The Original Narcissist

[Lizzie]

Edit 1

I became life's golden girl when I
pushed past the last potentials, stealing
existence from my brother, my sister.
Life values nothing but its own continuation,
and I have borne a child.

Original Version

Life doesn't mind my self-concern.
I became its golden girl when I
pushed past the last potentials, stealing
existence from my brother, my sister.
Life values nothing but its own continuation,
and I have borne a child.


(first title was, Like Mother, Like Daughter)
(second title was, Life, the Original Narcissist)

[Magpie]

Hi Lizzie,

I like the poem but not too keen on the title, it feels like it's a cliche or a cliche by proxy (sort of). The poem says what the title says anyway so it could also be said that it's redundant. Another possible issue with 'golden girl', if there was another way of saying this it would be good.

I like a poem that makes me think and this one has done that. 

slight digression—Your poem actually made me think of Great White Sharks. I used to be fascinated by them and once read that even though 3 or 4 sharks may be conceived only one is born. The strongest one kills the other sharks in the womb. "Life values nothing but its own continuation"—digression over

Thanks for the read,

Mark

[Lizzie]

Hi Lizzie,

I like the poem but not too keen on the title, it feels like it's a cliche or a cliche by proxy (sort of). The poem says what the title says anyway so it could also be said that it's redundant. Another possible issue with 'golden girl', if there was another way of saying this it would be good.

I like a poem that makes me think and this one has done that. 

slight digression—Your poem actually made me think of Great White Sharks. I used to be fascinated by them and once read that even though 3 or 4 sharks may be conceived only one is born. The strongest one kills the other sharks in the womb. "Life values nothing but its own continuation"—digression over

Thanks for the read,

Mark

Yeah, that's such a perfect example with the sharks. I didn't know that about them, but many species have a kind of system where they kill off the weakest of the young so that the stronger ones can survive. Despite the seeming callousness and arrogance of the poem, these kinds of things make me inconsolably sad.

Ok, not married at all to the title, just trying to throw in the continuation theme. I was hoping to subvert the cliche, not to have it infect everything around it

Thanks for the read and the helpful feedback, Mark. ><

[Magpie]

Excellent title change 

[QDeathstar]

I think you can drop life from the title, you mention it in the poem already, plus I think dropping life would make the poem more intriguing .Unfortunately, I thought this was a poem about black/blue/donkey live's matter, so I am a bit dissapointed. It's still a nice poem, but not what I was looking for.


By calling life a narcissist, you are implying a negative connotation, however I don't get that from the poem.

[Lizzie]

I think you can drop life from the title, you mention it in the poem already, plus I think dropping life would make the poem more intriguing .Unfortunately, I thought this was a poem about black/blue/donkey live's matter, so I am a bit dissapointed. It's still a nice poem, but not what I was looking for.


By calling life a narcissist, you are implying a negative connotation, however I don't get that from the poem.

Sorry to disappoint

Um, narcissist. Negative connotation? Yes and no. So, there is such a thing as healthy narcissism -- we all have it. It's the healthy ego, the me-ness of us that allows us to form a separate identity, and it's also the animal instinct to save you and yours first above all else. It keeps us alive, it keeps us healthy.

The negative connotation is exactly what Mark was talking about -- the seeming (well, in actuality) unconscionable things that life does to perpetuate itself in the most vital form it can. You can't really watch a nature show without seeing horrifying slaughter of the weak in the name of progress. I'm talking about "survival of the fittest." I'm talking about so many things -- all the things.

I have a tortured relationship with the self-focus. The title is an attempt to bring in some of that tension.

So, to end. Yes, they seem to contradict and it's intentional. They don't actually contradict, they only appear to. It's a thinker.

I changed the title like you suggested. I'll try to write only bitter diatribes about the state of political affairs from now on

[RiverNotch]

Life doesn't mind my self-concern.
I became its golden girl when I
pushed past the last potentials, stealing
existence from my brother, my sister.
Life values nothing but its own continuation,
and I have borne a child.

(first title was, Like Mother, Like Daughter)
(second title was, Life, the Original Narcissist)

I don't think "healthy narcissism" exists. When narcissism becomes healthy, it ceases to become "narcissism" by the usual definition, instead transforming into, at its most base, self-preservation, and at its highest form, righteous self-love, the feeling that God loves you, that all the world is contained in you. Which is why I still don't think the title is effective: the first title was redundant, the second title put life in a wholly negative light (again, the first sentence), and the third just transfers that wholly negative light to some aspect of the poem, most likely the speaker, a light made harsher by the compounding of "original" and "narcissist". But if you do fail in finding a better title, the first one, at least, isn't intrusive.

