The most important idea in the poem is that of truth - a word, which appears as “trooth” three, times, as well as one “troo”. The speaker in the poem with whom the poet seems to sympathise suggests that listeners or viewers trust a speaker with an Received Pronunciation or “BBC” accent. He claims that viewers would be mistrustful of a newsreader with a regional accent, especially one like Scots, which has working-class or even unfairly criminal associations in the minds of some people.
The poem is humorous because the accent is a contrast of the BBC’s accent, and challenges our prejudices. Leonard may be a little naïve in his argument, however Received Pronunciation gives credibility to people in authority or to newsreaders, because it shows them not to favour one area or region - it is meant to be neutral and normal. The Received Pronunciation speaker appears educated because he or she is aware and has dropped distinctive local or regional peculiarities. Though everyone does not speak Received Pronunciation, it is widely understood, much more so than any regional accent in the UK. Tom Leonard's Scottish accent would confuse many listeners, as would any marked regional voice. Received Pronunciation has the merit of clarity.
In conclusion the message that the author is trying to put across is that the writer can go against the laws of writing and still communicate a message. The fundamental of this is that we have been educated to believe that truth can only come in a particular form. However he has gone against this and illustrated that he can convey a message to the reader.
Overall, my first initiative of this poem is that it appears to be very confusing. Personally I had to read it a couple of times and analyse what’s the message being put across, eventually I realised that we as a society are too judgmental and prejudice we only have to know the surface of that person and we assume that we know that persons lifestyle.
The difference between the authors is that Tom Leonard is trying to achieve a social statement, contrasting to Imtiaz Dharker who is trying to achieve a political statement.
The poem is effective towards the reader the poem is infused with his own voice, by writing in his colloquial way, forces the reader to read the word aloud, or imagine how they would sound spoken. The reader gets a better understanding of what the author is saying after they have read it. Not only does Leonard voice come trough very strongly, the form of the particular poem “ Unrelated Incidents” adds to the overall effect Leonard is trying to achieve namely by breaking up the flow of the writing, the reader is forced to ponder.
Blessing
This poem is about water: in a hot country, where the supply is inadequate, the poet sees water as a gift from a god. When a pipe bursts, the flood which follows is like a miracle, but the “blessing” is ambiguous - it is such accidents which at other times cause the supply to be so little.
The opening lines of the poem compare human skin to a seedpod, drying out till it cracks. Why? Because there is “never enough water”. Ms. Dharker asks the reader to imagine it dripping slowly into a cup. When the “municipal pipe” (the main pipe supplying a town) bursts, it is seen as unexpected good luck (a “sudden rush of fortune”), and everyone rushes to help themselves. But the end of the poem reminds us of the sun, which causes skin to crack “like a pod” - today's blessing is tomorrow's drought. The poet celebrates the joyous sense with which the people, especially the children, come to life when there is, for once, more than “enough water”.
The poem has a single central metaphor - the giving of water as a “blessing” from a “kindly god”. The religious metaphor is repeated, as the bursting of the pipe becomes a “rush of fortune”, and the people who come to claim the water are described as a “congregation” (people gathering for worship).
The water is a source of other metaphors - fortune is seen as a “rush” (like water rushing out of the burst pipe), and the sound of the flow is matched by that of the people who seek it - their tongues are a “roar”, like the gushing water. Most tellingly of all, water is likened to “silver” which “crashes to the ground”. In India (where Ms. Dharker lives), in Pakistan (from where she comes) and in other Asian countries, it is common for wealthy people to throw silver coins to the ground, for the poor to pick up. The water from the burst pipe is like this - a short-lived “blessing for a few”. But there is no regular supply of “silver”. And finally, the light from the sun is seen as “liquid” - yet the sun aggravates the problems of drought.
The poem is written in unrhymed lines, mostly brief, some of which run on, while others are end-stopped, creating an effect of natural speech. The poet writes lists for the people (“man woman/child”) and the vessels they bring (“. ..with pots/brass, copper, aluminium,/plastic buckets”). The poem appeals to the reader's senses, with references to the dripping noise of water (as if the hearer is waiting for there to be enough to drink) and the flashing sunlight.
We have a clear sense of the writer's world - in her culture water is valued, as life depends upon the supply: in the west, we take it for granted. This is a culture in which belief in “a kindly god” is seen as natural, but the poet does not express this in terms of any established religion (note the lower-case “g” on “god”). She suggests a vague and general religious belief, or superstition. The poem ends with a picture of children - “naked” and “screaming”. The sense of their beauty (“highlights polished to perfection”) is balanced by the idea of their fragility, as the “blessing sings/over their small bones”.
