Hope is Also the Plucked Chicken

Both Moliere and Shakespeare grew up watching morality plays, fables whose stock characters were invariably named God, Death, Everyman, Good-Deeds, Angel, Knowledge, Beauty, Discretion, and Strength. Because they lived during the first flowering of public literacy they understood the indispensable healthiness of word flipping. Talk about nature’s bounty! Words were no longer merely to be received and absorbed. Can you imagine the joy of a 17th century adolescent forced to watch Everyman or The Second Shepherd’s Play, as he substituted Satan, Life, Neighbor, Sin, Second Rate Demons, Ignorance, Ugliness, Gossip, and Basic Human Weakness for the stock characters of religious drama? Of course you can. Almost no one who’s lived through a high school production of The Man of La Mancha has not done this.

One can do this with lines of poetry. Hope may be the thing with feathers but its also nubby like a plucked chicken. I don’t know about you but this is a good game for me. Optimism doesn’t have to be perfect. It can be homely. There are many jokes about this. The classic goes like this:

Three guys are walking down the sidewalk when they spot something in their path. Bob crouches down for a closer look.

“Looks like shit,” he says.

His friend leans in and sniffs it.

“Yeah. Smells like shit too.”

The third guy isn’t convinced. He pokes it with a stick, then touches it.

“Feels like shit.”

Finally, just to be totally sure, one of them tastes it.

“Yep. Tastes like shit too. I think it must be shit.”

Bob nods. “Yeah. Good thing we didn’t step in it.”

A useful form of hope is encoded in this. Its a hard life. But look. We didn’t step on the turd. BTW I like to imagine Fred Astaire dancing on poop. Such things help me. Anyway the trouble for millions of us is that optimism has been taken over by the self help industry Jorge Luis Borges once remarked that the war between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands was like watching two bald men fighting over a comb. 

I like to think of the bald man who still buys a comb.  

Halfway Up the Mountain

No one can describe the happiness of others. We’re like dogs barking at hieroglyphs when we talk about emotion. I’ve spent years studying poetry and I know its all a dream, this business of inter-personal connection and comprehension. I hardly know myself. About my life I recognize only a few bare details. I’ve a better chance calming the wind than understanding my life.

I take comfort from Winnie the Pooh: 

“Rabbit’s clever,” said Pooh thoughtfully.

“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit’s clever.”

“And he has Brain.”

“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit has Brain.”

There was a long silence.

“I suppose,” said Pooh, “that that’s why he never understands anything.” 

― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

Ah, understanding! The state we never achieve except in small ways. 

What is to be done? A few years ago, in a state of both loneliness and wonderment I wrote a poem about Heraclitus, “the dark one” who understood that time is a game with string. Back then I owned a horse named Luigi with my wife. Luigi was a rescued “off the track thoroughbred” and as he aged he was quite soulful in the way of horses. I can’t explain it. He was, in my view an equine phenomenologist. He was the incitement for the poem as one evening when it was late in the autumn I caught him looking—gazing really—out the window of his stall. I was also thinking of the poet Robert Bly who was enormously kind and supportive of me when I was young and confused. 

This is the title poem from the book: 

“Old Horse, What Is to Be Done?”

—for Robert Bly

I also want to live tonight 

My pockets filled with ghost silver 

The real coins I spent long ago 

There are weeks, whole months

When I read only the ancients

I mean the dark one the river compulsive 

A man who made clocks from string…

Time is a game played beautifully by children

Lately this is all I can think of

When I was very small I lived by a meadow 

You loved me and I wasn’t confused

**

Its the small way we always must take. 

In a July 1965 letter to Tomas Transformer, Robert Bly, writing of his trip to Norway says something which is easy to overlook and yet remarkable:

Dear Tomas,

Here we are, in the old Heimat! old Bleie, whose stones have been stained by Bleie-feet for ten thousand years or so, is still here, supporting apples and cows and some taciturn Norwegians. We are in a magnificent camping place at Lofthus, with the Sørfjord under us, and those wonderful mountains with snow across the fjord. Every day or so I start plunging up the mountain, get halfway up, and then sit down in a sheep-shed for the rest of the morning.”

The remarkable thing is of course plunging up the mountain, getting halfway, and then sitting alone in a sheep shed. The overlooked thing is how skillfully Bly has left the wind out of this story since wind is always present above the fjords. It’s the excision of a constellating factor that marks his best poems and which pulses, unspoken as a source of incitements these poems. Because Bly’s popularity on the lecture circuit was a consequence of his opposition to the Viet Nam War and later, his insistent views on spiritualism and psychoanalysis took prominence one can forget his fidelity to the quiet and often snapped connections between things—what I’m here calling “the wind left out.”

“The wind left out” means nothing is innocent. The grass growing unevenly under apple trees turns the poet’s casual glance from a train window to thoughts of death and dying—it’s in effect Whitman’s grass:

“Passing an Orchard by Train”

Grass high under apple trees.

The bark of the trees rough and sexual,

The grass growing heavy and uneven.

We cannot bear disaster, like

The rocks—

Swaying nakedly

In open fields.

One slight bruise and we die!

I know no one on this train.

A man comes walking down the aisle.

I want to tell him

That I forgive him, that I want him

To forgive me.

This jump from grass “heavy and uneven” to proleptic disaster, to the inevitability of death is not spelled out. The grass is Whitman’s hieroglyphic, suggesting burials or natural graves. Either way the leap to solid rocks, the suggestion that humans sway nakedly, vulnerable, derives from a Whitmanic incitement: “And now it seems to me the beautiful uncut hair of graves.” This is what I mean when I say the wind left out is not innocent. That wind may come from allusions or it can arrive by way of subjective emotional candor—feeling bruised by thoughts of dying and alone on a train the poet wants to tell a stranger that he forgives him, a Christ-like moment of despair and tenderness which in normal society must be left out. There’s a hint of theodicy here: a vindication of God’s goodness made manifest by lovingkindness. Notice that Bly doesn’t say the words. One thinks of Thoreau’s observation: “There are many fine things which we cannot say if we have to shout.” Bly fine tunes this to suggest the things we cannot say without intuition.

The details in poems multiply of our perceptions. That each thing may or not be true emanates from the phenomenological imagination. 

In his Introduction to Phenomenology Robert Sokolowski notes that where phenomenology is concerned: “there are no ‘mere’ appearances, and nothing is ‘just’ an appearance. Appearances are real; they belong to being. Things do show up. Phenomenology allows us to recognize and to restore the world that seemed to have been lost when we were locked into our own internal world by philosophical confusions. Things that had been declared to be merely psychological are now found to be ontological, part of the being of things. Pictures, words, symbols, perceived objects, states of affairs, other minds, laws, and social conventions are all acknowledged as truly there, as sharing in being and as capable of appearing according to their own proper style.” 1 (p. 34) 

Ontology is oddly enough (mixing metaphors) a proper style; lyric findings are constituent parts of being. Proleptic imagination anticipates surprise, refuting commonplace assumptions about our surroundings as a leaden intelligence. This is “the imagination” hardened and yet buoyant, like the figurehead of a sailing ship. Arthur Schopenhauer wrote: “The world in which a man lives shapes itself chiefly by the way in which he looks at it, and so it proves different to different men; to one it is barren, dull, and superficial; to another rich, interesting, and full of meaning. On hearing of the interesting events which have happened in the course of a man’s experience, many people will wish that similar things had happened in their lives too, completely forgetting that they should be envious rather of the mental aptitude which lent those events the significance they possess when he describes them; to a man of genius they were interesting adventures; but to the dull perceptions of an ordinary individual they would have been stale, everyday occurrences. This is in the highest degree the case with many of Goethe’s and Byron’s poems, which are obviously founded upon actual facts; where it is open to a foolish reader to envy the poet because so many delightful things happened to him, instead of envying that mighty power of phantasy which was capable of turning a fairly common experience into something so great and beautiful.” 2 (p. 9)

Excerpt From: Arthur Schopenhauer. “The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/CLZo6.l 

Proleptic conception is movement and aptitude. It assumes shapes by driving ahead. It is not, however, simply freedom in the service of pleasure—that Western idea of the self as a noble enjoyer of its surroundings or its body. The traditional Enlightenment “self” is a free acquirer of sights, objects, tastes, sounds, and is understood to be a discerning tourist, a Thomas Jefferson in Paris if you will. Speaking of the individual and his happiness Schopenhauer says: 

“We have already seen, in general, that what a man is contributes much more to his happiness than what he has, or how he is regarded by others. What a man is, and so what he has in his own person, is always the chief thing to consider; for his individuality accompanies him always and everywhere, and gives its color to all his experiences. In every kind of enjoyment, for instance, the pleasure depends principally upon the man himself. Every one admits this in regard to physical, and how much truer it is of intellectual, pleasure. When we use that English expression, “to enjoy one’s self,” we are employing a very striking and appropriate phrase; for observe—one says, not “he enjoys Paris,” but “he enjoys himself in Paris.” To a man possessed of an ill-conditioned individuality, all pleasure is like delicate wine in a mouth made bitter with gall. Therefore, in the blessings as well as in the ills of life, less depends upon what befalls us than upon the way in which it is met, that is, upon the kind and degree of our general susceptibility. What a man is and has in himself,—in a word personality, with all it entails, is the only immediate and direct factor in his happiness and welfare. All else is mediate and indirect, and its influence can be neutralized and frustrated; but the influence of personality never. This is why the envy which personal qualities excite is the most implacable of all,—as it is also the most carefully dissembled.” 3 (p. 24)

Excerpt From: Arthur Schopenhauer. “The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/CLZo6.l

One can think of Bly in his most delicate perceptions as resisting ill conditioned individuality. “I am alone yet someone else is with me.” Such positions are both a matter of individuality and a directed intelligence precisely because we are aware of the incorporeality of symbolism—whether we’re talking of Georg Trakl, or Wallace Stevens—the former can write: 

I am a shadow far from darkening villages. 

I drank the silence of God

Out of the stream in the trees.

Stevens writes: 

Twenty men crossing a bridge,

Into a village,

Are twenty men crossing twenty bridges,

Into twenty villages,

Or one man

Crossing a single bridge into a village.

The world is (entirely) our acquaintanceship with shadows and unfixed forms. Hazarded imagining is nearly always providential. We find by indirection the particles of revery. 

One may say this is true of all lyric poetry but in the case of Bly the poetics is always a gamble—the discoveries are impossible to have imagined before the poem itself; there is no framing of the scene, no anticipation of vision, but a sequence of astonishments. He relays them back to the reader much in the way a shaman tells a story of something discovered beyond the physical world. This is Romanticism but Bly is closer to Thoreau than Keats. He owes more to Walden than to Wordsworth. Returning to Schopenhauer the wind left out is all that constitutes personality. Thoreau looking down at the bedrock of the pond sees a natural fact but understands something of his soul. Bly writes:

“SOME NOVEMBER PRIVACY POEMS”

I am comforted

by a crack in dry ground

nearly smoothed over with winter dust.

How marvelous to look out and see

the boulders

that have been gloomy since the earth began

now with a faint dusting of snow.

Mist: no one on the other shore.

It may be the trees I see have consciousness

and this desire to weep comes from them.

Most birds have gone south.

Grass heels over in the wind.

The feminine hooves of the horse

stand side by side as he eats.”

Excerpt From

Collected Poems

Robert Bly

This desire to weep is a moral concern. The ethical life, which is concerned with honoring and preserving living things is nearly indescribable. As Tomas Transtromer once wrote: 

I come too seldom down to the water. But I am here now,

Among large stones with peaceful backs.

Stones which slowly migrated backwards up out of the waves.

Who are we when we’re set against natural facts? We say we are here. And the poems say this means something. Thoreau: “Draw lines through the length & breadth of the aggregate of a man’s particular daily experiences and volumes of life into his coves and inlets—and where they intersect will be the height or depth of his character.”

One can add that intersection is where the wind is left out.

Yeats and the Monkey Gland

I was going to write about William Butler Yeats and the famous monkey gland transplant but it was the monkey I wanted to think about. Where did he come from? Did he have a name? Presumably they had to kill him. Did they sing to him as he died or read a poem? Maybe there was a sting quartet in the operating theater. If the monkey died while listening to music what would have been played? Did anyone interview the musicians afterwards? Maybe there were no musicians. Maybe they used gramophone records.

It turns out Yeats didn’t have a monkey gland transplant and the story is an urban myth. I was really disappointed. I wanted a genuine monkey to eulogize. I wanted to think about the monkey’s youth. Of course youthfulness is the sub-text: in his late sixties Yeats wanted his sexual drive restored. Instead of transplanted monkey glands he had a kind of vasectomy. He had his operation in Harley Street, London in April 1934. The surgeon was Norman Haire who was England’s foremost practitioner of a rejuvenation procedure pioneered by Eugen Steinbach, an Austrian physiologist who believed that modifying the sex glands could restore youthfulness. His British follower Dr. Haire was briefly famous as the restorer of men and was known to have operated on two hundred patients. Apparently he also performed the procedure—really a kind of vasectomy—on H.G. Wells.

No monkey. No string quartet. My speculative morning walk almost ruined…but where did the monkey story come from? In the early 20th century a doctor named Serge Vonoroff transplanted slices of monkey and baboon testicles into impotent men. For a time he was in such demand he started his own monkey farm in Italy. So there were monkeys. But not for Yeats. By the way, the word “monkey” never appears in Yeats’s poems.

Boolean Cripple

Disability taken as a concept is a perfect Boolean figure. If X = the abnormal body, and Y = the normative body, then one may consider all embodiment is disjunction.

 

pastedGraphic.png

**

When I was a boy I watched a neighbor’s cat patiently eat a fish down to the bone. The cat allowed me, a legally blind usurper, to lie next to her as she took care of the material implications of endurance. Even before I knew the proper term, I understood algebra.

**

Now I have to climb into a near star. There isn’t much choice anyway. All embodiment is disjunction. Stars and bones are operands.

**

Leap: I love those lines by Dorothy Allison, from her memoir One or Two Things I Know for Sure:

“My sisters’ faces were thin and sharp, with high cheekbones and restless eyes, like my mama’s face, my aunt Dot’s, my own. Peasants, that’s what we are and always have been. Call us lower orders, the great unwashed, the working class, the poor, proletariat, trash, lowlife and scum.”

**
The associativity of “scum” is what’s called a “monotone” law in Boolean Algebra. Just thought this worth sharing…

**

We are old friends, the crippled body and I.

I’m counting all the distributive names of identity while sailing to my star.

D.H. Lawrence and the Blind Kid

I fell in love with D. H. Lawrence as a high school student. His poems reached me first; then the essays. I don’t know if it matters what kind of reader I was back then. We spend so much time pre-fronting our subjectivities nowadays but yes I was legally blind. I read what I could get via long playing records and tapes from the Library of Congress. I listened slowly and in more than ordinary solitude. (It wasn’t possible in those days to hear a record while sitting under a tree.) I received my Lawrence in dark rooms.

When I entered college in 1973 I found no one was teaching Lawrence. He was considered a kook. At best he was a polemicist for psychoanalysis and at worst a pornographer but in any case professors assured me he was nothing more. If you wanted an English moralist you were instructed to read Hardy.

The photo on my freshman I.D. shows a boy-child who was 5′ 6" tall and weighed 102 pounds. I’d barely survived a bout of adolescent anorexia. I started reading poetry in the hospital. I read this:

“The Uprooted"

People who complain of loneliness must have lost something,
lost some living connection with the cosmos, out of themselves,
lost their life-flow
like a plant whose roots are cut.
And they are crying like plants whose roots are cut.
But the presence of other people will not give them new, rooted connection
it will only make them forget.
The thing to do is in solitude slowly and painfully put forth new roots
into the unknown, and take root by oneself.

Of course I read all the poems of Lawrence I could find in recorded formats. "The Ship of Death" with its Egyptian incense, "The Snake" and the lesser known "Almond Blossom":

“Trees suffer, like races, down the long ages.
They wander and are exiled, they live in exile through
long ages
Like drawn blades never sheathed, hacked and gone black,
The alien trees in alien lands: and yet
The heart of blossom,
The unquenchable heart of blossom!”

If you’re lonely by circumstance and you’re in "alien lands" then you’ve got to make something of it. You must believe the "unquenchable heart of blossom" is the signature of all things.

Lawrence was disabled. Like so many people born in the latter part of the 19th century he had tuberculosis. He was born on September 11, 1885. He was ten years younger than Thomas Mann who’s canonical novel "The Magic Mountain" offers the best description of the social psychology of TB.

No one has written with greater lyric urgency and intelligence than Lawrence about the side by side flames of soul and death. And yes eventually they become one flame but our work is different for now. We must adore them both:

“Medlars and Sorb-Apples"

I love you, rotten,
Delicious rottenness.

I love to suck you out from your skins
So brown and soft and coming suave,
So morbid, as the Italians say.

What a rare, powerful, reminiscent flavour
Comes out of your falling through the stages of decay:
Stream within stream.”

Jeffrey Meyers writes in his excellent biography of Lawrence:

“Lawrence’s life and character were strongly influenced by the progress of his disease. He had (at various times) all the symptoms of consumption, which intensified toward the end of his life. He suffered from irregular appetite, loss of weight, emaciation, facial pallor, flushed cheeks, unstable pulse rates, fever, night sweats, shortness of breath, wheezing, chest pains, frequent colds, severe coughing, spitting of blood, extreme irritability and sexual impotence. The toxemia of Lawrence’s lungs influenced the state of his mind and provoked febrile rages. As John Keats had told Fanny Brawne, emphasizing the gulf between the sick and the well: “A person in health as you are can have no conception of the horrors that nerves and a temper like mine go through.” Witter Bynner wrote of Lawrence’s stoic attitude but uncontrollable anger: “He had never given me any evidence of his illness by complaint in words or faltering in spirit but only by bursts and acts of temper.”

One supposes Bynner wasn’t much of a reader when it came to Lawrence’s poetry since poem after poem stills us, stands us on the by turns dark, then evanescent unseeable line between living and dying; between apprehension and the vatic. Here’s the end of
“Medlars and Sorb-Apples":

“Sorb-apples, medlars with dead crowns.
I say, wonderful are the hellish experiences,
Orphic, delicate
Dionysos of the Underworld.
A kiss, and a spasm of farewell, a moment’s orgasm of rupture,
Then along the damp road alone, till the next turning.
And there, a new partner, a new parting, a new unfusing into twain,
A new gasp of further isolation,
A new intoxication of loneliness, among decaying,
frost-cold leaves.”

"Parting, partner, infusing, twain," "a new gasp of further isolation."

This is conceivably the greatest description of disability as lived experience at the center of the body as ever you’ll find.

Each morning I gather mosses…

Each morning I gather mosses, even in January, even when bending to customary tasks. Washing dishes, I touch the moist earth. It’s a game I play to keep alive.

**

Generally, I think human beings would be better creatures if they talked with their feet.

**

Go on. Push the child you once were into the deep end. The kid will do fine.

**

A memory: just before heart surgery (mine), one of the hospital interns who spoke no English tried talking to me using a translation app on his iPhone. But I couldn’t read it. I was thinking about the probability of death. And we couldn’t talk.

**

Now give me that damn candy and leave me alone!

**

Trying to live well and grieving all the time. You’re one of them, those others.

**

You know all those “top ten” lists. Here’s a new one—top ten dream clots:

  1. Talking to a dead mother on the phone while a dead father stands over your shoulder and tells you what to say…

  2. Buying strange bread in a foreign land with your hands tied behind your back and a gag in your mouth…

  3. Old acquaintances gathered in a gentle place, a room with soft lighting, and all the old wounds and wrongs have been forgiven. Trouble is, we were in a funeral home. And one of us, probably me, had tracked dog shit all over the fancy carpets.

  4. You’re pretending to see as you did during childhood. You’re in the softball game. Nothing you do will lead to a good outcome. But you want so desperately to fit in.

