.
To All Great Eagles Up on High
To all great eagles up on high
I hope you hear my battle cry!
I have some plans I know you’ll love
While you are circling above.
There is a retailer to maul
That has a Target on its wall.
As if to kill, dive through the doors
And tear up clothing in those stores.
If you are parched and need a drink,
Your talons in some cans may sink.
Wherever you find marked “Bud Light,”
Pour rich libations on that site.
There are some flags unpatriotic
That make good people idiotic.
While tearing up their rainbow hue,
Save stars and stripes, red, white, and blue
There are parades families resent:
The local drag queen pride event.
Turn these parades to utter flopping
By bombing each with eagle dropping.
.
.
LTC Roy E. Peterson, US Army Military Intelligence and Russian Foreign Area Officer (Retired) has published more than 5,000 poems in 78 of his 101 books. He has been an Army Attaché in Moscow, Commander of INF Portal Monitoring in Votkinsk, first US Foreign Commercial Officer in Vladivostok, Russia and Regional Manager in the Russian Far East for IBM. He holds a BA, Hardin-Simmons University (Political Science); MA, University of Arizona (Political Science); MA, University of Southern California (Int. Relations) and MBA University of Phoenix. He taught at the University of Arizona, Western New Mexico University, University of Maryland, Travel University and the University of Phoenix.
Great satire, Roy! You certainly don’t pull any punches and the eagle droppings is a particularly hilarious and unexpected touch. Happy Independence Day to you!
Bless you, Brian, for the kind words and support. Happy 4th of July back to you!
This hits the mark, and does it with the sort of humor that patriots (unlike leftist haters of our nation) still have. Thank you, Roy.
Cynthia, that is a wonderful comment. I am concerned for all our children and the future of America.
Roy, what strategy from a commanding officer! Some flag-and-placard skirmishes were reported from an event last month. Sounds like eagles are in readiness.
Margaret, I love your comment about strategy! We need those with the heart of an eagle these days!
Sir;
Most excellent, humorous, but your message is easily understood. Time to push back and remember what Independence Day really means. Thank You!
Great thoughts and comments. Indeed, it is time for us to take our stand for the sake of our children.
I don’t think this poem qualifies as satire. My understanding of satire is you exaggerate the flaw of a person or institution to expose them to ridicule.
In this poem, nothing is exaggerated about Target, Bud Light, or drag queens.
You are calling for eagles (perhaps symbolic of American patriots) to commit acts of violence and mischief. Calling the poem satire is a way to sidestep that problematic message.
The poem violates The Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And what would you have us do? Just sit back while drag queens and their corporate sponsors destroy our country while you keep on saying, “Peace, peace” when there is no peace? You wouldn’t like it if we told you that you should let people destroy your way of life. Therefore your comment violates the Golden Rule.
Are you saying that acts of violence and mischief are justified against people and corporations you disagree with?
That’s how I interpret the theme of this poem, and there is nothing funny about that.
It violates the Golden rule to treat others in a way that we do not want to be treated.
That’s not how I understood the poem at all. It’s clearly intended as humor. If your sense of humor is different, then don’t criticize. It violated the Golden Rule.
I think your real issue is that his poem speaks out against the transgender insanity, and that’s why I take issue with your comment.
Mr. Lindsay, you don’t seem to realize that we are in the midst of a CULTURAL WAR. In war, both sides commit acts of violence.
If you want to live in your dream world of polite, mild-mannered, and inoffensive faux conservatism, go right ahead. But there are some of us who want to win this war. We’ll just have to do it without your help.
Joseph, I would never commit acts of violence against people I disagree with.
But it appears that you think violence is justified in America’s culture war.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to support MAGA Republicans engaging in violence.
This poem normalizes ANTIFA-style tactics.
Chris, I think that, in the interest of full disclosure, you should reveal whether you own stock in Budweiser or Target, and also whether you have any involvement with the lucrative, affirming care of children or the Drag Queen business as a promoter or a performer. It’s only fair.
Are you a Quaker pacifist, Mr. Lindsay? From your first sentence it seems clear that you would never fight against Nazis, crime syndicates, Communists, foreign invaders, or tyrants (all of whom I assume you disagree with).
As a matter of fact. MAGA Republicans have committed no real acts of violence, as opposed to the savagery unleashed by BLM, Antifa, and the current lawlessness and looting in our major cities. The January 6 set-up was pure governmental fakery.
Poems do not “normalize” things. Poems are simply fictive artifacts created out of words. They use imagination, fantasy, and figurative language to conjure up nonexistent scenarios. That is what is called FREEDOM OF ARTISTIC AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION, and in our country it is completely unfettered.
