at our last writers meeting some comments were made, not just about my writing but writing in general as well, I was a little taken aback by some of the comments so I have put this together to read at our next meeting.


I feel a substantial amount of modern poetry has been shunned by the average person, because, unfortunately amongst our brilliant & wonderful academic writers, some have taken poetry to the point one almost needs a degree to dissect & understand the written piece, to me they are only seeking appraisal from their own.

Poetry should motivate, invigorate memories, enlighten the heart, bring forth feelings of sadness or joy, make one laugh or cry & project a photo image story, think of your reader/audience use words they can understand & not words that impress only the scholars.

Stephen King once said, "If a reader needs a Thesaurus to understand the meaning of what you are trying to put across; you have lost them!"

I believe the wonderful success I am having with my poetry is due to the fact I write for all, I write from the heart, I write simple so all can understand, I also know that with increasing understanding of the English vocabulary my poems will grow stronger, but I hope never to loose sight of how simplicity can touch so many.

Achievement & recognition come with hard work be it a young person passing exams, a graduate receiving their Doctorate or a baby taking its 1st steps, all are milestones in life & recognition should be applauded as such.

As with my writings, each new piece is a milestone & a step further into the future, sure some of my poems lack the vocabulary expertise of some, but they resonate with the average person who relates to & enjoys my poetry.

David J Delaney.

David,

I've not read any of your work but I agree fully that simplicity always makes a better poem than complexity. Forget the academics and stay away from writers groups.

Thank you David for your comments mate, No worries about forgeting academics, as for the writers group, they are a great bunch, what was said was done in a honest critique manner, I think there is 1 or 2 who would like to see me write in other genres as well, but its not me.

I agree, David. Poetry needn't be a showcase for one's vocabulary or extensive knowledge; that only seems to be off-putting. Motives and means of poetry will differ, and there are as many poetries as there are people writing them. I believe your letter acknowledges and asserts this without putting down anyone else's approach.

David, you are a poet after my own heart. I haven't been writing poetry for all that long (about 3 years), but one thing I want to do with my poetry is to make it accessible to all, so that everyone can read and understand it without having to have a PhD. I am absolutely no fan of obscure poetry, where the message is lost in convoluted turns of phrase.

Thank you Gregory & Helena for your comments, often I like to remember what Stephen King said, "If a reader needs a Thesaurus to understand the meaning of what you are trying to put across; you have lost them!"

Helena, don't stop writing, I have only been writing since December 2006, never had any formal education in writing, google my name, you will be surprised at what one can achieve.
Thank you again.

David,
Thank you for this post! I'm so happy to see so many others who agree with your statement--I myself agree wholeheartedly! I remember at one point in my life hating poetry. Everything that we were taught to read in class was so...boring. Besides that, I couldn't find an aperature into these poems, I couldn't find a reflection of my own human experience in them. So I tended to read novels because I connected with them.

That is, of course, until someone introduced me to Mary Oliver and I realized that there are just *tons* of amazing poets out there who write for people. Not other poets, not academia, but people. Isn't that what poetry should be--a kind of song shared between reader/listener and poet?

I, for one, would really love to see more people read poetry, open to poetry. There is a goodreads author named Jim McGarrah that has a wonderful book of poems out called "When the Stars Go Dark" and my mom read it in one sitting and told me, with her eyes shining, "Wow, I've never been able to read poetry before. But I *get* this. I can feel it. Wow. I don't even know what to say..."

It was a brilliant moment, an achievement for poetry, I think.
:)

Thank you for your comments Tara, I am glad you agree with me & your mum 'found" poetry.

I added a Stephen King quote & read my statement to the group & received resounding applause when finished, there was a suggestion I use most of the statement as a blurb in my next book, almost everyone agreed so I think I just might.

It is always odd stumbling on statements like, "poetry should do this" and "poetry is better if it is this and not that."

I totally agree. Poetry is not academics, and poetry is not a showcase of how learned you are - poetry is what is inside of the poet, whether it's simple or complex. Poets should have the freedom to express this however they like.

