National Poetry Month, day 10: Walt Whitman and the Learn’d Astronomer

During most of my college years, the Physics department was run by Dr. Don Roiseland, a guy who was frankly beloved on campus. He was a big, tall goofy guy, bald, with facial features that famously (at least to everyone in the student body) looked like Yoda. During the autumn, when the leaves fell, he would never stay on the sidewalks, preferring to scuff his feet in the leaves as he went; he would even castigate students for not doing the same. In his high-pitched yelp of a voice he’d exhort us to scuff leaves along with him. I had only a bit of direct contact with Dr. Roiseland, when he taught a few sessions of the Astronomy class I took as one of my science electives. He loved just winging it when he had an audience in the school’s planetarium, and his love of the universe was well-known around campus.

Sadly, Dr. Roiseland got sick with some kind of cancer and died during my senior year. I attended his memorial service, which was held in the school’s main auditorium; he packed the place, one last time. Various professors stepped up to give tribute, including one who read this poem by Walt Whitman.

“When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer”, Walt Whitman

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

There’s a problem, though. I sat there that day, listening to those lines, and I thought, “I’m not sure that means what the prof seems to think it means.” Because the poem refers to a person listening to a boring lecture that is reducing the universe to numbers and equations and charts and diagrams, with no wonder that one feels when one simply goes out and looks in silence at the stars. I thought the prof who read that missed the meaning.

Now, I’m not so sure. I think that the prof read that as something of a cautionary warning to those following in Dr. Roiseland’s footsteps, because Dr. Roiseland never did lose sight of how wondrous it is to look in silence at the stars. No matter how brilliantly he could run down the equations and the numbers and the diagrams and the charts, he could also just talk with amazement about how big Betelgeuse is, or hold forth on the beauty of a comet in the night sky.

You don’t have to lose the wonder to be a learn’d astronomer.

Posted in poetry | Tagged , | Comments Off on National Poetry Month, day 10: Walt Whitman and the Learn’d Astronomer

That Old Twitchy Feeling…

…of having 50 open tabs.

Yes, 50.

I leave Chrome open all the time, and on the rare occasion that I do have to close it, or it closes during computer updates and restarts, I always restore to the most recent collection of open tabs, which grows over time to the point where when switching from one tab to another via the mouse, I run the very real risk of accidentally closing the tab, because the tab is so tiny it’s easy to hit that innocuous little ‘X’!

So, as a means of getting my tab situation under control for now, I present to you, ladies and gentlemen and everyone in between in the audience, a Grand Selection of Links!

Item the First! Here we have an article about the word decimate, which is a really vexing word in that the natural shifting of language has pushed it away from its original meaning (to reduce something by one-tenth), to a more general meaning (to destroy, with a usual connotation of pretty thorough and cataclysmic destruction). Decimate is one of those words that attracts word-pedants like a lamp outside attracts moths at night; use it in is present-day general meaning and you can almost set a stopwatch to someone stepping in with “Actually, that word really means….”

And I get it, I really do. Neil Gaiman (I think) once said something about shifting words, something along the lines of “When a word with an original specific meaning loses that meaning for something more general, as a writer I lose a tool.” And we have plenty of great words for “general destruction”, don’t we? I, for one, don’t really have a need for decimate to have a new meaning.

But, here’s the thing: I also don’t really have a need for decimate‘s original meaning, either. When’s the last time I needed to refer to something being reduced by a tenth? I have zero recollection of ever needing a word for precisely that, and I’m not really thinking up any likely future scenarios for the same, either. For me, decimate is most useful in a poetic way, if the word sounds best in the sentence I’m writing. So honestly, I don’t have a big dog in the decimate fight.

And more generally, I tend to be very meh on the idea that words should have precise meanings and that language shifting about is a bad thing. With exceptions, of course! It really grates on my ears and eyes when I encounter a “foodie” someplace saying that some restaurant’s dish or general food is “inedible”, when what they mean is “I don’t like it”. No, folks. Rocks are inedible. Little Caesar’s is not.

