The Carrier Pigeon

Old Faces (A Poem)

August 5, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Old Faces

I have always envied

The men with old faces,

Old faces,

Like the ones worn by cops

And mobsters on TV.

These men

Have character in proportion to the depth of their jowls.

The droops in their necks

Bulge further with each year.

Their skins—

Porous leathers (I could wear

Their dermis like winter

Coats heavy in the snow.)

Cheeks, sculpted

Into perpetual frowns,

An upturned U

Tipping the last drops of wine

Into the mouth below.

(These were never

Men remiss to partake in the salubriousness of gluttony.)

Not their wives,

Blonde

Plucked

Prim,

Who examine their finger-

Nails

At a safe distance of two feet

With digits extended,

(Not curled toward their palms

Like lawyers and dykes do)—

This was never their way—

They were never their wives.

No:

Even in pride

Their superciliousness required no trimming;

Their brows stem from Eden.

Wanton

Like Adam’s kinky beard

They speak like a million Father Jupiters

Scratching their balls as they preach.

They have that kind of authority.

They are dons with baby cheeks

And the heathery smile

Of male-pattern baldness.

One day,

Even that will be gone:

They will bear pates for helmets,

Their spines will wrinkle in accord with their necks;

They will be left

Propped up only by the mammoth beer bellies

They layered and sweat out night

After night after night.

They will return to their Parthenic cribs.

Shaking their jowls at a rocking Acropolis,

They will rule their nurseries

With fists clenched tight.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Poetry
Tagged: ,

An Inquiry Regarding Bus Schedules (A Poem)

July 29, 2009 · Leave a Comment

I.

It’s late.

It’s late.

It’s late.

II.

The somnambulant bobbing of a winter stride.

I struggle to evade the gaze of passerby.

I am hooked, a hapless trout.  Scales powder out in my wake.  The plumage of

—>flailing submarine.

III.

“There is no need to look away.”

Look.  Look.  Look, look.

In command, I am reduced to a stutter.

IV.

I hide and seek safety in the concrete reefs to my side:

A church, whitened in the spongy rough like the stubble of a man’s beard;

Its roof is the coalescence of broad palette strokes,

Midnight kisses of Plaster of Paris, tufting up and out like the cream of key lime pie.

Touches of red adorn the lintels, the crown, the door and the cross,

The reassuring gesture of an old lover,

Who whispers,

“No First Born will die here tonight.”

V.

And a jungle to my other side,

The trees embrace,

Duskily, they breathe a baby’s breath,

Dance an ancient dance,

My arboreal mothers hefting their arms into umbilicals, rejoining womb with sky.

Swaying in unison to the quiet hush of the wind,

The rat-a-tat of river on river rock,

The tom-tom thump of steady and always.

“You see, there is nothing to fear.”

VI.

I can see there is nothing to fear.

I see, I see, I see, I see

A man.

He leans against the bus post for a cane,

His hair, a fleecy halo,

His beard, the grey of ash long spared inferno,

His skin hewn of ebony, darker than the night.

A good soul.

A soul pure in its blackness.

I look into his eyes.

VII.

His mouth begins to creak ajar.

He prepares to shake his cup for change.  I continue to walk and I

Slip him a five.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Poetry
Tagged: , , ,

The White Man Speaks of Rivers (A Poem)

July 24, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The White Man Speaks of Rivers

He’s known rivers:

Ancient, dusky rivers,

Rivers that yawn at the birth of the world

And crawl with the ease of antediluvian tremblings.

His soul is deep as a river.

He has slept in the pat of the Amazon;

He has given Chalchiuhtlicue pears from his loins,

Osiris embalmed and bathed in his green skin.

He builds huts from the mounds of his own mounds;

He does not lick the hearth himself,

But feeds it, with in-tucked brows.

With flames of feather he rejoices in the confinement of an egg,

And sings to grow from ash to egg again.

