taught (a Christian student) who absolutely despised Donne’s Holy Sonnet XIV, because she thought the images were blasphemous.

Mmmm. The lesson would have been conceit? And one cannot understand conceit without understanding metaphor. Metaphor is not easily understood and often wrongly referenced.

cpayne:

Actually, I agreed that they hit the borderline, but it’s still one of my favorite poems.

Which one?

cpayne:

I don’t think I ever did convince her that Donne was really, truly a devout Christian.

It would have been an authorial fallacy in any case. The goal of the poem is only part of what a poem does. Did she allow her encounter with the poem to convince her that she could be a devout Christian?

cpayne:

I agree that poetry / art, including Christian art, can be provocative. It can also do other things, however, such as present a complete worldview (speaking of Dante). I think the anger that was expressed here (over the top, by the way) was misdirected, but understandable. It was misdirected because Ani’s original comment didn’t warrant the reaction; it was understandable, because so much “art” today IS gratuitously shocking, and it gets tiresome quickly.

OK. I didn’t understand the fear and defensiveness and you have p(name removed by moderator)ointed it. I happily concede that much provocation in our days is not Art, although it may have pretensions to Art.

Layton, however, does not fit into this category.

cpayne:

But Ani wasn’t not defending anything gratuitously shocking; it was simply misreading her comment to think she was. In fact, the four repeatedly quoted lines are not even from the poem under discussion! So why introduce them, considering the specificity of the OP?

And why quote them out of context?

The poem for which Layton is most known is the Bull Calf. If that poem is not provocative, then I don’t know what is. But it is far removed from gratuitous. Look at the one line at the end. Only one line: “I turned away and wept.” Without that one line, the poem is what? What is the poem without that one line? Thoughts anyone? I said thoughts, not barking.

By the way the term for a line like that is volta: a kind of turning back of the poem into itself, the result being a deepening of the gaze into the language of the poem.

cpayne:

That’s the comment. Here’s the question: Ani, what is Encounter Education? Is it some kind of actual program or curriculum? Or is it a method, or what? Inquiring minds want to know.

I will pm you, because it is peripheral to this thread. Then perhaps we can start a new thread. Tomorrow.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Further to the poem “The Bull Calf,” read this in the context of sacrifice both in the OT and the NT. Adele Weisman’s book The Sacrifice also deals with this.

"…And God himself is bound at that moment, for it is the point of mutual surrender, the one thing He cannot resist, a faith so absolute. You are right when you say that it is like a circle–the completed circle, when the maker of the sacrifice and the sacrifice himself and the Demander who is the Receiver of the sacrifice are poised together, and life flows into eternity, and for a moment all three are as one.

"That was the moment that even God could not resist, and so He gave us the future."5 The key to this passage is the idea of surrender: Isaac surrenders himself to the will of Abraham; Abraham surrenders himself to the will of God; and God, in the face of such faith, surrenders new life to man. And so the circle is closed. Each relies on the others. Future life depends, then, not on the individual himself, but on the individual’s surrender to, and participation in, a sort of spiritual conversation…

When this surrender to a greater spiritual truth is lacking, then the spiritual conversation cannot take place. This is revealed in the novel by the character of Isaac, whose agnosticism and lack of faith in life isolate him in what one critic has called “his relativistic microcosm.”

Look at the points of view in the Bull Calf. One is the point of view of the butcher. (One is loathe to call him a *soichet.) *Much of the hardheartedness found throughout the OT. Remember the Golden Calf? The other point of view is of a person to whom sacrifice has been holy.

It is important to find out how much of Christ Layton was considering. The Weisman book is not Christ referenced and cannot be read that way. But Layton was all over the place. His poetic imagery reminds of the visual imagery of Marc Chagall – omni-referential; a cultural sponge.

Why did Layton weep? Did you weep? Did Jesus weep? Can a case be made for contemplating the bull calf as a christological figure? Or at least a prefiguration of Christ? Or even a pomo post-christological figure?

Why did Christianity pose such a struggle for Layton? What was the nature of that struggle?

PS: when I first read the Bull Calf, I wept. But that’s just me. I do not think the Bull Calf is off topic because I think a few other poems need to be referenced in order to look at the goals of “For My Brother Jesus.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Despite having not read the poem yourself, you imply that the original poster is ignorant. Ah, how comforting it must be to be as much the enlightened Christian as you are, Michael!

