ozarque ([info]ozarque) wrote,
@ 2007-07-12 08:52:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Sf poetry being made; second round; "No Covenant"
Thank you for all of your helpful comments and suggestions, some of which I have used in the revision below; I appreciate each and every one.

I want to point out here this morning what I consider the worst line in the whole poem:
"It took us so long just to learn how to communicate!"

I have to be able to convey that meaning, somehow -- the poem won't work without it -- but "communicate" is all wrong. Wrong tone. Wrong sounds. Wrong rhythm. Just wrong. "It took us so long just to learn how to talk to each other!"[or "... to one another!"] would get rid of "communicate" -- but they don't actually talk. They have no mouths, no vocal tracts, nothing to do bodyparl with; it can't be talking. There's no verb "to telepath," if telepathy is the right word for what's going on. Help in fixing this would be very welcome, because I am truly stuck.


No Covenant

It's being without a body that's the hard part...
And that surprised me.
No hunger or thirst; no lust. No pain.
No urinating or defecating or menstruating or any-other-ating.
No brushing your teeth; no washing your hair.
So far as we know right now, no illness,
although some of us wonder if we should count on that.
[I mean, even when we still had bodies people talked, sometimes,
about "spiritual illnesses."]
But no colds, no cancers, no AIDS, no TB, no heart attacks;
none of that kind of illness, ever any more.
In the abstract this sounds like perfection.
In the real world [or whatever this is we're inhabiting],
it turns out to be hard to bear.

For instance, you never really know where you are.
Not that there's anywhere left to be, exactly --
but we used to know where we were because we could feel
our bodies touching a chair or a bed or a path.
Even when we were falling through air,
we were feeling the pull of whatever we were falling toward.
We knew where our head was and where our feet were;
we knew where up and down were, and where the center was.
Not any more.

We should be thankful. Grateful. We do know that.
We could all be dead, wiped out like the dinosaurs
the way most of humankind died in the Great Flood.
[We find the story of the Great Flood more believable now.]
Worse, we could be part of a handful who survived,
struggling to go on living, on a devastated planet,
in misery. Instead, here --
well, there's no "here," really,
but the word still needs to be there with what follows --
here I am. Here I am in some where. And I am suffering.
Not in pain, no ... but I am suffering.
I know the difference now.

It took us so long just to learn how to communicate!
If we hadn't been so desperate to find one another --
if we hadn't just been screaming the names of those we loved
at the top of our minds --
we might never have learned.

The message the Holy One sent us was more than clear.
There it was, posted on the sky,
and in Universal-Translator-fashion we each saw it
[perhaps some people heard it rather than saw it]
in our own native language.
This is what it said:
"I'm disgusted. I'm entirely out of patience.
You've wrecked one world,
I'm not going to waste another world on you!
Get ready for a change of status."
And that was it.
It was a briefer warning
than babies got when they left the world of the womb
for the world beyond it.
[Some of us think that may have been a mercy.]

One minute we were humankind, embodied, living on Earth;
one breath later we were bodiless, living none of us knows where.
We didn't even feel our selves being shucked,
it happened so fast.
We do know it's not heaven -- because of the suffering.
We do know it's not hell -- because there's no pain.

We're wondering now if there are things the bodiless can do,
to make the time go by.
Think about it; at first we didn't know
we could "talk" to one another.
And then we learned that we could.
Is there more we could do?
We don't know.
What we do now... Is it flying? Is it floating?
We don't know.
Is it forever?
We don't know.


(Post a new comment)


[info]voxwoman
2007-07-12 02:03 pm UTC (link)
You may have to make up a verb for this kind of communication.

However, since you use "talk" in quotes, maybe you can use "heard" in quotes, too (although you'd have to rephrase that line to get it to scan right). It seems as these beings are "talking" but nobody else could hear them (hence the lack of communication).

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]voxwoman
2007-07-12 02:05 pm UTC (link)
what I mean is something like: It took us so long to learn to listen and be heard!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dulcinbradbury
2007-07-12 02:03 pm UTC (link)
Instead of communicate:
Broadcast? Network? Interface? Transmit?

