SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: NOEL SLOBODA

Sloboda Photo
SELF-PORTRAIT AS A RACCOON
By Noel Sloboda

It would be the same
without this mask:
nobody would be glad

to see me naked, slicing open
bulging bags of garbage,
shoving my snout into rotten tree trunks

after sweet vermin within.
It would be the same—
my icy eyes piercing

the gloaming, only to be
melted away by the fires
of dawn. Every time

I look ahead, I see myself
splashed across some roadside
or starved while I remain

caught in a steel trap,
always dying too young
to go completely grey.

So I leave my face
swathed in darkness
that is not sleep.


(Today’s poem originally appeared in Rattle and appears here today with permission from the poet.)

Noel Sloboda’s work has recently appeared in Redactions, Salamander, and Modern Language Studies. He is the author of the poetry collections Shell Games (2008) and Our Rarer Monsters (2013) as well as several chapbooks. Sloboda has also published a book about Edith Wharton and Gertrude Stein. He teaches at Penn State York.

Editor’s Note: “It would be the same / without this mask.” What a brilliant entry into today’s piece, following the setup of the poem’s title. How much we have to think about as soon as we enter, even before the vivid picture the poet paints, even before his masterful coupling of image and alliteration. How deeply we are set within the scene, and how thin the veil between animal and man.

Want to read more by and about Noel Sloboda?
Noel Sloboda’s official website
Buy Our Rarer Monsters from sunnyoutside press
Buy Circle Straight Back from Červená Barva Press

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: SAGE COHEN

Sage Cohen 6
By Sage Cohen:

WHAT’S WRONG WITH

making love to your
husband who no longer

lives with you the night
before you leave for your

weekend retreat just
because he, having

agreed to overlap your
early departure to care

for your small son, appears
in the bathroom naked

and erect as you sit steeping.
What’s wrong with slipping

under the lifted wing he has made
of the covers, against the breastbone

of the bird your two bodies make.
What’s wrong with finding him

more beautiful at this distance:
lens adjusted to the immediate

taste of his tongue that has become
its own language since leaving you.

What’s wrong with taking him in
the way you would a galaxy

on a moonless night, this
pattern you have traveled by

dipping its cup
and spilling light.


(Today’s poem originally appeared in Rattle and appears here today with permission from the poet.)

Sage Cohen is the author of the poetry collection Like the Heart, the World from Queen of Wands Press and the nonfiction books Writing the Life Poetic and The Productive Writer, both from Writer’s Digest Books. She has published a variety of articles on the writing life in Writer’s Digest magazine, Poet’s Market and Writer’s Market. Sage holds an MFA from New York University and a BA from Brown University. Visit her at pathofpossibility.com.

Editor’s Note: Today’s poem artfully masters the element of surprise. Surprise in the story, in the words, in the phrasing. It makes beautiful what is socially censured and forces us, from the title onward, to question and to reconsider what is acceptable at the individual level. And as it asks us to rescind judgment, it delights in a lyric as delectable as the “sin” in which it engages. “What’s wrong with slipping // under the lifted wing he has made / of the covers,” it asks, and then leaves us to ponder the “taste of his tongue that has become / its own language since leaving you.”

Want to read more by and about Sage Cohen?
Buy Like the Heart, the World on Amazon
Buy Writing the Life Poetic on Amazon
Buy The Productive Writer on Amazon
Stirring
Sage Cohen’s Official Website

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: SARAH PEMBERTON STRONG

strong-cropped
By Sarah Pemberton Strong:

ANOTHER THING THAT AMAZES ME

Is how, on the rush hour subway, everyone
harbors beneath their dripping coats
a set of genitals. No one can look

anyone else in the eye, so obvious
is our nakedness under the clothes.
Though it’s only October,

there’s a blizzard dumping sleet
across Manhattan, and the streets are full
of people anyway, some wearing nothing

more than sweatshirts, their hunching shoulders
caked with fallen slush. It’s amazing
some people will stand

outside for an hour in this weather
just to see the de Kooning retrospective at the MOMA—
myself, it turns out, included.

Also that the same shade of paint
can make some people happy but give others headaches.
When I get home, I’m going to paint

my living room orange
against the six months of winter
that’s just begun. The Platonic ideal

of a raincoat is bright yellow,
and though I can’t see one beyond
all the crotches on the Lexington Avenue Local,

it’s comforting to think there will be an appearance soon,
little rite to remind us of the sun’s assured return.
It amazes me that I still want God to be more

than a perfect metaphor for loving,
that I still want to fall to my knees
for something other than this woman swaying above me,

her fingers knotted to the subway strap,
the folds of her labia just a couple inches from my mouth
while our bodies fly through a tunnel under the city,

and high above us, a deluge of gray crystal
blots out the gold of trees all down Fifth Avenue.
Amazing that the light of the sun makes us open

our eyes in the morning. And that when
there is no light, our eyes open anyway:
searching for it, then for each other.


(Today’s poem originally appeared in Rattle, was published in Tour of the Breath Gallery (Texas Tech University Press, 2013), and appears here today with permission from the poet.)

