Author Topic: Why to Believe  (Read 1865 times)

Offline Tom 10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8845
Re: Why to Believe
« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2015, 10:08:57 AM »
Hey T. Is the term 'wankers' in common usage over there now? Or have you been infected by 'hinglish' verbiage? B
Hi Bri - I'm not sure what you are asking.  I live a local existence, maybe someone else is better positioned to respond. 

Offline Amie

  • Esteemed Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8460
    • threegeese
Re: Why to Believe
« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2015, 11:46:44 AM »
"Wanker" is an insult in the UK. I never heard the term when I lived in the US (almost entirely in the southeast - Florida, Louisiana and Texas) so, like Brian, I assumed it was not in American usage.

Are we wrong? Do Americans say "wanker" now? And does it mean the same thing? (Difficult to translate - literally it means "masturbater" - but when used as an insult, it has more layers than that... Kind of akin to calling someone a dick rather than an onanist... Not sure why it became an insult, but I don't think it's possible to use the word in a friendly way.)
"You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet." - Kafka

Offline Tom 10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8845
Re: Why to Believe
« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2015, 12:17:20 PM »
As a joke to Brian I was going to say that the word is commonly used here and means "Englishman", but I thought that too potentially inflammatory and easily misunderstood.  Where I live the word is not part of the common discourse, but then, neither is the word 'Englishman'.   ;D   The word does appear widely in literature, in movies, and TV.  And of course here at MWC.




Offline Mark T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Why to Believe
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2016, 01:05:43 PM »

Well, the comments indicate there are different ways of taking this, and that is as it should be with artful writing. My jaundiced take is to fit this into the weather modification aspect of global depopulation genocide, you know, sustainability, lowering carbon footprints and all that warm and fuzzy noble stuff. 

Thoughts on the poem are that S2 and S3 could be conjoined to ease the enjambment and that wankers and wombats is a worthy title for a poem on it's own. Interestingly, I remember 'combat wombat' being a disparaging term for gung-ho types.       

Offline Ediem

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Why to Believe
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2016, 02:38:19 PM »
Hello Tom 10,

This is interesting.  Not sure about the personification of the clouds – I just can’t see what you mean there with the notion of pretence.  The ideas in your poem seem to be Darwinian, where I think there would be no favouritism at all, only animal guile. ‘Wankers’ is amusing.  Some years ago I read a review of a TV programme that had dealt with an operation on a gorilla, or somesuch, during which someone noted, in a stupid kind of fashion, that the animal had had an erection.  The reviewer was Clive James, who objected to that observation being made, saying of the primate in question that they ‘don’t wank’.  I don’t know if that applies to any other animal – it certainly doesn’t apply to the human one.  I only bring this in as your poem is probably nailing humans as a synonym for wankers, which is fine – but only if masturbation is unique to us.  A forlorn poem, and a questioning one, I think, given the (ambiguous?) title.  But interesting.

[Sorry this arrives so late – I’ve been very busy, travelling around first, then having some frustrating issues with Windows 10, and I haven’t had time to get back to MWC.  I grabbed a few poems and read them here and there in my travels.  It will always tend to be like this, I’m usually busy, but worry not, I’ll turn up like a bad penny sooner or later and contribute whenever I can!]

Offline Tom 10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8845
Re: Why to Believe
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2016, 05:56:46 PM »
Hi Edem, welcome back, and thanks for the reading.

I hoped 'wanker' would not be disruptive, it was intended to be viewed as a throw-away line, part of the rant. 
I think its inclusion doesn't merit the attention its gotten, and the next draft will have something else in its stead.


Appreciate the comments.

T