Even network admins will describe networking as "Getting things to talk to one another" -- even though they're not *talking*. Since the people are still adjusting to being without bodies, it would still make sense to describe things as having bodies. Were they aware of the others around them in any sense, even if they didn't know how to communicate? At which point, it wouldn't just be learning how to communicate, but learning that they were not utterly alone.

(Reply to this)


[info]hilleviw
2007-07-12 02:16 pm UTC (link)
"Wrong rhythm. Just wrong. "It took us so long just to learn how to talk to each other!"[or "... to one another!"] would get rid of "communicate" -- but they don't actually talk. They have no mouths, no vocal tracts,"

...made me think of the Harlan Ellison title: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.

Anyway, in the "It took us so long" line, what if you did it the other way round, and used "hear"? I realize it changes the implications, perhaps more than talk does, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. We all "talk" in our heads all the time, don't we? The trick is for someone else to "hear" that happening.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]babalon_it
2007-07-12 03:26 pm UTC (link)
I got that reminder of "I have no Mouth and I must Scream" the first time I read this.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kelsied
2007-07-12 05:07 pm UTC (link)
Yes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kightp
2007-07-12 02:26 pm UTC (link)
Reach?

(Reply to this)


[info]lillibet
2007-07-12 02:34 pm UTC (link)
Perceive?

I'm amused that the reason I think of this is your emphasis on it in Native Tongue.

(Reply to this)


[info]londonbard
2007-07-12 02:45 pm UTC (link)
"It took me so long just to hear their (or your) minds" ?

or possibly

"it took so long to learn that minds link. now" ?

I'm sorry, I'm not good at this and the tone may be wrong for your poem.

(Reply to this)

no way to say so hard to be heard
[info]torapines
2007-07-12 02:47 pm UTC (link)
"Connect"?

"Contact"?

"Intersect"?

Something with con- or co- ... or inter- ...?



p.s. (and totally OT): I wrote my very first sf limerick yesterday, and thought of you!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: no way to say so hard to be heard
(Anonymous)
2007-07-12 05:39 pm UTC (link)
YES! to "connect". Seems to fulfill the narrator's intention.

Or - when I try to explain why I love languages, I say that I love the varieties of vehicles for expressing meaning. Something in there, Suzette?

Meg Umans

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-07-12 02:58 pm UTC (link)
(Michael Farris)

I don't perceive any way around 'communicate'. AFAICT there are no shorter, more informal anglo-saxon words that don't have too many other presuppositions attached. I might be wrong as my active vocabulary isn't what it once was (living in a foreign country will do that) but I think it might be better to try to shorten the sentence in other ways...

"It took us so long just to learn how to communicate!"

The rhythm of this sentence is (to me) kind of clunky, maybe shortening it to

It took so long to learn to communicate!
or
It took so long to learn communication! (I kind of like the rhythm of this one)

hmmm

It took so long before we could communicate! (again, communicate at the end of the sentence is awkard rhythmically (to me).

Maybe recast it, with

'Simple communication took so long to learn!'

This gets communication in a place where it can create less rhythmic havoc and ends to the sentence with nice simple germanic roots and a simple strong-weak rhythm.


(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kelsied
2007-07-12 03:17 pm UTC (link)
Or "simple contacts took so long to learn."

Which raises a broader question of simple things like physical-emotional-transfers... a pat on the back, a hug, a sympathetic shrug across a room....

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]babalon_it
2007-07-12 03:28 pm UTC (link)
"simple contact took so long to learn"

I like that. I like the physical-emotional ambiguity.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]salzara_tirwen
2007-07-12 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Grok.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]londonbard
2007-07-12 08:28 pm UTC (link)
I was thinking that, but can it be used in a work that is to be published?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]salzara_tirwen
2007-07-13 12:24 am UTC (link)
I don't see why not. "Ansible" was someone's word once, and it's been used by a few different authors.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]babalon_it
2007-07-12 03:25 pm UTC (link)
It took us so long just to learn how to communicate!
If we hadn't been so desperate to find one another --
if we hadn't just been screaming the names of those we loved
at the top of our minds --
we might never have learned.


It took us so long just to find one another!
If we hadn't been so alone, so desperate
if we hadn't been screaming the names of those we loved
at the top of our minds--
we might never have learned to... talk?
talk just isn't the right word
when there's no mouth or vocal chord.