Oh, he’s known rivers,

Ancient, dusky rivers.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Poetry
Tagged: , ,

50 Years of Obscenity

July 21, 2009 · Leave a Comment

For anyone who doesn’t know, today is the 50th anniversary of the court case that overturned American obscenity laws.  That literature like Lady Chatterley’s Lover – the novel around which the ruling revolved – could be equated with pornography seems, in retrospect, obscene (pardon the pun).  It’s easy to forget what a half-century has accomplished.  Personally, I’ve always supported the broadest definitions of free speech.  I’ve never registered why a word or photograph would cause such public outrage, especially in this day and age, where nudity and sexual innuendo have completely saturated the public sphere.  A month ago New York City residents were shocked by the “lewd” Calvin Klein advertisement in SoHo; I was shocked at their reaction.  Was it anything new?  Anything we hadn’t seen before?  Regardless, the advertisement was revoked, the dynamism of tanned skins and blue jeans replaced by the wholesome Americana of a blonde in a bikini.

Given the national response to that Calvin Klein ad, obscenity is still a source of contention, despite all the editorials proclaiming the triumph of free speech over sexual stodginess.  Granted, Elvis’s pelvic thrusts no longer provoke our ire;  yet sex continues to be a font of scandal.  Consider the most popular news stories.  Murder?  War?  Politics?  No.  The news story that most frequently comes to mind is Michael Jackson’s death, a story dominated not by the death of a pop star, but by the death of a weirdo, a man who was variably described as pedophiliac, pedasteric, or gay.

Coming from a culturally liberal environment, I’m surprised that sex is still such a hot-button issue.  I’m even more surprised, however, that these self-professed liberals are frequently conservative when it comes to evolving attitudes toward sex.  I’ve spoken to my father about this issue many times.  My father is a child of Woodstock; he was a hippie in the sixties and will openly discuss his drug use in the seventies, even to his children.  Nevertheless, he frequently expresses concern over my generation’s sexual inclinations.  According to him, we are promiscuous; we don’t understand intimacy; we don’t respect our bodies.  And this is coming from a man who lived through the sexual revolution, in a family where he and his girlfriend (much to my daughterly dismay) examine their sex lives during meals and in a household where the Kama Sutra was on one of the bottom bookshelves, easily within a pre-teen’s sight and reach.

My generation – or at least its more progressive representatives – does not share these beliefs.  We’re conscientious about sex.  We grew up in the wake of AIDS scares and the gay rights movement:  sex has become political, not in the old, regressive way, but in one that urges forward thinking.  What I find most interesting about this shift is the disparity in viewpoints between Baby Boomers and Generation Y.  Perhaps I’m too young to lend any real perspective to the matter, but as far as I can tell, the Baby Boomers have adopted Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as a policy extending far beyond the military.  Whatever you do in your own home is fine, as long as I don’t know about it and don’t have to hear about it. Thus an advertisement alluding to threesome is obscene, but a novel read in the privacy of one’s own home and which depicts private sex acts is decent.  Those Calvin Klein models were foisting their deviant sexuality onto a very public sphere.  My generation, however, is if anything the opposite.  We feel comfortable discussing unconventional sexualities, but generally dislike the idea of participating in them.  Publically, deviant sexuality is acceptable; privately it’s not.  Is this because we’re a more tolerant society?  Because we’re hypocrites?  Numbed to advertising?  I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but I’m interested to see how the next generation will behave, especially in the face of rapidly colliding private and public spheres.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Postmodern Pretentiousness · Sexuality
Tagged: , ,

Bruno

July 10, 2009 · Leave a Comment

This isn’t a movie review– I haven’t even seen Bruno yet, although I plan to.  There’s been so much press, so much public curiosity about the flick, however, that I feel like I should say something.  Which is convenient because I just read the New Yorker’s review of the latest Sascha Baron Cohen feature and had an immediate visceral reaction:  that was the most pretentious piece of shit I have ever read.  Okay, that’s hyperbole.  I’ve read far worse, and at least this was well written, even when straining to be so.  What upset me the most was the review’s familiarity.  This is the atmosphere I was raised in, one where we must always be considerate, always do the right thing, and always censor our emotions to be as acceptable as possible — or at least, acceptable to the right people.  Perhaps I can state this only under the influence of teenage rebellion, but I find such an attitude…upsetting.  I have some hesitation in my word choice there because even as I write these words I know how hypocritical they are.  I’m only comfortable preaching against political correctness because I know that all, if not the vast majority, of my beliefs are incidentally politcally correct.  I’m female, poor, ancestrally Jewish, queer, and, if not  a racial minority in Wonderbread America, I am a racial minority in my neighborhood.  Without the sympathetic leniency my background affords me, it would be much more strenuous to attack my protectors.  But I am these things; I do have these beliefs.

