Wonderful poem, and I'll comment here as I'm unable to over at Tree of Woe (sorry, poor and can't water the Tree properly!).
I enjoyed it not even taking the time to apply the translations provided - the poem is well written enough to get the gist of it without it. I'm sure it's better if I was able to hold them in my head, but I'm not, and I didn't want to lose the flow of the meter by breaking it to translate. Hat off to being able to pull that off.
It speaks well that you're able to pull off and create characters that one can empathize with on both sides of the conflict. Not knowing the history, I couldn't speak on if the one invading is just or not - certainly the one defending his home is! But, we in the West, who like to paint with brushes of black and white, forget the moral grey areas - that not every soldier is culpable (morally) for even the wars within which they fight. They don't know the lies behind the propaganda or may be deceived. While I find our wars completely unjust in the Middle East, and they're coming back to haunt the US, I doubt that all of our soldiers have those sins weighing upon their souls, and were torn as they found themselves fighting people they had befriended at various times during deployments.
Finally - the commentary that proceeded the poem that I think applies to today. What does the Empire do to us? Does it make us enemies by fate as it seeks to divide and conquer us? I know I feel it does! Both in society at large, and even, at times, within my own community as we purge ourselves of the broader values. I have people I'm close to, that I would (at times) have gotten in fights with because they pursued the gains of the Empire over friendship and community. The demons tear at us, and we must drive them out with swords of flame should we home to win!
Thank you very much for the kind words! I very much agree with your assessment of the situation we find ourself in. I'm grateful Ahnaf took the time to elaborate on the themes as it felt odd for me to do so.
Understood. Poetry and art are like jokes - if you have to explain them, then you've probably done something wrong (exceptions to some of the greats that write of confusing times like Flannery O'Conner). But they're also like children. If someone asks you why a beautiful child is beautiful, and not ugly... it's just awkward, if not insulting.
I skipped the preliminary word list, and almost skipped the poem itself because of it, but I'm glad I persisted. And I got all the pronunciations and meanings from the rhyme and context.
I'm not sure if the Contemplator will read this (it comes a bit late, and like others, I'm unable to comment at Tree of Woe), but I would like to suggest that he checks out the traditional alliterative meter. This was used by Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and works very well for narrative poetry. And at least one revivalist (Paul Deane at Forgotten Ground Regained) began using it precisely because he was involved in fictional worldbuilding.
Nice poem, but I don't get it. It sets a conflict, between Beautiful and Frivolous, shows the Frivolous is being attrited, shows Beautiful is able to resist credibly, shows there is tension and uncertainty about the final outcome, decides to beeline for the conclusion... and then chickens out. WTF? I get it that people get emotional when old friends get into a deathmatch but unless one of them is wrong they are unlikely to get into a deathmatch to begin with. I would have expected the poem to judge between Beautiful and Frivolous and back up it's decision appropriately. Instead we get... pandering. Pandering to both sides.
The poem is embedded within the larger context of my fictional world for which a reader of just the poem doesn't necessarily have all the details.
To answer your questions:
1) Alakyrum monopolizes the salt and spice trade in the Ammas Aurë region. The Auran attack on the city was not intended to be any more frivolous than e.g. wars for oil in the Middle East; great powers go to war to control resources. If you imagine the poem being about Saudi Arabia or Iraq, that might help you understand the Auran geopolitical strategy. It's just not written in modern terms to lay it out.
2) The Aurans worship the Empyrean gods primarily and the Opeleneans worship the Chthonic gods primarily, and the two pantheons are in an ongoing holy war in a real sense (e.g. magic is real, the gods are real). As such, both armies would see themselves as fighting for the gods of their ancestors, and consider themselves "in the right."
3) According to Auran legend, the founding hero of Aura was a general named Valerian who wielded a sword of fire, and died simultaneously with his twin brother in a duel at the end of the Empyrean War. Audarian,, the hero of this poem, is also a general with a flaming sword; he was written to remind an Auran reader of the mythical hero Valerian, i.e. he's an in-world "expie" exported character. Therefore he has to die in a one on one duel with his friend just as Valerian died to his brother in the duel. To a reader versed in the Auran classics, this would be not just a fitting end, but the only possible end, to the poem.
Hope that helps clarify the intent. Appreciate you reading my poem.
Ah well, that COMPLETELY changes everything! xD Yeah, now it makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to write this explainer.
> imagine the poem being about Saudi Arabia or Iraq, (...) The Aurans worship (...) and the Opeleneans worship (...) pantheons are in an ongoing holy war in a real sense (e.g. magic is real, the gods are real)
Oh, I see! Like in the ACTUAL MESOPOTAMIAN RELIGION of old! xD
BTW, did you produce more art related to this world? A book, perhaps, that can be bought? A video game?
While reading it, I felt it was less 'pandering' & more the embracing of One's Fate/Destiny which (if we study the Ancients) was something they commonly did. In fact, most people around the world still believe in Predestination of Fate.
As to the concept of 'one of them is wrong'... the assumption there would be that either one has control over the battle taking place, which I feel is not the case (at least, when I read it, that is how it presents itself, per the embellishment above indicates).