(Reply to this)(Thread)

'just learning to contact each other' ?
[info]houseboatonstyx
2007-07-12 05:49 pm UTC (link)
ORIGINAL:
It took us so long just to learn how to communicate!
If we hadn't been so desperate to find one another --
if we hadn't just been screaming the names of those we loved
at the top of our minds --
we might never have learned.

BABYLON_IT'S SUGGESTION:
It took us so long just to find one another!
If we hadn't been so alone, so desperate
if we hadn't been screaming the names of those we loved
at the top of our minds--
we might never have learned to... talk?
talk just isn't the right word
when there's no mouth or vocal chord.

I like the original here better. 'learned' sounds disembodied and omninous, matching the tone of the poem. 'to... talk' makes the rhythm anticlimactic (like comedy in Pratchett) and is a big switch in content. First she's screaming, then quibbling about what word to use.

I agree that 'communicate' isn't great. 'to hear each other'? Granted 'hear' is a bodily term, but since you use 'scream' (and the idiom 'top of our'), why not 'hear' also? Or 'contact'? That's not just sensory any more, it's short for 'communicate with' by whatever means. And we have expressions like 'radio contact'.

The whole poem does feel to me like a kind of hive-mind speaking, or minds in such close communication that one can speak for all (and know they are all having the same emotional reactions). 'Communicate' suggests more distance; 'contact' suggests closer ... communion?

Overall I'm a little sceptical of this person speaking for everyone, as though everyone is feeling just like she does. They might have all had their feelings changed to something identical, but there's no hint of this being a change; it's like she thinks (knows by the current telepathy?) that there is only one possible reaction to the disembodiment.

I suppose that's possible, but much individuality is shown in the poem (menstruation, Southern accent). If she retains those memories, different people will retain different memories. It's hard for me to believe that different memories would not keep different emotional associations. People who had really terrible bodily experiences might BE more glad to be out of it than the spekaer is.

I'm not sure what they're all suffering FROM. Remorse? Homesickness? Unless their memories are fading, I'd think most people would be caught up in replaying personal memories, or meditating....

The final line is wonderfully chilling.



(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: 'just learning to contact each other' ?
[info]amjbarnhart
2007-07-13 08:51 am UTC (link)
'Communicate' suggests more distance; 'contact' suggests closer ... communion?

Commune?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mamadeb
2007-07-12 04:30 pm UTC (link)
"It took us so long just to find each other" ?

(Reply to this)


[info]starcat_jewel
2007-07-12 05:11 pm UTC (link)
I still really want this to be a recounting of what happened when the first group of interstellar colonists got off the ship on their new planet. Having it happen on Earth removes a lot of the punch IMO -- not to mention that the space-travel angle makes it much more science-fictional!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Response to starcat_jewel...
[info]ozarque
2007-07-13 12:40 pm UTC (link)
I understand what you're saying, and I thank you for your comment. I'm sorry that my plot choice ruins the poem for you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]akitrom
2007-07-12 05:23 pm UTC (link)
You'll need some simple metaphor. Not just for the reader to understand what's going on, but also to convey the narrator's understanding of the communication.

...so long to find one another.
or
...so long to make sense of those damned auras.
or perhaps
...to "grasp hands" in the Great Chain and cradle each other's isolation within our own.
or even
...so long to reel our thoughts in, to tether them to the thoughts of the Communion, and in that tying, to make the eddies and flows around us sensible."

Shouldn't there be doubt? After a lifetime of contact with others, then left adrift on an open sea of senselessness, I think that I would start to hallucinate peers, as a kind of "social phantom limb".

(Reply to this)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-07-12 05:45 pm UTC (link)
From your "grasp hands" idea - maybe "grasp minds"? It took us so long to learn to grasp minds? Clasp minds?

Meg Umans

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Response to Meg Umans...
[info]ozarque
2007-07-13 02:28 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for this, Meg. Lovely.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mbumby
2007-07-12 05:32 pm UTC (link)
Some very good ideas above. I was wondering if you needed to use an existing word, or if something like "ThinkTalk" or "InterThink" could be coined. Similarly, punctuation can be used to say "you know this word, but it's not quite what you think" -- as in "+talk+" (I originally thought *talk* but with * used to emphasize on-line communication it might not convey its differentness to your readers.)

