SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: ANYA SILVER, PART DEUX

STRAWBERRIES IN SNOW
By Anya Silver

Belief comes too easily to the ill.
Miracles fall from their lips like gems,
are worn like secret amulets. A woman,
I’m told, brushed her steps of snow
and found the very thing she craved
to eat, strawberries fresh as summer,
dimpled sweet and red beneath the rime.
Pink climbed back to her ailing cheeks,
the way new blood makes the body sing.
And yet, no one talks of her sister,
who also searched, found nothing there.
She swept and swept until she fell.
I’ve been so good, she wept, the wind
remorseless over earth that wouldn’t bear.


(Today’s poem previously appeared in the Belleview Literary Review and appears here today with permission from the poet.)


Anya Silver’s book of poetry, The Ninety-Third Name of God, was published by LSU press. She teaches at Mercer University and lives in Macon, Georgia with her husband and son.

Editor’s Note: Last week I featured Anya Silver’s “French Toast” on this series. It is one of the most successful love poems I have ever read, and it was the poem that needed to be shared on that particular Saturday. But I accidentally stumbled upon “French Toast” after securing today’s poem, and so I want to treat you to another entry by this very talented poet.

Today’s poem contemplates faith, that intersection between humanity and the unknown with which so many of us struggle. It asks the logical questions that one asks when facing illness and death with little more than hope to go on.

Want to see more by and about Anya Silver?
Buy The Ninety-Third Name of God on Amazon
Anya Silver Featured as Image Journal’s Artist of the Month: October 2010
Poetry Daily

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: ANYA SILVER

FRENCH TOAST
By Anya Silver

Pain perdu: lost bread. Thick slices sunk in milk,
fringed with crisp lace of browned egg and scattered sugar.
Like spongiest challah, dipped in foaming cream
and frothy egg, richness drenching every yeasted
crevice and bubble, that’s how sodden with luck
I felt when we fell in love. Now, at forty,
I remember that “lost bread” means bread that’s gone
stale, leftover heels and crusts, too dry for simple
jam and butter. Still, week-old bread makes the best
French toast, soaks up milk as greedily as I turn
toward you under goose down after ten years
of marriage, craving, still, that sweet white immersion.


Today’s poem was previously published in The Ninety-Third Name of God (LSU Press, 2010), and appears here today with permission from the poet.


Anya Silver’s book of poetry, The Ninety-Third Name of God, was published by LSU press. She teaches at Mercer University and lives in Macon, Georgia with her husband and son.

Editor’s Note: I am not usually one for love poems. This week the love of my life proposed, and—in my nerdy, poetry-loving way—I scoured the internet for a love poem worthy of commemorating the event. My search dragged me through the stick of syrupy pieces, insulted me with poems of the butterflies-and-rainbows variety, and meandered through poems of antiquity that incited sleep instead of expressing in a visceral way this moment of elated love. And then I read “French Toast.”

I find myself unequipped to elaborate on why today’s poem is an example of expert craftsmanship. Unequipped because Anya Silver is a master of words, and my own seem slack in comparison.

As I read today’s poem aloud, I savor the feel of the words in my mouth. Words that mimic the sweetness of the dish they describe. A dish that is not a food, but a metaphor. A metaphor that is so successful, so unexpected, that it nearly redefines the idea of metaphor itself. At the very least, it becomes the standard against which metaphor should be held, and it sets the bar incredibly high.

All that, and it is a love poem! And not a poem inspired by the fleeting passion of new love, but a poem that speaks to what it is to make a life with someone. To love and desire someone as sincerely ten years into a committed relationship as you did when you first felt “sodden with luck” for falling in love.

This is a poem of optimism. A poem that inspires me to love my man fiercely for the rest of my life. This is the poem to express my heart’s desires for our impending union. I thank Anya Silver for this gift, and I dedicate today’s poem to Matt Teitelman, my soon-to-be husband and the love of my life. May our love be like french toast forever.

Want to see more by and about Anya Silver?
Buy The Ninety-Third Name of God on Amazon
Listen to “French Toast on The Writer’s Almanac with Garrison Keillor (Listen at 3:05)
Anya Silver Featured as Image Journal’s Artist of the Month: October 2010

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: ERIN LYNDAL MARTIN

AT BUCKFAST ABBEY: AFTER THE BEE BURNINGS
By Erin Lyndal Martin

I know they were here.
Their vertigo twists around
the wind.      It is my sickness too.

I play blind, smooth over tree trunks with my palms.
I smell the soot of brimstone, the dangling of a hive.

Daylight hard as leaves.   I smell the smoke.
Skeps still burn like witches.

              They used to harvest honey by burning up the hive.
              Bee bodies and a single rhubarb leaf
              kindled the flame for beekeepers
              to mine with bare hands.

                            The rest of the comb
              they melted down cell by soggy cell
until the wax was useful light.

                            And honeybees, they say,
              were the first tears
                            cried on the cross.

              ~

              Ghost bees shiver,
                            here a leg stuck in resin,
              here a wing in the grit of pollen.

                            I can feel their flight
              trying to make these woods
                            warm again.

              I’m asking for the bees back.
              If it’s in your power,

make the stark and sketchy treetops
              look less like junkie tourniquets
and more like apologies.

                                           Make the trees say they’re sorry
                                                   they kept growing
                            after thirty thousand hearts
                                           were burned.

                                           If it’s in your power, make me say
                                                   I’m sorry too.