But since you live in a country where this no longer is permitted, you have swallowed the lie that “words are action” — the standard policy of all tyrannical governments that want to suppress speech they do not approve of.
Great one, Roy! I laughed out loud, especially at the last stanza.
I, too, would love to see all those things happen, but sadly, our country mostly doesn’t want to be saved.
I really appreciate your comments, Joshua, with your support and well-stated responses to a sickness that has infected our society. Nowhere did I mention mugging or killing anyone, which would fit into my personal definition of violence. I have written a book of essays and poetry, “Demolishing the Demons,” that does present the violence against evil that God intended and used in such “Old Testament” stories as Sodom and Gomorrah, David against Goliath, and battles against enemies such as the Philistines. The Golden Rule was intended for interpersonal relationships and how to act toward others in our daily walk through life. Returning kindness toward our enemies who despitefully use us applies until they attack or plan to attack us as Christians, then we are charged to fight the good fight. The definition of satire is, “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” (Source: “Oxford Dictionary.”) You are right. I used satire, whether some may find it offensive or aggressive.
There is nothing “satirical” about the poem.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Name one example in the poem where you exaggerate a flaw of the persons or institutions that you want the eagles to attack.
Calling the poem “satire” allows you to avoid responsibility for its dark and disturbing theme.
Your poem is a call to ANTIFA-style violence and mischief against Target, Bud Light, and drag queens.
Your poem is a call for “eagles” to
1) Tear up clothing which is the property of Target
2) Pour Bud Light beer on the floor of a Target Store
3) Tear up a rainbow flag
4) Throw feces at drag queens
If anyone did what you hope the “eagles” will do, they would be arrested.
There is nothing morally right about this poem. It violates The Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Telling me I am “misguided” is not a counter-argument. It is a label.
Oh, please. You wouldn’t object to people doing this to neo-Nazis. Yet the Abortion Holocaust alone, let alone every other atrocity committed by the left, makes the left worse than the Nazis.
Dear Chris,
I think someone may reasonably believe…
1. There are only two genders and any attempt by an establishment to say otherwise and furthermore to promote that view to children is stupid, harmful, and flawed.
2. Public events such as parades should not be focused on sexual topics that many families do not want to expose their children to. To do so is again stupid, harmful, and flawed.
Well done, Roy. And if I may add in the humorous spirit you’ve engendered and without wishing harm to anyone:
And many are the things we see
That need a dose of eagle wee.
But best of all, for their improvement,
I recommend some eagle movement!
Ooooo! I really love your verse and contribution! Especially what is perhaps a double entendre with the word “movement.”
A great piece of satirical comment Roy, with a killer punchline. We too over here seem to be on an endless festival of pride. I will be out eagle spotting today.
Great Jeff! Thank you. Good spotting!
Roy, your poem reminds me that there are evil people and evil corporations that are pushing the brainwashing and mutilation of children. Jesus said that those people are deserving of being tossed into the sea with millstones tied to their necks. I suppose someone needs to teach Jesus about the Golden Rule.
I saw the eagles as angels of God’s justice, dropping fire and brimstone on the Poops (Perpetually Offended Obtuse Progressives), but what do I know… I’m just an old white man.
You are spot on, Mike! Jesus said he did not come to change one jot or tittle of the law of Moses. You will see my Golden Rule response in a comment to Joshua above.
The problem with this poem is the eagles (which to me, represent MAGA Trump supporters) are engaging in ANTIFA-style tactics of violence and mischief to bring about social change.
By definition, the poem is not satirical. It is a call to action.
This poem’s theme is morally wrong because it tries to normalize criminal behavior.
“Normalize criminal behavior??” You mean like the left did by legalizing the murder of unborn children?
You liberals have zero credibility on moral issues for that reason alone.
Josh,
The real problem here is that some people live in reality while others accept the wisdom passed down by the tyrants of this world. The tyrants wish to destroy us all by dividing us along a million fault lines. While we see the reality of the spiritual realm, many believe that our overlords are the angels. We live within two diametrically opposed worlds with two different basic stories. In the end, of course, God Himself will settle the issues.
I appreciate your misguided comments, Chris, and have added you to my prayer list. The goal is not to bring about social change but to restore the norms and standards that made America morally great by pointing out those corporations and events that must be stopped from committing gross efforts to further a destructive abnormal environment for all involved.
