For S

i agree with you mushkil, not only that the person should know what he wants, but should also stick to it, and not change like the wind!
fiz

i couldn`t finish through your poem, it was nice and all but i am again heartbroken. so i will take a totally biased and cynical approach here especially when it comes to love in the desi context where the idea of love has served more of a shairiana fetish, than something that could be consummated under the guise of family arrangements and clannish scrutiny.

so in this post-gemeinshelft, simulacra of a world (to sound chowky and pretensious) many people still cling on to these romantic ideals of essence; i.e. true love with overblown ideas of what love is. love is selfish, love is the ultimate state of vulnerability, love can be fucked up...

but i am looking forward to falling in love again this time with someome who knows what they want.

re aatish:

``Well I think love can be both sexual and non-sexual. The purest form of love is perhaps the love that a mother has towards her children. It is sacrificing and all-encompassing, and is non-sexual.``

the oedipal complex is then fiction and gerturde and halmet had no sexual underlying tenions?

rizvi

Aatish. This is a belated response to your question concerning what prompted me to write my earlier comment concerning fishooks. Your verses seemed so serious and sincere (like the fishhook article by Bina) that I could not resist trying to lighten things up a bit for you folks. Anyway, good luck with your romantic life.

Re: temporal

It`s kind of late and I think I will give a better reply later.

Well I think love can be both sexual and non-sexual. The purest form of love is perhaps the love that a mother has towards her children. It is sacrificing and all-encompassing, and is non-sexual.

Re: TAhmed321

Thanks for reading the poem. I am curious about your comment though.

Why do you say so? Because you wouldn`t say this to someone you love? Do you deny that someone else could genuinely feel this way? Because you just happened to read the fishooks article and could not disentangle your mind from it??

Do explain...

Re: Godot

Your obsessiveness amazes me. I will not say the obvious here. Your knee-jerk responses speak volumes. I am not interested in getting into a mud-wrestling match with you ... all the power to you dude.

Have fun chump!

Re: TAhmed321, #31

Bingo!

However, Fishhook, as described in Bina`s piece, is giving too much credit. I`d say a lech!

Hmmmmm. Sounds like a fishhook talking.

Aatish:

I thought I was seriously responding to a serious poem. Am glad you are laughing. Perhaps, a zoo to each taste? Seriously, I agree with your assessment in that there is no set way of making love. Otherwise, the whole spontanaeity will be lost. Enjoyed your remark about degree courses. I know the good old Tantric Order has a definite training regimen, though. am not so sure if it awards degrees. Perhaps an angle they should persue?

Now, how about answering the last paragraph of my interact,

expectantly,

Re: Aatish

Yes, I am! I have been a Miller fan for a long time and I love his irreverent humor and his rants are the best! Dennis and Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect fame are two of my favorite comedians.

Re: All

Poetry, unlike prose, is about the idea of conveying imagery and it works within a metaphorical sense. The object d` art of a poem is to identify emotionally with the reader and not neccessarily on an intellectual plane. A reader`s interpretation of a poem will be determined not by the content or the phraseology of the words, but how closely the poem approximates the reader`s own particular experiences on a given topic, subject or the theme, which the poem is penned on.

We should try to read the context of a poem within the limits of our own experinces. The beauty of a poem, its elegance if you will, lies in the achievement of sharing an experience with which we can relate to what the author was trying to express as a thought.

Consequently, an understanding of a poem depends on the reader`s state of mind when s/he reads the poem and that interpretation is bound to change with each reading of the poem.

Rishi,

Thanks for your comments and compliments. I like your example of Spielberg asking Siskel to direct, point well taken.

And you`re right, a critic deserves the right to criticise, otherwise he won`t be much of a critic.

So to Godot, dear friend, I am sorry for aggravating you. Your dislike is accepted and digested...

Peace!

Re : Aatish

I have an honest belief that poetry differentiates itself from prose by using a rhythmic juxtaposition of right words. I am sorry to say that this poem was a tough one to read let alone decipher. It was more prosaic and complex than even complex prose. That does not take away your merit on the theme or the expression. And the last para had this rhythm that i talk about which was the saving grace. I did like the raw lust and energy and the allegory the last para portrays. Good work there

in reply 25 you say to Godot,

`` If you dislike someone else`s work so much, try writing something yourself, instead of being a critic for the sake of being one.``

-- that is something like Azhar asking Prem Panicker to play cricket instead of commenting. Or Spielberg asking Siskel to direct a movie.

Guess the allegory would suffice.

`` Such critics are perhaps the lowliest of all beings. ``

-- That is indeed a ahem...cheap shot Aatish. When you write something and like to be read and admired, you also need to be open to criticism. If someone does not like your work so be it. That is the right of the reader. He has the right to criticise, tear apart, spew venom on any piece because he took the time to read your work. You also have the right to defend yourself, but you never have the right to critique a critic on his critique. Does that make sense ?

Don`t expose your flanks buddy.

Rishi

Asif,

Thanks for your comments and encouragement.

Ghalib never gets very explicit, but like the best of all poets, talks in double meaning. The sexual nature of his verse lies in this double meaning ... he may not say something directly, but imply something indirectly.

And Hafez, the master of all masters, well he could say something outright sexual and make it sound philosophical, and vice versa. I agree with you that he was a Sufi, but I do not agree with you that he did all this just to convey a mystic message all the time. I think he liked to play with his words and his constructions, and enjoyed deliberately putting ambiguity in his verse.

I think the conservative people after Hafez have had a very difficult time explaining all of his works, and they have (to me) unsuccessfully floated the idea that at all times he was coveying a mystic message.

Godot,

Tsk, tsk, tsk ... so much anger comrade, will do you no good bro! Chill, its better for you mind and your heart!

If you dislike someone else`s work so much, try writing something yourself, instead of being a critic for the sake of being one. If you have ``elevated`` ideas, put them on paper and let the world see --anyone can sit in an armchair and spew criticism for hours. Such critics are perhaps the lowliest of all beings.

Dude, no offense intended and none taken --perhaps I am like you, and returning your comment, saying out aloud when the emperor has no clothes. You have a right to dislike something and so say it, and so do I.

cheers

Aatish ,

A good attempt but perhaps love-making is best experienced and cannot be described.

If eroticism was your aim then I think your language and imagery were far too obscure to achieve that. However, it was a valiant effort nevertheless at a difficult subject.

Regarding Ghalib`s poetry, I cannot ever imagine someone would reckon it any where near approaching pornography; erotic, maybe, at times; sensual--sometimes; but porn?? Never!

Phir maange hai kissi ko lab-e-baam par havas

Zulf-e-syaa, munh pe pareshaan kiye huwe!

Again, lust is searchnig for someone on the rooftop,

Her black tresses, spread all over her face!

And Hafiz Shirazi was a Sufi. His poetry is about Allah and reachnig the Divine, though he uses--like all sufis--sensual imagery to convey a mystic message.

Real erotic, yet Sufi, poetry can be found in Hazrat Shaikh al Akbar Ibn Arabi`s Tarjumaan al Ashwaaq, the Interpreter of Desires (trans. by A J Arberry from the Arabic).

Re: Aatish, #15

The fact that Scourge rushed to your defense, and you two agree, says a lot more than I ever could! Thannnnnk Youuuuu Scourge (on secularists--closeted or not)!!!

From your responses I`ve concluded that, not only matching wits is not exactly your forte, you`re really good at something: taking cheap shots. I would not expect anything less from a ``poet`` of your caliber! [Yes, this one is from me.]

Oh, mon chereie!!! MMM MMM MMM!!! Chum chum chum!!! (The lover of your poem, Pepe Le Pew!)

As someone said, to each his own!

Period.

Aatish:

You say, ``how do you think a person FEELS when he makes love to someone he loves?`` (my caps).

It does not matter what I feel or think. Or may be it does because ultimately we are all so subjective. Reams have been written about the act of love making. Subjectively, if done properly, AND mutually, the experience is heavenly and elusive. If the feather is used it is erotic and passionate, but if one tends to use the whole bird than it is a travesty.

I also found your quote a trifle male-centric. As a rule, MOST South Asian Desis are not well versed in, ahem... the Art of Lovemaking! To a certain extent one can blame the fire in the loins to fog the vision, but, really, this problem is manifold. No, I cannot cite any statistics to support my views. They are merely based on conversations with friends, acquaintances, their lovers and spouses over the last many years. You don`t just throw wood and matches in the fire place and sit back and relax warmly. One has to ``nurse`` the wood to provide one with a nice, long, warm and relaxing evening.