As for the rest of the poem, very layered, and very lovely. I would suggest putting the original titles in spoilers, though, since this is a short post, and bias is easily introduced. Although I can't see bias being especially destructive here. And as for my read, the most concrete layer I see is a daughter (the speaker) becoming her mother's favorite because of her newborn child, and all the emotions that produces.

[Lizzie]

Life doesn't mind my self-concern.
I became its golden girl when I
pushed past the last potentials, stealing
existence from my brother, my sister.
Life values nothing but its own continuation,
and I have borne a child.

(first title was, Like Mother, Like Daughter)
(second title was, Life, the Original Narcissist)

I don't think "healthy narcissism" exists. When narcissism becomes healthy, it ceases to become "narcissism" by the usual definition, instead transforming into, at its most base, self-preservation, and at its highest form, righteous self-love, the feeling that God loves you, that all the world is contained in you. Which is why I still don't think the title is effective: the first title was redundant, the second title put life in a wholly negative light (again, the first sentence), and the third just transfers that wholly negative light to some aspect of the poem, most likely the speaker, a light made harsher by the compounding of "original" and "narcissist". But if you do fail in finding a better title, the first one, at least, isn't intrusive.

As for the rest of the poem, very layered, and very lovely. I would suggest putting the original titles in spoilers, though, since this is a short post, and bias is easily introduced. Although I can't see bias being especially destructive here. And as for my read, the most concrete layer I see is a daughter (the speaker) becoming her mother's favorite because of her newborn child, and all the emotions that produces.

What I mean is more like Freud's "primary narcissism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...narcissism

[QDeathstar]

I think the title works better than the poem. Maybe write a poem that fits the title, and work on another title for this one ^_^

[RiverNotch]

Life doesn't mind my self-concern.
I became its golden girl when I
pushed past the last potentials, stealing
existence from my brother, my sister.
Life values nothing but its own continuation,
and I have borne a child.

(first title was, Like Mother, Like Daughter)
(second title was, Life, the Original Narcissist)

I don't think "healthy narcissism" exists. When narcissism becomes healthy, it ceases to become "narcissism" by the usual definition, instead transforming into, at its most base, self-preservation, and at its highest form, righteous self-love, the feeling that God loves you, that all the world is contained in you. Which is why I still don't think the title is effective: the first title was redundant, the second title put life in a wholly negative light (again, the first sentence), and the third just transfers that wholly negative light to some aspect of the poem, most likely the speaker, a light made harsher by the compounding of "original" and "narcissist". But if you do fail in finding a better title, the first one, at least, isn't intrusive.

As for the rest of the poem, very layered, and very lovely. I would suggest putting the original titles in spoilers, though, since this is a short post, and bias is easily introduced. Although I can't see bias being especially destructive here. And as for my read, the most concrete layer I see is a daughter (the speaker) becoming her mother's favorite because of her newborn child, and all the emotions that produces.

What I mean is more like Freud's "primary narcissism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...narcissism

neat -- but the word still feels too mired in all the other negative connotations (when speaking of narcissism, the first thing i think of is narcissistic personality disorder, and the second is hipsters). there seem to be better words in the same language: self-love, self-preservation, philautia, etc.

actually, a good answer would be to just write down "primary narcissism" as the title. again, narcissism in itself has a lot of negative connotations, but washing them away with the title could definitely clear things up -- when someone else complains, you could just link them to Freud, and bam, it's the reader's deficiency! xD

[Achebe]

It might be interesting to replace the fist "Life" with DNA. The first four lines then state a pure scientific fact.
I'd leave "Life" unchanged in the second last line, allowing the word to encompass both the physical reality of the selfish gene which wants to continue itself, and the more abstract meaning of life as a lived experience that wants to pass on a family name, heritage, and countless other things beyond the grave.

[LunaDeLore]

Life doesn't mind my self-concern.
I became its golden girl when I
pushed past the last potentials, stealing
existence from my brother, my sister.
Life values nothing but its own continuation,
and I have borne a child.

(first title was, Like Mother, Like Daughter)
(second title was, Life, the Original Narcissist)

Lizz,

I like how you ended the poem with an immortal sense but I too feel somewhat uncomfortable with the title. That's not saying it doesn't work or that it isn't fine like it is.

