Hi there! Lim here with a review.
Themes and Interpretation
Something I thought was interesting was how your poem deals with emotion. The poem seems to depict martyrdom as a kind of ‘freedom’ from strong emotion. The speaker compares themself to someone who “feels no pain” and wants to be “outside the throngs of desire”. Despite being “bathed in blood”, they are “smiling”.
Additionally, ‘martyr’ here seems to mean the more general sense of the word, sacrificing oneself for the sake of something or someone else, rather than the specific religious sense of the word.
I also interpreted the poem as suggesting that people desire to be cruel to others, with the lines:
I want to be merciful.
(to be holy- outside the throngs of desire)
This seems to imply that the opposite of mercy, which based on the rest of the poem could be cruelty or punishment or violence, is something people “desire”.
As for the speaker in the poem, they are portrayed as someone who either is different or wants to make themself different from the masses. “throngs” can mean crowds, and they want to be “outside” the throngs. There are two rhetorical questions in the poem that seem to question some received wisdom along the lines of ‘forgiveness comes at a cost’ or maybe ‘make the punishment fit the crime’. The speaker declares their refusal to participate and instead seems to absorb the cost of the “you”s actions. The ending line makes me think this doesn’t lead to a good outcome for the speaker, since all the “you” does is “devour it like a dog (eating a rib)”.
Language and Imagery
Something I liked about the language was the consistent voice. I thought the speaker had a distinct personality and voice throughout, with the consistent use of religious diction (“martyr”, “Mother”, “entreating”, “goddess”, “Father”) and images of bodily injury. It created this intense tone.
I also liked the contrast created in these lines:
I am entreating, smiling, a benevolent goddess
bathed in blood.
I thought this was quite striking and conveys the irony of ‘benevolence’ coming at the cost of more violence, but this time to the giver of mercy and not the taker. The position of the line break also helps highlight this irony.
Structure
Something I thought could be improved was the structure of this section:
Mother.
Martyr.
Daughter.
What’s the difference?
I think the “mother/martyr/daughter” comparison doesn’t appear again until the signature. Because of that, I didn’t really get what the “difference” or “similarity” being drawn here was.
Some of the guesses I had but which didn’t quite make sense given the text of the poem: - - Does the ‘daughter’ eventually become the ‘mother’?
- Or are ‘mothers’ and ‘daughters’ both martyrs? If so, then why ‘mothers’ and ‘daughters’ specifically - why aren’t ‘Parents’ and ‘children’, or ‘friends’ and ‘friends’ martyrs?
I get the sense there’s more unspoken context there but I don’t quite know what it is. Perhaps it is worth expanding on, if you end up revising this poem.
Something I appreciate about the structure is the use of end-stopped lines in the first half, as in, lines that ‘complete’ a thought by their end rather than running on to the next line (creating enjambment). The poem just has a couple of instances of enjambment, which helps those instances stand out. Having the rest of it be end-stopped also creates more variety in rhythm, which I like.
Overall
This poem explores some interesting ideas – I particularly liked the consideration and observation of the ‘martyr’’s unusually serene (and maybe even dissonantly so) emotional state. There was also a good bit of unity between the different images and between the beginning and end of the poem. My main suggestions for revision would be to consider expanding a bit on the martyr/mother/daughter connection, if that’s something you feel is important to the meaning of the poem.
Hope this helps! And keep writing!
-Lim
Points: 41664
Reviews: 542
Donate