Item the Second! An article about the history of American coffee, from the coffee-and-chicory mix familiar to Civil War soldiers to the Robusta-bean dominance of the mid-20th century to coffee’s present-day high mark. The article is a summation of a podcast episode that I haven’t listened to, but I might! I do love my coffee, after all. I didn’t come around on coffee until my 20s, and it took ice cream to get there (I should see if I’ve told that story), but coffee’s an every-day thing for me now.

Interestingly the article ends by citing the rise of the light roast in contemporary coffee-making and brewing, because that’s where real flavor is. Here, I have to refer you to the wisdom of Detective Harry Callahan: “A man’s got to know his limitations.” I’ve tried many times, but I have to admit now that I really do prefer a dark roast.

Item the Third! It’s continually amazing to me how much of astronomy, much of the time, is just quietly going along learning stuff, but then something explodes someplace in the universe, and BOOM!, we suddenly learn a lot of new stuff. This article is a good case in point: a star’s explosion appears to be caused by a black hole literally consuming the star from the inside out. Wow!

Item the Fourth! An article about “Broadway Melody”, the 13-minute ballet that takes place in the last act of Singin’ in the Rain.

When I first saw Singin’, back when I was a kid in the mid-80s, I was confused by this strange and long number that takes place as the movie is heading toward its climax. If you haven’t seen the film, at this point our heroes, led by Gene Kelly’s Don Lockwood, are converting their disaster of a talkie into a musical, and Don goes to the producer to describe all that’s left to film: one number. The producer asks, “What number?” and Don says, “Here, I’ll describe it to you!” And then we go into a kind of dream sequence, which is the “Broadway Melody” ballet. Which, in a very meta way, is supposed to exist in a fictional movie…so it’s kind of doubly fictional! Strange!

Anyway, as noted, this entire ballet sequence confused me. I hadn’t seen a ton of musicals at this point but I’d seen enough to know that the musical numbers usually either advanced the story or expressed emotions felt by the characters. Not always, mind you, but most of the time that’s what the songs and dances are for. They establish character, show you what they’re feeling, and move the story along. “Broadway Melody” does none of those things! It’s an entirely self-contained entity, a musical story within a musical story, that has zero relevance to the larger film’s tale. Once it ends, thirteen minutes later, we’re back in that producer’s office, with Don grinning and saying, “So, what do you think?”

(In a real-life nod to a habit of actual producer Arthur Freed, the producer in the movie says, “I can’t quite visualize it!” Apparently Freed wasn’t a visualizer, either.)

The “Broadway Melody” sequence over time came to be one of my favorite parts of the film (though I’ll be honest, every minute of this movie is one of my favorite parts of the film). It’s a work of art all on its own, and despite the fact that it is clearly just plopped into the movie with a transition so bluntly awkward as to make you wonder how on Earth anyone ever thought they’d get away with doing it that way, it always works for me, because the song is great, the ballet’s story is a classic tale full of internal character development, and it features some of Singin’ in the Rain‘s most iconic dance imagery.

Item the Fifth! A neat post about the background of the legend of Dick Whittington and his cat. I owned a book as a kid about this story, and it stuck with me for years; in fact, the Whittington story is a partial inspiration for the fantasy novel I’ve been wrestling into shape for years. (Think Dick Whittington-meets-Alexandre Dumas, with a bunch of Renaissance-Faire stuff thrown in, and you’ve got it. Why something so simply conceived has been so hard to write, I honestly don’t know.)

Item the Sixth: Mary Oliver on how books saved her life. A quote:

I learned to build bookshelves and brought books to my room, gathering them around me thickly. I read by day and into the night. I thought about perfectibility, and deism, and adjectives, and clouds, and the foxes. I locked my door, from the inside, and leaped from the roof and went to the woods, by day or darkness.

[…]

I read my books with diligence, and mounting skill, and gathering certainty. I read the way a person might swim, to save his or her life. I wrote that way too.