The 'pandering' is only at the very end. When they both fall. Why did they both fall?
> either one has control over the battle taking place
It is my understanding that Aureans didn't have to attack Alakyrum. Yet they did. And only justification for it we get is "put those pendants down". In other words, Frivolous. They attacked because they dislike the beauty of Alakyrum. That makes them in the wrong, collectively. And Audarian shows himself as being completely commited to the cause, ordering Aureans to outdo his slaying, thereby being in the wrong individually.
Most American forces overseas 'didn't have to' attack *insert West Asian nation here*... that said, they are oath bound to engage in said Wars of Aggression. When reading the Epic, I made said connection.
As to Collective Wrong; certainly you can take that view... however the implications would be no separation between the government, leaders, 'Elite' on the one end... & the people, foot soldiers, etc. on the other end.
I would thereby urge caution on said point.
As to the last point... I think that's one way of looking at it. The other being that he (as Leader) has to 'put up a good show' lest his men are slaughtered due to lack of morale. Many an American commander (in the modern day) has done something similar, & so you could argue individual guilt there likewise.
> Many an American commander (in the modern day) has done something similar, & so you could argue individual guilt there likewise.
And I just might. xD
> that said, they are oath bound to engage in said Wars of Aggression.
An Oath given to Men, no matter how serious, can't and doesn't suspend Law present in Nature, given by God. Evil done is evil done, oath or no oath. The best American soldiers can pleade is ignorance, and that's IF they can.
> As to Collective Wrong; (...) I would thereby urge caution on said point.
Caution is warranted, but we can nevertheless decide one way or the other. After all, if those 10,000 Aurans just sat down and didn't move, would any legate be able to get them to march on Alakyum? In the final analysis, you can't order 2/3rds of people to do something they decided they won't do. You can tell them, for sure, but your words will fall on deaf ears. If only 10% of people decide not do to something, you can still use force to make them do it. Too few are disobeying, there's still enough obedient people to coerce them. But if 60% decide they won't do it? Who will coerce them? Thus, if 'elites' command and 'commoners' obey, 'commoners' can't claim they were forced into it. There isn't enough people to force commoners, so if they did it they did it because they chose to do it.
An INDIVIDUAL commoner can claim coerction, but not all of them. It's a wonderful paradox! ^_^ (If they all try to individually claim coerction, they are all full of shit.)
Wonderful poem, and I'll comment here as I'm unable to over at Tree of Woe (sorry, poor and can't water the Tree properly!).
I enjoyed it not even taking the time to apply the translations provided - the poem is well written enough to get the gist of it without it. I'm sure it's better if I was able to hold them in my head, but I'm not, and I didn't want to lose the flow of the meter by breaking it to translate. Hat off to being able to pull that off.
It speaks well that you're able to pull off and create characters that one can empathize with on both sides of the conflict. Not knowing the history, I couldn't speak on if the one invading is just or not - certainly the one defending his home is! But, we in the West, who like to paint with brushes of black and white, forget the moral grey areas - that not every soldier is culpable (morally) for even the wars within which they fight. They don't know the lies behind the propaganda or may be deceived. While I find our wars completely unjust in the Middle East, and they're coming back to haunt the US, I doubt that all of our soldiers have those sins weighing upon their souls, and were torn as they found themselves fighting people they had befriended at various times during deployments.
Finally - the commentary that proceeded the poem that I think applies to today. What does the Empire do to us? Does it make us enemies by fate as it seeks to divide and conquer us? I know I feel it does! Both in society at large, and even, at times, within my own community as we purge ourselves of the broader values. I have people I'm close to, that I would (at times) have gotten in fights with because they pursued the gains of the Empire over friendship and community. The demons tear at us, and we must drive them out with swords of flame should we home to win!
Well done.
Thank you very much for the kind words! I very much agree with your assessment of the situation we find ourself in. I'm grateful Ahnaf took the time to elaborate on the themes as it felt odd for me to do so.
Understood. Poetry and art are like jokes - if you have to explain them, then you've probably done something wrong (exceptions to some of the greats that write of confusing times like Flannery O'Conner). But they're also like children. If someone asks you why a beautiful child is beautiful, and not ugly... it's just awkward, if not insulting.
I skipped the preliminary word list, and almost skipped the poem itself because of it, but I'm glad I persisted. And I got all the pronunciations and meanings from the rhyme and context.
I'm not sure if the Contemplator will read this (it comes a bit late, and like others, I'm unable to comment at Tree of Woe), but I would like to suggest that he checks out the traditional alliterative meter. This was used by Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and works very well for narrative poetry. And at least one revivalist (Paul Deane at Forgotten Ground Regained) began using it precisely because he was involved in fictional worldbuilding.
Nice poem, but I don't get it. It sets a conflict, between Beautiful and Frivolous, shows the Frivolous is being attrited, shows Beautiful is able to resist credibly, shows there is tension and uncertainty about the final outcome, decides to beeline for the conclusion... and then chickens out. WTF? I get it that people get emotional when old friends get into a deathmatch but unless one of them is wrong they are unlikely to get into a deathmatch to begin with. I would have expected the poem to judge between Beautiful and Frivolous and back up it's decision appropriately. Instead we get... pandering. Pandering to both sides.