Sarah Pemberton Strong’s first poetry collection, Tour of the Breath Gallery, is the winner of this year’s Walt McDonald First-Book Prize (Texas Tech University Press, 2013). Sarah is also the author of two novels, The Fainting Room (Ig Publishing, 2013) and Burning the Sea (Alyson, 2002). Her poems have appeared in The Southern Review, Atlanta Review, Cream City Review, Mississippi Review, RATTLE, River Styx, Spoon River Poetry Review, The Sun, and Southwest Review. Her poetry has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize, and she is the recipient of the Elizabeth Matchett Stover Award from Southwest Review and a Promise Award from The Sustainable Arts Foundation. She is a poetry editor at New Haven Review. Sarah lives in New Haven, Connecticut, with her spouse and daughter. She holds a Master Plumber’s license, and earns her living running a one-person plumbing company.

Editor’s Note: Today’s poem shifts our perspective so that the world is viewed as if through a stereoscope. One image turns over into the next so that we view both the closeness of flesh and the starkness of winter. We move not only on a train and along an avenue, but underneath the clothes of our fellow commuters and into the inner workings of the mind, then into the perfect beauty of language, where “It amazes me that I still want God to be more // than a perfect metaphor for loving,” where it is “Amazing that the light of the sun makes us open // our eyes in the morning. And that when / there is no light, our eyes open anyway.”

Want to read more by and about Sarah Pemberton Strong?
Author Website
Rattle
Review of The Fainting Room in Publisher’s Weekly

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: JOHN GUZLOWSKI

john g
THE WORLD AFTER THE FALL
By John Guzlowski

Eve stood there
for a moment
and watched her grace
dry up like water.

Whatever sunshine
had lingered on her skin
was gone

and when
she looked at Adam’s face
she wondered
what she could say
to him.

They had words
of course—
They learned them together
but neither spoke.

What could
she say?

Sorry?

Next time,
it’ll be different?

I didn’t understand?

She just shook her head
and he did too.


(Today’s poem originally appeared in The 2River View, and appears here today with permission from the poet.)

John Guzlowski’s writing has appeared in Garrison Keillor’s The Writer’s Almanac, The Ontario Review, The Polish Review, Exquisite Corpse, Manhattan Review, Modern Fiction Studies and other journals both here and abroad. Czeslaw Milosz wrote that Guzlowski’s first book of poems, Language of Mules, “astonished” him and that he had “an enormous ability for grasping reality.” Guzlowski’s poems about his parents’ experiences in Nazi concentration camps appear in his book Lightning and Ashes.

Editor’s Note: Today’s poem participates in the ancient tradition of midrash, the questioning of and commenting upon what is written in the Bible. I have been engaged in midrashic studies both in my academic and creative pursuits for many years now, and whenever I come across poems that take part in this ongoing discussion I am drawn to them. The Bible is the foundation of Western civilization, but despite an unconscionable number of narrow-minded of readings and prosthelytizations, The Book is not a static enterprise, not a fixed proscription, but is a living, breathing entity, the questioning of which leads to an understanding of modern (wo)man.

On this series we have seen Betsy Johnson-Miller question the story of the fall, Father Kilian McDonnell question the patriarchal authorship of Genesis, William Kelley Woolfitt explore the story of Samson, and today John Guzlowski joins the mini-midrashic tradition being written within the pages of As It Ought To Be. May the questions be relentless and the conversation never end.

Want to read more by and about John Guzlowski?
Listen to the poet reading today’s selection on The 2River View
Garrison Keillor reading Guzlowski’s poem “What My Father Believed” on The Writer’s Almanac
The poet reading selections from Lightning and Ashes on youtube
Lightning and Ashes blog
Buy Lightning and Ashes on Amazon
Read Okla Elliot’s interview with John Guzlowski here on As It Ought To Be

Between a Rocky and a Hard Place: How Rocky Balboa Taught Your Mom to Fear Black Men and Communism

 

Between a Rocky and a Hard Place: How Rocky Balboa Taught Your Mom to Fear Black Men and Communism

 

by Dale Bridges

 

Every generation yearns to understand the one that came before it, if for no other reason than to publish essays on the Internet criticizing past cultural icons in order to prove to your parents once and for all that you didn’t just “fritter away” six years of college smoking weed and playing Frisbee golf—so there!

There are many respected academic methods of analyzing the social progress of large populations, but most of them are boring and involve math.  Therefore, the author would like to propose a theory that can be researched whilst eating potato chips on the couch.  The theory is this: One can trace the anxieties that have plagued the Baby Boomer generation by watching all six Rocky movies in succession.

Let us begin.

Movie: Rocky.  Year: 1976.  Fear: black men.

The author of this essay would like to state for the record that he loves this movie.  And not in some ironic, hipstery it’s-great-because-it’s-bad type of way either.  His love is sincere and eternal.  The dialogue in the original Rocky is fantastic, the cast is perfect, the cinematography is wonderfully understated, and it’s just a damn good underdog story.  In fact, if Stallone had stopped here, this author believes snooty film scholars would feel comfortable describing Rocky as one of the best boxing movies of all time without squirming in their seats hoping no one mentions Dolph Lundgren or Tommy Morrison.