I understand where all of you are coming from, but I still find - there is something to be said for reaching into the depths of a poem and extracting the beauty through analysis. There is something so wonderfully gratifying about picking up a poem that, upon first read, makes no sense whatsoever, and reading it over and over - disecting phrases - until you come up with the author's personal commentary on an aspect of life or the human condition. I have found in my own experience - with classmates and the like - that MODERN poetry is less so the one shunned than older styles are. I find that with people my age, life is more about immediate gratification, about reading a poem and seeing what it's trying to say, and moving on. Having one more difficult to decipher forces you to give time and to really think. Obviously those who want to think about a poem can do so with modern ones as well, but - to me at least - one is more gratifying to decipher than the other.

Tate, thank you so much for your reply, is appreciated.

Erica, thank you also for your honest reply & you have every right in the world to read over and over a poem until you reach those depths and understand where the poet is comming from, this is fine if you have the time to do this, with the position I am in if I was to stand in front of an audience and read a poem that needs to be read several times to understand it's complexities, well, I don't think it would be long before I would have no audience, I have found, with a live audience in particular, a poem has to "hit" them straight away, it has to capture their visions and heart so they can remember forever. I'm not saying don't enjoy all forms of poetry, complex poetry is ok in school where you have time to debate and disect, but, if you are to write for the average person in a performance poetry situation then your poem should capture almost immediately. Call me old fashioned but if a poem dosen't grab me straight away then I move along to the next, thanks again Erica, enjoyed your comment.

Dave.

Erica, I completely agree.

David J., thanks for the comment. While I understand why you believe the poem needs to "hit" an audience, there are audiences and moments of live performance that don't need the immediate hook of simple verse. Also, I don't believe the setting of school is the only environment that allows for the enjoyment of layered, complex, or experimental verse.

I'm with Eric above. I'm very wary of any sentence that begins "Poetry should..." unless it continues "do what the poet wants it to do." In fact, lots of good poetry even does things beyond what the poet consciously intends.

As for "academic" poetry, I'm no academic (far from it), but why shouldn't academics have poetry that engages them? Should poetry be only for the "average person"? I think there's room for all sorts of poetry, and poetry for all sorts of audiences, as long as it's good poetry, and that's hard enough to find.

On the topic of poetry being read live to an audience ... I don't think a good poem is going to be fully absorbed and processed in a live reading. For me, the live reading gives me the opportunity to hear the poet's voice, hear the poet kibbitz a little, and maybe intrigue me enough to read the poet's work on the page. It's on the page that I get the most pleasure.

Cheers, everyone.

Stuart

For me the best poetry grabs me immediately but then reveals more of itself after each re-reading.

Eric and Stuart make some good points about readings. A reading is an art form where the sound of the poet's voice and the cadence of the delivery can add a new layer of "meaning" to the poem. It is very different from seeing the words on the page.

I have found that audiences sometimes react in unexpected ways...laughing at a line I wrote to be serious, for example.

Reading a poem to an audience should not be story telling. I wrote earlier that simplicity is always good; that doesn't mean the poem needs a single, obvious meaning, nor that it can't be intrepreted by each reader/listener at a particular point in time.

I haven't been to too many readings, but I think it depends on the poem. Sometimes I won't really feel a poem until the author speaks it with all the passion he intended. And then it becomes absolute - well, for lack of a better term - poetry. On the other hand, there are poems that just don't WORK in a reading. You don't get the feel for it unless you read the words and really... experience them yourself, so to speak. I'm sure there are poems that work either way, too.

Hi David and Goodreads! Interesting points. I agree with you that simplicity can be very powerful and often times makes for some great writing. Too much complexity can obfuscate the message. Besides, if a reader is to be moved, surely it is through his heart first. On the other hand, I don't know what you mean by 'academic' poetry...

If you mean that a poem can't win a way into my heart and still travel through the mind then I respectfully disagree with you. After all, poetry is a celebration of language, and language is a very complex thing if you think about it. Nothing wrong with using the brain a bit, ey?

As a side note, Stephen King's quote about using a thesaurus was not directed to the reader; it is the 'writer' that should be wary of using a thesaurus. This is a significant distinction. If the writer has a wonderful word and actually knows how to use it, sharing it with the rest of the world is the kindest thing he can do. Some days there's only one word loaded with enough meaning to carry out the intent.

And now I'm depressed thinking about all those poor endangered words on the verge of extinction. Wild and beautiful beasts, they are.

Sometimes what seems like a simple poem turns out to be one of the most complicated. It captures us at the simple level/simple meaning first, and then dangles the bait in front of our noses, enticing us deeper and deeper into various interpretations.

