Featherless - A pantoum

[Maureen K Clifford]

I'd forgotten how much fun these were to do


Featherless - A pantoum

He wrote of birds out in the bush
though not one of his birds could fly
for feathered wings they did not own
nor Mary Jane to make them high.

Though not one of his birds could fly,
they each had plumage glossy, bright.
No Mary Jane to make them high,
most only ventured forth at night.

They each had plumage glossy bright
and few of them were morning birds.
Most only ventured out at night
their daytime calls were never heard.

And few of them were morning birds
the mornings glory passed them by,
their daytime calls were never heard
but nighttimes calls were strident. Why?

The morning’s glory passed them by,
they rested ‘neath a feathered quilt,
but nighttimes calls were strident - why
on earth did they soil nests they built?

They rested ‘neath a feathered quilt
for feathered wings they did not own
on earth. Did they soil nests they built?
Would they one day have to atone?

Maureen Clifford © 05/12

[Neville Briggs]

Goodonya Maureen. Mary Jane ?? in the words of Banjo Paterson " whatever that may be "

The pantoums are a good idea to have a go at I think, because you can't divorce the content from the form. I think we bush poets need to learn that lesson, it's not enough to have a good or funny story and just set it out in the most perfunctory attempt at verse. The form has to be as well thought out as the " plot " of the story. That's what I am trying to work out anyway.

And it's not a matter of technical perfection or arch verbosity, it's a matter of doing what we claim to be doing, that is doing POETRY.

[Dennis N O'Brien]

The bird theme seems to be the go lately.
Good one Maureen.

[Stephen Whiteside]

I can't agree, Neville. I think you need to essentially choose between 'form' and 'plot'. I'm not arguing for anything to be perfunctory, but I think a complex plot needs a simple form and, conversely, a complex form needs a simple plot - or no plot at all. If you have a complex plot being unfolded in an intricate form, you just end up with too much going on, and each distracts the reader from the other.

I like to use the analogy of cars. If you want a sharp, fancy car, restrict it to short trips around the city on good roads. If you have a long journey to make, however, choose a car that is plain and simple - but reliable.

[Neville Briggs]

It's hard to explain and I'm still struggling to find a way to explain it.

It's not about style or complexity.

In poetry, my understanding is that form and content ( or plot ) should be inextricably united, otherwise why bother to make a poetic form out of it at all, just say what you want to say straight out and be done with it.

And I thought that Maureen's pantoum illustrated the concept of form and content being one interlocking structure, where the content built the form and the form depended on the application of the content.

[Stephen Whiteside]

As I understand it, rhyme and metre were particularly popular in the days before universal literacy, because they made stories easier to remember. It grew from there. Rhyme and metre have their own intrinsic appeal - the patterns, the repetition, the musicality. You don't have to get hung up on the word 'poetry', whatever that means. You can call it rhyming verse if you prefer (and personally I do). You might argue there is something poetic about TMFSR or Clancy of the Overflow, but there's nothing especially poetic about Mulga Bill's Bicycle or the The Man from Ironbark, yet they're both classic examples of rhyming verse. I don't think you need to be poetic at all to write excellent, entertaining rhyming verse.

[Neville Briggs]

I suppose so.