As any first-year student of Rockyology knows, Stallone was a struggling actor and screenwriter before he penned the script that made him famous, and the inspiration for that script was a 1975 boxing match between heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali and unknown white dude Chuck Wepner.  Ali won the fight easily, but the boxing world was shocked that Wepner was able to stay on his feet for almost fifteen rounds before a TKO was declared.  (It’s worth pointing out here that by this time in American history black men so dominated the sport of boxing that simply staying conscious through a title fight was considered an accomplishment for a white man.)

Today, Ali is widely considered a sports legend and beloved civil rights leader, but in the 1970s he was one of the most hated men in America.  He was a cocky, outspoken black man who converted to Islam, renamed himself after the Muslim prophet who founded the religion, and refused to fight in Vietnam.  He was the epitome of what racists call “uppity,” and he appeared to be proud of it.  White America couldn’t wait to see Ali get his comeuppance, and since no white man could beat him in real life Rocky provided that catharsis at the theater.

In the movie, Ali is represented by Apollo “The Master of Disaster” Creed, a bombastic black heavyweight champion who speaks in rhyming couplets, taunts his opponent, and is cynical about American patriotism.  Wepner may have been the inspiration for the script, but Rocky “The Italian Stallion” Balboa is named after Rocky Marciano, the last great white hope.  Rocky surprises Apollo by knocking him down in the first round, and after that it’s an epic brawl that goes the distance, with Apollo barely edging out Rocky in a controversial decision at the end.

Basically, Rocky was culture porn for Baby Boomers in the 1970s who feared the rise of a new generation of strong black men and wanted to see them put them in their place.

Movie: Rocky II.  Year: 1979.  Fear: black men and feminism. 

If there had only been one movie, this argument would be mostly hypothetical.  Sure, there’s a direct correlation between Ali and Creed, Marciano and Balboa, but you can’t establish a theory of systemic racial fear based on one precarious example.  After all, at the end of Rocky, the white man wins the integrity battle but loses the fight.  However, with the second movie, the pattern is confirmed.  Integrity be damned; the Baby Boomers wanted to see the black man beaten once and for all.

The anxiety about feminism is a bit more subtle than the racial fear in the first movie but becomes apparent in the second.  The only consistent female element in the Rocky series is Adrian.  In the first movie, she is so painfully shy she barely even has a voice.  She hides her body under sweaters and hats; she seldom makes eye contact with anyone; and she’s powerless against the verbal and emotional abuse heaped upon her by her brother, Paulie.  It’s only when she starts dating a man that she learns to stand up for herself.

Rocky helps Adrian find her voice, but Adrian doesn’t necessarily have the same positive affect on Rocky.  Rocky’s trainer, Mickey, warns about women in the first movie, advising Rocky not to have sex while he’s training with the famous line, “Women weaken legs.”  The implication is that females have a tendency to civilize males, sapping their physical and spiritual strength, and transforming them into emasculated losers.

To solidify the point, the second movie begins with a series of domesticating moments: shopping for mens wedding bands, a marriage proposal, a wedding, clothes shopping, house hunting, and finally pregnancy.  Rocky has retired from boxing at the behest of Adrian, so he has basically been castrated.  He attempts to get work outside of the boxing ring, but he can’t find steady employment.  In order to pay the rent, Adrian goes back her job at the pet shop where they first met, despite Rocky’s claim that, “I’m the one who’s supposed to support.”

Meanwhile, Creed is taunting Rocky publicly, challenging his masculinity in an effort to shame him into a rematch.  Rocky, unable to provide for his family, makes the decision to fight Creed again, and when Adrian protests, he tells her, “I never asked you to stop being a woman, you know.  Please—I’m asking you please don’t ask me to stop being a man.”

“Being a man” in this case means making more money than your wife and beating the snot out of the guy who’s calling you a chicken.

Rocky starts to train for the rematch, but his heart isn’t in it.  He made the decision to fight unilaterally, but he’s not satisfied unless his wife adopts his point of view.  Paulie visits Adrian at her workplace and tells her that Rocky is going to get injured in the ring, and it’s her fault because she’s not being a supportive wife.  Adrian then tries to lift a heavy bag of dog food, faints, and is rushed to the hospital.  The baby is born premature (a boy, naturally), and Adrian lapses into a coma.

Lesson: if you work outside the home and fail to support your husband, you might die.

In the end, Adrian wakes up from the coma having learned her lesson and tells Rocky she wants him to win the fight.  His house in order, the white American male is now ready to beat the shit out of the mouthy black guy.

Movie: Rocky III.  Year: 1982.  Fear: angry black men and death.

One of the most brilliant aspects of the Rocky series is how Stallone is able to alter the formula just enough with each movie to keep pace with the evolution of Baby Boomer anxiety.  It’s also important to note that it is essential to the formula that Rocky is always the underdog; therefore, no matter how rich he becomes or how often he defends his title, the audience must feel sorry for him and believe he has to beat the odds in order to win.

