Skip to main content

untitled

whenever i haven't had enough time to dedicate to creative pursuits and, as a consequence, feel my creative instincts have withered somewhat, that's when i write poetry. (also, when i'm "excitable" or "edgy" or any of those other words that serve as a code for "i have no attention span".) i find it's a way of getting myself writing without having to burden what i'm doing with too much structure.

of course today, i set myself the challenge of writing a poem with rhyme, which is something i've never done before (or at least, not as an adult). and below is what i ended up with.

the end result is a little too similar in sound to sylvia plath's "daddy". subject-wise and tone-wise it's different enough and it's not like she's the only person to use that rhyme scheme (and even then, she uses it irregularly), but my own admiration for that poem is strong enough and well-known enough that denying its influence would be futile.

so i'm left with this little thing, which would probably remain in my vault untouched until the end of time except that i'm giving it a little portion of internet space in which to exist and be seen by others.

Scrutinised fully
A heart that’s unholy
A face made of lies
Smiles untrue
And whispers temptation
Conveys indignation
And promises nothing for you
For you
How unlucky now
To be you.

What once seemed endearing
Has always been veering
To a black sea
Of sludge and of goo
No wining and dining
Can quell the great pining
For the baby
Who changed into you
To you
The soul that calls out
Now to you.

That memory unfettered
Of a moment together
In passing before you outgrew
The pleasure of others
And saw they were smothered
In the lightless trench
Left to be you
Be you
The shelled snail we’ve
Come to call you.

That warbling song wafting
To your ears is the laughing
Of the visitors
Come to your zoo
But no amount of attention
Can forestall the destruction
Of the hologram
That claims to be true
Be true
Who passes to others
For you.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…