Your other query is a loaded one, too. `` Does the presence of sexuality negate non-sexual love or complement it?`` First, in the context of this poem only, what do you mean by non-sexual love? In true ``love`` the element of union between body and soul is the ultimate goal. Even in fleeing liasons, this unity of twos is the ultimate goal, however fleeting.

Hope this answers your queries.

regards

Re: Aatish

Can I infer from your ``that`s just my opinion, of course I could be wrong.`` that you are a fan of Dennis Miller?

Re: Ferozk

You may correctly infer that I am a fan of Dennis Miller ... I love his rants. Are you too?

Re: temporal

I am sorry, I just can`t help laughing a little on how seriously this is being taken... its sexuality, relax, highly unlikely two people will expect exactly the same thing!

You say using a feather is ok and using a bird is a travesty ... I say it depends on the bird :) Some people might want a loud rock-n-roll band and the whole bloody zoo! People have different tastes. Who says or defines what is the RIGHT way to make love?? Do you?

I do not agree with your sweeping generalizations - what you accuse desi males of, I think all males are guilty of. And what you think desi males do not know, well, I think they know more than how much you think they know.

Not to get in a row over here and get on a soap-box over this issue, but love making is good when it comes naturally, consentually, is satisfying and pleasurable. If you want it subtle, it`s your choice, others may not want it so. If you want it loud, hey again it is your choice. But please don`t tell me that there is a set routine that I have to follow in order to qualify as a lover of worth. What is next then, a string of courses and a degree in love making?

As DM would say: Of course that is just my opinion, I could be wrong!

Subuhi,

Thanks for your comments. It is very rewarding when one actually succeeds in conveying oneself to another. Again thanks for your appreciation and elucidation.

Temporal,

How do you think a person feels when he makes love to someone he loves? Does THAT work? Does the presence of sexuality negate non-sexual love or complement it?

Scourge,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you, the issue of profanity is quite subjective ... the Hindus adorned their temples with sculptures of people in sexual intercourse which was offensive to the repressed Victorians. The Victorians themselves, despite their apparent asexuality, were quite repressed. One can imagine the level of their repression by observing that they required that even the legs of furniture should be covered, lest they induce a sexual thought in the people.

Repression leads to many ways of manifesting itself --insisting on a silly line that divides the acceptable from the non-acceptable, fulfillment of the senses in some other way (over-eating or drinking, sleeping ...), various psychological ``diseases`` (Freud goes through them in a lot of detail) or outright violence and perversion.

Regarding your comments on my work, I can only say thank you for liking it, and for the advice. Regarding `fists of my pupils` -- consider an eye that does not want to see, has its pupils clenched tight like a fist. ABout specific order of imagery, I can only say that I can learn from advice, but in the end every person must write what one feels, and not everyone feels or appreciates the same things.

This whole issue of `pornography` raised by Godot reminds me of Hafez, who was criticized by the conservatives for being deliberately ambiguous in his work. He would write something about a seemingly religious or philosophical topic and yet have a distinct sensual or hedonistic aspect to it. Some, like Godot, saw only one side, while others saw both to various degrees. Hafez was a master, and I cannot even dare to make a comparison here, but verse does give one the ability to say two things at the same time.

And I think that you are absolutely right, in verse there is no restriction, it should flow from the heart (or as Godot may say loins!) to the pen, uninterrupted, and unfettered. I do not have that ability yet, but practice makes perfect. Great poetry distinguishes itself, in my opinion, not by the boundaries it respects, but by the boundaries it crosses.

Godot,

There is no need to get agitated ... if you don`t like it, all the power to you dude. No cheap shot intended, but you seem persistent on taking one. I cannot do anything about that!

Regarding D. H. Lawrence and `Penthouse Forum`: Now I have never read Penthouse Forum, but I have read enough of D. H. Lawrence to safely say that if you consider this poem to be pornographic, then you will be at a serious loss of words for his work. This poem is too tame for his standards ... Maybe you are an avid reader of the Penthouse Forum, in which case you can share your expert opinion here by giving actual examples, so that one can decide which genre does this little poem fall into.