Good write.

Luna

[RiverNotch]

....I wonder if this piece would make for a good short explanation of the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_th..._evolution

[Lizzie]

Ok, I'm going to think on this one a little bit. I need to think about my thoughts  

Thanks for the input everyone, and I'll hopefully address concerns with a re-write.

><

[shemthepenman]

i think i must have written about ten comments for this one. and lost them each time. so to try to sum up as quick as i can.

glad you changed the title. removed 'life' good choice. there are a some nit picky philosophical issues i have with this, but they seem by the by. there are two things that i would suggest. firstly, the first and fifth lines weaken the poem by being too declarative. it was troubling me, the word 'life': too abstract. but i couldn't think of anything to replace it. however, you merely need to remove the first lline completely and then replace 'its' with 'life' in the second line. so, it starts:

I became life's golden girl. . .

this is much better.

then the 5th line is a little more tricky. you could personalise it by "my life values nothing but. . ." yet the word 'life' here still seems a bit meaningless. are you your life or is life somehow magically and incomprehensibly attached to you? a philosophical nit pick i suppose. but still, i would provisionally change the 5th to 'my life. . .'.

so this is might be better:

The Original Narcissist

I became life's golden girl when I
pushed past the last potentials, stealing
existence from my brother, my sister.
My life values nothing but its own continuation,
and I have borne a child.

[Lizzie]

then the 5th line is a little more tricky. you could personalise it by "my life values nothing but. . ." yet the word 'life' here still seems a bit meaningless. are you your life or is life somehow magically and incomprehensibly attached to you? a philosophical nit pick i suppose.

It's not a nit pick, and this is why I have to think some more. I'm not sure that I really know what I'm trying to say in the end. I know how I FEEL.

I had a big poem brainstormed that fell through because it was incomprehensible, laughable, cliche, and boring -- not to mention, ridiculous -- and this bit is all that's left. But, without the surrounding context, I'm not sure that it's cohesive.

It's really meant to be both a defense and an indictment of my own self-concern in terms of how I move through my life. If someone's broken down on the side of the road, I'm not going to pull over and help them because I have my kids with me in the car. You know? And, just all the dead shark babies. All the dead babies, or ones that never existed!

I have existence guilt.

I don't think I can use your signature font, though. Maybe something a little punk-rock instead, but still feminine? Whatever that font is....

[shemthepenman]

then the 5th line is a little more tricky. you could personalise it by "my life values nothing but. . ." yet the word 'life' here still seems a bit meaningless. are you your life or is life somehow magically and incomprehensibly attached to you? a philosophical nit pick i suppose.

It's not a nit pick, and this is why I have to think some more. I'm not sure that I really know what I'm trying to say in the end. I know how I FEEL.

I had a big poem brainstormed that fell through because it was incomprehensible, laughable, cliche, and boring -- not to mention, ridiculous -- and this bit is all that's left. But, without the surrounding context, I'm not sure that it's cohesive.

It's really meant to be both a defense and an indictment of my own self-concern in terms of how I move through my life. If someone's broken down on the side of the road, I'm not going to pull over and help them because I have my kids with me in the car. You know? And, just all the dead shark babies. All the dead babies, or ones that never existed!

I have existence guilt.

I don't think I can use your signature font, though. Maybe something a little punk-rock instead, but still feminine? Whatever that font is....

i don't think you are giving yourself enough credit for expressing everything you've just said in this poem. which is why i suggested the cuts. i honestly think everything you want to say comes through without the first line, keep the title, and maybe reword the 5th line. cohesiveness maybe a problem, though, but only if you think so. for me it all sits together well. and apart from the minor changes i suggested, i really don't think you need change it.

and, yes, the idea is a little naive [i remember one of the first essays i wrote at university was on dawkins' 'the selfish gene' and how the concept of selfishness couldn't be applied to that which has no consciousness, or ability to make value judgements] -- however, the introduction of something personal, you have a child, takes it from the purely academic [sharks and whatnot] and frames it within a relatable context. i actually really like it. especially the last line. i just think you are not trusting yourself or your reader to put it together. and this is, i think, the mistake of some early into writing poetry. this whole business of making everything as clear as can be, it's like saying 'oh god! what if someone doesn't quite get precisely what i meant?' one has to live with the notion that you're probably not going to do that [unless you are writing a text book], and trust that you've done enough.