By the time the ’80s rolled around, Ali had finally been defeated and he was beginning to show signs of physical and mental decay that would later be diagnosed as Parkinson’s.  Furthermore, sports writers and civil rights historians were discussing his legacy in a positive light, and he was starting to be recognized as a global humanitarian rather than a national threat.  Therefore, it was necessary to change the Rocky narrative.

But white America wasn’t ready to give up on its fear of black men just yet.  During the 1980s, urban squalor created black slums in many inner-city neighborhoods, where the drug addiction and gang violence that existed were exaggerated in the media.  The myth of the violent black man was broadcast into suburban homes every night on the news.

In the third movie, Rocky’s opponent, Clubber Lang (a.k.a. Mr. T), is all anger.  That’s his entire character.  The reason for his rage is never explained, presumably because it doesn’t matter where his anger comes from.  All the audience needs to know is that he’s black and he’s pissed.

At the beginning of the movie, Lang is a promising contender who wants a shot at the title, but Mickey keeps putting him off because he fears Lang will seriously injure Rocky.  Mickey (clearly the central father figure in the Rocky universe) has been setting Rocky up with easy bouts in order to protect him.

Finally, in front of a large crowd during the unveiling of the famous Rocky statue, Lang insults Rocky publicly, calling him a coward and stating that Adrian needs a real man (i.e. Lang) to please her in bed.  Rocky accepts the challenge (of fighting Lang, not of satisfying his wife sexually).  However, just before the match, Lang shoves Mickey during an altercation, and Mickey has a heart attack.  Rocky goes through with the fight anyhow, but he’s concerned about Mickey and, as we later learn, frightened at the thought of his own mortality.  Clubber knocks Rocky out in the second round.  Mickey dies.

The angry black man has killed the father.

In an interesting twist on the racial theme, Creed then replaces Mickey as Rocky’s trainer and teaches Rocky how to fight like a black man so that he can defeat Lang.  This demonstrates white America’s reluctant acceptance of black icons like Ali who are no longer in positions of power, while maintaining the fear of black men rising up to overthrow the status quo.

Movie: Rocky IV.  Year: 1985.  Fear: communism and the mid-life crisis (consequently, the author thinks this would be a great name for an indie band).

OK, so the symbolism in this one is so slap-you-in-the-face-with-a-bald-eagle obvious that it’s hardly worth pointing out.  From the opening shot where the silver boxing glove with the American flag collides with the silver boxing glove with the Russian flag and the screen explodes in a spray of fireworks, the references to Cold War fear, American patriotism, and fist-pumping Reaganism are not subtle.  In fact, this movie is so over the top that it could almost be seen as self-satire if not for the utter sincerity of the rest of the series.

So let’s skip over the communism analysis.  If you’ve seen Rocky IV and you’re older than, say, fifteen, the nationalistic propaganda should be clear.  If it isn’t, there’s nothing more to say here that will convince you.

(The author would like to make a quick comment on the fact that Ivan Drago is Rocky’s first white opponent, which means that in order to find something the Baby Boomers feared more than black people, Stallone was forced to turn to international politics.)

While the mid-life-crisis anxiety is not as blatant as the fear of communism, it ain’t exactly understated.  Numerous references are made at the beginning of the movie about Apollo and Rocky getting old.  Rocky drives the type of expensive sports car certain men purchase when they reach a certain age to compensate for certain waning sexual drives.  The only things missing are the plastic surgery and trophy wives, but perhaps that was a bit too on the nose for Stallone at this point in his career.

However, the most obvious example of a mid-life crisis is Rocky himself.  In the first two movies, Rocky resembles a normal male homo sapien, complete with chest hair and blue-collar muscles.  In the third movie, the chest hair is gone and he’s starting to look more like an oiled-up body builder.  By the time the fourth movie comes around, he is one of those hairless workout freaks who believes he can reverse the aging process with the right combination of vitamins, exercise, and, of course, steroids.

The Baby Boomers are pushing forty, their bodies sagging, their virility fading, but if they can just do enough hot yoga and find the right organic kale at the farmers’ market, they too will be able to defeat Ivan Drago and save the world from communism.

Movie: Rocky V.  Year: 1990.  Fear: getting old and being bad parents.

It is common knowledge that Rocky V is the festering boil on the tanned, well-toned ass of the Rocky series.  The writing doesn’t have the clear focus of the earlier movies, the characters are inconsistent, the acting is often soap opera quality, and it recycles too many plot devices from the previous films.  Also, the gratuitous use of rap and hip hop is borderline offensive in yet another “great white hope” fantasy.

To keep the underdog theme working, Rocky loses all his money to a fraudulent accountant and has to move back to the old neighborhood, and a brain injury from the Drago fight forces him into retirement.  He meets a hungry, young white fighter named Tommy “The Machine” Gun and agrees to be his manager.  However, Rocky gets so caught up in Gun’s career he neglects his son, Robert, who is struggling to fit in at his new school.  (We know the kid is headed for real trouble when Robert starts smoking cigarettes and wearing an earring.)  In the end, Gun betrays Rocky for George Washington Duke, a conniving black boxing promoter modeled after Don King.