  5. A train and you’re on it. Perfect. And your uncle who was sinister in life is next to you talking about vodka.

  6. Dreaming
    Of the little girl
    Who was beside me
    In the infant hospital
    All those years ago
    Blind children
    Side by side
    Her singing

  7. Savage laughter
    You see yourself in mirrors
    Them ovoid ass bad pants
    A mannequin’s poor dream

  8. Mozart

    Improbable yes but I dreamt of him
    And though we were in a room
    Rain fell and it was beautiful
    Water coursing down the walls

    “We only get so much”
    He said—“opera is for the young”
    “String quartets, for dying”
    He was there alright

I tend to not have nightmares. My dreams are odd though. They tend to be like Elizabeth Bishop’s poem about waiting for the dentist.

1.

I recognized they weren’t living men
There was a blind man there, not me,
And he had a dog, not mine
In the cafe
With red curtains
My twin brother
Who died at birth…

Yeats and Ruth Benedict

“Experience, contrary to common belief, is mostly imagination.”

  —Ruth Benedict

You can cross the snowy fields and see castles and diamonds because imagination is there. In Scandinavia they call it troll power. You know the world as trolls do. This is why children can’t answer the question “what did you do today?” And its why poets can’t reply honestly when asked “where did you get that idea?”
When imagination rules experience we’re at a loss for words, at least at first. Later we grow up—the editor inside us who’s an adult tells us experience is not of the imagination at all. In general this is what MFA programs do. The study of creative writing is good for the delete button. When Yeats writes of faeries he’s telling us to resist this. In his 1901 essay “Magic” he says:

“I believe in the practice and philosophy of what we have agreed to call magic, in what I must call the evocation of spirits, though I do not know what they are, in the power of creating magical illusions, in the visions of truth in the depths of the mind when the eyes are closed; and I believe in three doctrines, which have, as I think, been handed down from early times, and been the foundations of nearly all magical practices. These doctrines are —
That the borders of our minds are ever shifting, and that many minds can flow into one another, as it were, and create or reveal a single mind, a single energy.
That the borders of our memories are as shifting, and that our memories are a part of one great memory, the memory of Nature herself.
That this great mind and great memory can be evoked by symbols.”

Yeats had a different view of symbols than the Constructivists or Surrealists. He took them quite literally. The poet Kathleen Raine wrote: “For Yeats magic was not so much a kind of poetry as poetry a kind of magic, and the object of both alike was evocation of energies and knowledge from beyond normal consciousness.”

“A kind of magic” begs the question “what kind of magic?” Only Yeats could answer this and he spent his life working to do so. But at its core he believed the magic resided outside the mind. The poet’s job was to translate nascent signals of mystical experience into ordinary language. He loved Newton’s alchemy; Hermes Trismegistus; most of all he loved the story tellers in the Irish countryside—that place and culture vanishing before his eyes. What kind of magic? Preservational. Yes belief is mostly imagination. And the evocation of spirits though we can’t say who they are. This shouldn’t stop poets from trying.

On the Ableism River

A woman sneered at me not long ago. We were on an airplane. Her seat was next to mine. Spotting the guide dog at my feet she pitched a fit. She told everyone within earshot that she was allergic to dogs. She needed immediate attention. She demanded a seat in First Class. She was, as they say, a “hot mess” and I tried to empathize—who am I to say she didn’t have allergies or that this wasn’t a deep inconvenience for her? Yet her nastiness was the thing. She was affronted by the very idea that I was “there” in that space. She sizzled with contempt.

If you’re disabled you know all about the contempt sizzlers. As Mark Twain would say, “you’ve met them on the river.”

**

More about the river…

The river is god itself. Not your ideas about it. Not your yearnings. It goes about its business, moving the glory of creation wherever it needs to go. Children sit on the banks dreaming. This is proper prayer.

The ableists’ river is also god itself. Its where self-contempt goes to bathe. And here come the cripples, floating down stream like loaves of bread…

**

You see, some days a cripple just doesn’t know what to say.
River. Bread, Children. Dreams. God in the mix. And sad strangers who can’t speak our language.

**

I wish that woman with her dog allergy well. I don’t think she had an allergy at all. It was in her voice. Studies show you can spot liars by their intonations. Hers said: “I’m a nasty, self absorbed wart. And I want you to pay attention to me.”

The dog just slept.

This morning I feel strongly that her tribe has taken the reins of our government.

A few years back I attended a speech by two senators who were instrumental in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act: Tom Harkin and Bob Dole. A Democrat and a Republican. They spoke about the bipartisanship that made the ADA possible. But then Bob Dole said something that made my ears prick up: “Today’s GOP would never support this.” The Tea Party was in vogue. Hatred of cooperation was the new rule. This was before Trump.

This morning we’re seeing the GOP controlled House fresh off of voting to eliminate Medicaid and other crucial programs for veterans, the disabled, the poor, and the elderly, flat out crowing about their wonderful new bill.


They have a collective allergy.

As I grow older my hands open more slowly…

My hands are today helpless. I used them to vote against fascism just last week. It was foolish of my hands to think they had power. Today my hands are grieving and their grief differs from that of the head or heart: my hands are those of a sailor who desperately wants to put the ship on the right course—hands that are educated, seasoned, and moral.

As I grow older my hands open more slowly. Maybe they know more? What’s empty turns its face to us, said a good poet, long ago. My hands read Braille poorly. My hands which have touched Marcel Duchamp’s bicycle wheel. Hands that pull the voting lever for freedom.

There are several good books about hands. One of my favorites is “Victorian Hands: The Manual Turn in Nineteenth Century Body Studies” edited by Peter J. Capuano and Sue Zemka. Hands are transformed by the industrial revolution—they become vulnerable instruments seemingly designed through evolution to operating machines. They are all too often dismembered. Hands become “throw aways” as much as anything else.

My hands are today helpless. I used them to vote against fascism just last week. It was foolish of my hands to think they had power. Today my hands are grieving and their grief differs from that of the head or heart: my hands are those of a sailor who desperately wants to put the ship on the right course—hands that are educated, seasoned, and moral.

What about the hands of those who voted for fascism you say. These are the descendent hands of industrial labor, desperately caught up in the machines of their own doom. They voted, essentially, for “throw away” hands.

My favorite poem about hands is by Jane Hirshfield

A hand is not four fingers and a thumb.
Nor is it palm and knuckles,
not ligaments or the fat’s yellow pillow,
not tendons, star of the wristbone, meander of veins.

A hand is not the thick thatch of its lines
with their infinite dramas,
nor what it has written,
not on the page,
not on the ecstatic body.

Nor is the hand its meadows of holding, of shaping—
not sponge of rising yeast-bread,
not rotor pin’s smoothness,
not ink.

The maple’s green hands do not cup
the proliferant rain.
What empties itself falls into the place that is open.
A hand turned upward holds only a single, transparent question.
Unanswerable, humming like bees, it rises, swarms, departs.

A Morning Journal About Monsters

If you think you’re the monster that’s alright
If you think you’re alright that’s monstrous
Let’s telephone the monster
“If you want to speak with the monster, press one…”

**
I was raised on moonbeams that came through a small window…

**

“What would an ocean be without a monster lurking in the dark? It would be like sleep without dreams.”

― Werner Herzog

**

Up early rummaging through the medieval stronghold of my skull
But I do it with confidence like a chess master

**

If you think you’re the monster that’s alright
It worked for Nietzsche

**

Sometimes when I call the monster I get Werner Herzog

**

The joke about the freak show is the monsters were at the edge of the fairground thriving on their emptiness

The “freaks” were just birds with damaged wings…
**

Oh come see the monster
Hurry…one slight bruise and he dies…

**

Michel Foucault thought he understood how monsters are made
He imagined they came from architecture and the bourgeois tendency to shuffle papers
He was a child of his age
Monsters need no scripts
They make and remake themselves from slivers of imaginary glass

**

Once while teaching at the University of Iowa I told graduate students that 90 per cent of the imagination is bad for you. I’m revising this to 95 per cent.

Eventually the monster’s tears turn into spectacles…