Item the Seventh: Roxane Gay on the Will Smith-at-the-Oscars fiasco. I have offered no comment on this subject in any forum anywhere, on the assumption that my opinion on this is in no need of being aired. (And don’t ask, because not only will I not share my opinion, but I’m not even sure I have an opinion to be shared!) I do value Ms. Gay’s thoughts and views on many topics, though.

Item the Eighth: A Twitter thread delving into the awful nature of Florida’s new “Don’t Say ‘Gay'” law. What the American right is legislatively doing at all levels right now is absolutely and utterly appalling.

Item the Ninth: A sad article outlining the concerns about Bruce Willis’s mental decline over the last ten years or so. I knew none of this, having not paid much attention; I didn’t even know that Willis’s career the last several years has been an apparent assembly-line of one direct-to-video project after another. I’ve long been a fan of Willis, having been won over by Die Hard after my initial distaste because I really disliked Moonlighting, the 80s teevee series that first made him a star. In addition to the action work for which he became a huge star, Willis also did a lot of frankly underrated character work in movies like Mortal ThoughtsNobody’s Fool, and his turn in Pulp Fiction.

Also, a brief note of appreciation here for what is probably the goofiest entry in Willis’s filmography, the action flop Hudson Hawk, in which Willis plays a thief who gets out of prison and immediately returns to thievery, eventually ending up in a gonzo scheme involving lost works of Leonardo da Vinci. It’s not a good movie, but it is one you can enjoy if sufficiently lubricated, and I love that Willis and his partner-in-crime (Danny Aiello) time their heists by singing old classic songs as they work. Just the fact that this movie resurrected “Swingin’ on a Star” from obscurity elevates it, for me.

Item the Tenth: A photograph that sums up rather a lot of one big part of my childhood. I didn’t own everything in this picture, but I had quite a lot of it!

Item the Eleventh: Roger on composer John Rutter’s Requiem. I haven’t heard Rutter’s Requiem, but I will have to give it a listen soon. Requiems are a category unto themselves, where great composers are concerned, from the Viennese classicism of Mozart’s to the awesome romantic bombast of Berlioz’s to the gentle introspection of Faure’s.

Item the Twelfth: Jim Wright on “When Fascism Comes to America”. I have nothing to add here.

That’s how it starts.

You see yourself as a victim.

You see The Other as terrorists, murderers, convicts, and rapists.

You paint The Other as the worst possible thing you can think of, Satan worshipers, pedophiles, criminals, subhuman, the Enemy.

You use that rhetoric, revenge, get even, and you tell those most privileged by your society that they are the real victims.

And when you gain power, you use the mailed fist of government and the military to crush your opponents — and to keep that power, you’ll need to carry through on your promise.

You’ll have no choice but to actually line up those you hate against the wall and put a bullet in their heads. The mob who raised you up to power will accept nothing less than blood.

That’s where it starts.

Item the Thirteenth: I don’t want to end on a bummer note, so here’s a comedy sketch someone shared with me online, when I briefly discussed what I call “the Jesus Pivot”. I’m sure you’ve seen this before, maybe when you’re doing some Internet research on some random thing, as I was doing last night. You do a search and you find an article someplace about that particular thing, on a site you’ve never visited; you read the article, which starts out by discussing the very thing you’re researching–only somehow the specific topic is simply being used by the author as a starting point, because you end up on the back half of the article talking about Jesus.

This isn’t new–honestly, I’d say that a majority of sermons I’ve heard from all the Christian pastors in my life follow this structure–and it’s not really even always confined to pivoting to Jesus. But still, when I’m not expecting it, the Jesus Pivot always kind of weirds me out a little, and I find myself stabbing for a “Back” button as quickly as I can.

The video oddly presents the sketch twice, and the second time appears to be silent, so when the sound cuts out, you’re done. (Also, the user has disabled embedding.)

OK, that’s all! With this post I managed to clear down to only 27 open tabs! Yay!