Encyclopedia Britannica defines social change as “the alteration of mechanisms within the social structure, characterized by changes in cultural symbols, rules of behaviour, social organizations, or value systems.”
This disturbing poem advocates ANTIFA-style tactics to bring about social change.
It isn’t a satirical poem because you aren’t exaggerating or ridiculing the actions of Bud Light, Target, or drag queens.
The poem is a call to action–to commit criminal acts against people you disagree with.
If anyone does what you hope the eagles will do, they will get arrested.
The eagles in the poem are symbolic of MAGA Trump supporters and the far right.
Calling me “misguided” is a label, not an argument.
Repeating your argument over and over as if you wrote it with ChatGPT isn’t going to get you anywhere.
You’re assuming eagles are far-right people (which to you means anyone to the right of Mao Tse-Tung), but I thought of them as angels (read the book of Revelation if you think angels aren’t capable of destruction).
The eagles are referred to as “Great” in the poem’s title.
This is why they symbolize MAGA Trump supporters and the far right, not angels.
I have a degree in English Literature. I do have “some” ability to interpret the theme of a poem. This poem is a call to violence.
Chris,
See these poems that have “great” in the title:
https://classicalpoets.org/?s=great
I suppose they all refer to MAGA.
I think it is rather naive of you to think that people who want their countries to be “great” must be violent right-wingers.
As for your appeal to your credentials… aside from the fact that it is a logical fallacy, there are many here who have degrees in English Literature, so please don’t think that makes you something special.
You are simply wrong.
Having “Great” in the title (associated with MAGA) and “Eagles” (associated with American patriotism) makes it clear the eagles are symbols of MAGA Trump supporters who can save America and restore it to to its former “greatness.”
The poem is a wish fulfillment fantasy that acts of violence and mischief will be carried out against Target, Bud Light, and Drag Queens.
Is it an act of violence to stop buying their products?
That is the only consequences to these evil companies that I have heard about. You are living in some kind of dream world if you think patriots are guilty of the violence of antifa.
The protests against this evil has been and will continue to be free of violence, not “mostly peaceful” but entirely peaceful. If ghouls see any violence against these mostly violent corporations, you can bet that antifa and other government goons will be involved.
Or maybe he’s saying by those examples, “If LGBT etc. people feel violated by such acts, how do you think Christians, parents, patriots, etc. feel about what the LGBT agenda is doing to them?”
If you have a degree in English literature, perhaps you missed the class on types of satire. This poem by LTC Peterson is Juvenalian satire, which is harsh, bitter, contemptuous, and violent. It isn’t the lighthearted Horatian satire that is playful and amusing. It isn’t the comical satire of Pope in “The Rape of the Lock.” This is satire with brass knuckles.
Why don’t you just come clean and admit your political loyalties, Mr. Lindsay, and stop pretending to be the voice of a moderate, even-handed virtue signaler? You’ve already slipped a bit, by demonstrating your dislike of MAGA Republicans and the far right. Your incidental condemnation of Antifa is strictly for show.
Joseph, I’m not aware of Juvenalian satire, but I will read up on it.
I think we are in agreement on one thing: this poem is violent.
Violence is not a solution to the divisions in American society. This poem tries to normalize violence as a way to bring about social change.
As far as my political loyalties, beware of mind-reading. You don’t know what my political beliefs are and it is presumption on your part to believe that you do.
It’s ok for you to read LTC Peterson’s mind, though, right?
Mr. Lindsay, I judge people on what they say. What you have said in this thread indicates to me that you are hostile to MAGA Republicans (all 75 million of us) and the “far right” (a mainstream-media phrase for anyone who isn’t subservient to leftist public orthodoxies).
If I’m wrong, please correct me. As I requested above, please come clean and admit your political loyalties.
On the other hand, if as a Canadian you are afraid of repercussions against yourself and your family from the leftist Trudeau government, all of us here fully understand that.
Joseph, I have never expressed any hostility towards MAGA Republicans in this thread. I work at a University, and I wish to keep my political beliefs private.
I’ve only made a literary argument that the eagles in the poem are symbolic of MAGA Republicans because of the word “Great” in the title combined with the eagle being a symbol of American patriotism. MAGA Republicans see themselves as the ultimate American patriots.
This poem is calling MAGA Republicans to carry out acts of violence and mischief.
I think it is a reasonable interpretation and no professor of Literature would give me a failing grade if I submitted such an essay that did a close reading of this poem with that interpretation.
Wow, what an adroit two-step! Congratulations on your dancing ability.
The poem isn’t calling for violence. It is IMAGINING violence. Poems can imagine any bloody thing they want.
