Suzanne wrote:The sentence structure of the title can send a reader into a defensive stance if they are not part of the referred to group.
No, sorry Suzanne, but - just to clarify - this has nothing to do with it in my view. I didn't adopt a "defensive stance". And if I did, so what? Any poem that produces defensiveness is probably doing a good job, in one way or another. A poem's "message" doesn't have to be acceptable to the reader for the (poetically mature) reader to like it. One could argue (and many have) that a poem should actively SEEK to be disagreed with; to produce a defensive reaction. But, another topic.
My dislike of the title is based not on political issues, but poetic ones. I find this title, and it's entire genre, to be ugly in both a literal sense (it's long, clunky and unpleasant to the eye) and a figurative sense (it attempts to pre-figure the piece; spell it out; summarise the "point" in a highly literalistic way. It's hitting the reader over the head with an iron bar, and shouting "THIS IS WHAT I AM SAYING!!!"
It's an approach that works for some, and David is among their ranks, quite clearly. I'm merely saying, that's fine, but it doesn't work for me. I look for subtlety in titles, as well as poems themsleves.
As I said, I quite like the poem, though.