              ~

                                           There’s still the scent of smoke
              in the air, maybe from a bonfire,
                            maybe not, and beneath it is the
              sticky hum of amber, and somewhere
                                           beneath that is me—notebook,
                                                   cigarette lighter, plastic bag.

              I can hear the vespers next door.
              The living are praying,

                            but I need the ash
              and the burned-out bees,
              the brimstone to be wise.

                          I want to ink out
              the taste of charred honey
                                           so I can be glad when there is no fire.

                                           Learn this lesson for me.   Tell me what
                            not to do, how to keep without taking,

                                           how to do better,
              here, now, my hair in my eyes,
                                           a pencil in my hair.



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



Erin Lyndal Martin is a poet, fiction writer, and music journalist. Her work has recently appeared in Guernica, InDigest, and Crowd. She is associate fiction editor for H_ngm_n and runs the music website Euterpe’s Notebook.

Editor’s Note: I have had today’s poem in my arsenal for a few weeks now, but something told me to save it for today. I write today’s entry from my own Abbey, St. John’s Abbey at St. John’s University in Collegeville, MN. I am at the end of a week-long writer’s residency titled “Believing in Writing” at The Collegeville Institute, a workshop centered around writer’s contemplating faith. There could not be a better moment for today’s poem to be featured.

I have had the pleasure of featuring Erin Lyndal Martin’s writing before on this series. When I came across today’s poem in Diode, I was so vividly struck by its story, by its imagery, that I knew I needed to seek the writer out and ask permission to share this startling, beautiful piece. As I searched for the poem’s author I thought, “Erin Lyndal Martin… I know that name… I have loved her work before.”

It never ceases to amaze me how the heart yearns for the same beauty time and again. How I can search the Internet for poetry week after week, month after month, year after year, and then, completely out of context, fall in love with the same poet time and again. So it was with Ms. Martin, a poet whose work I love no matter where in time or space our paths cross. It is as much a pleasure to share her poetry with you today as it was to have her steal away my breath when I read today’s poem.

I dedicate today’s post to Michael Dennis Browne, our fearless leader on this past week’s journey, and to my fellow workshop participants, a group of people whose thoughts and words on faith have reshaped my view of the world.

Want to see more by and about Erin Lyndal Martin?
The Offending Adam
The Diagram
The Collagist

Tolerating the Intolerable? (Or: Why We Should Not be Tolerant of Chick-fil-A)

 

Tolerating the Intolerable? (Or: Why We Should Not be Tolerant of Chick-fil-A)

by Lindsey Mason

In our cosmopolitan society, what does it mean to be tolerant?  Should we always be tolerant of others’ opinions?  Or are we sometimes required to be intolerant?  I believe not all tolerance is morally required.  I believe there are opinions of which we ought not be tolerant.  I believe there are opinions we ought to criticize, reject, and discourage.  Below I will argue for which kinds of opinions we ought to tolerate and which kinds we ought not to tolerate.  The conclusion of my argument is that we should not be tolerant of Chick-fil-A.

This essay on tolerance is spurred by recent remarks by Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy.  Recently in the news, Cathy said the following two things: (1) “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.”[1]  For many, this implied that Cathy was taking a stand against any non-traditional marriage, including gay marriage.  Cathy also expressed his belief on the matter in a radio show, saying, (2) “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'” Cathy said. “And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”[2]  This second quotation clarified the first, thus making it obvious that Cathy is against gay marriage.

Cathy’s comments have sparked interest from conservatives and liberals.  The predominant conservative line seems to be in agreement with Cathy for the “traditional” and “biblical” definition of marriage, and the common liberal line seems to oppose Cathy in favor of gay marriage.  Liberals are vowing to boycott the restaurant in protest, sometimes going too far as when mayors of Boston and Chicago said they would not allow Chick-fil-A business into their cities.  Conservatives are gathering support for Chick-fil-A, and they are even calling for a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” on August 1st.

But the most troubling—and frankly confused—part of this whole debate is over the notion of “tolerance.”  Throughout the World Wide Web, I’ve read several authors accuse liberals of committing the very crime of which they’re accusing conservatives.  Liberals are accusing conservatives of being intolerant of homosexuality; conservatives respond by accusing liberals of being intolerant of their biblical-based definition of marriage.  For example, an article by Denny Burk is entitled, “Chick-fil-A and the Irony of the Tolerance Police” to suggest that liberals are supposed to be policing tolerance, but are here showing their very intolerant hand.  Ken Coleman (the host of the radio show on which Cathy talks of “God’s judgment”) points out a similar “irony” when he writes: “Increasingly, we see a well-oiled publicity machine that is redefining tolerance as, ‘either you agree with me or you need to button your lips.’ Those who throw the labels of intolerance and bigotry at those who share an opposing opinion are ironically modeling a glaring lack of tolerance.”[3]  So the objection to liberals in this debate seems to be that they’re being hypocrites.  They’re accusing Chick-fil-A of being intolerant, and yet showing their own intolerance—the very thing they’re against.