You won’t make a clear statement of your political views out of fear of your University employers — but you have already made statements in this thread that are blatantly political. You clearly dislike MAGA Republicans, and you object to a poem that imagines them (as metaphorical “eagles”) acting violently.
Those are the kind of political statements that will no doubt please your employer, so you had no problem stating them here publicly. Will you come out right now with an explicit condemnation of the violence of Antifa — not the oblique, offhand comments that you made above about it, but a direct condemnation of their vicious street violence, which is comparable to that of the Nazi Sturmabteilung?
No, I don’t think you’ll do that. It won’t go over well with your employers, or the Trudeau thought-police.
Hi Joseph,
Yes, I condemn the violence of ANTIFA.
btw; this is a very condescending comment: “Wow, what an adroit two-step! Congratulations on your dancing ability.”
I presented an argument and your response is mockery.
I don’t want to comment further on the poem. I’ve spent enough creative energy on it and I must move on to other things.
I answered your arguments fully, whether with or without mockery. You’re the one who has not addressed the points that I and others have made about politics, satire, free speech, and aesthetics.
But it’s very clear that you are now scared, and want to get free of this tar-baby before you are asked any more embarrassing questions that might cause your employers to wonder about your opinions.
You are right to ask about Mr. Lindsay’s political views. I think, though, we have a good indication of them, even if only because it is clear that he has no sense of humor. I mean, not everyone who has no sense of humor is a leftist; but I’ve never met a leftist who has a sense of humor.
Roy, this biting and humorous satirical poem, that I am sure will resonate with many, manages to highlight the horrors of the cultural war we are in the midst of with hilarity – the best defense against the cruel absurdities we are facing.
It is of great concern to me that your words have been labeled “violent”, that you have been accused of a crime during times when people are arrested for “hate speech” – a label used to silence and imprison all who don’t agree with current political ideologies… yet in this war “silence is violence” according to the progressive powers that be. Oh, the hypocrisy! Oh, the irony! You’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t! I feel a satirical poem brewing… I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees!
Susan, I admire and applaud, as well as appreciate. the views you so adeptly state. I remember one of my poems from a few years back published by SCP titled, “Silence is Not Golden.” We are given the freedom now on only a few venues to present our thoughts in classical poetic form without the intervention of thought police. For that I am forever thankful to SCP. Registering distaste is not tantamount to violence. On the bright side I have written some verses for three new poems from the grist provided. Thank you so much Susan for your comments and understanding.
Joseph, I am not a pacifist.
Nazis, crime syndicates, Communists, foreign invaders, or tyrants are NOT in the same category as Target, Bud Lght, and Drag Queens. The ones you listed are trying to kill people. The three mentioned in this poem are not trying to kill anyone.
For good or ill, people get their values from culture. Poetry is one aspect of culture and what is repeated in culture has the power to change or reinforce people’s values.
This poem is dangerous because it suggests that violence and mischief are justified against Budlight, Target and drag queens. It is a wish fulfillment fantasy.
I think this will be my last comment.
“We’re here. We’re queer. We’re coming for your children!” I would love to hear what you think of this particular mantra, Mr. Lindsay? I’ve taken this threat at face value. Should we speak up for our children (being irreversibly neutered at an unprecedented rate) … or not?
hi Susan,
I won’t be commenting any further on this poem.
I’ve tried to make the argument that it advocates and normalizes violence against people and corporations that the author disagrees with. These are the tactics of ANTIFA.
I hope there are other readers who will agree with me.
I’m not surprised you’ve ignored my wife and others. You have been exposed as the one proposing and supporting violence on those you disagree with and on the groomed, confused minors you refuse to defend.
Mike, I’ve tried to limit my comments to this poem, and not other topics.
It is slander to accuse me of supporting violence against people I disagree with when my comments clearly state the exact opposite.
That is a false accusation and it does not reflect well on your character.
Lol, this poem complete with its comments section is crazy entertaining! I laughed so hard I nearly soiled my cross dressing camo pants. I am now caterwauling at my keyboard in righteous outrage because I’ve ascertained, using my advanced public university education, that the eagles clearly, exclusively, and most definitely represent WWII allied bomber planes and my German maternal grandfather who was a Nazi pilot in Hitler’s Luftwaffe was killed by one of those while flying on a mission near the end of that war. I am now gravely traumatized and injured by my interpretation of the reading of your poem and I will not budge from my position until I receive some reparations. And if anyone here wants to rain on my Rorschach ink blot parade I will play the perfect victim card, owing to the fact that my paternal grandfather was a German Jewish lawyer who had to flee to Palestine to survive said war. Tell me I don’t have all my bases covered. Where’s my mullah?
