(Activity intended for section 001) We read the poem in class and we started a collective analysis of the poem. Now, finish reading and tell us how you interpret the end. Is it obvious? Why not? What denouement do you suggest? What happens to the speaker? What happens to his/her 'friend' at the end?
Go ahead a publish your view...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I don't know, but I get the feeling that the writer/speaker is not even next to his 'friend'. I mean they are not looking to each other nor sharing the same physical space. It seems to me that the writer is watching (or have been watching for some time) his 'friend' from some considerable distance, enough to make all the descriptions he/she made. Though he can see his 'friend', but his 'friend' can not see him.
The phrase "...our chorus strung together" can imply that the speaker and a group of people are asking for some kind of help or demanding something to the 'friend' or his company, but he does not pay attention. He doesn't care and maybe feels displeasant about this. The speaker even predicts a possible future event as a reaction of what is happening: the news paper next edition showing his displeasure.
Therefore, realizing his 'friend' changed attitude and appearance writes this reflection of resignation. Maybe just for himself, making the conclusion that his 'friend' will never ever listen to this kind of words. Not even treat him as equals, and furthermore, not even talk to him. Worse, not even remember him.
At the end the word ‘friend’ is in lower case letter, different from ‘Friend’ of the beginning in capital. Curious… but may imply how the worthiness and respect of that friendship diminished.
The friend who did not change (the speaker) could be a peasant with a lot of bills for paying. Maybe, this friend asked his/her friend for help but this person did not assist him / her. Probably because s/he was distracted being populist. For that reason, the speaker knows that nobody will pay attention of his / her necessities, although everybody will take into consideration the voice and decisions of the friend who changed. However, the friend will not help the speaker. Therefore, this situation could change the relationship between these two persons. The speaker knows that his/her friend will never be the same and their friendship has finished.
Indiana & Johann, you did a good work. The first step is always a good reading, but then you'vo got to let your imagination fly -which you did very well-. Of course, the most difficult thing is to find the necessary evidence and make it work to our side.
Now... go back and read the end of the poem again. In terms of narrations, what goes on there? where are they? What is each of them doing? What seems to be the conclusion of the poem?
I hope I will read your words again before Wednesday!
Take care. Thank!
Thanks for the comments Mr. Durán. Here I go again!
The friend who did not change (the speaker) could be a peasant with a lot of bills for paying. The other friend was probably in the same situation in the past, when they were very good friend. But they are not together anymore, maybe because the friend left the speaker and changed when s/he became a politician.
However, the speaker was forced (by his/her situation) to go where the friend was to ask for help. But s/he did not help him/her. Perhaps, at this point of the poem, they are in a politics meeting and the friend is talking to people in a very populist way, persuading people in order to feel powerful. At this moment the speaker realizes that his/her friend and nobody else will pay attention of his/her necessities even if his/her friend has the capacity for helping him/her. Then, perhaps the speaker decided to return to his/her place and understood very well that his/her friend will never be the same and their friendship has finished.
The last two verses might express the resignation of the speaker. They could also express the understanding that the friend will never be in the heart of the speaker. They will never be together.
Should I let my imagination fly more? or did I lose myself?
Great, Indiana! Keep your imagination at work and, one day, you'll end up writing! I came to a completely different interpretation, but yours is as valid and acceptable!
Let's see what your mates have to say now!
Pre Script: Did I fly too much with my imagination in my last post??
OK. The speaker is still where his ‘friend’ left him. Having a hard life stile, concern about the lack of money, waiting anxiously for the rain to maybe help with the crops. About this last item, he may live and work in a poor rural agricultural community because of what he says in paragraph 3 “…strapped ever to my hoe in the dust…” & “…praying for the rain to grow enough for the Party”. Party in capital letter may imply the group of people of that community that benefits from agriculture, that’s their common interest, product, income. The community can be also religious. I may say Catholic because the term “priest” is used, instead of “pastor” or “minister” as in some common Afro-Christian churches. The phrase “I am still where you left me” can imply that the ‘friend’ was also part of this community at some past point in time. Therefore, as his ‘friend’ and member of the same “Party”, he might have worked with hoes too, having the same concerns about money, having the same hard poor rural life stile.
