For S

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!

``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!

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.

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

Ras

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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!

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: 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!

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.

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.

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?

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.