A poem that makes the reader more than a mere receptacle, more than someone who is only on the receiving end of the literary equivalent of a forward pass, is the most effective of all.

Marcel Duchamp observed that art is completed in the eye of the viewer, and I think the same is true of poetry. We all carry different lives and experiences behind us when we read a poem. The poet can steer us in the direction he wants, but ultimately our reaction to a poem is personal.

Poetry that doesn't have more than one level of interpretation doesn't allow us to participate, forces us to remain mere spectators.

While I could feel hestite and imtimated by all this and I know who I relate too, while others I don't, no one is wrong here. And I'm not trying to suggust anyone of you might feel another is. What's important, in fact, is to keep an open mind and that's what appears to be most prominent in this discussion.

I don't really have much to add that hasn't already been said. And while simplicity is more my cup of tea, I wish I understood more readily academicly. (No I didn't mean to make that sentence rhyme). What I am meaning to say, being hard of hearing all my life, I've always had to rely on filling in spaces that, poets, all do. The more we can draw from the more we can take in and use; to interprete the world around us.

I envy the more learned and yet, I can't even imagine using words I didn't think others could understand, probably because my whole life is a stuggle to understanding words, let alone hear them. Yes, simplicity is my cup of tea, does that make it a bore for those more educated? Isn't "simplicity" at the very least understandable to all?

Thanks David J for your topic.

Gail A

Ruth, I must agree. An author can write with his own thoughts on what he wishes the reader to gain, but sometimes the reader will take those words and run so far with them -- in the opposite direction.

I remember a friend once wrote a poem about how it was a bad idea to put a fork inside a toaster oven. It went through to describe all the damage such an action would cause. The last line ended: "(and one fried fork)." Well, my brain automatically went into overdrive as I started analyzing this poem. It's in parenthesis, which explains the following -- When awful things happen in the world, people think about the big picture, about all the ways this can affect the world at large. People oftentimes forget, however, that there are people and emotions involved as well. Individuals are affected.

I offered her my explanation and she laughed. Said, "Actually, I just meant that it's a bad idea to put a fork in a toaster oven." But see, it becomes the READER's poem at that point. What the reader sees -- it's really there. And it can touch someone and change someone's life, even if the author never intended such.

Ah, writing is such a beautiful thing.

WOW!!!..Thank you everyone for your comments, I didn't mean to start a international incident, hope I can make some points clear here.
In my initial statement I did say "amongst our brilliant & wonderful academic writers, SOME have taken poetry to the point one almost needs a degree to dissect & understand the written piece" note the word SOME, I have read writings by some brilliant academics & enjoyed immensely.

The reason I have classed academic from uneducated is because I class myself as uneducated, only today I bought a book "Grammar for dummies" & am still having trouble understanding some of the words but as Australians say "I'm having a go"

When it comes to presenting a poem to an audience one has to have an idea of the audience, only recently a young lady who is studying for a doctorate in literacy read a poem she wrote & when finished there was almost dead silence because the audience (about 2000) had no clue what she was talking about, but in saying that if she read the same poem at the university auditiorium I believe she would have received a standing ovation.

Thank you Ruth for your comments, to me you pretty well hit the nail on the head.
Thank you Gail also for your comments, because I am uneducated I believe that is where my "simple" poetry hits home the most, to the average lower educated people who understand the words I use, but in saying that, there is no reason why I can't continue to learn & I am improving my vocabulary as time goes on & the more I read (& use a dictionary).

Thank you again to all, keep writing & reading & have an open mind to what you do read.

David, funny you should mention dictionary. I have one at my side every time I am responding to any messages here. And since coming on broad, I've even learned new words. Started to collect favorite words as well. So, reading, reading, reading, writing, writing, and more writing, adds to learning, learning, and more learning.

I have created my own systme to finding words faster. All visual. The words I miss, often times, are the (same ones,) over and over again as if I just can't seem to retain them. The joys of aging. Or rather the challange.

Glad you made clear the, SOME, in message 23 David, cause I may have missed that by time I was reading towards the end of your first message.

Started reading your books tonight and many of the poems brought tears. I will get back to you another time on those 2 books.

Gail A.

To be a bit off topic for a moment, Gail, what's your favorite word?