(Reply to this)


[info]m_j_sullivan
2007-07-12 07:11 pm UTC (link)
Would it be reasonable to describe them as 'sending words to one another'? Is the telepathic system they are using a direct mapping of the languages they originally spoke/heard/read/wrote/signed, or do they magically understand each other's ideas (regardless of original language community) in some completely different way?

(Reply to this)


[info]salzara_tirwen
2007-07-12 07:34 pm UTC (link)
For "communicate" - grok?

(Reply to this)


[info]idiotgrrl
2007-07-12 08:38 pm UTC (link)
It took so long for us to learn to touch our minds together ...

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2007-07-12 08:41 pm UTC (link)
(Michael Farris)

Share our minds?

Share our thoughts?

(Reply to this)


[info]ashnistrike
2007-07-12 08:43 pm UTC (link)
I don't think "talk" implies a modality. You can talk with mouth and tongue, or with your hands, or through an instant messaging program. Maybe you could add in an extra line or two about how talking this way is different from the ways they communicated when they had bodies.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-07-12 08:56 pm UTC (link)
(Michael Farris)

Mindtalk?

"It took so long just to learn to mindtalk"

The problem is that there's no necessary reciprocation and maybe adding something with 'share'?

"It took so long to learn to share our mindtalk"
"It took so long to learn to share our mindspeech"

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]milwaukeesfs
2007-07-12 08:52 pm UTC (link)
Ursula LeGuin used the word "bespeak" in "The Left Hand of Darkness" to refer to telepathic communication, cf: "I am bespeaking you." I believe I have seen other SF writers use this term, much as they have adopted the term "ansible" for an FTL communication device.

(Reply to this)


[info]ladyvorkosigan
2007-07-12 09:50 pm UTC (link)
Since nobody else has, I'll say that I don't think communicate is so bad. If it's a bit awkward maybe that's a good thing - it underscores the awkwardness inherent in trying to describe things we've never had to describe before.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Response to ladyvorkosigan...
[info]ozarque
2007-07-13 02:03 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for this. Not only for saying that "communicate" isn't all that bad, but also for the concept about its awkwardness perhaps being a good thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]seeksadventure
2007-07-12 10:57 pm UTC (link)
Maybe you could add some of those missing things into the line?


It took us so long just to learn how to communicate!

becomes

It took us so long to learn to speak with no tongues and no bodies and no words

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]idiotgrrl
2007-07-13 01:50 am UTC (link)
It took us so long to learn to speak with neither bodies, tongues, nor words.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dteleki
2007-07-13 01:15 am UTC (link)
Some possible solutions for the "communicate" problem:
. It took us so long to learn to think together!
. It took us so long to learn to think at each other!
. It took us so long to learn to throw our thoughts!
. It took us so long to learn to share our thoughts!
. It took us so long to learn to merge our thoughts!
. It took us so long to learn to merge our minds!


I'm not sure that this should be a poem, specifically. I'm not hearing much in the way of "poetic" features, beyond what I would normally expect from ordinary spoken rhetoric. I think that with some line breaks removed, and others turned into paragraph breaks, this "poem" would make a very nice short-short.

I'm seconding somebody else's suggestion that this story can't really be expanded into a full short story; on the grounds that a story, even a short story, needs something happening in order to give it a plot and a story arc, and the whole point of this story is that nothing of great significance is happening and nothing appears likely to. Ever. But that simple point, even if it can't sustain an entire short story, can certainly sustain a short-short. I vaguely recall that I have actually read such a short-short, that made that exact point, that had the single-word title "Warm"; I don't remember the author (it might have been Robert Sheckley).

I like the title "No Covenant". Left to my own devices, I would have chosen a title like "Suspension" or "In Abeyance", but a title of "No Covenant" makes a very specific point very concisely, while allowing it to go completely unmentioned in the poem itself.

Not in pain, no ... but I am suffering.
I know the difference now.


I'm surprised that a grown adult would not have known this difference before, or would consider the distinction suddenly noteworthy now. To not be aware of this difference strikes me as grossly improbably naive. (I'm assuming that the speaker is indeed an adult.) One way around this might be to add lines:
I thought I knew the difference before.
I know the difference now.