 

 

Posted in Random Linkage | Tagged | 1 Comment

National Poetry Month, day 9: Tigers!

Minimalism is sometimes best, as the world learned four years ago when a poem by a then-six-year-old took the Internet by storm. Behold this bit of poetic genius:

“The Tiger”, by a kid named Nael

The tiger
He destroyed his cage
Yes
YES
The tiger is out

That’s even more minimalist than a haiku. Nicely done, Nael! The poem has narrative, and it conveys real emotion just by choosing words precisely (“He destroyed his cage”, rather than “He got out” or “He broke free“), and our narrator’s excitement just by changing case and capitalizing that second “YES”.

Nael is a poet for our times, I tell you what. He’s probably ten now. I hope he writes more.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on National Poetry Month, day 9: Tigers!

National Poetry Month, day 8: A hat tip to Sheila O’Malley

Sheila O’Malley marks the occasion of Billie Holiday’s birth date with a poem by Frank O’Hara, “The Day Lady Died”. Like many of the people Sheila writes about, I know entirely too little about Mr. O’Hara, who was a prominent voice and presence in the New York literary and art worlds until his death at age 40, when he was hit by a jeep on a Long Island beach. I was just thumbing through my copy of The Music Lover’s Poetry Anthology, and there’s Mr. O’Hara, with a poem that would have been very useful a week ago, titled “Rachmaninoff’s Birthday”. Oh well, I’ll just use that one next year when I spend April 2023 honoring the composer’s 150th.

In the meantime, O’Hara wrote this poem on the occasion of Billie Holiday’s death, and what a vivid sense of time and place and mood O’Hara creates, a life bound by time and obligation and places to be and the time it takes to get there and the general discomfort with everything at all, a discomfort that fades–or is replaced–by something new, a remembrance of a single moment of song that he remembers, a moment that he had to squeeze himself into a gin joint to hear just a whisper.

Amazing.

“The Day Lady Died”, by Frank O’Hara

It is 12:20 in New York a Friday
three days after Bastille day, yes
it is 1959 and I go get a shoeshine
because I will get off the 4:19 in Easthampton
at 7:15 and then go straight to dinner
and I don’t know the people who will feed me

I walk up the muggy street beginning to sun
and have a hamburger and a malted and buy
an ugly NEW WORLD WRITING to see what the poets
in Ghana are doing these days
I go on to the bank
and Miss Stillwagon (first name Linda I once heard)
doesn’t even look up my balance for once in her life
and in the GOLDEN GRIFFIN I get a little Verlaine
for Patsy with drawings by Bonnard although I do
think of Hesiod, trans. Richmond Lattimore or
Brendan Behan’s new play or Le Balcon or Les Nègres
of Genet, but I don’t, I stick with Verlaine
after practically going to sleep with quandariness

and for Mike I just stroll into the PARK LANE
Liquor Store and ask for a bottle of Strega and
then I go back where I came from to 6th Avenue
and the tobacconist in the Ziegfeld Theatre and
casually ask for a carton of Gauloises and a carton
of Picayunes, and a NEW YORK POST with her face on it

and I am sweating a lot by now and thinking of
leaning on the john door in the 5 SPOT
while she whispered a song along the keyboard
to Mal Waldron and everyone and I stopped breathing

 

Posted in poetry | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Something for Thursday

Well, I suppose that having mentioned these two songs in today’s poetry post, I have to use them here. Take it away, Mr. Denver!

 

Posted in music | Tagged | Comments Off on Something for Thursday

National Poetry Month, day 7: On Memorizing, Mrs. Havers, and Frost on Punkins

When I was in 7th grade, my English teacher, Mrs. Havers, required us to memorize and recite a poem.

That was bad enough. I’ve never really understood the pedagogical value of this exercise, but my teachers were all deeply conservative in their approaches to teaching that they literally handed out the same tests each and every year (which led to another teacher having to scramble one year when we protested that we hadn’t actually covered what was on the test she handed out).