Rocky V is an obvious attempt by Stallone to bring the franchise back to the beginning.  The director of the first Rocky, John Avildsen, is back; Mickey returns in a series of flashbacks; the Balboas leave Hollywood and move back to Philly; and Rocky even starts wearing the iconic leather jacket and wool fedora again.  It’s a cheap attempt at nostalgia.  The Baby Boomers are afraid of getting old, losing touch with their roots, and becoming bad parents.  If the point isn’t clear enough from the plot clichés, toward the end of the movie Rocky and Adrian get into their usual let’s-clarify-the-moral-of-the-story fight and Adrian screams, “Rocky, you’re losing your family!”

At first blush, Rocky V appears to contradict the racial themes of the first movies, but the fact that Rocky fights another white guy in the end is a red herring.  The main story is still the fantasy of a white boxer (in this case, Gun) beating up black men.  Yes, there is a showdown between the two white fighters, but the cathartic money shot doesn’t come when Rocky defeats Gun in a street fight; it takes place afterward, when Rocky knocks out the black boxing promoter, Duke, in a single blow.

Movie: Rocky Balboa.  Year: 2006.  Fear: outliving your loved ones and leaving a legacy.

Rocky Balboa is neither as good as the original Rocky nor as bad as Rocky V.  It is, however, a nice, clean final chapter in the series and an interesting conclusion to this theory.

Rocky is retired and Adrian is dead.  Rocky mourns his wife’s passing almost obsessively, visiting her gravesite regularly and returning over and over to the locations of their courtship.  He even owns a restaurant named Adrian’s, where he entertains customers by telling stories of past fights.  Rocky’s son, Robert, is a wussy corporate employee who is admonished by his boss in public and yearns to get out from under his father’s shadow.

The current heavyweight champion is a black boxer named Mason “The Line” Dixon (wink-wink nudge-nudge…get it?).  Dixon is undefeated, but he gets no respect in the press because he has never faced a difficult challenger.  A televised sports show runs a computer simulation of a fight between Dixon and Rocky in his prime.  Rocky wins.  (The movie also refers to a similar simulation called “The Super Fight” conducted in 1970 that pitted Rocky Marciano and Mohammed Ali.  In the simulation, Marciano knocked out Ali in the thirteenth round—which is also a white fantasy, in this author’s opinion.)

After seeing the simulation, Rocky decides he wants to fight again because, as he tells Paulie, “There’s still some stuff in the basement.”  We never find out what exactly he means by “stuff,” but it’s clear that Rocky wants to make sure his legacy lives on in both his reputation and his son.  Dixon’s manager offers Rocky an exhibition bout, thinking it will put to rest the rumors surrounding the simulated fight.  Rocky’s son begs him not to fight Dixon, complaining that he can’t establish his own life when his father is constantly overshadowing him.  Rocky then gives Robert a big speech about life being hard and not making excuses for your failures, a speech that many Gen Xers have heard from their Baby Boomer parents at one time or another.

Robert eventually comes around to Rocky’s side, there’s the requisite training montage, and then the fight.  Dixon dominates the first round but breaks his hand on Rocky’s hip in the second, evening the odds.  It’s an all-out brawl after that with both fighters swinging haymakers until the final bell.  Just like the first movie, Rocky loses in a close decision but wins the integrity battle for displaying courage and just generally being so old.

This is the only Rocky movie that gives any perspective to a black opponent (we have some empathy for Creed in III and IV, but only after he’s been defeated by Rocky).  Dixon is shown as a great fighter who has never been tested by a strong opponent, and when he finally demonstrates “heart” by going the distance despite his injury, there’s a modicum of compassion for his character, although the bulk is saved for Rocky.  Nothing much has changed.

In the end, Rocky remains a Baby Boomer fantasy world in which blue-collar white men dominate athletic competitions, women who work outside the home lapse into comas, communism is KOed by the independent spirit of democracy, age is reversed with pushups and body oil, relationships are restored by schmaltzy speeches, and any obstacle can be overcome with a melodramatic song about tigers and a five-minute training montage.

***

(The author would like to thank his fiancée, Michelle, for putting up with ten straight hours of Rocky movies.  He promises he won’t talk about Rocky for at least a week…  Or a month.  Two months?)

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: TOUCAN NEST BY PEGGY SHUMAKER

toucan_lg


FROM TOUCAN NEST
Poems of Costa Rica
By Peggy Shumaker


STRANGLER FIG

Cousins, then,
the myriad orchids
of the mist forest
and this towering
strangler fig.

Both start
tenuous life
as stowaways
tossed aside
by wind or wing

dropped
without anyone’s
noticing
high above
the forest floor.

Air plants,
epiphytes, bromeliads
plastered so heavy
some branches
crack, tumble.

But the fig’s patient.
It settles in,
sucks what it can
from leaf rot, from
breaks in bark,

drinks deep
from fine mist.
Then into air
fig tentacles
unfurl, aiming

toward the host’s
small patch of soil.
Fig leaves above
cover all else.
Not out of modesty.

