Skip to content

The Revolution – Author’s Commentary

May 10, 2014
tags: ,

The Revolution, Part I and Part II

Ordinarily, I refrain from providing my writing, poetry or otherwise, with commentary. Predominantly, this is because I hesitate to rob a reader of their own interpretation, often the most impactful (though it must be said, not necessarily most informative or broadening) reading that any work can be given.

This accommodation for reader interpretation comes at the risk of the author’s intent being misread and subsequently misstated in circulation, something I would undoubtedly object to if it went beyond the realm of self-confessed interpretation and entered into that of philosophies or values not held by the author being wrongly superimposed on to the text. Fortunately, I have far too few readers to run a great risk in that direction.

Another reason I usually forego annotating my writing is that some works are simply littered with shockingly poor jokes written purely for my own private satisfaction. And finally, because I don’t believe that readers have time enough in their day for any additional nonsense from me. With that in mind, I’ll proceed hastily along to the explanation of this two-part poem, “The Revolution”, in giving which I break from what has hitherto been my conventional practice.

It could be argued that not all modern and historical episodes described in the nomenclature as revolutions have been forces for positive change. However, both sections of this two-part poem presuppose the positive nature and imply the author’s support of the titular ‘Revolution’. Therefore the explanation of the poem will operate along similar lines, primarily addressing the concept of revolution as a positive force.

These two works are intended to be read together and are in fact improved by it. Yet they have been written as two divided parts.

For the majority of history, revolutions have typically been viewed in retrospective terms as one uninterrupted sequence of related events. However, a revolution (and in this instance I mean an upheaval causing a lasting cultural change as opposed to a purely political change which might be deemed a coup, an uprising or any number of things depending on its characteristics) is rarely a smooth flow of cause and effect, cause and effect and so on, eventually reaching a climatic and satisfactorily complete closure of the episode.

For English grammar enthusiasts, one might say that revolutions are described in a format that equates roughly to the ‘perfect’ grammatical aspect. That is, the event referred to is considered complete at the time of reference. Although, with the increasing availability of modern technology, this may be changing for certain types of revolution.

Revolutions, much like my sentences, are so often interrupted by themselves. There is division among the revolutionary forces and revision of the revolutionary ideology. Despite the typically linear reading given to them, revolutions bleed into the societies which both create and seek to destroy them, having not just direct effects but also indirect and far-reaching ones.

They agitate the culture and their influence provokes an array of reactionary feelings.

As a revolution gains momentum, efforts by the opposition also agitate the culture, attempting to coax and sway public opinion through a variety of means. The propaganda, the push and pull of each side, and the general feeling of unrest often create an atmosphere of apprehension and fear in the process.

The effects of revolution don’t unfold as the old linear story, rather they form like the ripples in a pond might do as one throws stones of escalating size. Thus the revolution itself becomes an epicentre of change.

This two-part poem would appear more at ease with itself as one piece, but has been divided. It might read better or more neatly, were it one smooth sequence, yet it has disrupted.

The reality belied by the perfect linear overview of its optimistic text has been achieved, at least to its author’s satisfaction, by introducing into the structure of the poem, symbolic division, disruption and thus the required persistence in carrying on.

In closing, I thank you for reading and hope that this none too brief foray into my thinking has not been dull. I promise to repay you by refraining from repeating the exercise any time soon.

Ps. There are other choices regarding the poem which could be addressed in this commentary, such as the decision to capitalise both “He” and “We”. But if I robbed you entirely of your interpretation, I would be doing the poem a great disservice. The best thing about poetry open to reader interpretation is its ability to exist as so many poems at once.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: