The Threshold

Self-deceit

You approach and in my mind a storm begins to rage: a tide of warm emotion is stemmed into a trickle of cold civility, a passionate gaze is transformed into a mere passing glance, an affectionate smile is contorted into an inane grin, the truth is hidden and the lie believed, "I love you" becomes "I like you." "Hi" "Oh, hi." You walk on by, and in an instant the panic dies. The ruffled waters melt into a slow gentle swell and inwardly I cry.

B. M. Kay.

Until the Real Tomorrow

One day One long day, I shall climb to the highest peak of the hills of gold, and I shall peer down into the valley of my love. Maybe, I shall see the dormant sun. Maybe, I shall see the dormant Kings of the mountains. And maybe I shall see the awakening. One day One long day, I shall climb to the highest peak of the hills of gold, and I shall listen. Maybe, I shall hear the call of the bugles from the rugged horizon, beckoning me to come and join the battle. Maybe, I shall hear the echo of myself crying. And maybe the wind will carry me the voices of the awakening.

One day when I have laid down my sword and armour, I shall climb to the highest peak of the hills of gold, and leaving time behind me. I shall run down the slopes of today into the valley of my love. I shall clasp her hand and we shall wander until the real tomorrow.

W. E. Andrew.

Silence, not one sound, Only wind whispering As the red fiery glow dies. Love is silent. No peace tonight, No protection Except the nest. It sees no feeling, No love, Nothing but taste. The birds are frightened— For death Is in these feline burning eyes. I. A. Nichols.

These three poems were read at the Poetry I Folk evenings in aid of he Drama Centre Appeal in May and were first published in "Changes", I he collection of lyrics and poems performed at those evenings.

Trois poemes sur l'emploi, comme neutre sujet, du pronom [d'apres Jacques Pt-evert]

Un poime tres comme faut—il s'agit d'elle.

II fait froid, chaud, mauvais, beau. Mais elle n'est ri en.

It pleuvra pleut et il a plu, mais pleuvrait-elle? fera beau, il fait beau, et il a fait beau, mais ferait-elle beau? 69

Ferait-elle mauvais? Ferait-elle froid? Serait-elle tot? Ou serait-elle tard?

Ou serait-elle comme lui?

Elle pleut, Elle fait froid, Non, pas du tout; elle n'est rien. Il faut qu'"il" s'emploie. R. J. T. Wilson, IV A.

est-ce le mien?

Il est tress tard, Mais it faut que je decouvre Qui est 'il'? est-ce un malheur ou une maladie? 'II,' est-ce un fant8me ou une farce? est-ce un professeur de francais? `II,' est-ce une expression impersonnelle? Je ne sais pas. Aidez-moi, si elle vous plait! Peut-titre qu' "il" est "il".

R. Marsland, IV A.

Parce qu'il le faut

Il pleut, il fait mauvais, Il neige, il fait du soleil, Il faut, ll vaut, Il est sept heures, il fait du brouillard, puis, il fait beau, froid, du vent, et chaud, Il est tard, il est tot, Il se fait tard, Il y aura;— Toujours Pourquoi pas on?

Ou elle? Ou ils? Ou elks? ELLE fait mauvais? ON fait du soleil? Pourquoi il? Parce qu'il le faut!

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

"You shall not kill." This, like the other Commandments, was an order. An order, really, that relies for its power on being utterly unquestionable. But surely the best order is the one that will bear questioning—and the obvious question here is "Why should we not kill?"

If I had been born and raised in a very primitive South American

tribe, I might have grown up to expect to kill someone. It might be a tradition and a right to chop someone's head off and carry it around with me in a little bag. Conversely, brought up as I am, I would regard this as absolutely wrong and abhorrent. Yet both views would be acceptable in their respective societies, even if they are not the actual norm.

And this is the whole crux of the question of morality, or good and bad, right and wrong. The ability to maintain oneself decently whilst at the , same time contributing your part to the smooth running of your society, and others'. But that still leaves the question of how good and bad are decided. Going back to me, the primitive South American head-hunter, and me, the "civilised" European, the answer is majority. There are more

"civilised" people than there are uncivilised. Consequently, if the majority

does something, that thing is done more, so it is right, and most of the time, good. So, even in these days of minority power, we find that good and bad is decided by the majority. But originally, even the majority's

I decision was decided by a minority—a few thoughtful intellectuals at , different points in time, maybe thousands of years ago. However, even their decision could be incorrect. They were very probably influenced by writings or by other people, so again they are not really able to judge good and bad. I wholeheartedly agree with Shakespeare when he says thinking about something makes it good or bad. But whether, even after thought, something is good or bad, is still a debatable question. I believe that none of us can really judge things from certain viewpoints. So get rid of these viewpoints and we will be able to judge what is good or bad. But that is impossible. From the day we are born we are influenced in some way —so our ability to judge objectively is immediately taken away. Even if we are brought up perfectly to do all the right things and none of the wrong, then we are still unable to judge, because we have been condi-

tioned, and have never had to find out for ourselves. So then experience is the answer. If something enables us to survive, then it is good. If it destroys us, then it is bad. That would seem natural for survival, but is survival our only aim? Do survival and decency go together? I think not. So that eliminates that proposal. But I think we have already tried to find our judge, and our demands would have been these: a person or thing that was absolutely "neutral" in viewpoint, and who was not susceptible to influencing, yet who knew our problems. No such thing could exist on earth, so it had to come from outside. And tlhat judge was what we now know as God. He gave us a basic code of behaviour and because he was said to be all-powerful we accepted them as right, and good. But are they good? Is what he forbids bad? Can we ever know what is truly good or bad, even by thought? J. R. Markwick-Smith (2nd Year).