And what had we decided? Oh,
a great number of things – this was
the problem, this out-stretching
of our wills past time and the very skin
that should keep us well-enough
informed of ideas like limits.
If only we had not evolved past
the days of ideas: action
was what mattered, everything
else just cloud and waiting, and we
were done with waiting.
Some ideas hung around like ghosts
or model homes, unsubstantial things
that we assumed were real or else
were always this light and fragile.
One was revolution. Another was
justice. We wore them like the robes
of kings we had never seen except
in great myths and we sung their
liturgies as if we knew exactly
what we meant but at the end of the day
only our throats were sore: the blood
was still threading the course of our
bodies, the bones were yet intact,
and our homes shown like lacquered
paper, glowing warm and incandescent.
Nothing was lost except for what we
had not lost. And that, too, was gone.
Tomorrow we will be angry – or how
could we remain so few seconds before
every exhalation? We will pretend to live
in brighter days where ideas enfleshed
the spare forests we will devastate
in our quiet studies and we will call
our imagination passion, and later,
the most important attempt of all.
And in a magnificent frenzy of every
tension scraping its plate with every
other brittle mockup of emotion
we will strive and yearn and finally
beneath the stars we still see through
our own putrefaction we will climax
and fall asleep.
Tim...is this about me? Twenty-somethings? Generation Twitter?
ReplyDeleteI struggled with the "we" in this poem, but mostly because I struggle with "we" in general. I get preoccupied with identifying who the "we" is. It also reminds me of married couples who always speak in "we." I am probably stuck in memoir mire, but I always want more identification on who is part of the "we" and if it's fair to have one source be the voice for a larger group. Is it fair to damn and be damned at the same time?
In your poem, I am concerned over the "we" because there's an accusation in the poem, there's judgment. So is it you and the reader? Is it everyone? These are probably unfair questions to ask, but it's what is tripping me on this poem.
There's really beautiful writing in this poem. I like how you introduce the concepts of creation and destruction in many of the same lines: "where ideas enfleshed the spare forest we will devastate in our quiet studies and we will call our imagination.." My favorite part is in the second stanza, starting from "We wore them like the robes..." Really beautiful sentences and images that seem to bleed into each other.
Sorry for this rambling and mostly unhelpful comment.
Nina, thanks for these comments. Great questions all around (I don't think there really Are unfair questions from a serious reader, so no worries there).
ReplyDeleteI think the plural, all-encompassing pronoun is something I picked up from Ashberry and something I have time and again experimented with. For me, I often find it suggesting an inclusiveness that is theoretically impersonal and holistic, but in practice can become rather intimate in tying the reader and writer together. I think it also aids in creating the kind of nostalgia and angst this poem comes from, but in reality I think "Fin de siecle" which I posted after is more of what I was going for - this poem became a bit too accusatory and a bit less self-implicating.
I think one can damn and be damned at the same time, and that is a lot of what I am going for here - almost a chronicling of cultural failure within which I am a part.
I think there is a quieter, sadder poem here than the one I wrote, and I agree with what you said in our conversation yesterday that I should look into deflection as a more emotive technique. Thanks for the thoughts and comments - they were really helpful and I will certainly be putting them to use in the next draft.