“your Skyscraping Platform” may be a metaphoric way to say his ‘friend’ is now in a very high position or very high social status. Can be also that the ‘friend’ is in some political meeting. The speaker and the crowd can be from the same community asking for some support, help or answer (“salvation”) to his ‘friend’ as a political figure (“picture men”,”…where you fed your audiences on false promises”). Here I maintain my first comment about the speaker being at some considerable distance from his ‘friend’. The shouting that the news probably will print can be the false promises for the audiences, as it can be the displeasure of having a bunch of poor peasants chanting “strung together” for support at the friend’s feet (“…to touch your shoe for salvation”).
In the end, the speaker won’t be noticed by his ‘friend’ as he is buried in the crowd. For the ‘friend’ anybody within that group of people it is just a single insignificant rural worker. So, no need to pay much attention to individuals. Being aware of this, the speaker makes this reflection of resignation. The epigraph and the last line of the poem are almost the same words and imply the same condition of the reflection.
Post Script: I think I used more evidence this time from the mere narration. Is it better supported now? Even though I used some logical cultural aspects in the analysis as: the author is from Malawi so the poem might have cultural influence (specifically the agricultural-rural lifestyle) and the need for rain in dry African locations.
Better, Johann. Much better indeed! That's the idea: search for evidence -as much as possible- to support our speculations. Now, there are a few important symbols we can connect to social institutions: the Party (politics), the priest (church), school (education), hospital bills (health). Good work! It's a pity so many of your mates have not shown up yet. I wonder if hey are THINKING, at least, or just leading a more NORMAL life.
Keep reading, keep thinking, keep learning, and you'll be growing all the time.
hi, i think that the speaker intention was to persuade his old friend to help him. he faces his own reality of sorrow and with little faith comes before his old friend for aid. despite all the distant,important and mighty that his old friend is,he expect to get his atention. his old friend who (i reckon) used to be in the same level of the speaker, got an important position in politics or so i think. and left the speaker behind. perhaps it is no convenient to this "old friend" to have any friendship with those who are poor? it is a matter of society? as this old friend changed his life so he changed his line of friends.
all this situation seems to be for me the consequence of getting an important position that generally corrupts some people behavior, or life style. like the old friend of the speaker in this poem.
the last two verses show the speaker resignation about his old friend who "apparently" once was at the same level of the speaker. he says "how you have changed" wich i think means that he doesn´t know him any more,it is far more difficult to get his help than forget friends.
this is what came to my mind once that i read the poem several times, i also read the others comments wich are good, and if i forgot some important information please correct me. thanks.
Maybe my point of view is pretty radical but I think the speaker/writer will kill or is planning to kill his/her exfriend as conclusion of the poem, let me explain it:
They are in a press conference or kind of political meeting. The exfriend could be the orator and probably is on a dais (raised platform), so all the attention is on him/her; the speaker is among the multitude. He/she has started to get angry (mad) because friend ignores him/her as the rest of the people in that place, we can conclude this because the expression “Sending the eternal fire raging, through my mind”.
Due to nobody realizes that he/she is there because thinks he is insignificant, he plan to kill him/her. This idea came to me because the last two verse, both might be analyzed in the following way: “ah friend, how you have changed, you will never flow back here”, it might mean: ah friend is a pity your new behavior but you have to die.
When the speaker say “here” in the last verse I think is not referring to the place they are but the life (existence).
The speaker uses “will” in the four last verses in order to show that he/she is taking in to account the entire environment and the possible ending; also he believes that he can get away scot-free. This perception comes to my mind when I read these phrases: “the picture men will not notice me…” and “you do not see me, your eyes rivetted on imaginary enemies…”
Gabriela Rincón
(Hello! this message is published by me but belongs to Gabriela Rincón).
Probably the speaker has an irremediable or hard to cure disease. He seems like he still has faith and prays for a possible monetary provision to have enough for the “Party” maybe referring to his burial.
The two final verses of the poem may help us to infer that the sender will die and the receiver will not have the chance to see him again or recover their friendship as a river never flows back into its source.
Hi! I haven’t read my classmates’ comments yet (I just saw the length of a few) so I don’t know how repetitive my comment is going to be. I’m afraid I wrote too much though. Anyway, this is what I think of the end of the poem. When the author says “I am still where you left me” he may imply that they worked together on something, may be they were a team or members of the same political party or association. I think they could have possibly worked together and one abandoned the other. A betray could have had happened in which one got really beneficiated while the other sank in poverty. That betray or abandon could be the reason for the rude tone in the author’s words to his Friend, that betray could have meant the end of the friendship.