Erica, I would have to say, (inevitable,) still can't pronounce it correctly according to my son, but I'm getting there. Thanks for asking.

Gail A

PS, what's your favorite word? May be I can learn something new here.

I have quite a few. My very first favorite word was "discombobulated," but I grew tired of it a while ago. Then came "gargantuan" and "mellifluence" (noun only, not the adjective). I also fancy the word "lovely" and "trememendously." Hm, there's another I'm forgetting. If I remember, I'll let you know. :P

Okay, wow, these are big words for me. In fact, lovely, is about the only one I can pronounce. I don't think I would find myself using the others but the one, melifluence, could interest me.

Thanks,
Gail A.

Poetry is Art. As simple as that. Agree? Look at the SPEAR BEARER by Polikleitos 450 years B.C. - it is immortal and still the best,understood today in every country. Shakespeare's vocabulary was not as big as modern but he is still the best. It is not the brush or paints that make an artist but his heart and skills.

poetry is art, i can agree on that point. our esteeming of art however, is personal and perspective. art to me is process and transience, an attempt framed by artifice but motivated by the desire for the real (that is art to me solely, to others let it be different or likewise). traditional poetry is beautiful but as to its immortality and critique of being the best, i wholeheartedly disagree, art and life to me is of becomings.

as to simplicity, i agree that is important to poetry, but simplicity to me also means deconstruction and minimalism. i see poetry as personal and connecting to people, but not merely the connecting to all people as definite. as they say, 'to each his own'. message 11, 14, and 20 were very informative of the different interpretations of poetry.

Erica wrote: "I understand where all of you are coming from, but I still find - there is something to be said for reaching into the depths of a poem and extracting the beauty through analysis. There is something..."
Erica, a very interesting and yet a mystery to me is a poem just published by Jan. Could you explain it to me, please?

message 119: by Jan (new)
1 hour, 53 min ago

Funeral Speech


The assistant rabbi offered husbands
skullcaps they politely rejected,
refusing to bear false witness.
You lay affably in your box.

You were vague about your work.
We had joked you were in the CIA.
In the temple your kids finally came clean:
you had worked for Intelligence

as a quality control statistician.
Sure. We knew you were
the most unassuming of assassins,
hiding a stiletto inside your Scrabble rack.

We wound through the necropolis.
Topiary spelled out “Cypress Lawn.”
Welcome to Colma, Land of the Dead.
Evelyn Waugh had nothing on this.

Peninsular sun shifted to mist
when we sank you in the ground.
Loud the first shovelful on the coffin,
you cricket-dry inside.

The youngest grandson sat on a wall,
face in his hands. Nearly ninety years,
but you’d miss his Bar Mitzvah.
Words were just words.

I'm not sure. The best person to ask would probably be Jan, though, because she wrote it. Then again, that has nothing to do with rhyming or otherwise because it could have been equally ambiguous with a rhyme scheme. I'm thinking more of the poems that you would analyze in a classroom setting, rather than a poem that any poet in the street might write. That's not to say they aren't important in their own right, but not all poets have a "deeper meaning" intended, whereas the sort that one would specifically LEARN mostly DO.

Do you really think she expects everyone to understand? I don't think so - but maybe that's just me. I think all you'd have to do is ask because there's never any sense in not being frank (especially since she can read this just as easily as I can *wink*).

So, Jan, can you explain your poem more fully? I have bits and pieces, but I think I - and it seems Gregory, too - missed the overall point you were trying to make. :P

i agree with erica on this, there wasn't any frankness in pulling a poem to dispute one's point or bias. as it was a contest and not a statement on Jan's part i don't think she intended for everyone to understand her poem. like ruth said, each person interprets a poem as it relates them. a poem is not objective, one seeks to understand a poem and a poet, one shouldn't expect understanding in all things.

my interpretation over funeral speech may be totally wrong, but i saw it as the dejection over the burial of a family member whose frankness with his family was always held in secrecy, to the point that closure was never given and could never be given.

the first stanza reads as a buried man sits affably in a coffin, he lays in death friendly and open to all yet others that are close to him will not put on a skullcap because they do not want to bear false witness, or rather they will not lie to themselves about their feelings.
the second stanza tells the secrecy held by the man, whose honesty could only be told by his children.
the third, tells about of his 'unassuming' air, the reserved character that allowed him to be an assassin also allowed him to be unassuming but never honest with others.
the fourth is a bit hard on me, i know it reverts back to the burial of the assassin but i don't know of evelyn waugh.
the fifth, gives imagery to the burial and the details of the setting while leading into the sixth stanza were a dejected grandson weeps thinking of a memory where his grandfather should of been to see him reach manhood. and the funeral speech could give nothing back to the people at the burial, words were just words, they could not change the past nor the openness of a man.
but that was my interpretation of the poem, but i would like to hear from jan if she isn't offended.
i know this might sound stalinist but what is your opinion gregory?