I believe that this diagnosis of the problem is incorrect.  There are certain differences of opinion we ought to be tolerant of, but that does not mean we ought to be tolerant of anything someone else believes, says, or does.  Consider two kinds of disagreements.  Suppose Sally believes in God and Joe does not believe in God.  Because of Sally’s beliefs, she acts in certain ways: she prays regularly, she attends church services, and she congregates with fellow believers, etc.  Because of Joe’s beliefs, he doesn’t engage in any of these activities.  Sally and Joe disagree about whether God exists, and their disagreement affects how they each live their own lives.  But notice: Sally’s belief that God exists doesn’t interfere with the way Joe wants to live his life.  Simply believing that God exists doesn’t harm Joe in any way; it doesn’t take away any of Joe’s freedoms, and it doesn’t make Joe’s life worse in any way.  Similarly, Joe’s belief that God doesn’t exist doesn’t interfere with Sally’s life.  In such a case, Joe ought to be tolerant of Sally’s different belief.  He also ought to continue to let her go to church, pray, etc., if that’s what she wants to do.  Similarly, Sally ought to tolerate Joe’s belief.  She ought to continue to let Joe live his life without praying or going to church.  Sally ought to be tolerant of Joe’s different belief.  The point of the example is this: in a situation such as the one encountered by Sally and Joe—where the disagreement over whether God exists does not harm anyone or take away anyone’s freedoms—everyone ought to be tolerant.

Now consider a different kind of case.  Suppose Jefferson believes that it’s morally permissible to own slaves.  Because of this belief, Jefferson in fact owns several slaves, and he treats them as if they are animals.  He buys them and sells them like cattle; he beats them; he impregnates their wives.  In general, his belief that slavery is morally permissible entails that he believes that a certain class of people are subhuman, deserving fewer rights and privileges.  Tubman, however, disagrees with Jefferson.  She believes owning slaves is morally impermissible—we shouldn’t do it.  So, Tubman does not engage in any of Jefferson’s activities of owning slaves, beating them, buying and selling them like cattle, or impregnating their wives.  Instead, she believes that all people deserve equal rights, and that no human being should be treated as subhuman.  Jefferson and Tubman disagree about the issue of slavery, and this disagreement affects how they live their lives.  But notice a difference here compared to Sally and Joe above: Jefferson’s belief does interfere with the way Tubman wants to live her life.  Jefferson believes he should be allowed to capture and enslave Tubman, thus taking away her freedoms.  He believes that Tubman is subhuman, deserving fewer rights than he enjoys.  Should Tubman be tolerant of Jefferson’s beliefs?  No, she should not.  She should fight against people who believe and act as Jefferson does.  She should be intolerant of anyone who believes that another human being could be his slave.  Tubman’s intolerance of the differing opinion is not only morally acceptable—it is morally required.  When someone has a certain belief, and that belief takes away the life, liberty, or property of another, then that belief ought not to be tolerated.  Jefferson’s belief takes away the liberty of others.  And so Jefferson’s belief ought not to be tolerated.  Sally’s belief from above does not take away the life, liberty, or property of anyone else—not even Joe—and so her belief ought to be tolerated.  That is, we ought to be tolerant of others’ beliefs so long as those beliefs do not take away the life, liberty, or property of others.

Now back to Chick-fil-A.  When Cathy expresses his opinion that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, is his belief more like Sally’s or Jefferson’s?  What I mean by that is, does Cathy’s belief attempt to take away anyone else’s liberty?

I think Cathy’s belief is more like Jefferson’s (while obviously to a lesser degree).  By saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman, one is taking away another person’s liberty.  One is denying a gay man the right and privilege to join in marriage with another man.  One is denying a lesbian woman the right and privilege to join in marriage with another woman.  One is denying a bisexual man the right and privilege to join in marriage with another man.  And so on for bisexual women and for people who are transgendered.  There is a whole population of people here who are denied something—marriage—so that Cathy and others in agreement with him can hold a belief.  Cathy’s belief is not the kind of belief that calls for tolerance.  We should not stand by, idly tolerant of others’ beliefs when those beliefs take away the liberty of someone else.

Notice, however, that when someone believes that gay marriage is morally permissible, that does not take away anyone else’s liberty.  I’m not saying that every minister/priest/preacher has to actually marry homosexual couples.  They can choose not to participate in the actual marrying.  I’m not saying that every man has to go out, divorce his wife, and marry another man now.  That would be absurd.  Allowing gay marriage is not to demand gay marriage for everyone.  It is time to acknowledge that allowing Ben and Shaun to get married does not take away anyone else’s life, liberty, or property.  In fact, it doesn’t affect anyone else’s life at all.  So, if tolerance is ever called for, it’s called for in the case of proponents of gay marriage, and not for those who argue against it.  We ought to be tolerant of people who believe gay marriage should be allowed because that belief does not take away anyone’s liberty.  We ought to be intolerant of people who believe gay marriage is wrong because that belief takes away someone’s freedom to marry whomever he or she loves.

My goal here is quite narrow.  It is to show that the liberal position of criticizing Cathy is not hypocritical.  Tolerance is called for only when the belief or action being tolerated is different from your own, yet it is not taking away anyone else’s life, liberty, or property.  The belief that gay marriage is wrong should not be tolerated since it takes away other people’s liberty.  The liberal can hold this position—the position of not tolerating beliefs that take away others’ liberty—while agreeing that many other instances of tolerance ought to be encouraged.  One need not be tolerant of unjustified intolerance.  Cathy is the one being intolerant in the morally objectionable way, not the liberal.

Mr. Frost (an excerpt from the novella Life After Sleep)

Mr. Frost (an excerpt from Life After Sleep)

by Mark R. Brand

“This frigging thing.”

Frost knew without looking that Mary had gotten blood on the hemocrit analyzer lens again. She started pulling out drawers at the nurse’s station looking for a box of individually-wrapped alcohol pads. This wasn’t as easy as it sounded. Some of the other nurses, and especially the medical assistants, loved stealing them and hiding them. The stock room guy was a blatant slacker and he just nodded like a bobblehead at the office manager’s suggestion that they only keep on hand the supplies they’d need at any given moment.