“Strapped ever to my hoe in the dust” this is may be because he hadn’t sown anything in a long time, he might be a farmer, so his hoe is all covered in dust. This is an indicator of his bad economic situation. So he’s is still doing the same thing, hoping for his lifetime job to produce something. Although I have to say the next verse confuses me a little bit, why would a Party (which I assume is a political party they both know and probably had worked together in) benefit from rain? I still don’t see why… I understand the only thing the author does is pray for the situation to get better, pray for nature to save them considering the government or the people in charge haven’t done anything to help them. In the following three verses the author states that his economical condition is so bad that it has even brought him some religious existential issues, I mean, it seems to me that the author frights as he doesn’t have the stipulated let’s call it “allowance” (I don’t know if it is the right word) to the priest he might be doomed to hell, discarding any good thing he has done so far or how religious he used to be. So we can say that the economical problem of his country has given him not only financial problems but also religious problems that could, if he is a very religious person, give him a self identity issue. In my opinion, this situation threatens his emotional and psychological stability.
Consequently, asking his Friend for help represents lots of trouble for the author. When he says that he is pushed near the edge of his Friend’s platform to touch his shoe for salvation, it might mean that he is literally being pushed by people in his Friend’s workplace. There might be lots of people outside waiting for Mr. Friend to talk to them as well; he might be a very difficult person to reach. Another possibility is that the author might not have been literally pushed by people but that he had tons of trouble just trying to reach his Friend. The author could have gotten an appointment to talk to his Friend but because of his socioeconomic status or his physical appearance was left behind or may be the actual act of moving from where he lives to his Friend’s workplace represents a risk to his safety, integrity or stability (may be it was very difficult for the author to recognize he needed his Friend’s help considering they were not friends anymore). Or possibly, all of his tries barely got him a very small opportunity to reach his Friend.
As to be expected and despite the author’s effort, Mr. Friend was too absorbed in his own thoughts that he did not even noticed his former friend or the people around him that were struggling to get to him too. After this, the author points out how ironic it is that he, as an ordinary, poor, citizen, does not have a voice in politics and how he is completely ignored by the media while his Friend, as a famous, important person, gets all the media’s attention even though he’s the one that is drawn in his bad habits and has entirely forgotten the humble, small people he lives on.
Overall, I think the poem does not only talk about the loss of a friendship, it does not only exemplifies the innate characteristic of human beings to change but it also talks about social justice and people’s right to a better life and to be heard by the authorities. In this case, people in a power situation are represented by the Friend and the population in a country, that never changes or progresses, is represented by the author himself. When the author says:
“Ah friend, how have you changed,
You will never flow back here”
He is implying that once people change they can never change back to what they were before. He’s exposing his country sociopolitical issues and in a certain way, protesting about it. Therefore I think the poem gives a negative but still accurate view of the world because whatever is portrayed there is something that happens in almost if not every country in the world. In a way the author is implying that politics is never going to change (if we take politics as the Friend in the poem) and that people have no choice but to accept that. Although, I must say that also means (to me at least) that even though things won’t be as they used to, there can always be new changes that imply new solutions. I guess we can always be hopeful, sometimes going back to how we were before the problem is not always the best way out.
GRECIA ALBORNOZ
Sorry, this was way too long!
Johann, Indiana, Francisco, Ernesto (?), and Grecia, I can only say that -despite the mistakes you may have made- I am quite excited about your work and ideas. I think it's just a pity you do NOT write so frequently or, at least, you don't share your writings so often.
My interpretation falls very close to what Ernesto said. I hope we will have the time to speak more extensively about this next week.
Thanks very much, guys!!!
My full name is Ernesto Orlando Velásquez Cohen. My middle name is Orlando as you can see and everybody calls me like this, but in some formal things such as papers, tests, homework, blogs, etc, I need to sign just Ernesto Velásquez.
Maria Flores Treco:
Sorry for the name bosquesipc but i did know what i have to make to dissapear it.
The final of the poem : Friend you have changed could be that the friend who did not change was in jail because a politician´s bodyguard caught him when he pretended touch the politician. Maybe the bodyguard thought the poor man was going to kill the politician and put him in jail and it is very possible that he found an article in the newspaper with the politician photograph and he ( very angry) said : Friend you have changed and now you don´t remember our best time.
It is very possible too that the poor man was sharing his story to another prisoner and he (the poor man) thought that it might be interesting that he published a poem with the thigs he suffered because of his politician friend.
Hello everybody, sorry for publishing so late.