Even worse was that Mrs. Havers required us all to memorize and recite the same poem. So there we were, spending an entire class session, maybe two, listening to the same damned poem, over and over again, twenty-five times or however many times it took to get through each kid in the class.

We did this twice, that I recall. The second time was “The Night Before Christmas”, but the first was…oh look, I’m not gonna be nice here, OK? I hate this poem. I hated from the first second Mrs. Havers recited it to us, and I hated it through all the time I spent learning it and the time I sat in class listening to it over and over again.

It’s a poem by James Whitcomb Riley, a prolific poet who apparently wrote a great deal of sentimental poetry that was usually cast in some kind of dialect. This poem is no different. It’s got a kind of cornpone charm, I suppose. I know, I’m not being fair to this poem. It’s probably perfectly fine, but the circumstances with which I came to it beat it into my head and I formed a dislike to it that deepened to the point of being instinctive. At least I’ve driven all of it from my mind since fall of 1983…except for the first line. That ain’t goin’ anywhere, and believe me, I’ve tried. Believe me, I’ve tried, and I’ve got the empty bottles to prove it.

Here it is: “When the Frost is On the Punkin”:

OK, wait a minute.

Obviously, I didn’t just copy-and-paste the poem here. I mean, I did do that, but I didn’t do it without reading the damned thing through once, just to see if I remembered anything other than the first line. And I honestly did not…but damned if I didn’t find this poem’s rhythm again. It’s very insistent, the rhythm here. You can’t avoid it.

I also found something else. I started hearing a voice as I read this thing. But it wasn’t my voice, and it wasn’t Mrs. Havers’s. It was…John Denver’s.

I’m serious.

As I read this, prepared to mock anew the bumpkin dialect Mr. Riley used, I found myself remembering a couple of John Denver songs in which he, too, sang in this kind of way: “Thank God I’m a Country Boy” and “Grandma’s Feather Bed”.

Thing is…I love those songs, partly because of their country wisdom, their illustration of a particular kind of life sketched perfectly in few words, and their infectious rhythm.

And I started to wonder if…maybe…this was another instance of my seventh-grade self having been full of crap, and my failure over all the years since then to really interrogate those beliefs.

Maybe.

Just maybe.

Here’s the poem, “When the Frost is On the Punkin”.

When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder’s in the shock,
And you hear the kyouck and gobble of the struttin’ turkey-cock,
And the clackin’ of the guineys, and the cluckin’ of the hens,
And the rooster’s hallylooyer as he tiptoes on the fence;
O, it’s then’s the times a feller is a-feelin’ at his best,
With the risin’ sun to greet him from a night of peaceful rest,
As he leaves the house, bareheaded, and goes out to feed the stock,

When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder’s in the shock.

They’s something kindo’ harty-like about the atmusfere
When the heat of summer’s over and the coolin’ fall is here—
Of course we miss the flowers, and the blossums on the trees,
And the mumble of the hummin’-birds and buzzin’ of the bees;
But the air’s so appetizin’; and the landscape through the haze
Of a crisp and sunny morning of the airly autumn days
Is a pictur’ that no painter has the colorin’ to mock—

When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder’s in the shock.

The husky, rusty russel of the tossels of the corn,
And the raspin’ of the tangled leaves, as golden as the morn;
The stubble in the furries—kindo’ lonesome-like, but still
A-preachin’ sermuns to us of the barns they growed to fill;
The strawstack in the medder, and the reaper in the shed;
The hosses in theyr stalls below—the clover over-head!—
O, it sets my hart a-clickin’ like the tickin’ of a clock,

When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder’s in the shock!

Then your apples all is gethered, and the ones a feller keeps
Is poured around the celler-floor in red and yeller heaps;
And your cider-makin’ ’s over, and your wimmern-folks is through
With their mince and apple-butter, and theyr souse and saussage, too! …
I don’t know how to tell it—but ef sich a thing could be
As the Angels wantin’ boardin’, and they’d call around on me
I’d want to ’commodate ’em—all the whole-indurin’ flock—
When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder’s in the shock!

