drummondo Posted October 26, 2005 Report Posted October 26, 2005 (edited) A collaboration with Beautiful Nightmare, inspired by the good people of IRC. Interrupting the voiceless With our obscene PG-13 scenes; Emotion is PG-13. Leave yours at the door If you want to "fit in" more for sure - Welcome to 1984. Try this; while it's quiet, Riot. Invading idle silence With our childish acts of so-called violence Fun's no longer suitable - Keep out of reach of children, Building cells and filling them with millions; Just numbless souls who are unclear About the real year. Wings descending like angels or locusts, Lights falling like stars or shells, Shivers of delight, frost or fear; Everything is perception. How far do you want to take it? Edited October 26, 2005 by drummondo
drummondo Posted October 27, 2005 Author Report Posted October 27, 2005 They say it's like trampolining with a really low ceiling; PG-13 meaning restricted screening, But being restricted feeling.
Gwaihir Posted December 2, 2005 Report Posted December 2, 2005 Beautiful imagery. The anger comes through beautifully as does the trapped impatience you feel towards a style that frustrates you. I enjoyed reading this.
Tanuchan Posted December 2, 2005 Report Posted December 2, 2005 Strong and beautiful. The feelings are there, real - not just words. Loved it.
reverie Posted December 4, 2005 Report Posted December 4, 2005 (edited) um, not to be an iconoclast or anything, but I don't get it. how do you interrupt the voiceless? Unless their using sign-language or some other form of gesturing... and you like bump them, or stand in front of them or something... hmm, but, I can envision a scene where the "voiceless" are the one's doing the interrupting... rev... Edited December 4, 2005 by reverie
Parmenion Posted December 21, 2005 Report Posted December 21, 2005 (edited) I believe it is eminently possible to interrupt the voiceless. If voiceless is taken as being a metaphor, then one can draw from history to say that during the women's suffrage in the late 19th and early 20th century the women who were protesting their lack of voice (or vote) were interrupted as many were carted off to prison. In that context a voiceless person may be interrupted. The same could also apply in retort to ageist philosphies whereby an older person would shout down a child or younger person unwilling to hear their arguments or point of view because they think they know better. Therefore the younger feels as though their words are but smoke in the wind and they are voiceless, or to put it another way bereft of opinion in the face of someone who doesn'y hear it. Hope this addresses your query Rev, and happy xmas and new year to you and yours. Edited December 21, 2005 by Parmenion
reverie Posted December 22, 2005 Report Posted December 22, 2005 (edited) Hmm, but if the adversaries of the "voiceless" (e.g. women) found the need to interrupt their protest, then indeed the women did have a voice albeit only momentary and outside of the normal political channels. But I do see your point. I think what's confusing me, is the persona's point of view. For some reason my brain wants to read the poem from the opposing side, but still apply the same sentiments. thus = confused revery. However, cast in this new light, I can see things a little more clearly. Hmm, in the first line, I would recommend exchanging "Silencing" for "Interupting." I think that would give the first line more edge with an ironic bend to it. ... rev. Edited December 22, 2005 by reverie
Recommended Posts