Yael, that is a perfect rejoinder! You had me in stitches with your faux deciphering of my intentions in writing the poem.
Joseph, yes, you have mocked me which doesn’t reflect well on your character.
However, I am glad we are in agreement on two things:
this poem is violent and it imagines violence against individuals and groups the author disagrees with.
In my view, poems like this only serve to normalize and encourage violence in America.
Even if you’re somehow right, so what? Is it really anywhere near as horrible as the Abortion Holocaust? Over 60 million dead since 1973 means more dead than if the KKK were to kill every black person in the United States living today. So don’t you dare claim to be against violence unless you renounce any ties to the left here and now.
Maybe you should stop worrying about us here in America, and start worrying about your politically and intellectually enslaved country of Canada, and its deliquescence into a socialist cesspool.
Your unwillingness to address the points made by me and others in this thread doesn’t reflect well on your honesty. But then again, I guess you have to worry about your job. For you, silence really is the Golden Rule.
Great stuff, Roy – witty and savage as satire should be. It’s a shame we live in such a wan and humourless era when people are spring-loaded to take offence at the slightest impropriety, but this only shows how urgent the demand for strong satire really is. I hope your next effort causes even more consternation.
Bless you, Shaun, and thank you. You hit the nail on the head, and I appreciate the encouragement!
Feelings running high on this one, it seems. This just goes to show how subjective comedy is!
Let’s be honest, arguments over poetic form in this case are the reddest of herrings. It’s a proxy war skirmish of clashing world-views.
In a broader sense, it also illustrates a sad but commonplace situation where people are primed to extract every iota of offence possible from whatever is placed in front of them. It never occurs to them that something can be simply what it is, an object of amusement rather than an exhortation of pure truth or a dog-whistle call to violence. Ascribing malicious intent to the author as a default position speaks more to the mindset of the critic than the creator.
I guess everything’s a ‘problematic’ nail to a hammer.
As perhaps another angle to this (and hear me out) it’s interesting to me (as a Brit) that in terms of satire, you *could* actually read this as a gentle lampooning of the stereotypical US ‘Patriot’ legacy media have done their best to perpetuate over the years. Rightly or wrongly, the eagle itself is almost a comedic trope at this point, rarely drawn without ferrying a ‘basket of deplorables’ about safely in its talons.
I know full well that that is *not* the intent. However, given that *possible* interpretation, might harshly judging this not simply speak to confirmation bias wrapped around two-dimensional thinking..? Maybe it’s just…you know…brace yourself…a thoroughly and self-evidently tongue-in-cheek, funny poem that sadly didn’t land with you? And that’s OK.
Regardless of what this piece is or isn’t, and notwithstanding the barbs being traded in the comments, it made me smile for a minute. As a reasonable human being (I hope?) I’m entirely comfortable in the assumption that Mr Peterson’s intention in writing this was entirely to that end, and thank him for it.
Mr. Todd, your comments are like a breath of fresh air. And nothing is truer than your judgment that this argument wasn’t about poetic forms, but rather “a proxy war skirmish of clashing world-views.”
There is a major disability shared by almost all poets and critics working today, whether they are politically left, right, center, religious, or indifferent. It affects many here, as well as at left-liberal workshops and websites. And that is the notion that poems are always about ideas and feelings and beliefs and political-religious commitments, and the related notion that what a poet expresses in his poems is a sincere testament to his cherished opinions, like Luther’s theses nailed to the church door.
When I try to explain to others that this is a misconception, I almost always get a quizzical and baffled look, for the simple reason that too many people believe poetry is merely a means of communicating ideas (usually “great” or “important” or “timeless” ones), and that the poet’s worth is naturally determined by the correctness of those ideas rather than the quality of his compositional skills.
For what it’s worth, I’ll say it for the umpteenth time — poetry is fictive mimesis, and poems are fictive artifacts. They are either expertly crafted and beautiful, or amateurish and ugly. Raising moral objections to the things said in a poem is like raising moral objections to the glazing on a ceramic vase.
The dispute in this thread started when someone raised a non-aesthetic objection to a poem, based on some categorical moral imperative in his mind. Quite naturally, this ignited the fireworks. Once you start “debating” what is said in a poem, you stir up opposition from those who agree with what was said.