This of course meant that there were never enough of three-dozen random things at all times. Some days there’d be disposable gowns but no needles, other days there’d be five times as many bottles of peroxide as they could use, and if he wanted sterile gauze he’d need to barter half a box of iodine swabs for it with one of his associate’s staff members.

The supply black market was an unforgiving quagmire of ugliness and the instant a shipment of replacements came in, they’d vanish to wherever everyone was squirreling them away. They hadn’t had enough alcohol pads to go around for about a week and a half and nobody had extras to beg, borrow, or steal.

The hemocrit analyzer had a lens on the inside that was meant to read a little plastic disposable slide with a drop of blood on it. The chief flaw of this was that if jiggled even the slightest bit while inserting the slide, the blood droplet would contact the convex lens and smudge, rendering the machine useless.

“We going to get that reading?” he asked, just trying to light a fire under her a little. She pursed her lips but didn’t frown.

Three drawers later, Mary began hauling shit out and tossing it onto the desktop. Old versions of intake forms and script pads with one or two sheets left on them, loose drug samples on their cardboard blister cards, the caps for eighteen disposable pens that patients had wandered off with in their pockets and purses, and a seemingly bottomless pile of high-quality marketing materials shoved at them endlessly by the drug reps that haunted their office during clinic hours. After un-bending the last of these, Mary thrust out her hand silently in triumph. Behind all of this detritus she had found a dusty, forgotten box of alcohol wipes. An entire box! They were rich.

“Got it,” she said, busy using a slide to push the alcohol pad into the tiny space beneath the lens and swab it clean. Minutes passed. Finally it was ready. She grabbed her tackle box, took out another lancet and a fresh slide, and set off down the hall. Frost could hear her voice come muted from the other room. “Okay, Mrs. Healy, we’re going to have to jab you again, sorry about that.”

Mrs. Healy was a good sport, hopefully. He heard a beep and the analyzer flashed up her hemoglobin count. Frost hadn’t seen Mary return with the blood. He glanced up. There were still lights on in the rooms, but all was silent.

“Mary?” he called. No response. He walked back toward the rooms at the far end of the hall and found them empty.

He picked up the phone and dialed the office manager’s extension, thought twice, hung up, and dialed the extension for Greenstein’s nurse.

“DiLeccio,” she answered.

“Kelly?”

“Mmm hmm…is this…?”

“Doctor Frost.”

“Oh, hey Dr. Frost. I didn’t know you were still here.”

“Hey. Listen, do you know where Mary went?”

“Pretty sure she hit the road.”

“Really?”

Silence. He glanced at his watch. It was an hour past their last scheduled patient.

“Umm…”

“Right, sorry,” he said, choking on the awkwardness. “Have a good one.” He hung up.

*

X-ray machines consist of a large power generator that converts wall current to high-voltage output, a stabilizing arm, and a cylinder shaped like a large beer can. This cylinder contains an electrical anode and a rotating tungsten cone inside an airtight bath of coolant oil. This is the “tube.” The tube is encased in lead, except for the small aperture where the x-rays escape and travel at physics-class speeds through flesh, organs, and bone, finally striking a photosensitive crystal screen that imprints a negative image of the patient’s anatomy on a piece of multi-layered emulsive plastic. The rooms are generally lined with a layer of lead sandwiched in the walls to contain the photoelectric ionizing radiation that occurs when various milliamps per second course from the anode to the tungsten cone, creating a God-like arc inside the tube. All this happens in darkness, as most feats that harness the power of the building blocks of the universe do.

The doctor bounced a golf ball off of the tube in the x-ray room while the radiographer scoured the table beneath it with a disinfectant so strong it came in a glass bottle rather than a plastic one. The room smelled vaguely of feces.

“Do you get much Sleep?”

“About three hours, usually,” Andy replied. Andy had a kid at home, he knew, and another on the way. A girl named Stephanie and an unborn fetus named I Will Never Again Own a New Car. “Sometimes I get two and a half, but I don’t like cutting it quite that close. If I don’t get the full three hours, I just don’t feel right. Pretty soon I’m going to have to start Sleeping here because of the baby.”

“That sucks. You ever take naps?”

“Shit,” he said, looking sideways at the doctor. He stacked up x-ray films on a desk and started marking left and right on the corners with a black Sharpie.

“What?”

“You’re a lazy motherfucker.” He could always count on Andy for the truth. “Just turn up your Bed. Try maybe three and a half hours. You won’t be able to sit still after that much Sleep. You’ll be bouncing off the walls.” The golf ball continued to bounce off the x-ray tube.

The doctor wanted to tell him that he’d already thought of that, but didn’t. He picked this little strategy up at some conference or another in Arizona in the middle of the winter. A study was done by some focus group of vicious, slobbering medical office managers who had been let out of their cages long enough to compare notes about squeezing the last ounce of productivity out of their underpaid drones. They discovered that if the support staff think the boss is ignorant or empty-headed, they tend to work harder, a motivating force not unlike that of a child overcompensating for their well-meaning but chronically helpless parent.

He missed a catch and his golf ball rolled under the generator. He didn’t go after it. He had an entire bag of miscellaneous golf-related shit in his locker that his patients had brought him. Someone even gave him a putter shaped like a foot with a laser pointer attached to it. He didn’t know what was more insulting, his patients assuming he had time to play golf or the fact that they thought he was a bad enough player to need a laser-guided putter.