Welcome to the age of euphemism.

In the age of euphemism the caricature of Bruno is described as “a filleted, feather-cut popinjay”.  I don’t think I’ve heard the word “popinjay” expressed in casual conversation in the last decade.  As an experiment, I googled “popinjay” and the only results I got were definitions– the  review’s author (Anthony Lane) has diction so archaic it should be permanently interred to unopened OEDs and Michael Chabon novels.  What Lane really means is that Bruno’s a real fruitcake, a fag to trump all fags.  These phrases may be uncouth, but they still mean something to the New Yorker’s readership.  But rather than say what he means, Lane substitutes an advertisement for his political correctness instead of impact.

In the age of euphemism, we flaunt our superiority with congested punchlines, not fistfights.  The author can barely contain his glee when he claims, “if I had tried to explain that the Marx Brothers—sowers of extreme sedition, like Baron Cohen—sustained an entire career of ignobility without displaying a single erection, they [two women sitting beside him] would not have believed me.”  There’s something painfully absurd in chastising “Bruno” for unintellectual physical comedy.  Congratulations:  the Marx Brothers — canonical joksters whose antiquity justifies a cerebral reverence Lane predictably embraces — never waved their dicks on the silver screen.  This probably has more to do with censorship and social expectations than comedic genius.  Rationale aside, I’m not sure why we should value intellectual comedy more highly than its instinctual counterpart.  I don’t understand why laughter should be censored simply because its source is illogical.  “Anglo-Freudian” genital fixations be damned!  Funny is funny whether it’s the product of my sexual repression, social discomfort, or yes, even Lane’s preferred method of neuronal excitement.  The real joke is that Lane doesn’t sense the irony of condemning Cohen’s physical comedy for being too physical and praising the Marx Brothers’ physical comedy for being so intellectual.

It’s unsurprising, then, that come page two, Lane begins to preach tolerance.  A Crusade! A Crusade!  It turns out that “Bruno” revels in homophobia because it’s a guise for the viewers to partake in it themselves.  For The New Yorker, this is inherently a bad thing.  I’m unconvinced.  I’m an avid reader of comedy reviews because laughter doesn’t lie.  In the age of euphemism, there is no euphemism for laughter.  Meaning, significance, restored at last!  We laugh at slapstick but we also laugh at death, sometimes.  “Inappropriate laughter” is a phrase for a reason– we haven’t forced it into line just yet.  Usually, when a comedy gets a bad review, it’s because it just isn’t funny.  But every so often there are reviews like these, which admit hilarity but condemn content.  Even without having seen the movie, I wholeheartedly believe that “Bruno” is homophobic, albeit introspectively so.  But does that deserve repression?  No.  No, it does not.  Homophobia exists.  Stereotypes exist.  Stereotypes are funny.  They belong in comedy.  If we cannot acknowledge our flaws, how are we supposed to eliminate them?  The tolerance Lane so adores is just an excuse for censorship.  I don’t think I should censor my emotions, call something stale when it’s funny, just because its content is politically incorrect.  I would rather homophobia be expressed as comedy than as a beating.

In his penultimate sentence, Lane writes, “A guy pulls down his pants and bares his soul, and we are forbidden to have thoughts?”  Now add “or emotions” to the end of that question.  My sentiments exactly.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Movies · Postmodern Pretentiousness · Sexuality
Tagged: , ,

Motorcycle Story (A Very Short Story)

