{is it in you?}

L and A Wedding 11

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

Of course, the title reminds me of that Gatorade commercial years ago. Stubbled athletes, swilling neon sugar water gasp, Is it in you? Welp, not the ability to run a four minute mile, no. As for the rest of might be lurking, well, who can tell? What else constitutes the “it” that’s supposedly in you? “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.” Or… you know, doesn’t. Like as not, the Shadow can’t tell who you are, either.

See, and, that’s the thing.

Some of us religious people are raised thinking we can tell. Yeah, holy writ says some basic stuff about observing how people behave and saying, a tree is known by its fruit, yeah, but some of us take things further than that, and that’s a piece of unforgivable hubris. Our hearts are open to the scrutiny of divinity, such theorizing goes, therefore we can see into … others? Um, no. We can’t. People are still stuck with the outward appearance. We can’t look at you, and see the contents of your darkness. Because, like as not, we can’t even look past our own.

Last week, my friend Ash (whom I occasionally call “The Great Brain” from those John D. Fitzgerald books I loved in middle school) and me were having one of those “we’re not quite in the writing frame, yet” conversations where we both kind of blether on about whatever is in our heads as we work through how we’re going to frame the larger issues in our various manuscripts. It’s nice having writer friends for these reasons; they don’t really try to make too much sense of what you’re saying right then, as the point is to just say it, and let your backbrain do the heavy lifting of pulling the thesis together. In Ash’s case, that she was raised in a super-conservative religious group brings up for us even more things held in common. Anyway, we were talking about “the church” (and when we say that, we mean Western/American Christianity in general, not necessarily a denomination) and its future in terms of LGBTQ people. Since I’m of a Protestant group, and Ash is not, I was giving her a little of how it’s gone in my hometown, and vice versa. By and large, we were both somewhat somewhat heartened, and somewhat resigned, all at once. There were a lot of new directions, and some not new at all, but horribly the same. Progress invariably only reminds us how far there is yet to go.

And at various points in the conversation, we circled back to this. Something, Ash was saying, will have to change. Indeed, though neither of us could have had any inkling of how deeply we’d both feel those words only two days later.

I have written before about a dear old friend, a man who I, as a child, put up on a pedestal, and discovered with maturity that my heroic statue has the feet of clay we all stand upon. He is a lovely person, deeply traditional, religious, all God-and-country, with a gun on his person at all times, he says, for “protection.” I won’t get into our myriad conversations about his arsenal, because it’s an ongoing thing, wherein he teases me, and I roll my eyes. I am fully anti-gun, he is fully 24-7 armed – always. He is frustrated by the places he can’t carry, is fully licensed to covert-carry, and he always tells me he’ll protect me. I always politely refuse his protection. So far, it’s all a joke; we keep it light, and non-threatening. But, I find myself tilting my head and scrutinizing the weird connection between religion and violence in America that simply… persists. And persists. And persists. Where does this come from? Where is it going?

Something will have to change. In churches and religious organizations, in cultural and ethnic groups, in American society. All of us will have to look within and be willing to consider destroying a piece of our hearts to dig out that which is objectionable. And, no; I am not purporting to know what’s objectionable in you. Some of us don’t imagine we even have a thing that’s objectionable. Quite certain we’re firmly on the side of right, we soldier on, gun in one hand, God in the other. And we go marching on to buy another gun, to protect ourselves in an increasingly violent world where we have to make sure to keep ourselves “safe” from “them.”

Solzhenitsyn advises that we all have a line bisecting our hearts. For those who don’t see it, I suggest we LOOK AGAIN. Go deep.

Is it in us? Maybe.

But, is it within us to change?

And the answer to that we all strain to hear, over the sound of the empty wind.


{“if you wanna make the world a better place/ take a look at yourself and make that…”}

2016 Summer Dyeing 1.22016 Summer Dyeing 1.1

(All right. Look, I know “Man in the Mirror” is stuck in your head. I’d say I’m sorry, but the words are apropos just now, so… okay, sorry. Sorry! Fine.)