Sigh.

I may owe Mrs. Havers an apology on this one.

Maybe.

Posted in poetry | Tagged , | Comments Off on National Poetry Month, day 7: On Memorizing, Mrs. Havers, and Frost on Punkins

National Poetry Month, Day 6

One of the best ways to build a poetry collection is to frequent used-book sales at local libraries. You can almost always find something good at those, and for my money, the real treasure is always the really old stuff, like this:

That’s a volume of English and Scottish ballads, printed in 1904. It’s in a bit of rough shape, but it’s still a joy to own. I’ve picked up a bunch of other old poetry collections in this way. Not only are books like this a pleasure since they just don’t make ’em like this anymore, they’re also nice because–in the case of collections like, say, old editions of The Oxford Book of English Verse–the contents will vary wildly with the contemporary editions, the farther back you go. Very old anthologies of poetry will include poets who are almost (or entirely) forgotten today, and I’m always a big fan of keeping artists of yesteryear from vanishing into total obscurity as much as I can.

Lots of times these old collections were schoolbooks, and the students of the past signed them. I looked this man up, and all I was able to find out was that he graduated high school in Abingdon, PA in 1921. A young man was reading from this book over a hundred years ago…and now it’s on my shelf.

And here’s the man who assembled this collection. This volume appears to be a reissue, and it notes that this editor had already died by this point.

This particular book obviously features ballads, the narrative poems of English and the Scottish tongues, which were a prime medium for storytelling several hundred years ago. As such, a lot of these ballads were kept alive in oral traditions and authorial information, to the extent there ever were any actual “authors”, is long gone. Many of the poems in this book unfold over quite a few pages, but here’s a single short one, with no author given. It’s a grim tale with a sad end…but there’s never any guarantee with these things, is there? I imagine this tale is sadly realistic for its time.

Additional information on this ballad, with one of many alternates, here.

Posted in poetry | Tagged , | Comments Off on National Poetry Month, Day 6

Tone Poem Tuesday

As noted in today’s poetry selection, Edward Elgar–once viewed as the United Kingdom’s greatest composer–has suffered mightily for almost a century after his passing, though there has been some more recent reappraisal. Elgar was seen for much of the 20th century as a stuffy reminder of Victorian and Edwardian ideals, the kind of music heard in stuffy oak-paneled halls where the only listeners are old men with thick beards and wool suits as they puff pipes and cigars.

Yes, that’s unfair.

Elgar is also tarred to a certain extent with the same brush as Rudyard Kipling, as being a fossil of the British Empire’s height of excess. Justification for this can be found in today’s selection, a suite culled from the complete score Elgar wrote for a masque (a large theatrical presentation) given on the occasion of King George V and Queen Mary’s crowning as Emperor and Empress of India. This is music of extreme theatricality, and it apparently made quite the impression in its day.

Sadly, the work was almost lost through a series of publication errors and the demolition of a building where the only extant set of orchestral parts was kept. Luckily a piano reduction of the original score survived to be reconstituted into a full orchestral piece, and The Crown of India can be heard again. The entire hour-long work is available on YouTube, but I present here the suite that Elgar culled from various extracts. It’s a brassy, bold, assertive, and dramatic work–not at all unexpected from the man who wrote the Pomp and Circumstance marches.

Posted in music | Tagged | Comments Off on Tone Poem Tuesday

National Poetry Day #5: Two by Rudyard Kipling

She-Hulk has a joke for you!

Original art by John Byrne, tweaked a bit by me.

With apologies to Marvel and John Byrne, I’ve stolen this joke from a postcard that I remember reading about when I was a kid, in, of all places, The Guinness Book of World Records. According to the Guinness folks, this postcard was actually the best-selling postcard of all time:

Yes, I could have just posted this all by itself, but I always like dusting off the She-Hulk pie-in-the-face cartoon, so.