*

At some point, he realized he was in the middle of surgery on what used to be a young woman who had been dragged on a chain behind a sport utility vehicle over a mile and a half of gravel back-road.

“I think I’m hallucinating,” he said to no one in particular.

“That’s what she said,” came a reply from someone in a mask and scrubs. He gestured to the woman, whose anesthesia had sunk in enough that she could barely manage a whimper.

“Fuck you, I’m serious,” he said. His face shield fogged slightly when he exhaled.

“So is she, apparently.”

The unfortunate ingénue of that evening’s tragedy let out a “huhnnn” that was less than heroic as he scrubbed flecks of gravel out of her rectus abdominis muscle, which was open to the air given that the flesh of her torso above it had been taken off as if by a belt-sander. Cleanliness, right next to Godliness.

“What’s the time loss threshold for narcolepsy?”

“Huh?”

“It can’t be that, though. No cataplexy…”

“Focus, man.”

Frost wheeled on him, snake-like and covered in blood from sternum to knees. Whenever challenged, escalate.

“What the fuck did you just say?”

“Hey,” Dr. Nobody said, hands coming up, “I’m just here to help.”

“What are the risk factors for hallucination?” He had forgotten the patient on the table entirely. He picked up an emesis basin full of flesh and blood, intending to fling it at the resident if he flinched. Evidently the kid had been in operating rooms full of flying metal before, though, and held his ground.

“Uh… psychoactive drug therapy, alcohol and drug withdrawal, dementia, sleep deprivation, head trauma…”

Frost glared at him for another moment and the corners of his eyes flickered. Something like minutes went by. “That’s what I thought,” he said at last. He handed the resident the emesis basin and headed for the door, pulling off his mask as he went. Blood sloshed onto the floor, but he ignored it.

“Where are you going?”

“I need a nap,” he said over his shoulder to no one. As he hit the door he looked up to see another door. He opened this one into an identical hallway with another door at the end. And another, and another.

*

“Hi – this is Sandy at St. Augustine’s. We’re calling to make sure everything’s okay with our favorite doctor! Call us back when you get a minute. I’ve got a few messages for you.”

He thought he had turned the phone off, but he didn’t really remember. He had a vague vision of putting the key into his condo door and hearing it grind loudly as he turned it, and then soft blackness. Apparently he’d been unconscious for hours. The inside of his mouth felt like indoor/outdoor carpeting, and he had urinated on himself while he slept.

He hadn’t missed a day of work in seven years, twelve if you counted residency. He thought they’d be a lot angrier than they sounded. Sandy seemed nice. He made the call to the hospital and told them he’d be in later.

“Oh, that’s fine. Dr. Greenstein covered for you. He did leave a message that you should try the office Bed next time, whatever that means.”

“I know what it means.”

“You feeling okay?” she asked.

“Sandy…”

“Lisa.”

“…you’ve been more than helpful.”

He hung up. For all his lack of good taste in music, Greenstein didn’t miss much.

Every nerve cell in the human body consists of a long cable with a synapse at each end. The cable part of the cell is made up of fatty membranes that conduct electricity in the form of tiny, single-electron currents called action potentials that occur between sodium and potassium. When the current reaches the end of the cable, it jumps to the next strand by secreting a chemical that helps the current flicker across the gap. These chemicals have familiar names like serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, and acetylcholine. When these currents jump to muscle fibers, you get a contraction. When they jump to a gland you get secretion. When they jump to your brain cells you get a boner, and so forth.

In the end, he thought, that’s all we are. Just electricity sizzling down cables made of fat and squirting across a little space between. This was another of those cases where knowing things didn’t improve on an otherwise blissfully ignorant life.

Tony Barker had this thought well in hand when he positioned the first TMS patient’s pre-frontal brain directly between the poles of an MRI electromagnet. Barker was doing this in the ’80s, so he was very progressive that way, but not so far removed from the old days that he flatly dismissed the gains made by psychiatrists in the ’50s and ’60s, when similar treatment modalities involved plugging people right into the wall current and putting a rubber block between their teeth so they didn’t snap them off. This was a kinder, gentler era. MRI was safe, as far as anyone knew. TMS was just a little current change. Hardly noticeable. The first two letters of MRI stood for Magnetic Resonance, and that’s exactly what TMS did. It caused the electrons on a molecular level to resonate. Instead of blowing the fuse entirely, the TMS just flipped the breaker on and off, on and off, thousands of times per second.

All Dr. Sid Merriweather did was discover the frequency, the note played across what amounted to a two-million-dollar electric guitar string, that reset the right sequence of synapses. Do Not Pass Go – head directly to Stage-4 REM sleep.

*

“There were a few pieces of ferrite dust on the magnet’s face, but not enough to throw off the cycle.”

“What is it, do you think?” Frost asked the repairman on the phone. He disliked people being in his apartment when he was not, but this could not be avoided.

“Hard to tell. You may want to just try another Bed if you have access to one.”

This bit of diagnostic wisdom was becoming tiresome, he thought while hanging up. He considered that it might be a while still before he went all the way over the high side, but he could feel it coming. Mary, prescient soul that she was, had started hiding his car keys. “Where the hell are they?” he asked her.

“What, doctor?”

“My keys.”

“Haven’t seen them.” As she walked away, the pocket over her left tit jangled.

“Mary,” he said, rubbing the blur out of his eyes, “I believe in the sanctity of the workplace and all that high-minded bullshit, but there’s only so much a professional can take.”