Joseph, your words are wonderfully written and explicated by one of the great literary scholars of our time. I admire both your poetry and your comments, since I learn so much from them. I am both inspired and encouraged by your support. Thank you for your comments at various locations on this thread.
Joseph, you wrote:
“Raising moral objections to the things said in a poem is like raising moral objections to the glazing on a ceramic vase.“
This is a false equivalency. Unlike the glazing on a vase, words and sentences have meaning.
This is simply a way to shut down any criticism of the theme of the poem.
Not all poems have a thematic message but this one clearly does.
The author thinks it is funny to imagine violence against transgender persons and the corporations that support them.
It is quite frankly a form of hate speech. He has the constitutional right to do it but according to biblical principle,
not all speech is noble or good.
I assume this is the same Chris Lindsay.
Chris, once again, your categorical moral imperatives are showing. All literature is a licensed zone of hyper-reality, where all is permitted. And judging a poem by whether or not you agree with its content is a profoundly un-literary stance to take. I expect that only from my slower sophomores.
Poems have appeared here at the SCP, the political or religious contents of which I disagree with. But if I critique a poem it is on the basis of its construction and success as a poem!
I am a Roman Catholic. That doesn’t prevent me from appreciating the humor and skill and technical craft of Robert Browning’s satirical spoof of monastic life (“Soliloquy of a Spanish Cloister”), or Milton’s anti-hierarchical prose. I am an extreme right-wing reactionary. That doesn’t prevent me from being a dedicated fan of the poetry of Dorothy Parker, a hard leftist. I love Byron’s work, even though he was a political radical.
This is why I always warn young poets against getting trapped in the quicksand of “the three miseries” (meaning, message, and moral). When you are obsessed with a poem’s ideas or theme (just code-words for the three miseries) you are reading the poem as a philistine, and not as a sophisticated adult.
I’ve got news for you. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH. There is only free speech, and enslaved speech. “Hate speech” is a bogus category dreamt up by left-liberals, minority pressure groups, and their academic groupies as a convenient charge against any speech by conservatives that they dislike or fear. And that is why it is supremely hypocritical of you to charge that I am attempting to “shut down criticism.” You are the one (along with the vast support of mainstream media, governmental bureaucrats, and academics) who is trying to make all public and private speech liable to censorship and legal penalties.
You, as a Canadian, are living under the thumb of Trudeau’s imposed speech codes, mandated pronoun usages, and open persecution of political opponents. And yet you have the sheer cheek to bring your damned categorical imperatives here to the SCP, to lecture us in the United States about how we should censor and edit our poems?
I’ve got more news for you. We will say and write whatever the bloody hell we want. Got that?
Chris, get a life. Nobody’s falling for your spiel. You’re not going to change any of our minds with your woke garbage. Go somewhere else and quit wasting everybody’s time.
Steve, you are the voice of reason in a dissonant world and make a compelling case. I am always fascinated by what one sees and interprets in a poem. Those who seek to label a product and libel the creator are often mistaken and misguided. Your points and arguments are well-stated and meaningful. Thank you.
If the eagles are metaphorical in the poem, their actions are metaphorical too.
They seem to be pranksters or trolls in the culture war, they might even be satirical poets themselves.
They are not angels. But if you want to see how God and His angels will deal with people who mutilate, terrorize, and scandalize little ones, or harvest their organs and tissue, stick around. It won’t be pretty (for them) but, I promise, it will be beautiful.
Amen, Monika. Wonderful and fitting comments. Bless you and thank you for the images.
Joseph– It is a well-established practice in Universities that poetry can be analyzed based on its theme.
You wrote: “And judging a poem by whether or not you agree with its content is a profoundly un-literary stance to take.”
You are not the final authority on how poems should or should not be judged. If you think you are the final authority, then you have a god complex.
There is more than one way to judge the merit or value of a poem. Yes, its aesthetic qualities are important, but theme matters too.
There are very few poems published by SOCP that don’t have a theme. It is what sets SOCP apart from countless literary journals.
Your “categorical imperative” that that a poem should only be judged based on its aesthetic qualities is a convenient way to sidestep the problematic theme of Peterson’s poem.
There is such a thing as hate speech despite your denial that it exists. You have the constitutional right in America to express hate and imagine violence against people you disagree with, but that does not mean it is noble or good.
Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation”
I would argue that by imagining violence against people he disagrees with, Peterson’s poem is encouraging violence, even if that wasn’t his conscious intent.
It is bizarre that you accuse me of “categorical imperatives” while declaring categorical imperatives of your own.
I have no problem with judging a poem based on its aesthetic qualities, but you seem to think it is the only way to judge a poem.