July 9, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Motorcycle Story

There was a spectacle, and the unwitting participants had, for the occasion, twisted themselves into a circle the likes of a grade school bullying ring.  The day was cool, and the weatherman had predicted rain, but at the moment the air was more heavily saturated with noise than with the dull throb of humidity.  With the sun ricocheting off the masses of sweating summer bodies, but a hulking grey cloud a mile past the horizon, the boulevard was speckled with a rash of sunglasses – black and bold, transparent, liquidic, graceful sharp or loud – and the world never appeared to enjoy its last gasp of vibrancy so much as it did today.  At that moment, this very exact one, right now:  now! — the center of the earth happened to be the cobbled boardwalk, grey with the smut and soot of a million trampling footsteps, linking the far away embraces of two bohemian alleys in downtown Manhattan.  And on the bullseye of the world, two crowds formed, like moist fungal colonies.  Music pulsated, physically tattooing against pedestrians’ backs, toes, necks, and fingernails, from all corners of the wold:  the window with the construction-paper curtains, the naked man on the balcony (he will die in two days when the rotting wooden railing collapses), the ground-floor apartment with lipstick petunias and plastic pink flowerpots, the near-homeless man (sign:  OLD SCHOOL HIP HOP BY TIMES FEETURED ARTIST, $12) who wears a fleecy black beard that, little known fact, harbors all the world’s secrets – until a whisper or well-lubricated tongue releases them, that is to say.  At one end of the street a team of break dancers performs to techno and the marching, lockstep sound of clapping from the crowd.  They are spattered in red and white, du-rags and gel soaked spikes like a jaded dragon’s ridged spine; one blonde girl (from Connecticut but she says she’s from the ghetto) with a streak of orange flame alighting her hair; the dark faces of aged ebony with the smell of Africa, that hidden world of Before, still spicing their Macy’s colognes.  Step right, left, right left clap twice, while a man spins the world from the rounded fulcrum of his brow (How does he do it?).  Having completed the feat, the man with crow eyes who can turn the world on his head floats the rims of his chafing lips upwards, and while the argent caps of his teeth are artificial, the smile is a genuine one.
From that mirror of a tooth is reflected the universe, in all its glory.  The iron-hewed nebulae of Sirius and his shaggy tufts of hydrogen, which a team of Scientists at NASA, armored and guarded by their degrees of plenty, have been laboring to capture in their telescopes for the past two months, resides in that tooth.  (It is a string of a quark of an electron of an atom of a freckle on Atlas’s shoulder, but! it is there should you ever care to find it.)
But closer than that (or farther, depending on how you care to view it) you might see the cyan of the awning of the P.J. Mayo’s (HAPPY HOUR FIVE TO SEVEN, THURSDAY IS LADIES NIGHT) across that cobbled sunning street.
Here, between the Riverock, the restaurant, and bites of egg white omelet and sips of cafe au lait, a second crowd began to form.  Although, of course, one can never be certain of these things, the I ♥ NYs and Ambercrombies that hardened the arteries and softened the stature of this new york city street appeared to be attracted to each other in one particularly noteworthy spot on the basis of a motocycle’s whining catcall in heat, a tumbling, gasoline-choked growl of revving motor.  A girl with shoulder length sandy hair, sterling earrings, and a tailored plaid shirt sunk her nails into the back of a leather clad set of biceps – a man – who captained said vehicle of din.  The crowd, perfectly circular as though grasping hands under the smoothness of a dinner plate – and indeed, this was their source of organismal appeasment, according to the drip-drip of their hanging tongues – enlarged, swelling under a steady flow of onlookers from adjacent stores and those drawn from the dancers across the alley.

The gurgling of the motor droned on, the crowd grew, the sun intensified its glare.  Soon, the cocktail of tourists and cosmopolitans had grown to such a mass that those about their business were unable to pass, so that they, likewise, joined the pack of spectators.  Mumblings, too, were trapped by the blockade of human bodies, and they dutifully reported to their owners.  “What’s the holdup, here, exactly?” one curled mustache inquired.  A dusky soulpatch edged past several other fellas to charge, “I think it’s a show of some sort.”  Pause to find the words: “Motorcycle tricks.”  A freshly trimmed goatee, intrigued, wished to know when they would be performing the wheelies.
The engine groaned; the girl released a gleeful scream; the motorcycle sputtered and fell on its side, a slain beast, and the crowd averted its gaze to avoid the shame of such majestic folly.  From the depths of the street, an emaciated boy swathed all in blue ran on tremulous legs to the motorcyclist.  “No, no, you can’t drive that way, you’ll ruin the transmission, and worse,” — this last was pronounced without conviction — “you’ll cause an accident and kill yourself!”  The salesboy, staring ever so slightly at his chin, continued, “Thank god you hadn’t gotten it properly going yet.”
At this, the boy waved his hands to dismantle the crowd, and the horizon inched forward to reveal the anvil of a storm ahead.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Short Stories

