A Note On Lisa Zaran’s Poem, “Girl”

 Girl 

by Lisa Zaran

She said she collects pieces of sky, 

cuts holes out of it with silver scissors, 

bits of heaven she calls them. 

Every day a bevy of birds flies rings 

around her fingers, my chorus of wives, 

she calls them. Every day she reads poetry 

from dusty books she borrows from the library, 

sitting in the park, she smiles at passing strangers, 

yet can not seem to shake her own sad feelings. 

She said that night reminds her of a cool hand 

placed gently across her fevered brow, said 

she likes to fall asleep beneath the stars, 

that their streaks of light make her believe 

that she too is going somewhere. Infinity, 

she whispers as she closes her eyes, 

descending into thin air, where no arms 

outstretch to catch her.

In response to a question as to the meaning of “descending into thin air.”

“*Descending* into thin air”is meant to describe her *falling* asleep. We descend into sleep. We lose consciousness. We fall into unconsciousness. When conscious she seeks companionship, animate or inanimate rendered meaningful via her imagination:

pieces of sky, bits of heaven;

bevy of birds, chorus of wives;

smiles at passing strangers;

night is a cool hand on her fevered brow;

night streaks of light make her feel she has a purpose, that she’s going somewhere.

Infinity is her belief in the limitlessness of what she can be stimulated to imagine. She constitutes herself as best she can by her imagination, with what she can imaginatively surround herself.

Come night and sleep and that is lost, her imagination perforce must fail her. So she descends into non-sustaining thin air—in contrast with her collecting pieces of the sky, bits of heaven—where there is no recourse to what her imagination can do for her, no arms outstretched to catch her, in contrast to night reminding her of a cool hand.

If she were to ascend, that would connote something positive for her in losing imaginative consciousness, which would cut against the meaning of the poem.

On David Berman’s Poem “Coincidence”

Coincidence

David Berman

For Mildred Nash

 

Coincidence.  Perhaps coincidence

Explains it all.  Why look far out, in deep

For mystical solutions to make sense

Of how a dream disturbed more than my sleep—

A dream in which you sat bolt upright on

A Windsor chair and wore a long blue dress

(Ornamented with a white chiffon)

And on your visage bore a dark distress

And said your dog was dead?  When I awoke,

I thought the dream an impetus to phone,

And when I did, the first words that you spoke,

Through sobs, were that your cat had died.  Your tone

Was as it had been in my dream, which plain

Coincidence tries too hard to explain?

So “plain coincidence” tries to work too hard to explain the similarities between the content of the dream and the subsequent conversation. 

It’s paradoxical. 

Coincidence is typically the simplest explanation for such similarities. It dispels less straightforward explanations that defy the occurrence of simple unlikely off chance events. 

So poems’ end inverts the introductory surmise as to the explanatory power of coincidence.

The surmise:

Coincidence.  Perhaps coincidence

Explains it all. 

but then at the end:

Your tone

Was as it had been in my dream, which plain

Coincidence tries too hard to explain?

So aren’t we finally left then with an explanation that in an ironic sense doesn’t have to try as hard as coincidence?

Ironic because while penetrating “the deep For mystical solutions” is beyond doing, it works less hard than the ready to hand, immediate explanatory power of coincidence that requires no further probing.

But there’s one caveat to this inversion, namely the concluding question mark.

So as the poem has it, it’s a question whether “Coincidence tries too hard to explain?”.

A Reading Of The Unaccompanied, A Poem By Simon Armitage

Wandering slowly back after dark one night

above a river, toward a suspension bridge,

a sound concerns him that might be a tune

or might not: noise drifting in, trailing off.

 

Then concerns him again, now clearly a song

pulsing out from the opposite bank, being sung

by chorusing men, all pewter-haired or bald,

in the function suite of a shabby hotel.

Above their heads a conductor’s hand

draws and casts the notes with a white wand.

 

Songs about mills and mines and a great war,

about mermaid brides and solid gold hills,

songs from broken hymnbooks and cheesy films.

 

Then his father’s voice rising out of that choir,

and his father’s father’s voice, and voices

of fathers before, concerning him only,

arcing through charged air and spanning the gorge.

He steps over the cliff edge and walks across.

—————

I wrote this to someone: 

 I think though that from this back and forth I may be able to put this poem together without getting into all its subtleties, meanings and means.  “Wandering,” as I’d noted, suggests his aimlessness. But he’s wandering “slowly back,” which qualifies his lack of direction. 

Back suggests he’s got something in mind. He’s slowly moving back to the place he came from. He hears sounds that increasingly concern him, in both senses of concern. They’re inside his head. 

They start off vaguely and then grow in focused clarity. In what he hears with his inward ear are seemingly images and fragments of memories from his life; they are specific and concrete. 

The clarity of what he inwardly hears intensifies when he hears his father’s and forefathers’ voices, as they rise for him above all else and fill the air and span the divide between whom and what he was and  whom and what he now is, that very distance suggested by the “gorge.” 