She shot him a look that pretended she had no idea what he was talking about.

He grabbed a random chart off of the wall and headed into the adjacent room. “That lung has to come out,” he announced firmly while walking in. There was no point being wishy-washy with these people. He gave them the straight news. The ten-year-old boy on the exam table looked up at him in terror over the cast on his leg. His mother, a woman who inexplicably wore yellow eyeliner, looked up from last April’s issue of TIME and gave him a shitty look.

“Excuse me for just a moment,” he said. “Mary!”

A medical assistant that he was firmly against hiring from the start looked up from a handful of used needles as the doctor passed him. He tried to scurry out of the way, but was too slow. The doctor grabbed the front of the assistant’s white coat and shoved him into the nearest room. The sound of hard muffled scrabbling against the shallow carpet was the only sound the kid made, as he attempted to keep his feet and failed. The doctor didn’t as much as look back. If you can’t stay out of your own way, at least stay out of mine.

The hallway overhead fluorescents started to pulse with his heartbeat. “Mary,” he bellowed down the hall, “the doctor needs you!”

She rounded the corner in a pretty flourish of professional crispness. The clean lines of her uniform threw her figure into maddening shapelessness. Only he knew that she had not taken her scrubs home to wash in over two weeks. Her filthiness was mildly arousing.

“I wonder about those armpits of yours,” he said.

She gave him a smile that said he was one charming dog. “Is there something you need?”

“I need my lung. Where did he go?”

“She.”

“Where did she go?”

“Room ten.”

“No,” he said, putting an arm around her shoulder. They walked toward room ten and on the way she walked him straight into a wall. He backpedaled awkwardly. It was a long hallway suddenly. “I was just in room ten, and my lung was definitely not in there.”

“Try again,” she suggested, helpfully. It was hard not to notice how round she was in her scrubs. Even with a lab coat on top. She made him think of a mesh bag of oranges shifting around in a big white grocery bag. She had enough smoke scent on her to keep her from ever smelling clean, but freshness wasn’t everything.

He took a deep breath and pulled down the lever-action door handle. Hospital door handles are regularly cited as the filthiest surfaces in the building. “That lung will have to come ou…” Sitting at a card table were three large greyhounds counting a stack of money. They peered up at him with lively, suspicious eyes. The one on the far left gave him a look like he might owe the dog a favor.

“Pardon me,” he said, closing the door quickly. Mary arched her eyebrows and her hair seemed to straighten and re-curl in front of his eyes. “Did you do something different with your hair?”

“Room ten is at the end of the hall.” Mary motioned with a seven-inch index finger. Lids with an unbecomingly cheap brand of eyeliner flicked up slightly.

“We’re going to have to have a talk about your bedside manner,” he told her as he proceeded onward. Suddenly, the medical assistant sprung on him like a trapdoor spider.

“Sorry doctor, I have Dr. Neely on the phone for you…”

“TELL HIM TO GO FUCK HIMSELF!” he screamed, buffeting the little bastard about the head and neck with a clipboard. He smiled as he walked away, secure in the effectiveness of his intuition. The escalation principle had once again steered him clear of time-consuming negotiation.

***

Mark R. Brand is a Chicago-based science-fiction author and the online short fiction editor of Silverthought Press. He is the author of three novels, The Damnation of Memory (2011), Life After Sleep (2011), and Red Ivy Afternoon (2006), and he is the editor of the collection Thank You Death Robot (2009), named a Chicago Author favorite by the Chicago Tribune and recipient of the Silver medal 2009 Independent Publisher Book Award (IPPY) in the category of Science Fiction and Fantasy. He is the producer and host of Breakfast With the Author and lives in Evanston, IL with his wife and son.

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: JOHN REPP

Photo by Katherine Knupp


THE LETTER
By John Repp

In the letter,
             she says she doesn’t

want to end
             the letter so I’ll

never stop reading
             this scrap light

as ash in the pit
             where I’ve sworn

for thirty years to burn it



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


John Repp is a widely published poet, fiction writer, essayist, and book critic. Since 1978, he has taught writing and literature at various colleges, universities, schools, and social service agencies. A native of southern New Jersey, he has lived for many years in northwestern Pennsylvania with his wife, the visual artist Katherine Knupp, and their son, Dylan.

Editor’s Note: Today’s poem contains the joy of the unsaid. It enables the reader to invent a world—a relationship—from a few fragments of speech. There is so much joy in the power of the small poem, and in language that teases, that alludes to something larger than it shares and enables us to choose our own adventure.

Want to see more by John Repp?
John Repp’s Official Website
Buy John Repp’s Books

Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone

by Steve Davenport

Takes a flood to turn a bottom, make hell
of the houses on stilts and the ones squat
as toads hugging shore dirt. Tree-float and sop’s
the least of it. Takes more than a boat line
to drag a failing body from that noise,
the sucking into the long pull. River’s

anything but solidity of things,
no riprap of rocky words for footing.
River brings flow, flood, and alluvium.
Bottom was never saved by a song. Levee’s what

a river makes of it.

***

Steve Davenport is the author of Uncontainable Noise, which won Pavement Saw Press’s 2006 Transcontinental Poetry Prize. His New American Press chapbook Murder on Gasoline Lake is listed as Notable in Best American Essays 2007, and a story of his, published in The Southern Review, received a Special Mention in Pushcart Prize Anthology 2011. His second book of poems, Overpass, is published by Arsenic Lobster/Misty Publications. The above poem is reprinted from this book by permission of the author.