[Lizzie]

 i just think you are not trusting yourself or your reader to put it together. and this is, i think, the mistake of some early into writing poetry. this whole business of making everything as clear as can be, it's like saying 'oh god! what if someone doesn't quite get precisely what i meant?' one has to live with the notion that you're probably not going to do that [unless you are writing a text book], and trust that you've done enough.

Yeah, I do have a tendency to want to explain things to death, that is a theme with me. Kind of wanting to control how the poem is received. It's a sickness.

Here's the deal (I mean this in all honesty, but I don't think it will come as much of a shock): not everyone is as smart as you. So, no, I don't trust that John Q. Public is going to understand what I'm saying, and I don't want to limit my readership to just the gifted and intellectual.

Besides, I thought that the newbies have a tendency to under-explain thinking that everyone can read their thoughts?

I'm gratified that you liked the last line though, because the friends that I tested it out on didn't get that one at all. But, then......yeah.

But, yes, I do like your solution and I'll implement it as soon as I'm done giving the kids a bath.

[shemthepenman]

 i just think you are not trusting yourself or your reader to put it together. and this is, i think, the mistake of some early into writing poetry. this whole business of making everything as clear as can be, it's like saying 'oh god! what if someone doesn't quite get precisely what i meant?' one has to live with the notion that you're probably not going to do that [unless you are writing a text book], and trust that you've done enough.

Yeah, I do have a tendency to want to explain things to death, that is a theme with me. Kind of wanting to control how the poem is received. It's a sickness.

Here's the deal (I mean this in all honesty, but I don't think it will come as much of a shock): not everyone is as smart as you. So, no, I don't trust that John Q. Public is going to understand what I'm saying, and I don't want to limit my readership to just the gifted and intellectual.

Besides, I thought that the newbies have a tendency to under-explain thinking that everyone can read their thoughts?

I'm gratified that you liked the last line though, because the friends that I tested it out on didn't get that one at all. But, then......yeah.

But, yes, I do like your solution and I'll implement it as soon as I'm done giving the kids a bath.

not often do i have to defend a poem against the poet themselves. but seriously, if you think you need to make it as explicit as you have, then that's fine. and you're right, not everyone will have come across these concepts before [and it isn't to do with smartness, just what one has read--or forced to read. however, i don't think you are ever going to please all the people all the time [unless you're Dale, that boy's just got a way with words], so there is probably going to have to be some trade off. and of course, for me, the trade off is fuck the general public

anyway, bit drunk. not gonna lie. your poems super groovy and i likes it.

[Lizzie]

 i just think you are not trusting yourself or your reader to put it together. and this is, i think, the mistake of some early into writing poetry. this whole business of making everything as clear as can be, it's like saying 'oh god! what if someone doesn't quite get precisely what i meant?' one has to live with the notion that you're probably not going to do that [unless you are writing a text book], and trust that you've done enough.

Yeah, I do have a tendency to want to explain things to death, that is a theme with me. Kind of wanting to control how the poem is received. It's a sickness.

Here's the deal (I mean this in all honesty, but I don't think it will come as much of a shock): not everyone is as smart as you. So, no, I don't trust that John Q. Public is going to understand what I'm saying, and I don't want to limit my readership to just the gifted and intellectual.

Besides, I thought that the newbies have a tendency to under-explain thinking that everyone can read their thoughts?

I'm gratified that you liked the last line though, because the friends that I tested it out on didn't get that one at all. But, then......yeah.

But, yes, I do like your solution and I'll implement it as soon as I'm done giving the kids a bath.

not often do i have to defend a poem against the poet themselves. but seriously, if you think you need to make it as explicit as you have, then that's fine. and you're right, not everyone will have come across these concepts before [and it isn't to do with smartness, just what one has read--or forced to read. however, i don't think you are ever going to please all the people all the time [unless you're Dale, that boy's just got a way with words], so there is probably going to have to be some trade off. and of course, for me, the trade off is fuck the general public

anyway, bit drunk. not gonna lie. your poems super groovy and i likes it.

Yes, own worst critic = me.

It's funny that you should bring up Dale.... You gave him a rather scathing review of his poem "god" and you never went back to it. He asked you a question, and I think you deserve to explain to him why you called him lazy.

So, are you going to wake up tomorrow morning and wonder what you ever saw in this poem?

Oh, and it's polite to share the liquor, sir.