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead.

It’s rising summer, and oddly seasonal as are so many who didn’t get out the relentless educational cycle when they were done with school, I now equate September/autumn with renewals and new beginnings, and … June with renewals and new beginnings. And January. And February.

I’m always ready for a change, even if it’s just to the color of my dress.

An election year always has people thinking that elections have something to do with change; it’s reflected in the various slogans and mission statements people toss around. “People for change” is one I saw from someone or other – Libertarians? Green Party? I don’t know. I’ve been voting faithfully since I was of age, and I know that election years have nothing to do with change – I mean, the talking heads change, but everything else stays the same. And no, I’m not trying to be hyper cynical. The system is designed so that not much can change. We kind of built in stolidity into our political system. Four wheels but no engine; it shall not be moved.

Four wheels isn’t all that bad, though. I mean, there’s something to be said for stability, after all; no one would want a political unicycle or anything. And, with four wheels, there the potential for movement, if one gets behind a thing and pushes. If it’s on an incline, maybe. Pointed the right direction.

2016 Summer Dyeing 1.3

I’ve already voted, and really, my present snark isn’t only about the political process in terms of elections. It’s about the politics – the governance of who does what – of everything: jobs, school or church organizations as well as political parties. The loud and sometimes intelligible/unintelligent discussions on how we determine who we are; those discussions happen on school boards and staff meetings, on social media and around family dinner tables. Yesterday, I involved myself, briefly, in a discussion on the politics of writing diversely.

Who determines whose voice is used? Who decides whose reality is presented? Who decides what “reality” actually is? These are the questions I found reverberating as I read a piece in Voya this month. A male dominant culture writer positioned himself as wanting to explore the life of a black girl growing up in his crime-ridden hometown of Flint, Michigan. He described his editor’s hesitation, the horror of his black colleagues and the reactions of pre-readers. He then complained that authors of color have been critical of all of his contributions. In the article, he wrote fervently of his positive intentions, of his work on behalf of teens of color, and of the importance of work which is a “mirror” and provides a realistic reflections of people of color written for reluctant readers.

In the interest of full disclosure, prior to my having read this article, I read a couple of this author’s books and reviewed one.

On the simplest level, the author has a point: there’s a need for books written for reluctant readers. Period. To a greater extent, however, his assumption is flawed. That those readers – reluctant readers of color – can only relate to works which present kids in chaos situations, teens in gangs, with underemployed or under-educated parents, on the wrong side of the law, is flawed. His idea that his “mirrors” his reluctant reader student’s reality is additionally flawed. His books, to me, reinforce the stereotype that there is nothing else going on with people of color – no middle ground, certainly no middle class, and that anyone who is a reluctant reader is poor, in a gang, or violent. “Tanisha, pass me the blunt,” indeed!

Yet, he seemed genuinely baffled as to why people of color who read his books before and after publication try to tell him that they reinforce stereotype. The emotions were there – genuine frustration and hurt and maybe a little huffy indignity. And, I felt for him, in a number of ways. In others, I found myself smacking myself in my head ’til my ears rung, because I felt like I was being gaslighted. Subtly, subtly, reality had been rearranged until it was me, the meanie who was critical who was wrong, and the person who blatantly asserted his right to write in a I reject your reality and substitute my own fashion… was right.

About that time, my eye started twitching.

I’m a person who is sensitive and obsesses and worries about hurting people, so being “political” is not usually what I am. I tend to stay silent, but this past weekend I briefly spoke up on a couple of issues, until I started to feel a burgeoning shriek arises from my consciousness, and realized I needed to do something more than discuss things in 140 character snippets. Still not sure what that “something” is, however. The author mentions he’s going to begin encouraging his students to write. It is my sincere hope that this causes him to see them and their lives as real and nuanced as well.

Yesterday, I found myself wondering if our political discussions really change anything. I think the answer is “no.”