Each fig takes its own
special wasp
to carry on,
wasp that swaps
pollen for protection.

Nearly gone,
the host lingers
within the fig
like the memory
of a difficult parent

who never knew
what she was taking on
when she got you,
mother who resented
being tied down,

mother whose face
you can’t quite
picture, mother
who changed so much
those last years

you barely knew her,
broken mother
asthmatic, wheezy,
who gave her all
so you might live.



HOWLER MONKEYS

The parents, like most parents, yell.
A lot. But little ones hang
by the tips of their tails,

sail off into space, misjudge
the next branch,
crash through

limbs and leaves,
catch
themselves,

carry on
as if they’ve got a lifetime
maybe more.

Mangoes ripe
right now
drip down their elbows.

Tomorrow
has yet
to occur to them.


                              Río Sarapiquí



ANHINGA DRYING HER WINGS

Purely practical, we know,
her need to hold herself open

to let what sun she can catch
ease the river from her wings.

And yet. And yet.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

See Peggy Shumaker Read in New York 8/20/2013:
Tuesday, August 20th
Word for Word Poetry welcomes Red Hen Press
Bryant Park Reading Room
7:00pm – 8:30pm | Bryant Park Reading Room, 41 W. 40th St.
42nd Street & 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10110
Featuring Peggy Shumaker, Ron Carlson, Evie Shockley, and Tess Taylor

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Today’s poems are from Toucan Nest (Red Hen Press, 2013), and appear here today with permission from the poet.


Praise for Toucan Nest: “This is a book of burnished, lapidary attention. Its poems—vibrant with seeing, quickened with soundwork, subtled by insight—peel open landscapes both outer and inner. The costs of our human presence and extractions are in these pages, but also the radiant return of human awareness. Toucan Nest is a unique account of encounter, imaginative inquiry, and expansion.” — Jane Hirshfield, author of After and Given Sugar, Given Salt


Peggy Shumaker is Alaska State Writer Laureate. Her most recent book of poems is Gnawed Bones. Her lyrical memoir is Just Breathe Normally. Toucan Nest grew from an eco-arts writing workshop in Costa Rica. Professor emerita from University of Alaska Fairbanks, Shumaker teaches in the Rainier Writing Workshop. She is founding editor of Boreal Books, publishers of fine art and literature from Alaska. She edits the Alaska Literary Series at University of Alaska Press. Please visit her website at www.peggyshumaker.com.


Editor’s Note: Having had the pleasure of both sharing Peggy Shumaker’s work on the series before and seeing her read, I could not pass up an opportunity to both feature some pieces from Shumaker’s latest collection and to strongly encourage those of you who are in the New York area to go see her read on Tuesday. Red Hen Press is a fantastic publisher renowned for the quality of the women writers they publish, and Shumaker’s reading on Tuesday promises to be both powerful and moving while taking you, as Toucan Nest does, on a vibrant journey.


Want to see more by Peggy Shumaker?
Come see the poet read this Tuesday, August 20th, in Bryant Park
Poet’s Official Website
Author Page at Red Hen Press

An Open Letter to North Carolina’s Governor

paul_letter_image

Dear Governor McCrory:

In light of the new law allowing concealed weapons in bars, I’d like to propose to you and your cronies (McCrory’s Cronies has a nice ring, doesn’t it?) a law that would allow open containers at gun shows. If people are going to be given the chance to make stupid decisions with firearms while drinking, I think it only fair that people also be allowed to make stupid decisions about the purchasing of firearms while drinking.

I know what you’re thinking: Genius idea, right? Indeed, sir! This will boost sales for your NRA lobbyists, and that means more money for you and yours, Governor. Show me a drunk who hasn’t ever thought “Man, I’d love to have an AK-47 or a Howitzer right now,” and I’ll show you a man who has never been drunk at a gun show.

This will also keep us safer. No longer will women in bars need to fear the bad pick-up line—any jerk who asks “If I said you had a beautiful body would you hold it against me?” can now be taken care of, quickly and efficiently, with one squeeze of a trigger. Those obnoxious college kids with their Sex on the Beaches and Vodka/ Redbulls? I think we know what happens to them if they get out of line. Same for the secretaries on Margarita Monday, and those asshole grad students who always win Trivia Tuesday. No need for bouncers, either—Clint Eastwood over there drooling with one eye open and seventeen bourbon straws on the table in front of him can take care of any trouble, or Chuck Norris dancing with his pool cue in the corner can.

It will also keep people fearful. The more people in bars with guns, the more shootings there are likely to be, which, in turn, will make others think they need a firearm to mosey on down to the local watering-hole and have a wine-spritzer or a Zima. Which means more gun sales. Until everyone owns a gun. All of us, and we all stay home, safe and sound on a Saturday night, peering out the window, drunk as the last lords of creation, wondering what might be gunning for us—our firearms, like our bottles of bourbon, within easy reach.