In the Land of Ashes (A Poem)

July 9, 2009 · Leave a Comment

In the Land of Ashes

In the land of the Ashes is Sonrisa Laundromat,
Where the burdened souls of ashen folk
Pour their soiled remains into soiled tubs
And watch corpulent rumblings from afar.
Here, the leathered skins
And silken skins
And skins with bared fangs and gold teeth and no teeth at all.
And old dogs with old tricks.
Here we recycle our weathered refrains
Step on toes and open doors – held doors closed doors.
Said, “Excuse me Ma’am and Thank you Sir.”
And meditated, “Should I move left or right?”
Exclaimed, “Good Morn Good Night.”

The Wolverines The Wolverines The Wolverines!
Skinny jeans and moccasins,
The plaid you wore when you said:
Hello
And all those cast aside,
The tide,
It comes and comes.

In the land of the Ashes a mermaid winks
Scratches etched and crayon’s crass scrawl
On the bathroom wall.

In the land of the Ashes
Sleep, unattained—
Heavy bones—
Skeletons with sad crow’s eyes
The creases of a downturned smile,
Wrinkled pleats, sagging tits,
Over-suckled under-graced.
Grace never came easy:
(Ankles too pockmarked by potholes,
And the elbows like tusks.)

Over Tea, you say
You say:
It’s not rained like that since we were young.
Your bangs entangled in the wet—
Do you remember?
(The sky was green; you should remember.)
We climbed up the roof and let our hair down
And shook the dust from our shoulders,
The clay from our faces,
And watched the dust from our shoulders cum into mud
And teased the clay from our faces (cum into mud)
And pushed our thumbprints up into the sighing crest of your cheekbones,
Past the stone-wells of your pupils and up until your eyes rolled back in your head.
We left palm-smudges on dirtied blonde-roofs,
So different from the flakes of stamps,
Faded reds and faded blues,
Neglected in dry heaves of picture books,
Tourists of the Deep.

(The sky will never be so green.)
(When you fell, the sky was so green.)

I laughed and pushed the rain asunder
And slid—
The spry leap of ringlets,
Twist and thrust and torqued sighs of pleasure
Falling way to vernbrannt haystacks of children’s shoes,
Dry and fresh, the mold
Of backs arched in ecstasy
And toes curled in ecstasy
And beansprouts growing from the smiling lip of your toe.

In the land of the Ashes
Leopards sleep on the echoed rims of gourds,
Purring purring
Purring from the frothy bowls of milky way,
Lips recumbent,
Unchafed eyes,
Sores unshaved, like blistering cheetah-print four-inch-fuck-me-heels;
Antelope lousy with leather and tangerine skins,
Tusks husked like shafts of corn in Golden America:
Whose pelvis needs oiling
And rusts away, flaking into maroon foam
And pillows for the palaquined unbeautiful?
Whose somnambulant totems, restrained, tame and withstood,
And whose ancient scalp
Picked off, fiber by fiber by fiber
And laid like the million lays before,
Etherised – an oriental rug bought at great expense from the kinky chambers of sex slaves in Shanghai and Xanadu and the darky climax of Bombay – on the highs and lows from Sheharazade’s Mid East to Carraway’s Middle West?
Whose eyes gaze with paternal affection at the slinking teases of gas-chambered whores,
Naked taunts and sly whispers as prepubescents bare their bare breasts
And fall in contrived swoons?
Whose sweating grin,
Whose lotus shrieks,
Whose calculated splicing of the fattened brain?
Whose jowls quiver at pedasteric intoxication,
Anticipation of abandon?

(And who)
And who are you and you and you?

In the land of the Ashes is Sonrisa Laundromat
Where we wash and state:  Good Day.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Poetry

Manhattan, 4 July 1992 (A Poem)

July 9, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Manhattan, 4 July 1992

In summer, the children my age would scream
Into the rivers of the streets,
Waterfountains and hydrants like puckered urban teets

Ebony asphalt the steam of stinking shit mammary glands leaking ribbed streaks _______of milk.