Another interesting thing to note: The same poem has evoked different responses in different people. Here you are getting all upset and angry for nothing, and yet there are others who have enjoyed the poem. But that is the nature of poetry, not everyone likes the same thing, what you may consider artistic may be balderdash for me, and of course, vice versa. If I am not mistaken, wasn`t D. H. Lawrence himself not ridiculed and chastised when he wrote his novels?? Now you consider it `high literature` simply because it is old and he is dead?

That`s just my opinion, of course I could be wrong.

Re: Aatish, #11

I don`t believe in platonic love, either. Love without sex is, well, like near-beer! I don`t know Hafez and Ghalib well enough to comment on their poetry. Making love is, yes, could be one of the most wonderful human experiences. The art of telling it is not everybody`s cup of tea. There`s a difference between D H Lawrence`s `Women in Love` and `Penthouse Forum`.

This poem of your is not very subtle, or ``ambiguous`` as you put it. I`m a simple person. I shout when I see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. As for your remark that I`m unwittingly conveying myself, well, it`s a cheap shot which is not a surprise coming from someone who wrote such an ``ambiguous`` poem!

I see your poem as written for the Pepe Le Pews of the world!

Re: anarkali, #12

Hey, Anarkali, Jahangeer married Noor Jahan and is now a happily married man. Move on with your life, or Akbar is going to get you!

I DON`T KNOW BUT THE POEM MADE ME DEPPRESSED.BECAUSE MY NAME DOESN`T START WITH ``S``.IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A POEM FOR ME ALSO.IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR.

Re: Godot

I must say something here ... I see love as not being merely platonic, it has a very strong and beautiful sexual element to it. Making love to someone who one loves is one of the most wonderful of all human experiences. Why should one shy away from it?

Moreover pornography is a relative word, very hard to define. Did Hafez and Ghalib write pornographic material? Some may argue. And in the end maybe verse is all within the reader`s mind, if a poet is deliberately ambiguous, the reader unwittingly conveys him or herself!

Re: subuhi, #8

Yes, it`s me who called the last stanza pornographic. Sure, it`s dripping with ``love``! It seems that the poet`s ``love`` took a short cut and went from his sight right to his loins, bypassing his heart completely! His ``love`` doesn`t reside in his heart, but a place far far away from it, in the milky-way galaxy with not one but many dark, black holes around! I`m sure his ``emotions`` of ``love`` have given his physical being a geometrically perpendicular shape!

A shade more explicit, the last stanza would`ve required a triple X rating!

Aatish:

I have read this several times. Have ambivalent feelings.

Part I seems to flow from the heart and mind.

Part II, well, seems to flow from lower extremities.

Does it work? Am not so sure.

regards

Loved the last stanza. Who said it`s pornographic? Pornography is explicit - it`s sex stripped to its bare essentials and displayed clinically, without emotional attachment. This stanza is about emotion. It has what pornography cannot - a double, deeper meaning.

Re: Saima Shah

Relax dear lady! Love bashing is one of my favorite past times and I do enjoy being sarcastic about this whole phenomena.

Re: Ferozk

I know i may be wasting my time; but please who said that love is about winning? death/disappointment is but a part of life; to have loved is not an achievement but an experience; whether it stays or does not is a risk one takes on oneself.

The poem however, does not cast much insight into either sex or love.

I enjoyed this poem very much.
You live up to your ``Aatish`` name.

Ras

I quite liked this. Some lovely imagery, especially the dark corridors of my veins, the dove and the boats. Other parts seem a bit contrived - but then again it`s hard to write about love-making.

Bina.

``And when I make love to you

My each fluid movement is a word

That drips at first, and then

Rushes like a maddened river in a gorge

Before it dives into the dark``

There`s indeed a fine line between this poem and pornography!

Beware the scourage of penning poems of love. It discomforts the soul, stirs anxious moments of yearnings and leaves only a bitter-sweet regret as the wine of romance ages and turns sour! The first blush of love is always strong, but it will fade and there will only be a simple ache to remind what once was so glorious short lived!

A word to the wise, never ascribe your emotions and put them on a pedestal, because when they will fall, you will never be able to put them back together!