I’m sorry, but I cannot read people’s minds. If any offence was taken, I apologise unreservedly to all & any concerned.​

I asked for the OP to post the poem because I hadn’t read it

One has to go by what people post - I thought those details were worth pointing out, that’s all; because there are Catholics who write as though the Jews had nothing to complain about.

The Inquisition is hardly as all-bad as you infer, and wasn’t directed at Jews in particular.

That is not even the beginning of a justification.​

Or is it not objectionable to torture people ? Is burning them alive compatible with Christianity ? I’m well aware that othe than Jews suffered too, but that is no justification for it. Sometimes, attempts to excuse a religion’s past only succeed in making that religion look amoral & odious; some things cannot be defended; or, can be defended only up to a point or in certain respects.

Your misinformation about the ghetto is particularly hurtful. The ghetto wasn’t a Church invention, although Rome had supported the quartering of jews (incl. shameful restrictions) in that city in the 1500s.

I think this supports my point.​

To imply

Where did I do so, please ?​

that the Church is responsible for the ghettos in Poland etc immediately before and during WWII is completely false.

If you can find a mention of the ghetto in WW2 in my post, please show me. As for the responsibility of the Church for those ones - I neither said nor implied any such thing.​

I avoided naming any specific ghettos deliberately, because there is a difference between

• “the ghetto” - meaning the ghetto in an abstract, non-specific sense; &, the concept/institution
• “the ghettos” - ghettos in general, not in the abstract
• “the Warsaw/Roman/other ghetto” - specific examples of these.
  Isn’t there a difference between
• The Church
• the Churches [within the Church]
• the German/Polish/other Churches ?

• the distinctions between uses of the same word are the same in both sets of examples.

If the CC did not invent the ghetto, you’d be helping by telling me who did. The word looks like a contraction of “borghetto” - & Italian does not predate the Church; unless the institution is like the blood libel in being something the Church took from the pre-Christian past. I don’t think the ghetto can be “credited” to any other group than Catholics - in which case it is perfectly fair to say the CC was responsible. I don’t think any other group had the power.

It may be “hurtful” to say that (to what or whom, you don’t say) - but *if *it is true, then that is all there is to it. Only a Church with rotten foundations needs to be spared the memory of the nastier things in its past - most of us have to face up to what we have done, however shameful or foul our memories may be. It’s part of taking responsibility for our actions. Do people have such weak faith that mentioning one or two of the less attractive activities of the Church is going to destroy that faith ?

The ball is in your court.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I completely agree with Ani.

My advice (which is probably worth what you paid for it ) is to not internalize this poem as an attack on you. Yes, we should defend the Church, but we also need to realise that we live in a world where she is not well-liked by all and that is expressed in different ways.

I’ll offer my take (which is admittedly inferior to Ani’s).

At first glance it should be quickly recognised that the author is relying heavily on tone and that his word use is extremely selective.

Look at the subtle play with the words “delicate” and “frissons” in the first line and then the stark and powerful self-explanatory second line.

The ghetto being discussed is a reference to the Roman ghetto approved by Paul IV, though Venice had a Jewish quarter (or ghetto) for much longer and kept it until Napoleon conquered it and thought that forcing the Jews to wear yellow jackets was ridiculous.

My honest opinion is that this poem is really very well-written, regardless of one’s view of its theme. Look at the last line:

The imagery is stark and the meaning can be quite literal. On the other hand, the symbolism is also present in the words “flesh” and “fish.”

It is a very powerful poem, seething with a bitter vengeance and almost asking Jesus and Christians - “why?”

Good post all through - and “Why ?” is a very good question. I don’t see what is offensive about it.​

Maybe people should be less concerned with “defending the Church”, or a bit more relaxed at least - defensiveness seems rather a good way of becoming over-sensitive; which is very helpful if one is going to find things to be offended about all the time.

And some things are surely far more offensive than others - sometimes the Church does itself far more harm than any one else could (as Fr. Groeschel points out in “Arise from Darkness”)

 

[NPS]

Oh boy, cp, after having finally read the poem, I wonder what all the fuss in your mind was about. Layton is not without talent, and this particular poem is interesting to read for a variety of reasons. It’s not anything great, it’s more of a mix of rightful anger at the way jews have sometimes been treated by christians with a dose of unfactual history and intent to shock. Poets who play fast and loose with history and who slam the church are a dime a dozen.

If you can’t show for the class and refute some of that stuff, perhaps you should just speak privately to a few of your classmates about it. Better yet—write some poems yourself.

Funny—You question why the lines of Layton’s poem I posted were posted, yet have no such question about the “nice, comfortable” poem that Ani posted of Layton’s. The reason I posted them is because you wouldn’t post the “Jesus poem” and no one could find it anywhere. Ani posted some of Layton’s classier lines and I openly worried that Layton’s Jesus poem would turn out to be something more along the lines of his other words…

I want you to feel as if I had slammed
your child’s head against a spike;
And cut off your member and stuck it in your
wife’s mouth to smoke like a cigar.

…which Ani would only acknowledge by the lame statement “Art provokes”.

Layton’s Jesus poem is interesting, yet he floats from imagery which catches the imagination offguard to lame plops of predictable words because he was worried that he was speaking “above” his audience. From what I’ve seen of him, Layton has some talent, but he often falls back on the obvious and used shock value to make a splash. Naming his book after the Jesus poem is an obvious example of this.

People believe that poets have a sort of recurring message in their heads asking “How can I get my thoughts and feelings out to, and understood by, the world?”

In reality, most poets, like it or not, believe it or not, are continually asking themselves one question over and over and over again—“How can I make money writing poetry?”

The easiest way is to make a splash and sell, say, four thousand books, instead of mere hundreds, is to offend and create controversy. (That’s hundreds in the entire country—poetry is by far the worst-selling literary market.)

There are many ways to go about it, but two of the easiest ways to do that is to go

1. the anti-Jesus route or
2. the sex route

Only the naive think artists of all sorts don’t face these questions every day. Poets are in a especially tough predicament because they would be virtually penniless if poetry was their only source of income.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

It is a very powerful poem, seething with a bitter vengeance and almost asking Jesus and Christians - “why?”

Yes. Why? And this question is not rhetorical. He wants an answer. What is that answer?

 

[cpayne]

Oh boy, cp, after having finally read the poem, I wonder what all the fuss in your mind was about. Layton is not without talent, and this particular poem is interesting to read for a variety of reasons. It’s not anything great, it’s more of a mix of rightful anger at the way jews have sometimes been treated by christians with a dose of unfactual history and intent to shock. Poets who play fast and loose with history and who slam the church are a dime a dozen.

If you can’t show for the class and refute some of that stuff, perhaps you should just speak privately to a few of your classmates about it. Better yet—write some poems yourself.

Funny—You question why the lines of Layton’s poem I posted were posted, yet have no such question about the “nice, comfortable” poem that Ani posted of Layton’s. The reason I posted them is because you wouldn’t post the “Jesus poem” and no one could find it anywhere. Ani posted some of Layton’s classier lines and I openly worried that Layton’s Jesus poem would turn out to be something more along the lines of his other words…

I want you to feel as if I had slammed
your child’s head against a spike;
And cut off your member and stuck it in your
wife’s mouth to smoke like a cigar.

…which Ani would only acknowledge by the lame statement “Art provokes”.

Layton’s Jesus poem is interesting, yet he floats from imagery which catches the imagination offguard to lame plops of predictable words because he was worried that he was speaking “above” his audience. From what I’ve seen of him, Layton has some talent, but he often falls back on the obvious and used shock value to make a splash. Naming his book after the Jesus poem is an obvious example of this.

People believe that poets have a sort of recurring message in their heads asking “How can I get my thoughts and feelings out to, and understood by, the world?”

In reality, most poets, like it or not, believe it or not, are continually asking themselves one question over and over and over again—“How can I make money writing poetry?”

The easiest way is to make a splash and sell, say, four thousand books, instead of mere hundreds, is to offend and create controversy. (That’s hundreds in the entire country—poetry is by far the worst-selling literary market.)

There are many ways to go about it, but two of the easiest ways to do that is to go

1. the anti-Jesus route or
2. the sex route

Only the naive think artists of all sorts don’t face these questions every day. Poets are in a especially tough predicament because they would be virtually penniless if poetry was their only source of income.

I’m even more confused than I usually am. NPS, are you talking to me, as it appears, or to cradle? (I’m not the OP.)