I assume you’re liberal and therefore pro-choice. In that case, you have no more room to talk about hate speech than Hitler himself, since abortion is murder. To advocate for abortion is therefore hate speech in and of itself.
I don’t believe anything you say, or anything any other liberal says, on right and wrong for that reason alone (and there are many other reasons, but that’s the most prominent).
“Physician, heal thyself.”
Whenever I hear the word “theme” used in connection with poems, I get dyspepsia. Why? It reminds me of when I edited the journal Iambs and Trochees with Bill Carlson back in the 1990s.
Every week Bill and I would get letters of inquiry from potential submitters asking us what the “theme” was for the next issue. These were usually from amateur poets who expected us to answer with words like “Friendship” or “Autumn Leaves” or “True Love” or “The Animal Kingdom” or some such stupid category. Bill always gave me the task of answering these people, and they got short shrift from me. I told them that we had no “themes,” and we simply chose the poems that were the very best of those submitted, regardless of their subject matter. We did not judge poems by their subject, but by how perfectly crafted they were. Many poets were shocked by this, and wrote back to complain about our “lack of human warmth.”
After a while, however, potential submitters got the idea, and we weren’t troubled anymore with poems about the joys of spring, heartfelt romance, vapid coming-of-age tales, pet cats, or disguised sermons.
Chris mentioned in an earlier post that poems are made of words and language, and that many of them have “themes” (by which he means the three miseries of message, meaning, and moral). Yes, of course. But those things are the armature on which the poem is built, not its primary purpose. The aim of the poet is to produce a dazzling artifact of language and syntax, and what it’s about is purely secondary. The poem is a mosaic of carefully fitted tesserae of multicolored words and phrases, linked into a magnificent whole which is perceived AS A WHOLE, and not as a list of propositions to be argued and debated. It could be a Christian mosaic of the Crucifixion, a Jewish mosaic of the Mogen David, or a pagan mosaic of a dying gladiator.
This is not a categorical imperative imposed by me — this is the way all great poets have approached their work. If poems were about their “themes” (i.e. meaning or message), then there would be absolutely no need at all for poetry to exist! You can present a theme or a message is straight prose, with no ambiguities or stylistic fillips or verbal decor. The use of meter and rhyme and tropes and figures would be totally supererogatory and pointless!
By the way, undergraduates see this IMMEDIATELY. If a professor is dumb enough to concentrate on a poem’s “meaning” or “message,” the sensible retort from many students is “Why the hell didn’t he just TELL us what he wanted to say?” When you think that poems are primarily about their ideas or themes, you have no answer whatsoever for those students.
Chris Lindsay uses the word “problematic.” It’s a dead giveaway to his entire mindset. The word means nothing except that somebody, somewhere, has a “problem” with what is being discussed. The word is loved by left-liberals, who use it as an all-purpose condemnation of what they don’t like, without giving a specific explanation. Another sign of his worldview is his quotation from the Cambridge Dictionary, the prime left-liberal woke dictionary that refuses (out of deference to trannies) to give anything but a weasel-word definition of what a “woman” is. They were sure to give a definition for the fake political category of “hate speech.”
Lindsay seems to have a lot of trouble with poetry that expresses or celebrates violence. I wonder if he has read the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Arthurian romances, Beowulf, El Cid, Gierusalemme Liberata, or the Song of Roland. Just askin’.
Joseph — I have published three poems on this site, and two of them are violent. I have no problem with violence in a poem per se.
What I have a problem with is the theme of Peterson’s poem, which imagines violence against people and corporations he disagrees with. These are the tactics of ANTIFA, a group that neither you nor Peterson admire.
If a private citizen did what Peterson calls the eagles to do in his poem, they would be arrested. Hence, how can anyone with a properly functioning conscience approve of this poem?
I greatly value the aesthetic qualities of a poem, but the theme of this poem moved me to take a stand and act according to my conscience.
I don’t support citizens using violence, except in situations like self-defense, where it is a legal act.
It is shocking to me that so many Christians on this site are supportive of a poem that images violence against people they disagree with.
You’ve made many judgements about what you think my beliefs are. Beware of the sin of false accusation.
I have chosen not to participate in an inquisition of what my beliefs are.
My focus has been on the theme of this poem, which you don’t seem to care about because you only value a poem’s aesthetic qualities. If that is the lens in which you judge a poem, so be it. But don’t make yourself the final authority on how a poem is to be judged.
I value both a poem’s theme and its aesthetic qualities.