I read a book,
Its cover worn
Worn and smooth
A child’s first lost tooth
(Priceless like that, I mean).
It was brown.
It was like brownstones
And stoops.  Brown stoops, brown skins.
(These darkies were no niggers.)

(They warbled like nightingales in evening) Hallelujah Hallelujah Jeeesus Jeeesus Jeeeeeeeesus Saves!

(They lifted their heads high beneath the whitehot of the Aryan sun) Shit son I need
a drink a drink a drink.
(Their braids were crowns of thorns; their scalps bled the smegma of blood and
sweat.) Tight.
The children on the stoop
They were businessmen, entrepreneurs, literati and mathematicians;
They chalked with the unctuousness of pastels
And re-chalked after it rained:
Future cuckolds gay in their nests.
(That swagger in their voices suppressed over time, with effort and time.)
They fought over crayons – one of them snapped – and who owned the cash register
and who owed a dime – and then they made up.

In the summer, they screamed at each other
Blithely rain or shine
The tinny shrill of prepubertal
Organs as yet uncommitted to the lovemaking of mythopoeia
(But then they apologized; they were good role models).

These were my role models
(They were good role models)
Or so I read in the heat of summer.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Poetry

Slang in Dystopias

July 9, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Before class officially began on Tuesday we were discussing the slang Anderson uses in Feed. The creation of a novel-specific vocabulary, while not genre defining, is certainly a trope across dystopic novels. Why is this?

One potential reason is the foreign setting in which dystopias usually occur. Feed occurs both in the future, and on the moon. Just as if a novel were set in some exotic land and required the addition of a few words to match new concepts, so do dystopic novels supplement the reader’s vernacular with the author’s imagined lexicon. Slang could be interpreted as a function of temporal or spatial novelty.

Alternatively, dystopic slang could be one of the methods by which the writer asserts his authority. Dystopic novels are teleological, and it is of the utmost importance that the author be considered a knowledgeable figure if a dystopic threat is to be taken seriously. Vocabulary, whether supercilious (e.g., my own use of “teleological” or “supercilious” just now) or simply strange (e.g. “meg”, “null”) is an effective way for an author to demonstrate dominance over his/her readership.

What I think most likely, however, is slang’s role as testament to authenticity. A new lexicon might be conceived of as a souvenir: I have seen the future; I have seen how the future acts, how the future thinks, how the future speaks. Perhaps this is why books that are not dystopic, but which suffer a burden of authenticity, also utilize foreign speech. For example, Thus Spake Zarathustra does not depict a dystopia but does need to verify Zarathustra’s authenticity as a prophet. As a result, Nietzsche anachronistically writes in biblical syntax and diction. Zarathustra is clearly Nietzsche’s mouthpiece, but “Thus Spake” as opposed to “Thus Spoke” almost inadvertently convinces the reader of the novel’s legitimacy as a canonical religious work.

I can’t currently think of any other reasons why dystopic slang might be significant, but if you can, please respond!

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Thoughts from Class
Tagged: , , , , ,

Dystopias

July 9, 2009 · Leave a Comment

While searching for a blog post topic I decided to survey JSTOR for the genre expectations of a dystopic novel. I imagine most of these issues will be covered by the Anderson group so I don’t want to go into too much detail about the supposed criteria for a dystopia. However, I did find one interesting item– the idea that all dystopias are anticipatory and occur in the future. I don’t fully agree with this claim. In class, for example, I came up with Lord of the Flies as an example of a dystopia set in the present. To me, the defining feature of a dystopia should be its utility as a warning, just as a utopia is suggestion by example. Is it possible to effectively warn readers about social dangers without relying on predictions? Personally, I far prefer to read a novel that does not predict the future, since as anyone who’s seen 2001: A Space Odyssey knows, depictions of the future usually seem ridiculous. But this could just be me. (I’ll make no secret of it; I’m hardly a cheerleader for dystopic novels.)

Need we see the future to fear for the present?

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Thoughts from Class
Tagged: , , ,