Not with any lasting effect. Not right away, anyway. Talking won’t change as much as acting. The actions which would help us parse the political issues in publishing right now are the ones I’m taking: writing books which reflect realistic, nuanced, and well-rounded characterizations of the “self” as person of color, and promoting the work of others – of whatever color – whose books reflect these same nuanced, well-rounded, realistic and dual-identified POC in their novels, and …that’s it. This has been my “shut up and write” PSA.

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

{poetry friday: p7 ekphrastic on a harpy}

The Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow, Scotland, may well be my favorite museum in the world. My first winter in Scotland, we went every Sunday, just to lay our eyes on something not gray, not dreich, and not our own tiny flat. And what a feast for the soul it was! Armor! Paintings! Disembodied faces! Gigantic elephants being chased by small planes! And my favorite sculpture, “The Harpy Celaeno,” by Mary Pownall.

Kelvingrove Museum D 586

Just look at her. Really — look at her. She’s all scowls and claws, and wings up around her shoulders. Fierce and unsettled, yet her fierceness seems turned inward, somehow…

I chose this month’s ekphrastic image for our seven intrepid poets because – well, Hilary Clinton. No matter your political leanings, you’ve heard her disparaged based on gender. I chose a harpy because it’s one of the things Mrs. Clinton’s been called, one of a plethora of disparaging terms some people use for women. According to the encyclopedia, once harpies were known as wind harbingers. It was only later Greek myths which removed their beauty, added gender and put them in the position of reeking, punitive scavengers who thieved and carped and killed like a horrifically enlarged murder of sentient crows. They were made horrible, not born that way.

Kelvingrove Museum D 523

Ironic, isn’t it? Women were once respected as the hands that rocked the cradle, the ones who, of necessity, gave invention its place. We’re so in search of identity as a species, and so often threatened by any identity another assumes. Shrill? Stubborn? …Visible? Well, yeah. And, human, too. Capable of bringing the rain — or, in this case, the wind — and changing the world, one shrill screech at a time.

Heavens, no! Perish the thought!
A lady’s likeness should be sweet –
Rebellious scowls, shrill voice distraught
Provocative – and indiscreet…
Yield you to nothing, stubborn girl?
            (one day she just might change your world)

(I had to get that acrostic out of my system. Still acrostic-ing from April.)

This sculpture chased round in my head. As it seemed to need repetition, I tried a villanelle. Rather than being for Celaeno, this is for Padarge, Aello & Okypete – Swiftfoot, Stormswift & Swiftwing, the original harpies from Homeric verse.

She

Once seen as pneuma, breath of god on wings
Celestial, beings heralding the gale
Now scorned as scavengers, polluting things.

Muscular graces of the zephyr, Spring
Our presence striking to those it impales
Once seen as spirit. Breath of god. On wings,

That spirit flees from those who to it cling,
Leaves grasping hands who by their brawn prevail
Now scorned. As scavengers, polluting things

Await their moment, chance’s coiled springs
Create new space for paradigm’s derail.
Once seen as pneuma, breath of god on wings

Uncompromised, the scything claws could sting
All that would seek to hold this fierce female
Now scorned as scavenger. Polluting things

Best left to sons. The power of a King
Diminishing: all those who would him hail,
Once more with spirit, breathe, breath of gods, and sing
That strength once scorned inherits everything.

Kelvingrove Museum D 522

More poetry from the Sisterhood of Seven…harpies:

Laura wrote the harpy’s alabaster sharpness… in Taco Bell (CLEARLY hers is much nicer than any I’ve ever been in, since she can WORK there),

Tricia likened its claws to another clawed monster, cancer, then gave us another,

Sara played a wild marble instrument in a triumphant paean to claws and storms,

Liz blew our minds. Just, flat out.

Kelly found some information on the sculptor which makes us wonder…

Andi’s sitting out this month, but will be back when she can.

Meanwhile, Poetry Friday is hosted today by Jone at Check It Out. Hope you have a lovely – fierce! – weekend.