Skip to main content

National Poetry Month III

Treasure Your Grief

Not like a piece of jewellery kept in a box
but a scar across your face
a house plant blooming where sun
glares through a window.

Go back to that time—
the sunny afternoon in the park
you didn’t question
your feelings sweeping you out
from childhood to another’s body
so close it enters like a possession
a desire that doesn’t name itself

cut by fear
this is how women are destroyed
and you run away
shut down the portal to pleasure
as you will do again and again.

Go back to the image you hold onto
the someday promised, this or this
the girl who gives because she feels
the movie star everyone wants but can’t have
the radiant flesh, the brilliant idea
all yours if you play your cards
right not wrong. Right not left. Right not alone,
starving or battered.

New dove, shapely, winged and wise, goddess poised
on the edge of a mountain in the clouds
ready to jump or fly to eternal glory
shattered by all the missteps, mistakes and failings
the undeniable proof of your unremarkable humanity
your place in the anonymous family
and all the ways you have been let down or built up
washing the cloth of invincibility.

You’ll dream of long corridors searching for a baby
taken at birth to find she was never yours
and in the mirror no tragic victim looks back at you
no Cinderella or Joan of Arc.

Grief is not loss but inheritance, your fire,
your form. Grief is the callback to play yourself
with your sweat, your fear, challenged by desire
to answer the breaking Earth as though she were a heart
or some other organ, her blood rushing through
your own veins. As though you were yourself
a mind created to save her and after all these years
you learn the only thing you can be sure about
are the many opportunities you threw away.

There are no happy endings.
There is struggle. There is gratitude.
And there is silence.

(Infinite Power, Janet Vickers, Ekstasis 2016)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.


In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…