Sincerely,

Paul Crenshaw

***

Paul Crenshaw is a graduate of the MFA Writing Program at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, where he was a Fred Chappell fellow. His stories and essays have appeared or are forthcoming in Best American Essays 2005 and 2011, Shenandoah, North American Review, Southern Humanities Review, and Hayden’s Ferry Review, among others. He teaches writing and literature at Elon University.

Secularism and Compartmentalization

Secularism and Compartmentalization

by

Kenneth Nichols

Nearly twenty years ago, my loving father spent some of his evenings coaching my T-ball team in the fields behind Reynolds Elementary. Early in his tenure, he knelt and told me that I wouldn’t be able to play shortstop as much as I wanted.

“Why not?” I asked. “Aren’t I a good fielder?”

“Of course you are,” he said. “But everyone needs to get a chance and a coach must be fair.”

Parents are renowned for their perfectly natural ability to compartmentalize: to exempt certain people and situations from rational thinking in order to avoid the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance that would result if the truth were confronted in earnest. Many parents believe, in spite of evidence, that their child is the kindest and most intelligent around.

The phenomenon, for better and worse, carries over to the political realm. The secular worldview varies from most other popular modes of contemporary political thought in that clarity of thought is favored over the strict adherence to the dogmatic base of an ideology. To make a policy judgment, the secularist doesn’t consult a moral code established by dubious and supernatural authorities. Instead, the secularist seeks to purge him or herself of flawed thinking that is pitted with fallacious logic.

For example, should Americans have the right of same-sex marriage? Secularists consult the Constitution, the deep well from which our rights are derived, and find that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. In the interest of thoroughness, we may ask, “What’s the harm?” and find none. Those who claim otherwise are appealing to tradition, making a priori assumptions and otherwise demonstrating that their convoluted thinking, if represented visually, would resemble an M.C. Escher pen-and-ink drawing.

Given the importance of logical thought in governance, it seems problematic that Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) is the only open atheist in Congress. On the other hand, it’s not very hard to come up with a Catholic lawmaker whose voting record reinforces abortion rights. (John Kerry was famously excommunicated for violating this Church doctrine.) Another Roman Catholic, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, voted to broaden the use of the death penalty in spite of the fact that he ostensibly prays to such a victim each night.

Both of these lawmakers (and countless others) abandon the teachings of their Church to vote in the manner they feel is best for society. The cause of this disconnect is the same for all individuals who employ compartmentalization in an effort to exist in both the real world and the fantasy of their choice. In a 2013 article for Scientific American, Dr. Michael Shermer claims that people construct “logic-tight compartments…analogous to watertight compartments in a ship” that allow otherwise intelligent people to hold improbable beliefs such as global warming denialism and that the attacks of September 11th, 2001 were an inside job. (Dr. Shermer’s book Why People Believe Weird Things is a treat for anyone who wonders how someone as brilliant as Dr. Linus Pauling could believe that large doses of vitamin C could prevent and cure cancer.)

As I said, the ideal of the secular process of thought is an understanding of the world that is devoid of delusion. The secular individual seeks to understand the universe on its own terms, not his or her own. Alas, we have evolved to be pattern-seeking animals. Our very brains engage in perpetual civil war: the left side remembers and calculates and the right side determines what the data means. The Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey indicates that only 16.1% of Americans identify as unaffiliated with a religion. What are pure secularists to do?

It seems that we must take comfort that we have many allies whose powerful minds are laden with Shermer’s “logic-tight compartments.” No less a secularist than the late Christopher Hitchens adored his friend Dr. Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and is now Director of the National Institutes of Health. At first glance, Dr. Collins may inspire fear in the heart of the secular progressive. A self-professed atheist, Dr. Collins converted to Christianity after a patient merely asked him about his religious beliefs. After attempting to defend his lack of belief, Dr. Collins said “suddenly all my arguments seemed very thin, and I had the sensation that the ice under my feet was cracking.” Most any atheist or agnostic who has engaged in such an informal debate will agree there’s a big leap from “there’s no evidence to suggest that a supernatural deity may exist” to Dr. Collins’s fallacy-laden understanding of atheism itself: “If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove his existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.”

Is it time to ring the alarm bells and to lament that someone such as Dr. Collins is in such a position of power in the scientific and political community? Not at all. (As a skeptic, of course, I’m open to changing my mind should sufficient evidence present itself.) Dr. Collins stridently rejects intelligent design, the concept best described as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” Dr. Collins, I understand, has not stood in the way of embryonic stem cell research. (Sad to say the same can’t be said for Congress.) Dr. Collins, a breathtakingly intelligent man, has compartmentalized his beliefs, devising a philosophical construct in which religion and science are—to him—not only compatible, but complementary.