This is what I concluded about the Poem “Friend, Ah You Have Changed!”
In my opinion, Frank Chipasula uses in his poem as a speaker a woman that was abandoned for her lover when she was pregnant. I will explain it in this way: The “Friend” who has changed was her lover before began his political career. They shared a life together and she got pregnant, but he started work in the political word and abandoned her. She probably said “I am still here where you left me” because she might be referring to their life together. Then she said “… put Boyi in school” Boyi could be her son/daughter.
Then, she said “…and pay the soaring hospital bills…” I think she possibly is talking about the necessities that she has faced since he left her. And this woman said “though I am pushed near the edge of your skyscraping platform to touch your shoe for salvation”, it is probable that here she refers to the fact that she knows how much he has changed, she knows that he is a corrupt politician but the necessities that she is facing are so big that she decided to get close to him, maybe in a speech, and asking for help. But her “Friend” does not notice her presence because of the crowd and because he is more worried about the political enemies that he could created with his career.
Next, she tries to make contact with the press to use his reputation to push him to help her but the crowd does not allow her to being notice by them. The only think that appears on the news was his discourse making more false promises but her voice claiming her necessities are silent again, as it could be appreciate in the following fragment of the poem: “the picture men will not notice me buried in this crowd and the papers will print your shout clearly into news”. At the end she remembers that he is now another person and he is never going to return to that time where they shared a life together. For those reason the poem ends in this way: “Ah friend, how you have changed, you will never flow back here”.
Some interpretations may be particularly... 'imaginative'. Some are hard to take and others are quite persuasive. It all depends on how we support our ideas, how we use evidence. The most important thing -I think- is that the blog allows for open interpretations without interruptions. And, because these are WRITTEN pieces of participation, you are given the opportunity to write and rewrite and reorganise what you mean to say. Good work, great ideas!
DD
ps.- my acknowledgment to Gabriela, Maria and Jessika, as well as -again- to those who dared start this forum.
My former friend, the one that used to have as ideals to help people, to avoid corruption, to cultivated values among people, to live in democracy and liberty, that one who once told me: "believe me after I graduated in Law I will be the President who will change the destiny of our country; our children will have a better future, I will work to provide them with better health services, appropriate public schools, better public transportation; then after being ten years in your shyscrapring platform more of the same have been happening, there is not much difference among the previous presidents we have had. Sorry, there is a worse difference, besides keeping the same problems from so many years ago, know are country is being driving to a special kind of dictatorship; that one which does not allow any critic at all and if you are by their side supposedly you will be ok." be careful my ex-friend your own people will turn against you.
Then, next day newspaper showed how people on the streets where asking their President to resign and after violents confrontations, elections were made again and the people was trying to change its country destiny; and my former friend dissapeared and I have never heard about him. However, I´m still here where he left me; working to survive and trying to live day after day my busy life.
Any coincidence with real life, it is just mere coincidence. Probably, I was too creative by the moment I wrote that; sorry, if I offend someone it was not my intention. Kisses for everybody Yeli.
Hi, Sir David! Hi guys! I have to apologise for the delay, but anyway here I am...:)
After reading the poem, the impression the speaker left on me was of disappoinment and resignation about his friend´s changes. Despite the fact of being the same person (obviosly the speaker) it seems like he can't do anything to change the fact that his friend have become an unrecognizable person because of power and money. Maybe, a possible ending for the poem , beside of the original, could be that the speaker is standing at his friend´s grave wondering why he did all those things, and why he have betrayed their friendship. The speaker remaids him all the good moments they spent together, and judging for not remaining by his side as he used to be one.
Hello everyone,
The context for this poem is not other than Africa, so we can infer that injustice and poverty are very common in that particular environment. In a land with that characteristics, politicians tend to control every aspect in citizens lives. Once they are in charge, priorities change and they forget their old friends and habits. This friend in the poem became someone completely different and that is not going to change. For the speaker that is a fact and he points out that: "you will never flow back here" I think the speaker accepts that reality, he criticize his former friend for becoming a selfish and bureaucratic politician but he knows that he cannot do anything to reverse that situation. After all, power may change people and even their hearts. Most of the time that is irreversible.
I just think that in the end, the receiver in this text do not even care about what the speaker says. The receiver seems to have remarkable power so he is too busy with his new life so former friends are not important anymore.