Review of Destroyer and Preserver by Matthew Rohrer

Review of Destroyer and Preserver by Matthew Rohrer

by Letitia Trent

I had a professor during my undergraduate years (one those old-fashioned liberal arts professors who believed that intimately knowing Milton’s Satan or Shakespeare’s Lear was a prerequisite for being a fully-functioning citizen of earth) that defined a great book as a book that shows you what it means to be human. He meant the great, big (and, unfortunately, primarily European or American) books, like War and Peace or Middlemarch, in which an enormous cast of characters weave in and out of each other’s lives, figuring out what it means to be a citizen, part of a family, a soldier, an artist, a lover, or a parent. I appreciate these kinds of books, too, books that are willing to explicitly wrestle with questions about how a person should be in the world and do not fear the explicitly political or philosophical. I don’t know how anyone writes books like this anymore. As Matthew Rohrer writes in the first poem from his book Destroyer and Preserver:

The oldest songs are
breaking apart
like a puzzle in a basement

What kind of writer has the gall to tell people how to live now, when there are no fixed certainties and no unassailable truths? This is not an original question, but one that I find myself bumping into over and over again as I read contemporary literature and poetry that dares to directly touch on the political as Destroyer and Preserver does. While I’ve read many contemporary poetry books that comment on the paranoia and rise of some fervid, defensive American identity that happened post 9-11 (Christian Hawkey’s Citizen Of comes to mind in particular), I don’t see many poets writing in what comes close to straightforward confessional lyric touching the issue of politics aside from Rohrer. Sometimes, when writing about war from the distance of a relatively safe place, the lyric, personal “I” can seem limited, small, stupid, unable to fully grasp anything important from the perspective comfort. Perhaps this is why many poets who are fairly privileged (I know that I am one of them) and who have never seen battle try not to tackle something as large as “the war”.

Destroyer and Preserver tries to show us something about what it means to be a middle-class, materially comfortable human in this particular time in the United States, one in which foreign wars and news of slaughter in countries in which we are linked by politics and war filter in and out of our consciousness through reports from Twitter feeds and Facebook updates, seeming both incredibly important and completely divorced from our everyday lives. I specify that the book is about middle-class life because it differs from many other overtly political books from the standpoint it takes: the speaker is comfortable, white, male, and a father. This is not a book that howls from the edges or speaks as a witness to political and social turmoil. I don’t mention this to belittle the book, but to make it clear from what perspective the book addresses the political. In Carolyn Forche’s introduction to The Poetry of Witness, she writes about the privilege of being a North American in the 20th and 21st centuries: “Wars for us (provided we are not combatants) are fought elsewhere, in other countries. The cities bombed are other people’s cities. The houses destroyed are other people’s houses.” This space is where Destroyer and Preserver comes from.

Part of the book is about the dance between enjoying the privilege we have as North Americans to live our lives relatively unscathed by war and the responsibility to acknowledge that our privileged lives are partly built on the backs of the suffering of other people. Rohrer’s book differs from those big books about morality in that it’s a product of its time, and therefore the poems don’t tell us anything definitive about how to balance joy and responsibility: the subject is not knowing, of feeling guilty for running away to poetry or family life or dreams (the book is full of dreams), and of being politically engaged but not politically engaged enough to leave what is comfortable behind. The speaker in these poems spends his days taking care of small children, recovering from hangovers, and walking around a city as news of what’s happening in the Middle East filters in and out of the central consciousness of the poems. For example, in the poem “Casualties,” the poet’s small son asks “are soldiers good or bad?”, and the speaker meets his son’s confusion with his own:

I see his face, his eyes
right in front of mine.
We are drowning together

in the hold of the ship.
He looks just like me.

The poem leaves us with an image of the plane, having just dropped a bomb on the house and desert, gliding through the sky and being returned to the United States, “to be washed and put away”. Throughout the book, images of war are and desperation are washed and put away and then continually taken out again to be examined, as with the speaker of “Poets With History/Poems Without History”:

… and the melting icebergs crumple

like the prisoners shot in the side

I move through the days remarkably sinuously

and spinning inside

I washed the dishes two or three times a day

with hot water on and on

like a dream behind the yellow gloves

from which I too cannot awaken

though my son is done with school

and holds my hand on the walk home

the feeling of falling backwards

into the bed at night fills me

each time

with sweet content

all the people rounded up in camps

have a look in their eyes

that can’t reach us now

Rohrer is at his best when the speaker of the poems sees this point of tension between a comfortable life and the knowledge that so many other people are not able to have that comfort: the poems are electric when the speaker is both conflicted and ultimately a failure at keeping the high moral ground. They falter, though, when the speaker seems to imply a particular stance is the “good” one: in “For Which I Love You,” the speaker congratulates a lover for a fairly standard, simplistic affirmation against “hate” which reads a little bit like self-congratulation for having the “right” political point of view.

It would be unfair to say that this is only a political book: several short, lyric poems punctuate the book, ranging from records of sad, contradictory moments to poems that seem like sheer celebrations of everyday life, such as “The Smell of Frying Fish.” It’s the context of these poems that makes them political: images of war surface throughout the book in poems that at first seem to be about something completely outside of war, and so these moments of domestic bliss mean something more: is the speaker giving in to forgetfulness or resisting despair by living in the moment (as cliché as that can’t help but sound) by fully embracing the given world around him?

