Down With Fanatics!
If I had my way with violent men
I'd simmer them in oil,
I'd fill a pot with bitumen
And bring them to the boil.
I execrate the terrorist
And those who harbour him,
And if I weren't a moralist
I'd tear them limb from limb.
Fanatics are an evil breed
Whom decent men should shun;
I'd like to flog them till they bleed,
Yes, every mother's son,
I'd like to tie them to a board
And let them taste the cat,
While giving praise, oh thank the Lord,
That I am not like that.
For we should love the human kind,
As Jesus taught us to,
And those who don't should be struck blind
And beaten black and blue;
I'd like to roast them in a grill
And listen to them shriek,
Then break them on the wheel until
They turned the other cheek.
Commentary
My thanks to Marcus Bales, for suggesting (and introducing me to) today’s poem:
A delightfully sly poem; I love the way Woddis skewers both fanatics and the self-righteous hypocrites who would like to teach them a lesson. And he does it with such wicked relish… mmm, lovely.
— Thomas
Minstrels Links
We once ran a week of “hate rhymes”:
Poem #876, I Wish My Tongue were a Quiver – Louis McKay
Poem #877, I Do Not Love Thee, Dr Fell – Tom Brown
Poem #878, Frustration – Dorothy Parker
Other magnificent rants on the Minstrels include:
Poem #185, A Glass of Beer – David O’Bruadair
Poem #266, The Litany for Doneraile – Patrick O’Kelly
Poem #840, The Travellers’ Curse after Misdirection – Robert Graves
Show 3 commentsHide comments
From the Wondering Minstrels mailing list, 1999–2008.
Dfswilliams · 8 May 2002
Nice to see a poem by the late Roger Woddis, late laureate of the British left-wing weekly The New Statesman. It was once pointed out that his name was an anagram of “God’s Worried” and this was used as the title of a collection of his verse
David Williams
Isaac Meyers · 9 May 2002
It would work much better, I think, without the last verse, which surprisingly doesn’t contain the line, “I, the poet, would like to take a giant anvil and paint the word “HYPOCRITE” on it in glowing orange letters and drop it on the heads of this poem’s speakers-the hypocritical blighters.” (Of course, that would have been hard to rhyme.) The poem lacks the subtlety of thought needed to make an important moral distinction: Non-New-Statesman-reading types may fantasize about torturing “the terrorist and those who harbour him” – but terrorists actually do that kind of stuff. We normally damn hypocrites for speaking good and doing evil, not for speaking indignation and doing nothing. Unless Woddis seriously believed that uncharitable opinions are just as bad as violence (and it’s quite possible he did), he is overreaching in his satire. He invites anyone who doubts that equivalence to doubt the authority of his entire poem. That makes the poem lose a lot of its moral force.
For a contrast, see Rev. Thwackum in Tom Jones, who claims to be merely stern and righteous, but actually waits for Tom to misbehave just so that he can whip him. That’s hypocrisy about violence. I wish I could think of a parallel example from poetry, but none comes to mind.
Regards,
Isaac Meyers
Aine Ni Mhairtin · 12 February 2003
If Isaac Meyers seriously believes that uncharitable opinions are not as bad as violence, I would refer him to the opinions of another Reverend Gentleman” i.e. the Rev. Ian Paisley which, although not directly perpetrating violence, have been the instigation and perpetuation for violence over a considerable period of years. Since Mr Meyers seems to have slept through same period, just typing “Northern Ireland” into any search engine e.g. Google, should elicit any number of examples of uncharitable opinions - and their outcome.
For those familiar with the said “Rev. Paisley” just read the poem aloud in his voice!