What is the exact nature of the "suffering"? Fear or anxiety re the future? Fear or anxiety re the fate of loved ones? Or what? I would have assumed that after some indefinite but fairly seemingly long period, during which absolutely NOTHING of great significance was perceived to happen, any fear or anxiety would have burned itself out, and been replaced by sheer boredom. Boredom can certainly be suffering, especially if it's extreme, but I would expect it to be called "boredom" instead of "suffering".

There must have been a lot of people for whom being bodiless really is a vast improvement over their embodied lives before. No starvation, no pain from illness. Also, no fear of violence from other people. Everybody's invulnerable to attack from everybody else now. Physical attack, that is.
. Perhaps the speaker had an unusually good life before the status-change?
. Can people still hurt each other psychologically, now? And do they? Blackmail, insults, name-calling, ostracism?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]houseboatonstyx
2007-07-13 07:40 am UTC (link)
I'm seconding somebody else's suggestion that this story can't really be expanded into a full short story; on the grounds that a story, even a short story, needs something happening in order to give it a plot and a story arc, and the whole point of this story is that nothing of great significance is happening and nothing appears likely to. Ever. But that simple point, even if it can't sustain an entire short story, can certainly sustain a short-short.

This gets into differing standards for 'story'. In the Golden Age, a story with a good idea didn't really need much of a 'plot' or a 'story arc.' Damon Knight wrote a good essay (which I saw on the web not long ago) giving templates for several different kinds of story.

Past the Golden Age came requirement for the plot and arc and all that; see a good template by Marion Zimmer Bradley (also on the web iirc). If you want to use this kind, there has been goal and struggle and change: to learn to communicate. They began with a big lack: screaming to locate each other. Now they're communicating (or something) well enough that this speaker can confidently seem to speak for all of them about some common feeling -- hive-mind quality. Between the screaming and the hive-mind must have been much struggle and attemting and perhaps even inter-personal conflict, as I doubt EVERYONE would have agreeably been so ... assimilated? -- Or, if the speaker is wrong, there might be some hints to the reader that there is a different version of things to be imagined. "Oh, of COURSE we're suffering, ALL of us...." [g,d,r]

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dteleki
2007-07-13 01:15 am UTC (link)
Unanswered questions, where answers might enrich things, instead of closing off questions that are more interestingly left undiscussed:
. What language are people thinking at each other in? Can everybody think at everybody else now, with either exact translations going on automatically or else with everybody thinking exactly in the same way? Or do the pre-"status-change" language divisions still hold?
. Are some people more skilled or more eloquent or more persuasive at thinking-at-each-other than others? Or is everybody exactly equal now?
. Does poetry still exist? Do the tonal and rhythmic and phonemic aspects of it still exist, or have they all been eliminated together with physical vocal tracts?
. Does music still exist? Can people think singing at each other? Can people think wordless melodies at each other? Can people think drum-like rhythms at each other?
. How was the Holy One's message perceived by atheists? by deaf-and-blind people? by babies without language? If a person has more than one language, or more than one native language, which one was it in?
. What happened to artificial intelligences? (if technology had advanced enough to create genuine ones.) Did artificial intelligences also get the change-of-status?
. Do people who formerly had mental illnesses caused by bodily chemical imbalances still have those mental illnesses now? e.g. schizophrenia, major clinical depression, bipolar disorder? (assuming that they really did have bodily chemical causes)

(Reply to this)


[info]dcseain
2007-07-13 10:18 am UTC (link)
I think communicate and talk are appropriate. Communication is communication, whether written, signed, blinked, tapped, psychically transmitted, or accomplished by some other less obvious means.

ASL does not differentiate between oral speech and signed speech. Nor does it differentiate between aural hearing and seeing hearing.

The sign for 'talk' is more accuruately 'express oneself in a manner that others can comprehend', and the sign for 'hear/listen' is more accurately 'pay attention to, and understand what one is perceiving by whatever aural or aural-like means one is using'.

I know most people entirely lake a sign language point of view. I'm simply making the point that sign language speakers in at least North America, France, and Brazil don't see a need to say 'i see you' instead of 'i hear you', nor to say 'let's sign' intead of 'let's talk', so i see not why the non-corporeal would apply other terms.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…