SELF DEFENCE
I hate election parties
Deadly weapons can be used to repel a common assault
I hate halloween
Excessive force doesn't necessarily exclude a self defence argument
I hate people who trick or treat
Do you feel physically and emotionally assaulted by people who hate?
I hate people who don't reply to my e mails with humour
Pick up a gun
I hate people who do childish things
SHOOT!
The intellectual copyright (1998) of "SELF
DEFENCE" lies with the author who accepts no responsibility for any
violence, or illegal act which arises from imputations or suggestive conduct
contained in the work. This is a work of fiction. The character referred
to is not in any way real. Any real life example is purely coincidence
and unintended.
READING THE POEM:
READING ONE:
Self Defence operates on two narrative levels (should have two people speaking it) Lines 1,3,5,7,9 ---- refers to the 'hater', Lines 2,4,6,8,10---- refers to the advice the author gives.
The advice is also a little joke for me about finding ways to kill someone and claiming self defence (sort of like those gun frieks on South Park).
In the case of the lines 1,3,5etc was a parody of anyone that claims to hate. People like Pauline Hanson, Hitler, etc. In the specific context of "cathedral", it was a coded reference and parody of Rudolph's 'criticisms' (really, part of a bizarre comedy act that Rudolph plays out) about the election party, halloween. But in the poem, the words in lines 1,3,5, can be interchangeable after "hate" : so "i hate aborigines" in the case of Pauline Hanson. The moral issues raised in this reading are quite extensive. But essentially it is that if society is trapped by the peddlers of hate, can it be justified for someone to kill that person before they became influential. For example, the Hitler question. Would you have shot him if you could have the chance to, when Hitler was 25 years old? So, on the one hand, the author is making fun of the argument of self defence; yet on the other, he raises the moral dilemmas that will plague thought for ever.
READING TWO:
As one profound proffessor of poetry said about this poem, it does not necessarily have to take the form of a double narrative. It can be just as profound read in the one sense. ie. that the two sets of lines are linked profoundly to provide the hater with such a dislike of him/herself that the advice is carried out to suicidal lengths. This rather dark reading is also very interesting. Is the author trying to delve out some "advice" to the hate giver? Is he telling haters to commit suicide?
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INTERPRETATIONS, PLEASE E MAIL THEM. Marks will be awarded for making them sound as proposterously intellectual (ie. bullshit) as possible.