[Glenn Wright]

Sparrow

I opened my front door to morning’s sparkle.
There, on the welcome mat, a pile of feathers,
brushed with crimson—my cat’s gift to me.

Maybe he supposed that I was hungry,
or wanted admiration of his prowess.
He’s preening smugly on the dewy lawn,
sporting the evidence on paws and whiskers.

Maybe he meant it as a sacrifice,
to mollify me, lord of tuna and litter,
as ancient people immolated children
to buy the eye and favor of their gods,
paying with blood and pain of innocents.
————————
Edits:
S2L2: or he wanted some acknowledgement and praise > or wanted me to admire and praise his skill > or wanted me to admire and praise his prowess. > or wanted admiration of his prowess
S2L3: as a hunter. He’s preening on the dewy lawn, > He’s preening proudly on the dewy lawn, > He’s preening smugly on the dewy lawn,
S2L4: cleaning the evidence from paws and whiskers. > sporting the evidence on paws and whiskers.
S3L1: Maybe he offered it as a sacrifice, > Maybe he meant it as a sacrifice,
S3L2: to propitiate me, Lord of tuna and litter, > to mollify me, lord of tuna and litter,
S3L4: to gain the notice and favor of their gods, > to buy the eye and favor of their gods,
S3L5: praying with blood and pain and violence. > praying with blood and pain of innocents. > paying with blood and pain of innocents.

[Roger Slater]

You had me reading to the end, but it didn't feel like the end was actually the end. Why not keep going? There's no closure in your last line. There's a real person, presumably, enumerating these possibilities, but how does that person who discovered the cat's gift feel about it? And maybe tell us why, or somehow locate the speaker's emotion. If this was in a book, I'd turn the page expecting the poem to continue.

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, Roger—

I think this is the first time I have ever had a response to one of my poems telling me that I didn’t write enough. Until now, all the advice I have received has been to cut, cut cut. How liberating!

I saw the poem as a moment of realization by the N that this odd habit of cats to offer up what they kill is something that humans share with them, although we may not like to admit it. There may not be a reason for it. Maybe it’s just an irrational thing we do, like yawning or picking at scabs.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Glenn

[Carl Copeland]

Glenn, I’m trying to get over my compulsion to regularize meter, but it would be so easy to do in S2L2 by dropping “he” that I can’t help wishing for it. That said, I wonder if you could do without the first two lines of that stanza altogether. They’re inessential except as a setup for the third “maybe.” (Sorry for being unliberating!)

Interesting how easy it is to scan either “IT as” or “it AS” in S3L1. I’d disambiguate and regularize it by replacing “as a” with “in,” but that’s my compulsion again, and I don’t feel as strongly about it as I do about “he” in S2.

I didn’t think of continuing the poem, as Roger suggests, but I did feel more could be done with it—more novel wording perhaps, though “Lord of tuna and litter”! There’s something that’s never been said before in the history of the universe. Love it!

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, Carl—

Without the “he” in the original S2L2, it was ambiguous whether the N or the cat wanted acknowledgement and praise. I recast the sentence to make it clear. I want to keep the first two lines of S2 to trace the N’s anthropomorphic line of thought regarding his cat’s offering of dead animals. The first possibility is altruistic. The second is more self- aggrandizing. The last is disturbing.

The logic of S2 was defective, though. If he wanted praise, he would not try to hide the evidence. I made the necessary adjustment.

I replaced “offered” with “meant,” which reduces the line to 10 syllables and put three instead of four potentially unstressed syllables between “meant” and “sac-.” This forces the promotion of “as” and (I think) solves the metric wobbliness of S3L1.

Thanks for your helpful crits, Carl.

Glenn

[Matt Q]

Hi Glenn

I think I agree with Roger that the poem could be offering something more. It starts out quite light, and then final stanza takes us somewhere dark: children offered as human sacrifice, blood and pain and violence. I'm not quite sure why I'm being taken there. I'm left wondering if this is intended as a light cat poem, or a poem that has something deeper and darker it wants to say.

S1L3, I wonder if naming it as the cat's "gift" is already answering the question of why cat left it, and there's a more neutral option that just says the cat has left it there? After all, the rest of the poem offers possibilities that aren't necessarily gifts. A sacrifice arguably isn't a gift as such. And if he's left it there to be admired, is it really a gift? It's more of a trophy. "Left by my cat for me" maybe?

Parts of S2 feel like they could be tighter, and hence feel a little padded to me, or pedestrian. For example, L1 could easily be trimeter, "Perhaps he thought me hungry" and L3, tet, "or craved/sought acknowledgement and praise" -- "he" and "some" seem superfluous. "As a hunter" also seems superfluous, and for me, the enjambment has it seeming a little like something tacked on. I'm not suggesting the poem should be heterometric. Just think it could be tightened. Maybe it's just the repeated "he" plus "some" in L2, along with "as a hunter" in L3, that give me the sense of padding.

