Oh man FOGcon

[epershand]

I'm still coming down from FOGcon, which was incredible and exhilarating and fun and emotionally exhausting (featuring both baby's first time being on a ConCom and baby's first time being on a panel, with bonus hanging out with Pat Murphy and chilling over a cigarette with Terry Bisson and apparently missing pantsless geography lessons by like two minutes and meeting so many incredibly cool people who I'd only known from a distance or over the internet before.) And I have a bunch of different posts about random things in my head.

But before I completely collapse into sleep tonight I just want to throw out in defense of CS Lewis's ungainly but (I think) ultimately delightful Christianity the following ungainly but (I think) ultimately delightful poem about the nature of prayer and metaphor. (I've posted it before but I think it bears repeating.)

Footnote to All Prayers
-- C.S. Lewis

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in mimetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskillfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolators, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Though take them at their word.

Take not, oh Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in Thy great,
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

Comments

[eccentric_hat]

Is it ungainly? The hexameter is unexpected, and parts of it are rather clunky I suppose. I am thoroughly charmed, though, as I was the first time you posted this poem.

Have you turned off commenting on your LJ crossposts?

[epershand]

I do not stop being charmed by it, which is probably evident from the fact that I've posted it it multiple times. But its cadence just feels really blocky and unnatural to me. Some of it might be the hexameter, but the enjambments outside of couplets also carry a large amount of the blame. Some of the word choice and ordering also feels ungainly to me, I think--the mirror of "whom I bow to" and "to whom I bow" in the first line would be lovely in Latin but sets me twitching in English.

I love the last couplet to pieces, though, and the underlying message of the whole thing just feels quintessentially *right.*

Yeah, I turned off commenting on crossposts. Would be happy to talk about the reasons in private.

[eccentric_hat]

Hm. I don't think I mind the enjambment outside of couplets per se--it only happens once, and I think it makes the poem a little less precious--but I would prefer it if he'd arranged it in quatrains like a Shakespearean sonnet instead.

That initial mirroring thing would probably sound better if it were a pentameter line without the "only," which seems to get in the way. "He whom I bow to knows to whom I bow." It wouldn't mean exactly the same thing, of course.

It's possible what this comment is driving at is "all sonnets should be Shakespearean sonnets," though if accused of believing that I would deny it.

[route52.livejournal.com]

But all sonnets SHOULD be Shakespearean sonnets!

Ahem.

I'm not sure I would say "ungainly, but ultimately charming" on this one - I might be persuaded to make an argument for "ungainly, THUS charming." Especially in a poem very much about the insufficiency of language for the purpose of addressing God, I don't know that I'd want it to be too polished. "Our limping metaphor translate" is just perfect, though.

Epershand - Hopefully this doesn't come across as obnoxiously nitpicky, but in the final line before the couplet, I think possibly it should be Thou, not Though?

[epershand]

I definitely thing the ungainliness of the poem is part of what I love about it, and that it works delightfully with the words. But based on other poetry of his I've read, I honestly don't know if I trust Lewis enough as a poet to have done it intentionally. I guess I don't need for him to have done it intentionally to adore it, though :)

And yes, I'm pretty sure Though for Thou is in error, thanks for pointing this out. I copied and pasted this from a transcription I took about a year ago using a text editor with an over-active auto-replace, and it's pretty likely that I just didn't catch it at the time.

[curuchamion]

'I honestly don't know if I trust Lewis enough as a poet to have done it intentionally. I guess I don't need for him to have done it intentionally to adore it, though :)'

*snert* THIS. I had never seen that poem before, so I just sat here for a minute going sort of "OMG. Lewis's clunky verbiage actually works for something... better than a different style would. Cool."

[epershand]

Actually, I think the earnest clunkiness is part of what I like about the poem. This is, after all, the man who wrote "I am so dull the things the poets see/ Are obstinately invisible to me".

[vito_excalibur]

And thank you for being on that panel! :D High five! _o/

[epershand]

Hurrah! That was a very great panel to be on, especially for a first-time experience.

[wordweaverlynn]

Oh, I love this. Thanks.

Please do not utterly disappear from my life. You delight me.

[epershand]

You delight me as well, and I definitely am opposed to disappearing, even if we won't have the regular face-to-face interactions. You are definitely one of my favorite new people acquisitions via FOGcon.

[opinion_rush]

oooh lovely poem, lovely thought. Found you through people I read on dreamwidth and am subscribing if that's okay.