Rohrer’s poems are largely dreamy, personal lyrics that roll from matter-of-fact observation to gentle surrealism, creating poems that seem casually tossed-off yet completely controlled within one lyric event, world, or emotional/narrative moment. You could call it domestic surrealism, but Rohrer’s observations are more about finding the literal strange in the familiar than in creating strangeness. Still yet, reading the book felt too easy: the poems are easy to read and pleasing because Rohrer is good at this kind of poetry and knows what he is doing. I couldn’t help but feel that Rohrer was coasting and that these poems are a slightly toned-down, less boisterous versions of ground he’d already covered in his first book, A Hummock in the Malookas, and his subsequent books. Only in the long poems of the book (“Believe” and “The Terrorists”) does Rohrer seem to stretch beyond his familiar gently joking, gently serious tone.

I can’t say that Destroyer and Preserver left me with anything definitive about how to be a conscientious person in a complex world, but it left me with a useful confusion and the realization of how often I, too, retreat into what’s comfortable in order to forget my own great fortune. I’m not the soldier who crumples, the face behind the cage, or the person whose home has been bulldozed. I have the privilege of forgetfulness, and I exercise it far too often.

***

Letitia Trent‘s work has appeared in the Denver Quarterly, The Black Warrior Review, Fence, and Folio, among others. Her chapbooks are Splice (Blue Hour Press) and The Medical Diaries (Scantily Clad Press). Her first full-length poetry collection, One Perfect Bird, was published by Sundress Press in early 2012. She was the 2010 winner of the Alumni Flash Writing Award from the Ohio State University’s The Journal and has been awarded fellowships from The Vermont Studio Center and the MacDowell Colony.

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: TERRI KIRBY ERICKSON

DEPRESSION
By Terri Kirby Erickson

Her knees nearly buckle with the weight of a new star,
but oh the sweet relief when one of them falls or when
the sun pulls up its rays like rope ladders because light,
even light is too heavy for her to carry now. And look

at her loose grip on the baby’s stroller, as if any minute
she might let go. Other mothers’ eyes follow their children,
glisten like the wet clay of a newly fashioned Madonna,
but her expression never changes. She sees nothing but

the dull, brown jar where she spends her days alone, its
walls slick and impossible to climb, the lid screwed shut—
feels nothing but cold glass against her back, the tightening
in her chest when she tries to breathe what little air is left.


Today’s poem originally appeared in Tryst, is included in the poet’s latest collection of poetry, In the Palms of Angels (Press 53), and appears here today with permission from the poet.


Terri Kirby Erickson is the award-winning author of three collections of poetry, including her latest book, In the Palms of Angels (Press 53), winner of a 2012 Nautilus Silver Award in Poetry and the Gold Medal for Poetry in the 2012 Next Generation Indie Book Awards. Her work has appeared or is forthcoming in the 2013 Poet’s Market, Ted Kooser’s American Life in Poetry, JAMA, The Christian Science Monitor, storySouth, and many other publications. She lives in North Carolina.

Editor’s Note: Terri Kirby Erickson has a way with direct, straightforward narrative poetry. You are at once within the scene she is painting, carried along by her skill with the lyric and the image, amidst a palpable world where you feel you could actually pluck the fruit from the trees of her invention. Today’s poem captures the inner workings of a sometimes secret condition, yet Erickson’s words bridge the shame gap by giving rise to empathy in the reader.

Want to see more by Terri Kirby Erickson?
Terri Kirby Erickson’s Official Website
Press 53 Author Page
Buy In the Palms of Angels on Amazon
Buy Telling Tales of Dusk on Amazon
Buy Thread Count on Amazon

SATURDAY POETRY SERIES PRESENTS: JOHN PAUL DAVIS

MYSELF, WITH THE NIGHT ON MY FACE
By John Paul Davis

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.    – The Gospel of John 5:4

If I had known more grace. Heartwinter,
& all the locks frozen over. The songs
I should have been able to sing. I no
longer want to know the answers
to any of the questions. My body
less reliable now that I’m older,
& the doctor tells me I’m fit
for my age. Healthy, but not whole.
Like how I have forgotten
how to pray, the muscle that yearns
for God gone slack in my mind
after all these years. I have stopped
expecting the world to deliver magic
to me, yet it continues. Like the clouds
over Brooklyn the morning after I face
the difficult thing & deliver the bad news,
the perfect play they make with the light.
Like being awakened after midnight
by the memory of the song,
only when I listen in the bedroom’s cavedark,
the music is sweeter
than I had recalled, it is a deeper
taste. The music inside the music.
I tell you, I have been granted
the more costly victory. Like love, again.
Like a lame man on crutches to the water
expecting to beg for the day’s provisions
& what waits for him terrifies
him most: unseen,
fingers armed with heartbreak,
about to trouble the pool, the angel.


Today’s poem appears here today with permission from the poet.


John Paul Davis writes poems. Learn more about him here: www.johnpauldavis.org.

Editor’s Note: John Paul Davis is a badass wordsmith with a real knack for blank verse, which is no easy craft to master. I have had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Davis read several times at NYC’s louderArts, and am often moved—if not breathtaken—by his poetry. Today’s selection confronts the human condition as Davis often does, with words that aim straight for the soul of the reader and do not fail to find their target. From the micro of the inner workings of one man to the macro of humanity’s relationship with God, Davis is the poet taking one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind: “Like how I have forgotten / how to pray, the muscle that yearns / for God gone slack in my mind / after all these years.”

Want to see more by John Paul Davis?
John Paul Davis Official Website