Are they singing to him, speaking to him; has the music ended? We don’t know. But we can infer they’re beckoning to him as they concern only him, the culmination and resolution of all the concern running through the poem. 

Now, what was somewhat aimless wandering has become decisive movement, captured by the direct active verbs of the last line, “steps over” and “walks across.” 

He walks over the suspension bridge towards what before he had walked over it away from—towards home, it seems most likely, the voices of his progenitors bringing him to some sense of himself and taking him home. He transports himself.  

A Modest Proposal Re Israel And Palestinian Terror, Actually Not Modest But Not Absurd

Here is an argument for a radically proactive approach to dealing with Palestinian terrorism as embodied in entities like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. 

I find the underlying logic hard to refute: why live under constant large scale threats from them; why not change the rules under which the status quo continues, a status quo that means living with periodic rocket barrages, which, for now, makes Southern Israel a periodic target, which allows these groups to rearm and, indeed, improve their munitions? 

What country with the capability to do otherwise would agree to live with ongoing bombardment, among other imperilling threats? 

Is the status quo the only alternative, given that for these organizations, which are gaining political power against a sclerotic PLO, Israel’s existence itself is a zero sum issue, no compromise to be brooked?

Isn’t it so, as I believe Golda Meir said, paraphrase, “If they disarm, then we’ll disarm. If we disarm, then they’ll destroy us.” 

https://www.meforum.org/64463/how-israel-can-solve-its-gaza-problem

 

Chat GPT And I On Michael Ondaatje’s Poem Bearhug

Me

The Bearhug 

Michael Ondaatje

Griffin calls to come and kiss him goodnight

I yell ok. Finish something I'm doing,

then something else, walk slowly round

the corner to my son's room.

He is standing arms outstretched

waiting for a bearhug. Grinning.

Why do I give my emotion an animal's name,

give it that dark squeeze of death?

This is the hug which collects

all his small bones and his warm neck against me.

The thin tough body under the pyjamas

locks to me like a magnet of blood.

How long was he standing there

like that, before I came?

AI

Bearhug" by Michael Ondaatje is a short yet emotionally charged poem that explores the nature of parental love and the profound connection between a father and his son. Through vivid imagery and introspective questioning, Ondaatje delves into the complex emotions and the physicality of their relationship.

The poem begins with a direct address as the speaker, presumably the father, responds to his son's call. The son, named Griffin, beckons his father to come and kiss him goodnight. The urgency and intimacy of the moment are conveyed through the son's insistence and the father's affirmative response.

The father, however, delays his arrival at his son's room. He explains that he needs to finish something he is doing and attend to something else before eventually making his way around the corner. This delay could be seen as an exploration of the distractions and responsibilities that often intervene in our lives, even when faced with the genuine desire for connection and affection.

When the father finally reaches his son's room, he finds Griffin standing with arms outstretched, eagerly awaiting a bearhug. The word "bearhug" is significant as it imbues the emotion with a raw intensity, a potent mixture of tenderness and strength. It also introduces the notion of a bear's embrace, which carries connotations of protection, warmth, and the potential for danger.

The father then questions himself, asking why he gives his emotion the name of an animal and why he associates it with the "dark squeeze of death." 

This line suggests that the father is aware of the overwhelming power of his love for his son, which can feel both life-giving and potentially suffocating. The reference to death highlights the fragility of life and the precariousness of the father-son bond, as well as the potential for loss and separation.

The subsequent lines depict the physicality of the bearhug, emphasizing the father's tactile experience. The father describes how the hug gathers "all his small bones and his warm neck against me." 

This imagery evokes a sense of protection, as if the father is trying to enclose his son within his own body, forming a shield against the uncertainties of the world. The mention of the "thin tough body under the pyjamas" further accentuates the vulnerability and resilience of the child.

The final lines leave the reader with a sense of reflection and contemplation. The father wonders how long his son had been waiting in that open-armed stance before he arrived. This inquiry suggests a moment of introspection, where the father contemplates the significance of his delayed response and the potential impact it may have had on his son's emotional state. 

It also invites the reader to reflect on the transient nature of time and the missed opportunities for connection that can occur within our relationships.

Overall, "Bearhug" explores the depth of a father's love for his son, using vivid imagery and introspective questioning to delve into the complexities and nuances of their relationship. It captures both the fierce protectiveness and the profound vulnerability inherent in parental love, leaving the reader with a poignant and contemplative impression.

——

Me:

Excellent. A further question:  Do you see any menace in these lines flowing from father to son: 

“Why do I give my emotion an animal's name,

give it that dark squeeze of death?” 

Why does he speak of a squeeze of death in embracing his son. I can make little sense of it.

————-

AI

In the lines, "Why do I give my emotion an animal's name,

give it that dark squeeze of death?" the speaker, who is the father, is questioning himself about the intensity and nature of his emotional connection with his son. While these lines may seem perplexing at first, they do not necessarily suggest any menace in the father's intentions or actions.