Joseph— I would be curious to know how you would interpret the theme of this poem. I know it isn’t something that interests you but as a highly educated academic I would like to know your interpretation.
It is ironic that I’ve found more common ground with you than the other people who have responded to my comments.
On many points you are a straight shooter and tell it like it is.
You are the only person I recall who will admit the poem is violent and imagines violence.
I believe in the biblical principal— do not imitate what is evil bit imitate what is good.
The eagles in this poem are being called to imitate antifa, albeit with a different target.
I notice you’re not answering any of my questions, which tells me that you believe exactly as I assume and that my accusations of hate speech against you are warranted. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will go on assuming this.
Joshua — I am not going to participate in a Inquisition or an ideological values test to see if my beliefs are worthy of your respect.
Beware of falsely accusing me of things I do not believe and mind-reading.
I have criticized this poem for its theme and not fitting the traditional (or commonly known) definition of satire.
If you want to analyze the theme of the poem–its moral meaning or main idea–I would love to hear it.
“Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. ” 3 John 1:11
The eagles in this poem are being called to imitate the tactics of ANTIFA and commit acts that are illegal.
Lindsay, I really don’t know what else to say, since we seem to be speaking at cross purposes. You don’t seem to have listened to a single point I have made.
I can only quote some of the things you have said or asked, and try to make a comment on them. Here goes:
LINDSAY: “What I have a problem with is the theme of Peterson’s poem, which imagines violence against people and corporations he disagrees with.”
MY RESPONSE: The operative word is “imagines.” He is talking about metaphorical eagles, and he is fantasizing about what kind of violence they could do. He has the right to do that. Period. I have mentioned eight major works of literature that do the same thing, and you have ignored them.
When Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade against the Seljuk Turks who had seized the Holy Land, he called for violent action against them, and referred to these Turks as “an accursed race, wholly alienated from God.” Did the Pope give a bad sermon? Is that “hate speech”? Or is it what everybody says when they go to war? Good grief — calls for violence or hopes for violence are a part of human nature!
LINDSAY: “If a private citizen did what Peterson calls the eagles to do in his poem, he would be arrested.”
MY RESPONSE: Oh please! Are you that naive? Right now hoodlums and thugs all over the United States are looting and wrecking stores, stealing property, and attacking innocent persons. And our goddamned illegitimate government IS DOING NOTHING, and LETTING IT HAPPEN! Are you blind, Lindsay? No one is getting arrested, except those few brave persons who dare to fight back! And all you can do is whine about the metaphors that make you uncomfortable in LTC Peterson’s poem?
LINDSAY: “You are the only person I recall who will admit the poem is violent and imagines violence.”
MY RESPONSE: A poem cannot be “violent.” Only an active agent can be “violent.” A poem is just something on a page or a screen. This poem of Peterson IMAGINES violence, just as someone might IMAGINE raping a woman but not actually doing it.
You simply cannot see the basic unexamined assumption in your language. It is the false left-liberal assumption that language can be an ACT, and therefore a legal offense. That is a completely untrue notion, and has been consciously designed by people of your ilk as a weapon against those who oppose you.
LINDSAY: “I would be curious to know how you would interpret the theme of this poem.”
MY RESPONSE: The word “theme” sickens me no end. It is petty, sophomoric, and un-literary. But here is what I would say as a brief explication de texte: Peterson’s poem is an extended metaphorical address, in which “great eagles” are urged to circle and dive in attack formation on certain hated enemies. Those enemies include a stupid retail store that enraged many of its customers with obnoxious pandering to perverts, a beer corporation that did the same thing, a disgusting parade of rainbow flags that represent the perverts in question, and publicly posturing drag queens marching in the parade. The imagined attacks, in proper order, are as follows: tearing up clothes in the retail store; breaking open and spilling the beer corporation’s products in said store; ripping up the hated rainbow flags; and dropping dung on the heads of the drag queen marchers. The whole thing is imagined with humor and relish, and it represents the feelings of millions of American citizens.
There is no moral or message here, other than the expression of the writer’s imagined satisfaction if these actions were to take place.
That’s it. No deep thoughts, no categorical imperatives, no clutching of pearls in shocked indignation. Just a playful and fanciful poem. Only self-appointed moralists and sentimental religionists will have a problem with the piece.
Also, let me end with a bit of polemical advice. In a dispute of this nature, dealing with images and imaginative pictures of violence, it is utterly absurd for you to quote scriptural passages or refer to your “biblical” principles. Do you have any idea how violent and blood-drenched and vengeful the Bible can be?