In S3, I wonder if you can find an alternative to "propriate" since it duplicates, "to gain the notice and favour". Maybe something like, "offered up to me", though that doesn't fit the metre.

I also wonder if swapping the last two lines of S3 works better? The penultimate line seems more the conclusion because it relates more to the cat-owner relationship. The current order maybe does more to suggest that "blood and pain and violence" are more the focus of the poem.

Also, because I don't enunciate all three syllables of "violence" and say something very close to VI-lence, I tend to hear the last line more like tet with feminine ending. But even as three syllables, the line ends on a minor stress, and so fades at the end, and seems to lack the finality of close.

Incidentally, since you're using the CENTER tag on the title, on my computer screen, the title's way to the right, a couple of poem's widths past the poem. If you want the title to be centred, you can instead use dots (or 'x's or whatever) as spacers to shift the title across, then select the dots and set the text colour to white, and they won't be visible. Alternatively, if you go to the "advanced" mode of the editor, you can use tabs to shift the title across.

best,

Matt

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, Matt—

Thanks for weighing in! I always appreciate your thoughtful and detailed responses.

I did some work on S2 that may address some of your concerns.

In S3 “propitiate” carries the connotation of appeasing or mollifying an angry god, so it’s a bit different from just gaining “notice and favor.”

Originally Posted by Matt Q

I don't enunciate all three syllables of "violence" and say something very close to VI-lence, I tend to hear the last line more like tet with feminine ending. But even as three syllables, the line ends on a minor stress, and so fades at the end, and seems to lack the finality of close.

.
I also speak with an American accent, so my “violence” also has two syllables unless I’m making a special effort to enunciate. I changed it to “innocents,” which changes the meaning of the poem somewhat, but I think is actually closer to what I wanted to say.

Thanks, too, for the tip on centering the title.

Glenn

[Matt Q]

Hi Glenn,

I think you made some good changes. S2L2 does feel tighter now.

The reason I said "as a hunter" was superfluous is that once I've read, that, "he wanted me to admire and praise his skill", I can only really conclude this skill is in catching birds, so "as a hunter" gives me nothing new. So maybe the syllables to add some new to S2L3? But also the brevity of what's carried over -- essentially a single foot (plus one syllable) doesn't work that well for me rhythmically. Even something fillerish, like "Right now, he's preening ..." works better rhythmically for me.

I miss the cat hiding the evidence, though I see your concern with the logic. I liked the humour of it. I guess I'd read it that the cat was conflicted: compelled by instinct and desire to please to give the gift, but having learned that it doesn't actually please t he human. But I don't know enough about cats to know if that's feasible. Anyway, the new line seems flatter to me somehow.

The addition of "innocents" to closing line is a great idea, I think. For me it brings me back to the sparrow right at the close of the poem. Also, before it was a list of three similar/related things, which had some redundancy. Though I'd say that, with a small tweak to what precedes, the line would be more natural sounding with an article:

prayed with the blood and pain of innocents

I did strike me that you could have "played" (or "playing"), because that's a stronger parallel to the cat, though it maybe doesn't fit so well with human sacrifice.

As I said before, immolating children takes you into pretty dark territory. It occurred to me that you could dial this back by comparing humans sacrificing an animal species. Children are innocents, it's true, but maybe "lambs" would have have the same connotation? That said, I'm on the fence here: "children" is certainly more striking.

"Propitate" is a word I wasn't confident I knew (and nor was my spell-checker!), so I looked it up. The definition I found was, "to win or regain the favour of (a god, spirit, or person) by doing something that pleases them". So I don't see a great difference with "win the notice or favour". One can only seek to win something that one doesn't yet have, which would seem to include winning favour back. If you specifically want "mollify" as the meaning, though, maybe you could find a way use that word?

I'd go with "Lord of Tuna and Litter" if it's a title, a proper noun. Or "lord of tuna and litter" if it isn't.

Finally, if you want to know how many syllables "violence" really has, see attached image. You maybe surprised

best,

Matt

[Max Goodman]

The speculation that the cat might see N as a god is striking.

I shared others' surprise that the poem ended where it ended, and that pushed me to think more about that speculation and the guilt, N's unwilling responsibility for the death. That the poem leaves me hanging wound up feeling right.

FWIW.

[Richard G]

Hi Glen,
not much to add to Roger and Matt ('lack of closure' and 'swapping the last two lines of S3'.)
I thought the set-up was clear by the end of L2, so didn't feel the next five line were doing much. Indeed I wondered about describing the cat's behaviour after your maybes.
'immolated' felt like a bomb going off, a shocking change of tone (after the sparkles, the dewy lawn and the delightful 'Lord of Tuna and Litter') - a word from an different lexicon entirely .

Out of curiosity, which ancient people did you have in mind?

RG.