The phrase "dark squeeze of death" is a metaphorical expression used by the father to describe the strength and depth of his emotions during the bearhug. It implies that the father's love for his son is so intense that it feels as though it could squeeze the life out of him, not in a literal sense of causing harm or danger, but rather as a poetic representation of overwhelming affection and protectiveness. It signifies the immense power and potential risk inherent in loving someone deeply.

The use of the word "death" here should not be interpreted literally, but rather as a symbol of the father's awareness of the fleeting nature of life and the vulnerability that comes with such strong emotional connections. It reflects the paradoxical nature of love, where the very act of embracing someone closely, even with the purest intentions, can evoke a simultaneous awareness of mortality and the fear of loss.

Therefore, the mention of the "squeeze of death" is more a contemplative reflection on the fragility of life and the intensity of the father's emotions than a suggestion of any harm or menace towards his son. It speaks to the complexity and depth of the father's love, as well as the profound responsibility he feels towards his child.

————-

Me:

A problem I have with your most thoughtful and helpful answer is the advice to oerleap the literal and get to the metaphoric or symbolic. I argue poetry must work literally and then metaphorically and symbolically. There seems an unavoidable dimension of potential menace in the lines. 

Couldn’t one express that intensity in innumerable ways even hinting at the possibility of squeezing too hard as a metonym for overbearing harm without mentioning “death?” It won’t do, I’d argue, to dismiss the literality of “death” in these lines and what it may portend.

———-

AI

You raise a valid point, and I appreciate your perspective on the matter. Indeed, in poetry, it is crucial to consider both the literal and metaphorical aspects of a text. 

While metaphor and symbolism play a significant role in enriching the meaning of a poem, it is important not to dismiss the literal implications entirely.

In the specific lines you mentioned, the mention of "the dark squeeze of death" does introduce a dimension that can be interpreted as potentially menacing. 

By associating the intensity of the bearhug with death, there is an underlying suggestion of danger or harm, even if metaphorical or symbolic in nature.

Considering the possibility of expressing the intensity in alternative ways, hinting at the potential harm without mentioning "death," is valid.

You are absolutely right, and I agree that it would be unwise to dismiss the literal meaning of "death" in these lines. The mention of death carries weight and significance, and it should be acknowledged and examined within the context of the poem.

The father's use of the phrase "dark squeeze of death" suggests a depth of emotion that goes beyond the realm of mere intensity. While it may not imply a literal physical harm towards the son, it does evoke a sense of potential danger or a recognition of the transient nature of life.

The inclusion of "death" in the context of the bearhug could be seen as a way for the father to confront the inherent vulnerability and fragility of life, reminding him of the potential risks and consequences that exist even within the realm of love and affection. 

It serves as a reminder of the profound responsibility he feels towards his son and the need to be mindful of the power dynamics within their relationship.

By acknowledging the literal dimension of "death" in these lines, we can engage in a deeper exploration of the complex emotions and the potential risks that accompany the intensity of the father's love. It allows us to consider the poem from a more nuanced perspective, one that incorporates both the literal and metaphorical aspects to gain a comprehensive understanding of the father's thoughts and emotions.

—————

Me:

Again, what you say is most thoughtful and helpful. Allow me to suggest what I’m thinking by making my point more bluntly: is the father not saying, paraphrase, “when I embrace you, there is something intensely animalistic about it, something that has within it a feeling of love so extreme, so without limits, that I can imagine or sense that I could squeeze you to death”?

——————-

AI

Thank you for providing further clarification. Based on your paraphrase, I understand your perspective on the father's words. It seems that you interpret the father's statement as expressing an intense, animalistic love that has the potential to be overwhelming or harmful, although not necessarily with the intention of causing actual physical harm.

Your interpretation emphasizes the extreme and unbounded nature of the father's love for his son, to the point where he contemplates the possibility of the love being so intense that it could unintentionally lead to harm. The mention of squeezing the son to death in a metaphorical sense signifies the depth and power of the father's emotions.

While the original poem does not explicitly clarify the exact nature of the potential harm, your interpretation highlights the father's awareness of the need for caution and control in expressing such overwhelming emotions. It underscores the complexity of love, where even the most intense and genuine feelings can carry within them the potential for unintended consequences.

By focusing on the literal implications of the father's words, as you suggest, it adds a layer of tension and complexity to the poem. It invites readers to reflect on the delicate balance between the immense love and the responsibility that comes with nurturing and protecting a loved one.

Overall, your interpretation provides a valid perspective, emphasizing the potential implications of the father's intense love and the consideration of boundaries within that expression of affection.

——-

Me:

Thanks. It’s been wonderful discussing this with you?

——————

AI

You're very welcome! I'm glad to hear that you found our discussion wonderful. I appreciate your thoughtful questions and insights. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with in the future, please feel free to ask.

—————-