Perhaps the immediate goal of the secular community should be to point out that our fallacy-prone friends and authority figures engage in this compartmentalization. Many Christians who chant, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it,” still eat shrimp, wear cotton/polyester blends and refuse to “take up serpents” and understand that drinking poison will kill them. Belief in any aspect of the supernatural, religious or otherwise, requires a person to put these beliefs in one of Dr. Shermer’s “logic-tight compartments,” where it will be safe from reality and reason. So many of these valises have already been cast away—slavery is illegal, women have the vote, miscegenation is only a problem to an irrational few—more are sure to follow. The resultant cognitive dissonance causes unpleasantness at times, but this societal conflict is a necessity if the United States is going to continue its path toward fulfilling the secular ideal laid out in its founding documents. If you read the accounts of those who protested Loving v. Virginia, it’s clear that they were very upset. Those who are on the wrong side of history and of secularism deserve the same response: “Too bad.”

Wanna check my Shermer quote? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-minds-compartments-create-conflicting-beliefs

Pauling. Isaac loved the man, but I think he was bummed by this. http://mostlyscience.com/2013/02/logical-fallacies-and-you-what-you-need-to-know-when-doing-your-own-research/

Pew. http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

Collins quote: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-strange-case-of-francis-collins

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: PAUL NEMSER

4.28.13
MEETING YOU AFTER CHERNOBYL
By Paul Nemser


The last frozen day had come and gone, and we were
sleeping in the elbows of trees in the elbow of a town,
our sutures all sunken together as if we shared one wound,
as if we had climbed from a single pit

like a race of dinosaurs grown from a fused lump of eggs
that had slept in valley ice for three shifts of the North Star,
as the leaves undecorated the last few branches
which were skinny as bat bones or the bones of a squirrel.

There were cattle blotched with waning alphabets.
And there were eyes that had seen too many lights,
so we didn’t recognize the wells
we had drunk from all our lives, nor

the creek that flowed with clothes and flesh,
nor the seeds brought from all over the countryside,
from knived sacks in waterlogged barns, from pods
trembling on grotesque grasses.

We talked to each other until we could not talk.
It was gobbledygook, was joy, nothing to remember:
We would not be overrun like ants by a larger horde of ants.
The darkness would not come closer.

A dog would lift its howl to where the wind left
the tablecloths—crumpled, clawed up, drying in the sun.
A phalanx of trucks that had jostled our vertebrae
would sound like bubbles in a bottle.

I never missed you so much as waking from that sleep.
And I dream of you now lingering barely below ground,
all your twenty fingers warbling together as on flutes.
My pores open to you as to rain.

Years give way to lakes of white dust, to unyielding dirt-land.
The snouts of oxen stain pale as marble
when the beasts haul blades through the hardness that remains
of what decades ago had been garden.


(Today’s poem originally appeared in AGNI, and appears here today with permission from the poet.)

Paul Nemser’s book, Taurus, chosen by Andrew Hudgins as winner of the 2011 New American Poetry Prize, will be published by New American Press in November, 2013. His chapbook, Tales of the Tetragrammaton, will be published by Mayapple Press in summer, 2014. Nemser’s poems have recently appeared or are forthcoming in AGNI, Blackbird, Fulcrum, Per Contra, Raritan, Third Coast, and elsewhere. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with his wife Rebecca and practices law in Boston. Some of his family came from Chernobyl.

Editor’s Note: Today’s poem is one of those thoughtful, emotive, beautiful lyric poems that better expresses itself than I ever could. Some days the poems just speak for themselves. Are you listening?

Want to read more by and about Paul Nemser?
Read poems from the forthcoming Taurus on Blackbird
Two poems in White Whale Review
Poem in Unsplendid
After publication in November, 2013, check out Taurus on Google Books

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: RAUL GUTIERREZ

2010-myhead
LIES I’VE TOLD MY 3 YEAR OLD LATELY
By Raul Gutierrez


Trees talk to each other at night.

All fish are named either Lorna or Jack.

Before your eyeballs fall out from watching too much TV, they get very loose.

Tiny bears live in drain pipes.

If you are very very quiet you can hear the clouds rub against the sky.

The moon and the sun had a fight a long time ago.

Everyone knows at least one secret language.

When nobody is looking, I can fly.

We are all held together by invisible threads.

Books get lonely too.

Sadness can be eaten.

I will always be there.


(Today’s poem originally appeared on Heading East, and appears here today with permission from the poet.)

Raul Gutierrez, Founder and CEO of Tinybop, is an entrepreneur with a 20-year history in technology and the arts. Tinybop was born out of a belief that all kids are explorers. His hope is to build a company where ideas, design, and engineering come together to delight, inspire, and educate children. Raul was born in Monterrey, Mexico, grew up in Lufkin, Texas, and now lives in Brooklyn, with his wife and two young boys.

Editor’s Note: Today’s poem has universal appeal. It captures the magic of imagination, and of love, before ending with a turn that both surprises and speaks to the heart. It is the kind of work that one reads, and shares, until it takes on a life of its own. It has been translated into over ten languages; just this week it was translated into German! (Check it out below.)

Today’s post is dedicated to my husband, who found and shared it with me, and to Natasha and Darren Brown. It is your inspired parenting that Matt and I both thought of when we first read this piece.

Want to read more by and about Raul Gutierrez?
Heading East – Mexican Pictures
Read today’s poem in Deutsch (German)!
Follow Raul Gutierrez on Twitter