The poem is embedded within the larger context of my fictional world for which a reader of just the poem doesn't necessarily have all the details.
To answer your questions:
1) Alakyrum monopolizes the salt and spice trade in the Ammas Aurë region. The Auran attack on the city was not intended to be any more frivolous than e.g. wars for oil in the Middle East; great powers go to war to control resources. If you imagine the poem being about Saudi Arabia or Iraq, that might help you understand the Auran geopolitical strategy. It's just not written in modern terms to lay it out.
2) The Aurans worship the Empyrean gods primarily and the Opeleneans worship the Chthonic gods primarily, and the two pantheons are in an ongoing holy war in a real sense (e.g. magic is real, the gods are real). As such, both armies would see themselves as fighting for the gods of their ancestors, and consider themselves "in the right."
3) According to Auran legend, the founding hero of Aura was a general named Valerian who wielded a sword of fire, and died simultaneously with his twin brother in a duel at the end of the Empyrean War. Audarian,, the hero of this poem, is also a general with a flaming sword; he was written to remind an Auran reader of the mythical hero Valerian, i.e. he's an in-world "expie" exported character. Therefore he has to die in a one on one duel with his friend just as Valerian died to his brother in the duel. To a reader versed in the Auran classics, this would be not just a fitting end, but the only possible end, to the poem.
Hope that helps clarify the intent. Appreciate you reading my poem.
Ah well, that COMPLETELY changes everything! xD Yeah, now it makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to write this explainer.
> imagine the poem being about Saudi Arabia or Iraq, (...) The Aurans worship (...) and the Opeleneans worship (...) pantheons are in an ongoing holy war in a real sense (e.g. magic is real, the gods are real)
Oh, I see! Like in the ACTUAL MESOPOTAMIAN RELIGION of old! xD
BTW, did you produce more art related to this world? A book, perhaps, that can be bought? A video game?
A role-playing game, actually!
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/publisher/4277/autarch
I'll keep it in mind, if I ever find myself in a market for tabletops. :) You never know what the future brings.
Interesting interpretation!
While reading it, I felt it was less 'pandering' & more the embracing of One's Fate/Destiny which (if we study the Ancients) was something they commonly did. In fact, most people around the world still believe in Predestination of Fate.
As to the concept of 'one of them is wrong'... the assumption there would be that either one has control over the battle taking place, which I feel is not the case (at least, when I read it, that is how it presents itself, per the embellishment above indicates).
The 'pandering' is only at the very end. When they both fall. Why did they both fall?
> either one has control over the battle taking place
It is my understanding that Aureans didn't have to attack Alakyrum. Yet they did. And only justification for it we get is "put those pendants down". In other words, Frivolous. They attacked because they dislike the beauty of Alakyrum. That makes them in the wrong, collectively. And Audarian shows himself as being completely commited to the cause, ordering Aureans to outdo his slaying, thereby being in the wrong individually.
Let's consider a modern equivalent:
Most American forces overseas 'didn't have to' attack *insert West Asian nation here*... that said, they are oath bound to engage in said Wars of Aggression. When reading the Epic, I made said connection.
As to Collective Wrong; certainly you can take that view... however the implications would be no separation between the government, leaders, 'Elite' on the one end... & the people, foot soldiers, etc. on the other end.
I would thereby urge caution on said point.
As to the last point... I think that's one way of looking at it. The other being that he (as Leader) has to 'put up a good show' lest his men are slaughtered due to lack of morale. Many an American commander (in the modern day) has done something similar, & so you could argue individual guilt there likewise.
> Many an American commander (in the modern day) has done something similar, & so you could argue individual guilt there likewise.
And I just might. xD
> that said, they are oath bound to engage in said Wars of Aggression.
An Oath given to Men, no matter how serious, can't and doesn't suspend Law present in Nature, given by God. Evil done is evil done, oath or no oath. The best American soldiers can pleade is ignorance, and that's IF they can.
> As to Collective Wrong; (...) I would thereby urge caution on said point.
Caution is warranted, but we can nevertheless decide one way or the other. After all, if those 10,000 Aurans just sat down and didn't move, would any legate be able to get them to march on Alakyum? In the final analysis, you can't order 2/3rds of people to do something they decided they won't do. You can tell them, for sure, but your words will fall on deaf ears. If only 10% of people decide not do to something, you can still use force to make them do it. Too few are disobeying, there's still enough obedient people to coerce them. But if 60% decide they won't do it? Who will coerce them? Thus, if 'elites' command and 'commoners' obey, 'commoners' can't claim they were forced into it. There isn't enough people to force commoners, so if they did it they did it because they chose to do it.
An INDIVIDUAL commoner can claim coerction, but not all of them. It's a wonderful paradox! ^_^ (If they all try to individually claim coerction, they are all full of shit.)