2 posts tagged “poetry”

“Poetry is an orphan of silence. The words never quite equal the experience behind them.”

I will never forget that quote, if only because everytime I revisit a poem I was satisified with and deemed finished, it feels lacking, as though it will never mean what it meant when I first experienced the impetus for its creation. I can remember clearly what motivated me to write every poem I have, yet the freshness is gone. Rereading an old poem of mine is torturous. I find myself wondering how it was I felt any satisfaction at it when I had finished writing it, as though I was decieved by the momentarily pleasing euphoria of creating something I thought was good because of the emotions that motivated its creation.

It isn't only poetry. It happens with my prose as well. What satisfied me once, months or years later leaves me frustrated and perturbed. It never feels as good as when I first wrote it, or even when I revised it for the final time. I am left loathing my writing because I feel it isn't as good as it could be. And so I will polish it over and over again, hoping for some small glimpse of satisfaction, but I am never satiated. I sometimes think this behavior borders on obsessive-compulsive.

And the comments of others never have any bearing on how I feel about my writing. All my friends, my professors, my colleagues can tell me how much they enjoy a certain piece, but secretly--inwardly--I will hold it in disdain because it does not, nor cannot ever meet the standards I have for it--the standards I try to hold myself to.

A perfect example is an untitled poem I wrote early last year. I was immensely proud of it at the time I had finished it. I then buried it away in my poetry folder, leaving it to rest until today, when I decided to give it a look over. I am now wholly displeased with it, though when I had written it I considered it my best piece yet.

I know this is entirely irrational behavior, but I wonder if any other writers here experience it?

For good measure, I'll include the poem, since this post wouldn't exist without it.

                          I

I walked forlorn the steady path that life

Did beseech me so, traveling yonder to

Inevitable hyperborean

Glow; fate for all, fate for me, as is decree.

The path, I followed--yet I walked I kew not

Where, only how the end would fair, every gilded

Way, each solemn road, all countless crossings

Long since tried, and long since trod: all were

Different, all were same, once way treks with

Many names; there forlorn I walked those steady

Pathes. Cold and tired, I continued on, one

Of many, one of all, till that day, a quiet

Midsummer's Eve, that day of days when shores

Of sand and rock I did seek and salted

Wind rose up, finally within my reach.

                         II

Was I free, like air to flow? Like wind over

The endless sea to blow? The course I chose,

Was it me? Or some trick of memory?--

A measure of fate I could not overcome,

Unlike that splendid chaos of the wind,

Hard but subtle, subtle but vivid, a

Myriad figure unconfined--Or, was

I, too, like this wind? A force unrestrained,

Bound solely to the inexorable fancy

Of imagination imagining

What imagined cannot be?--Had I lost

My way, had I trapped myself in that

Labyrinth false, and ignored in so doing

What the heart had always felt? And--as I

Though, down that aged path, I, again, proceeded.

                         III

Upon the jagged rocks I stood, overlooking

A silent sea, desperately wishing

To feel free--I felt it in that night air,

And so did think: Did that wind, that Zephyr

Clear, comprehend despair? Could it know man's

Mortal restraint? That our stuff is but a

Celestial feint? Had it viewed our dull

Course? Felt our deepest remorse? The path, it

Led on and on, and so, unfulfilled

Was my destiny, but that spirit free--

How it beckoned me! That weary road, could

I cast it aside, and hence set upon

The sky?--Then I saw it plain, my plea, fate

Disdained as that force fair I admired

So, down that wretched path me it started to blow!

                         IV

No! I cried, I screamed to little avail,

It seemed, I felt my end was near, that life

I held, what many think dear, was useless, I

Feared! What shame, what vast waste! To have loved

Too Few!--To have seen so narrow! Petty

Trepidation! Was this not my course? That

Same prostrate path for all? No! I shouted,

I refused to go; the calm sea then burst,

That chameleon rash, and set on me

Tempests great against a futile wish. The

Road, my dread, came ever near, still the fight

Was not lot--I raged against that errant wind,

That death-veiled sea, all to taste liberty!

Could not that up-turned nature see, to die

There that loathsome path I would still defy!

                       V

I struggled there through ages unseen, and

Could not tell where in the maelstrom I had

Been, but to its fury, I could never give

In, and then, on those stones over a frothing

Sea, peace spread from within my core--that wind,

That liquid fierce, my soul they had never

Pierced; I was they, they were I--no longer

Could it be denied, and as lightning

Flashed and waves forcefully clash, I turned my

Head to see that bondage of then past

Destiny stretching beyond what any man

Could bear, and so knew what had to be done:

I faced my nemisis, I faced myself,

And without longing, and without my fear,

Cast myself in; that path never to reappear.

Being sick is never pleasant, so when I began to feel a slight pain in the back of my throat last night I knew after four years of good health the bugs had caught up with me. Oddly, when I'm sick I can't stand reading for extend periods of time but have no trouble when it comes to writing. I don't know if that will spell pleasure or pain [insert evil laughter here] for those of you who read this but there it is.

American Psychosis

Yesterday I was busy taking photos of and distracting my best friend from the headache that is her thesis when I stumbled upon a brilliantly written geopolitical essay on Israel by some fellow's name who now escapes me (this happens to me often). It's been a long time since I spent any time with geopolitics, but the essay sparked some thoughts about the United States. I've argued for some time that the United States is undergoing a period of psychosis. I use the term psychosis because I believe polarization is not appropriate. The United States was polarized in the period preceding the Civil War. Both sides had legitimate, realistic reasons for their views. I don't see that as the case now, and I believe it is especially clear upon examination of how the opposing parties imagine the United States in a global context.

