Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Numinous

a fat little boy, not even a boy, not even;
but barely a walker, not even a talker, in his hand—a toy.
sit you down here, my boy, my fat little boy;
momma's got to bustle, about the house, independent
of you, too much to do, must leave you, here, a spell;
you can sit, and play, and watch.

my bottom is big, sucked to the floor, I watch
while her legs go by, her face so high, even
to heaven I would have said if some spell
would have given me my religiosity, my holy toy,
my grown-up sense, my independence
from her, from love, from 'boy.'

oh, she did not abandon her boy,
her darling, her son, but left him to watch
it all go teasingly away, riveting his independent
nature to her stead. his eyes not even
level to her skirt hem; but him, her toy,
her boy, her what, watching her leave—a spell.

now what? now what to do with my hands, this spell
of time and longing and fear that a boy
I'll always be away from thee, a toy
of numinous femininity; they go, i watch
they live, I long: my best things not even
close. would I give anything to be independent?

for time, time, time I sit wishing for that independent
reckoning of this knot, for a princess's kiss which this spell
would dispel, would send me, would make even
the score. but no, I could not wish not to be a boy
on occasion, at least, to see the skirt return, a toy
of the moment, my sacred, my duty, my watch.

so, that, then, is the verb of the day, the year, a life—to watch
this unnatural dependence on her independence
whoever, wherever, what: is this thing a toy?
no. what I should do is try my own spell
to snag a star from heaven itself, to pick up the boy
and hold his sweet heart and mine up even.

For life is a toy
And woman is a spell
And funny is the word "independent."

11 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This poem is a 'sestina,' a style from the 12th century. It follows a rigid style, six stanzas of six. The ending words of all six stanzas are the same, but in different orders, strictly set out. The last word of one stanza becomes the first of the next; etc. You can look for the pattern if you like. The last three lines are special and pick the 2nd, 5th, and 4th, endings of the initial stanza.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i have trouble imagining the toil you put into this work. is this for your personal enlightenment or will you be offering classes on reading this? lovely job.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, June. I was inspired by someone else's work and a momentary insight that left me with this picture, with the presence of memory, of me as a toddler, watching and worried and longing and stuck--and accepting it as my lot.

    It's funny; I was told some years ago that Bach was most creative in his Cantata's where he was boxed in with a very strict form and the need to create work the average church shmoe could sing to. I think that was at work here; the formal constrictions made it easier to pick words. Like laying down tile in a pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ooooooo. is the irony intentional?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Explain a bit. I'm missing the Irony. That's the point of irony, though, isn't it. Someone has to miss it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. hey mike. gee, i wasn't intending to single you out - its one of those ideas i've noticed all over the place. i don't have a grand unified theory or anything like that - although i was reminded of a david lynch interview and a million other things when i read your response. your poem deals with independence: and when you talk about that you say you are stuck. when you talk about being creative you say : 'boxed in,' 'very strict form,' 'formal constrictions,' 'made it easier...Like laying down tile." and of course you are working within the very old form of the sestina. does that make any sense? your creativity flows when you are grounded or dependent on some pattern rather than some independent free form verse? on the other hand, i might be crazy too. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nice. I see what you mean. Reminds me of the bible narrative that Miles works up in "God. A Biography". Big theme: god didn't know who he was, what he liked, what he could tolerate until he tied himself to man.

    I was thinking, from that reading, that that is the way relationships are for humans. It is only in the 'wrestling' that becomes someone. The box is dependence.

    But being grounded and being dependent. Same same?

    ReplyDelete
  9. it all comes back to god - that makes me smile.

    i like the wrestling as a human becoming. i am not clear on what you are asking on the grounded and dependent: are you referring to writing a sestina or speaking more generally? in a sestina, i don't know? i don't know if i could split the difference. i am fairly certain you aren't interested in a dry semantic argument - those don't go anywhere. :) or are you referring more to wrestling with another to form a relationship, ie jacob? some relationships are so grounded that they function as a unit, ie family; and so, the relationship is dependent. you can't be the father of lucas and ben without ben and lucas being your children. now, that is one definition of a father - and i would imagine you are more interested in a broader aspect. would a loving father/son relationship be dependent? yes, because this relationship would be dependent on actions and once action is involved: it takes two to tango. :)

    i should really consider checking this blog in the morning when i am more alert. do i have any way to edit this in the morning?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know that it would strike your fancy, but you know, Mike, this is a wonderful poem--and I think you should do it justice and submit it for print.

    ReplyDelete