Here's where I get a bit stuck: I understand the first few stanzas and then the last, but a couple in the middle there confused me a bit. I guess it's the presonal aspect that's lost on whoever doesn't know the person.

I really liked that first stanza, by the way. The imagery really brought me into the poem.

A lot of what I missed, I think, were brief mentions of things I don't know. (That made no sense, sorry. :P) Like, for example, Colma, Land of the Dead, and a few others. Those confused me.

I liked the sarcasm, or what I perceived as sarcasm, in the second/third stanzas: finding out you HAD worked for Intelligence... as a quality control statistician. But hey, you worked in Intelligence. - I found that quite amusing. :)

That last stanza was a beautiful piece of imagery there. Kudos. It reminded me of a painting I once had in my head, which - unfortunately - never made it to paper, though it still might. We had an explosion recently. The entire house went up in flames in a matter of milliseconds. A couple of days later, if you walked by where the house used to be, all you saw was our neighbor's cat, sitting forlornly on the fence, watching people as they walked by. I planned to paint it as I saw it: a cat sitting on a brick wall in front of a cemetery. The picture you just drew so reminded me of it. Wow, outstanding job there.

I like the simplicity of "but you'd miss his Bar Mitzvah." It seems so simple, yet it means everything to the grandson. Excellent piece.

And thank you, Gregory, for posing the question to me - because it made me think, which made me realize I actually understood more of the poem than I realized.

Thank you, Erica and Dana, with your help I understand now much better the story. I was thinking that everybody who published her/his work for 2 millions readers wants them to understand it. I realized it is not always the case.

I think "wants" people to understand and "expects" people to understand are two very different concepts. I would like for people to understand the poetry I have written, but that doesn't mean I expect they will. I expect that some people will understand it as I meant it to be understood, some will understand it through their own interpretations that I never saw, and some won't understand at all. That's the beauty of poetry!

Erica, if I expect readers to understand me - this is exactly what I want. If not - then I don't know what I want. This is the beauty of our country, which is "the poetry...the nation of nations"(Walt Whitman). We all are different. You said you do not rhyme your poetry - you have every right not to. I like poetry rhymed such as this jewel:
O CAPTAIN! MY CAPTAIN!
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will,
The ship is anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage closed and done,
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

I guess it's different for various people. For me, I rarely - if ever - expect people to understand my poem. If I expect that they will understand, it tells me I have not written well enough. I don't like people to manage to mindlessly read and still come out with what I wanted them to extract. I like when people have to think a bit about what I wrote. Of course, it's more than slightly egotistical to pretend that I achieve this more often that not. This is more of an ideal.

Erica and Greg

You two seem to be coming closer and closer to defining the purpose of poetry - mainly by not saying things than by saying them. The implications of what you've both said - in my interpretation - is that poetry is, like all expressions in language, a form of communication. What tends to be neglected, is the fact that poems are often a communication of one part of ourselves with another. In such a case, the 'publishing' (such as here) of such poetry amounts to an announcement "This is me communicating with myself. Make of it what you will."

I find that most poems published here fall into this category.

Therefore, the question of whether a poem is understood or understandable begs a further question: "Who is it for?" "To who's understanding is it addressed?"

All my own poetry has been written for an audience of two: myself and the person who inspired them. Though this limits them in relation to how complete an understanding someone else may achieve, there is always a chance that particular phrasings or ideas will resonate with others - especially others who are in touch with their equivalent of the depths from which the poems emerged in me.

On the other hand, if a poem is intended to be a form of communication with others or just another, lack of clarity is completely counterproductive and though a particular phrase (rhyming or otherwise) might evoke emotional responses in the author, it may mean very little to anyone else.