One one side of the scale there are the neoconservatives, phyiscally embodied by the Republican party, who follow a line of Straussian thinking (that is a wiki, if you want real meat on Strauss read The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, along with his own writings listed in the Wiki). The basic line of Straussian thought is this: a class of philosopher elites must rule, and do so covertly because the 'vulgar' (yes, he used that word often) masses cannot understand that wars between societies are a political inevitably. To assuage the vulgar masses and bring them into line with what the elites think necessary the heroic mythologies and religion of that society should be manipulated through lies (which he argued were necessary 'myths'). This strategy is evident among the neoconservatives in America by using religion and the myths of 'American values', along with lesser lies, to achieve their political goals (which are intended to benefit the philosopher elite, I should add. Oh, and I should mention that Paul Wolfowitz was a direct student of Strauss, and in turn I. Lewis Libby was his student).

The Democratic Party, on the other end, is somewhat akin to a Moroccan bizarre. Some prominent party members supported the war in Iraq and now oppose it (Hilary Clinton) while others have lost their place in the party for supporting it (Joe Lieberman) and some gain prominence by constantly damning it (Ned Lamont). The real question is what does the democratic party actually stand for anymore? Their actions are largely reactionary in nature. They have not shown real initiative since the departure of the Clinton Administration. We know the Democratic Party mostly opposes the war in Iraq, unwarranted wiretaps (Today's ruling made me happy even if the NSA was granted a stay), and our (lack of) energy policy. But that isn't really standing for something. Opposition is not a statement of belief. I know they say they want real security, honest leadership, retirement security, economic prosperity and what not, but so do the neoconservatives (even if they aren't going to deliver). Their agenda is a completely superficial reactionary construct that leaves voters with the same kind of "with us or against us" choice that the neocons so often imply. Worse is that many of their own party members have voted for measures that have caused the problems their agenda is reacting to (To go into such a list would take a monumental effort which I don't have the time to undertake. I direct you to Vote-Smart and their database of elections for further information). A lack of direction is no better or worse than going in the wrong direction, and that is where the Democratic Party's reactionary politics have led it.

The above positions leave two primary geopolitical visions of America, as I see it: American the Righteous Crusader, Defender of the Free World, and Champion of Free Enterprise AND; America the Pious, Defender of Civil Liberties asquiescent and subject to United Nations approval for any real foreign interventions, but still willing to defend itself against terrorism.

The first vision, the neocon vision, is based in many American mythologies and the pseudo-moral construct of the religious far-right. America, in their view, is right in state-building to defend itself because America is the global prosecutor of evil (read this as terrorism). This vision is inspired by the constant reminder that the American ethos is under attack by the unrighteous. It helps that those unrighteous are not Christians. It further helps because the fear instilled in people by the constant threat of attack not only on themselves, but their way of life justifies the neoconservative doctrine of necessary pre-emptive strikes on unfriendly states. Such preemptions are also made valid through the great capitalist myth. The nations American attacks to protect itself will be transformed into havens of liberty and freedom where all can prosper through free trade. Unfortunately the neoconservative line of thought is flawed. Iraq is a case study in their failures. Few if any Iraqis have profitted from their newfound ability to explore free enterprise while a select few companies in the United States have (in accordance with their Straussian ideology). And it is apparent for anyone willing to look that civil war is imminent and Iraq has only become a breeding ground and flashpoint for terrorist groups around the world (which further supports the Straussian model). Ultimately this vision of America only benefits those atop the neoconservative hierarchy--everyone else must bear the brunt of it in one form or another (oil prices, travel restrictions, and hightened global animosity for example).

The Democratic vision is somewhat in line with who will always be my favorite politican, Teddy Roosevelt. It isn't quite the walk softly and carry a big stick America I'd like to see, but it's close. It is an America that will defend itself when defense is justified, and after going through the proper international channels. This is the cautious vision of America, a reaction to its recent scars in Iraq. But again, as with the Democratic agenda the Democratic vision for America on the global political stage is reactionary and will be governed by their reactions to public responses within the nation. It is an ineffective model. On one hand, they attempt to follow international sentiment (through the United Nations) which is often in opposition to American sentiment (How many Democrats in office balked at the recent conflict in Lebanon? Most didn't, for fear of alienating the centrists, and Jewish vote, or so I would argue). Like their domestic agenda, the Democratic Party's geopolitical vision of America lacks a concerted direction.

This is why I believe America is in a state of psychosis. Neither of its main political personalities can create an effective vision of America that will allow it to function without causing its own global degradation. The neoconservative vision will only service to benefit an elite core at the expensive of the nation's 'vulgar' masses and America's global political capital, while the reactionary approach undertaken by the Democratic Party can only effect indecisiveness when faced with the will of the people it serves and the international community. Both approaches erode the global credibility of the United States and until the psychosis ends the erosion will continue to eats its way into this country's ability to effect its policy, whatever they may be, around the world.

[I will elaborate on this idea over time, but right now I just want to throw it out there, see what everyone thinks]

And now for something completely different!

I love tea. So much so, that I'll treat you with a[horrible] little tidbit I wrote about it:

Tea, I do love thee so,
Hot steaming, and orange spiced,
You're better than blow.
A sip of your tannic twist,
Your cinammon sweet bliss
Matches any needle's kiss.
With cigarettes or just plain
What pleasure
When the caffeine hits my veins.
I'd say you're like sex,
Without emotions to vex
But that's going a little far,
Though you are hot and wet,
As I like my women set,
And while in bed you'd be a mess
You're lacking a woman's caress.
Yet don't feign worry, my favored drink
There's nothing like you
After a night of kink.

Edit: Is this really the only post on all of Vox with 'geopolitics' as a tag? I feel accomplished now.