The postcard was created by illustrator Donald McGill, but he didn’t even originate the joke! It goes back farther, as early as 1907. Which means that the joke was around during Kipling’s lifetime!

Rudyard Kipling lived 1865 to 1936, and he was a prolific writer and journalist who wrote short stories, novels, and poetry in addition to his journalism. Kipling’s legacy is complicated, or even controversial, given his reputation as being a chief voice of the high point in British Empire colonialism. There is a certain stuffy feeling to reading Kipling now; even in his lyric descriptions of far-off lands he feels like the kind of poet one reads in an oak-paneled study with a fire in the hearth, a clock ticking on the mantel, and perhaps a smoldering pipe in the hand that’s not holding the book. Kipling really does seem to be the voice of the “stiff upper lip, lads!” era of Proper Britain. In a large way, Kipling seems to occupy a similar space in his writing that Edward Elgar does in his music. (Hence my choice for today’s Tone Poem Tuesday, coming up later!)

All that is a bit simplistic, though, because Kipling is still a fine poet, with a keen command on how to deploy rhythm, meter, and rhyme to the emotions he wants to illustrate in his work. These two poems illustrate this particular well, in the service of two common themes: love, and death.

First, love. The Lovers’ Litany is a catalog of failed loves and a hope of more to come. “Love like ours can never die!” says the narrator, but he says it of four different loves, each one gone into memory. But even though he has been “bankrupt in quadruplicate”, he would endure the same fate a full forty more times if he could.

“The Lovers’ Litany”, Rudyard Kipling
Eyes of grey—a sodden quay,
Driving rain and falling tears,
As the steamer wears to sea
In a parting storm of cheers.
Sing, for Faith and Hope are high—
None so true as you and I—
Sing the Lovers’ Litany:—
Love like ours can never die.”

Eyes of black—a throbbing keel,
Milky foam to left and right;
Whispered converse near the wheel
In the brilliant tropic night.
Cross that rules the Southern Sky
Stars that sweep and wheel and fly
Hear the Lovers’ Litany:—
Love like ours can never die.”

Eyes of brown—a dusty plain
Split and parched with heat of June
Flying hoof and tightened rein;
Hearts that beat the old old tune.
Side by side the horses fly,
Frame we now the old reply
Of the Lovers’ Litany:—
Love like ours can never die.”

Eyes of blue—the Simla Hills
Silvered with the moonlight hoar;
Pleading of the waltz that thrills,
Dies and echoes round Benmore.
Mabel,” “Officers,” “Goodbye,”
Glamour, wine and witchery—
On my soul’s sincerity,
Love like ours can never die.”

Maidens of your charity
Pity my most luckless state.
Four times Cupid’s debtor I—
Bankrupt in quadruplicate.
Yet despite this evil case,
And a maiden showed me grace,
Four-and-forty times would I
Sing the Lovers’ Litany
Love like ours can never die.”

And then, death. Here, in Possibilities, Kipling ruminates on how those who die are mourned all too briefly before their places are taken again amongst the living by someone else, so that the ghosts who gather to cavort when the living have retired must disperse again by sunrise. The thing that catches me in this poem is in the second stanza, when Kipling describes death as “the Great Perhaps”; this is reminiscent of Shakespeare’s “undiscovered country”.

“Possibilities”, Rudyard Kipling

Ay, lay him ‘neath the Simla pine —
A fortnight fully to be missed,
Behold, we lose our fourth at whist,
A chair is vacant where we dine.

His place forgets him; other men
Have bought his ponies, guns, and traps.
His fortune is the Great Perhaps
And that cool rest-house down the glen,

Whence he shall hear, as spirits may,
Our mundane revel on the height,
Shall watch each flashing ‘rickshaw-light
Sweep on to dinner, dance, and play.

Benmore shall woo him to the ball
With lighted rooms and braying band,
And he shall hear and understand
“Dream Faces” better than us all.

For, think you, as the vapours flee
Across Sanjaolie after rain,
His soul may climb the hill again
To each of field of victory.