I think that the speaker is running out of patience. It has probably been some time since the moment the speaker and his/her friend had a friendship, and now the speaker seems he/she cannot tolerate any more excuses after his/her ex-friend´s betrayal. The speaker might have tried to contact his/her friend in several opportunities without succeeding. The speaker has possibly supported his/her friend without earning anything, but this person is tired of that situation. That is why I think the speaker sees him/herself, the party and probably many more people, who are also fed up of his/her friend, participating in a coup d´état. Also, I think the speaker becomes victorious, then ends up occupying the friend´s status, having as a result the decision of sending the former friend to exile.
By the way sorry for taking so long in publishing my comment,but sometimes no matter how many revisions are made,still not pleased. Johann Stoll
Good night everybody.
I think it is time to leave my mind fly as the Professor David Duran said it.
First of all,there can be many interpretations to this poem. It all depends on the point of view from which you look at it.
My first guess is that this good old friend is no one but the narrator himself. In other words, he might be looking back into his life retrospectively. He may or may not be alive. If he's alive, then he's looking at what he did with his life as an expectator, now that he is old and not so fit and good-looking as he used to be back in the old days. If he is not alive any longer, then he could be having flashbacks of what his life was now that he is in another dimension. However, he could also be on the edge between life and death and could be experiencing that sort of backtrack movie of what your life has been up to the moment of your death.
My second guess is that the narrator's friend is just any ordinary person in any country in the world that has dedicated his life to believe in politicians. His friend is not an actual old friend of his, but the image of that one politician he believed in long ago and definitely disappointed him as he did not comply with his promises. This politician could be dead, and the narrator is merely looking at his friend's corpse as he recalls moments from both of them were young and full of life. The bulldogs and concrete walls could pretty much refer to the graveyard his friend in which his friend has been buried.
My third guess is that the narrator is actually contemplating what life has been to both, him and his friend who's actually in jail. This could be true, since he mentions the concrete walls and the place that was somehow built with taxpayers' money. His friend is old and has been through a lot in his life.
To finish, I should apologize if I unconscious changed the essence of the writer when he wrote the poem but at this point of my life I am capable to analize and discern by myself.
Raúl Álvarez P.
well,we can notice that the writer and the person he is writing for are not close at this moment and have long time without seeing each other and because he is pointing out some characteristic that he/she has now that did not have before. We can also infer that the reciever (his friend) could be a weathlty person because he says that he is fayter than before.
then, we see that the person who the author is writing for could be son kind of politician, due to the fact that he had access to people´s taxes and he live in a place where protection of dogs and vigilants is needed.
the author start to complained about his/her situation and makes a kind of comparison with the person he is writing about.
we can also see that the writer is traying to make contact with the reciever but he wasn´t taken into consideration. At this part, we can infer that the speaker could be, not only a person, but multitud, a congregation who is watching a political meeting because he/she or the multitud is asking for help. And due that this person (the friend) is so blind by his/her power, cant see what THE people are asking and everything that he/she says will be news tomorrow (again, another evidence that he/she could be a politician).
At the end, the writer show some kind of deception whe he says: ah friend, how you have change. And recignation when he says: You will never flow back her.
well,we can notice that the writer and the person he is writing for are not close at this moment and have long time without seeing each other and because he is pointing out some characteristic that he/she has now that did not have before. We can also infer that the reciever (his friend) could be a weathlty person because he says that he is fayter than before.
then, we see that the person who the author is writing for could be son kind of politician, due to the fact that he had access to people´s taxes and he live in a place where protection of dogs and vigilants is needed.
the author start to complained about his/her situation and makes a kind of comparison with the person he is writing about.
we can also see that the writer is traying to make contact with the reciever but he wasn´t taken into consideration. At this part, we can infer that the speaker could be, not only a person, but multitud, a congregation who is watching a political meeting because he/she or the multitud is asking for help. And due that this person (the friend) is so blind by his/her power, cant see what THE people are asking and everything that he/she says will be news tomorrow (again, another evidence that he/she could be a politician).
At the end, the writer show some kind of deception whe he says: ah friend, how you have change. And recignation when he says: You will never flow back her.
Gabriela Rincón...
Hello... :)
After reading once again, I think that the speaker may represent a group of people. With the information that is on the second paragraph we can infer that this may be a grup of poor people who at the beging trusted in the receiver “politician” to help them or represent them but later on according to his interest and "monetarian" needs he changed his ideals and betrayed them.
The speaker or group after asking for some help with any positive answer decide to betray him back.
Post a Comment