Skip to main content

Fascinated by poetry interpretations of my poem "Beat"

I wrote a poem a couple weeks back, entitled "Beat". Since then, it has generated the most hits and comments of any writing of mine. The comments have all been very positive and the poem was even declared the winner of a contest. What I've especially found fascinating are the different interpretations of the poem. As it was intended upon writing the piece, I did want to integrate ambiguity as I often times do, so I'm not at all surprised with the different interpretations. However, none of the interpretations have coincided with what my main vision was.

The poem reads as follows:

Beat

Sheltered from this world,
Protected from potential harm,
Fearful of being released,
Wanting to maintain its innocence,

As it begins to mature,
Innocence slowly fades,
Longing for a sense of freedom,
To make its own decisions,

Finally out in the world,
Released to the masses,
Curiosity at its peak,
Expanding with every experience,

Handed to another,
Trusting of their care,
Full of life and joy,
Fears, worries and doubts spared,

No longer protected,
No longer innocent,
Beating with desire,
Beating with passion,

Looked at momentarily,
Before being thrown to the ground,
Slowly breaking,
Being kicked and stomped upon,

Released unto her,
Beating with life,
Broken and crushed,
The beating has stopped.


The comments it has generated thus far are as follows:

“This is such a powerful write, I felt intensity with this. So nicely done.”

“lovely. i thought this was nicely penned.”

“Very grimacing, man, but a fine picture of the circle of life.”

“a great methorical drum beat of life…”

“I love the ambiguity of this piece, to me the beginning refers to rebirth and the end speaks of heartbreak.”


The first two commenters didn't interpret the poem at all, just commented on how they felt the poem was written and what they felt upon reading the poem. The fifth noticed ambiguity in the piece, but not the exact ambiguity which I intended to express. The third and fourth commenters nailed half of the ambiguity I was attempting to get across to readers, but not the main vision I had when writing the poem.

As I mentioned, the third and fourth commenters correctly interpreted half of what I was trying to convey, as the poem does showcase the "circle of life" as one commenter stated, from birth at the beginning of the piece to death at the end. What I went into the poem envisioning as my center, however, was different. The poem is written from the perspective of one's heart with the title, "Beat," showcasing ambiguity all on its own. One's heart is protected early in life, especially by one's parents or guardians, now wanting their child's heart to suffer any pain and at the same time, wanting it to maintain its innocence. One's heart goes through the normal stages of life, as it ages, loses its innocence, longs for freedom, to be released into the world and expand its knowledge and feelings through experience. I then attempted to better illustrate my poem's central character at the mid-point by stating that it (the heart) is handed to another and trusting of their care. I then integrate the term "beat" in the final three stanzas and the ambiguity within the term and title. As one's heart is trusted in another's care, believing they will love and take care of it like they would their own, one's heart beats full of love and life until the one whom the heart trusted throws it to the ground, stomps upon it and "beats" it until the heart beats no more. The final line, "The beating has stopped" depicts the ambiguity of the heart's battering by another coming to a halt as well as the life inside of it coming to its ultimate demise as well.

So, like I said, I've found it quite interesting to hear/read people's interpretations of the poem. I'm happy the ambiguity I integrated paid off in that regard, but do hope one person catches onto the vision I was ultimately trying to attain with this writing. We'll see if that happens. In any case, I'm very happy with all the attention and positive attention at that, the poem has garnered. Hopefully that continues.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...