But what does 'mean' mean?

thanks malcolm, you address the conflicting key points in this argument adeptly. the phrase, or 'question of whether a poem is understood or understandable', points out honestly the stumbling in this discussion.

for there are poems that are harder to understand but that doesn't necessarily make them not understandable, hence the case with jan's poem. as to what does 'mean' mean? that to me relates back to the esteeming of value each person attributes to aesthetic principles, or anything for that matter. just as gregory esteemed rhyming to be the most acclaimed form of poetry others may think it not to be. it all has to do with how and what a poet wants to communicate to readers.

on a side note, i do think that a lack of clarity can also give way to productive thoughts, they may not be the intended thoughts of the poet but are alternatives. but that all depends on what counterproductive means.

Malcolm wrote: "Erica and Greg

You two seem to be coming closer and closer to defining the purpose of poetry - mainly by not saying things than by saying them. The implications of what you've both said - in my ..."

Dear Malcolm,here is my definition of poetry

The vision of beauty, language of the feeling –
Of sounds and images – concise.
To the scorched world the poet revealing
Rain clouds coming in blue skies.

As trees are to seeds as seeds are to a tree
So poetry is love as love is poetry.

For me poetry is love and it is addressed sometimes to a person I love or, at other times, to Nature and Humanity I love always. I feel it has to be easy to understand.

dear gregory, that is what poetry means to 'you', it is not objective or absolute. that is all one is trying to say.

Dana wrote: "dear gregory, that is what poetry means to 'you', it is not objective or absolute. that is all one is trying to say. "

I agree with you, Dana, absolutely and objectively. Did I said something that makes you think otherwise? As for Jan's poem I posted it took me some time to understand it. I think it is antisemitic.

interesting, why do you think that it is anti-semitic?

I think so because she linked a Jewish family to the assassinations by CIA. What do you think?


"You were vague about your work.
We had joked you were in the CIA.
In the temple your kids finally came clean:
you had worked for Intelligence

as a quality control statistician.
Sure. We knew you were
the most unassuming of assassins,
hiding a stiletto inside your Scrabble rack."

Art.. it just is.

The biggest compliment to an artist would be the fact that someone talks about it. If a piece of art written or made otherwise makes one think, the artist has accomplished their goal. Whether the piece is understood or understandable need not apply. It made you think.

I will call it simplicity at its finest.

Gregory wrote: "You said you do not rhyme your poetry - you have every right not to. I like poetry rhymed such as this jewel:"

I don't have anything against rhyming poetry; I just find I express my thoughts better -- and get across my point better -- when I write without it. It's the same reason I don't often write a Sestina or other forms of poetry that have many rules, although I have the greatest respect for them. (Except, oddly, haiku - I love to write haiku, despite the constrictions on that form of poetry.)

And I also think "O Captain! My Captain!" is a jewel in timeless poetry. Absolutely heartbreaking, especially in knowing the background and meaning behind the poem.

Hm, I didn't get an anti-semetic feeling at all from this poem. In fact, I don't really feel it had anything to do with Judaism whatsoever on anything other than surface level. And that was only because - well, it was a fact. From what I gathered of the poem, the different aspects of the story were not symbols to anything larger. They were true facts of what seems to be a true, biographical description of someone Jan actually knew (although I hope Jan will correct me if I'm mistaken).

It seems this person was Jewish and worked for the CIA -- as a "quality control statistician." (I'm curious exactly what such a person DOES. Anyone care to enlighten me?) There's nothing insulting about that. That's just his occupation, plain and simple. At least from what I gathered.

Tell us the backgrounds of "O Captain, my Captain",please.
As for Jan's story. According to her the statistician is "the most unassuming of assassins,
hiding a stiletto inside (his) Scrabble rack."

I don't know details, only vaguely - but from what I remember it was written just after the Civil War ended. Abraham Lincoln had just been assassinated, so he never got to see the end of the war, a war he strived so tirelessly to end. It is likened, in the poem, to a captain fighting a brutal storm with his crew. They finally anchor themselves safely with an ever-growing respect and love and bond with their beloved captain... and behold! he has perished. He will never see what he worked so hard to achieve, which is getting his crew and his ship to safety. He accomplished it but never saw it because he died before he could, just as President Lincoln died before he saw the peace he so coveted.