Unseen, who women held so dear,
The strong man’s yearning to his kind
Shall shake at most the window-blind,
Or dull awhile the card-room’s cheer.

In his own place of power unkown,
His Light o’ Love another’s flame,
His dearest pony galloped lame,
And he an alien and alone.

Yet may he meet with many a friend —
Shrewd shadows, lingering long unseen
Among us when “God save the Queen”
Shows even “extras” have an end.

And, when we leave the heated room,
And, when at four the lights expire,
The crew shall gather round the fire
And mock our laughter in the gloom.

Talk as we talked, and they ere death —
Flirt wanly, dance in ghostly-wise,
With ghosts of tunes for melodies,
And vanish at the morning’s breath.

Two geographical notes: Simla is a city and region in Northern India, where Kipling spent most of his time when was in that country (it is called Shimla today), and Benmore was a mansion with a ballroom that was a hub of social activity in the Simla region.

Posted in poetry | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Roger

Sheila O’Malley re-shared her post on the anniversary of Roger Ebert’s passing today, and I thought, why not do the same? Here’s what I posted the day he died. I still miss his writing. There’s something about those Chicago newspaper men….

I was trying to figure out something to write on the passing today of Roger Ebert, but nothing was leaping to mind, so I figured I’d just repost my original thoughts, from January 2012, on his book, Life Itself. I have loved and admired Ebert since I was nine, and his output of thoughtful writing even in the face of debilitating disease the last few years has been truly astonishing. It’s something of the ultimate motivator: When I think “I don’t really wanna write today”, I then thing, “Roger Ebert’s writing today, and that guy’s got some hardcore difficulties. So get in the chair and write.”

When I saw the news today — my first report came via Sheila O’Malley on Facebook, and she is frankly the exact person I would have wanted to hear this from — I commented thusly:

Amazing how something you totally expect and don’t find a surprise can still hit you between the eyes and make the world a little less shiny

Farewell, Mr. Ebert. If there is some realm beyond this one…well, whatever. At least on this side we’ll have your years and years and years of writings. I’ve come to see you as being to film what Carl Sagan was to science, and I mourn and salute you in the same manner. Congratulations on a life well-lived!

I was nine years old, and I wandered into the living room to find my mother watching some show on PBS. It was a show about movies – there would be a clip of a new movie that was out, and these two guys would then talk a bit about whether the movie was any good or not. One of these guys was a thin, lanky guy. The other was a squat, fat guy. The thin guy was named Gene. The fat guy was named Roger.

“What’s this?” I asked.

“It’s called Sneak Previews,” my mother answered. “Those two men are film critics. They tell us if movies are good or not.”

“Oh.”

And I watched the thing. I didn’t know anything about movies, but these two guys were interesting to watch. Another year or two later, their show was off PBS, which struck me as a bummer…but they turned up again, in a syndicated show that was on, like many syndicated shows, at whatever time some station or other felt like putting it on. No matter, it was fun seeing these two guys, Gene and Roger – who worked for newspapers in Chicago – talk about movies.

So I watched Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert for years, off and on, right up until Siskel’s deeply saddening death in 1998. Then I watched Ebert and Richard Roeper (a good enough fellow, but no substitute for Siskel) for a few more years, until we no longer had cable and thus the show was beyond my grasp. And then, a few years after that, Ebert himself started to have health issues, which eventually resulted in unsuccessful surgeries that have famously left him unable to speak or eat (he takes meals through a G-tube, which is something I understand all too well, thanks to Little Quinn).

Siskel and Ebert were, in my view, one of the great duos in the history of anything. Those two had such astonishing chemistry together, that it was a joy to watch them agree positively on a movie, an even bigger joy to see them agree negatively on a movie (seriously, watching the two of them tag-team on a bad movie was always great), and the biggest joy of all when they disagreed. Then you could see some fireworks. I remember Ebert being astonished at Siskel’s thumbs-down review of Scorsese’s Casino; “Thumbs down?!” Ebert yelped. And there was another time – I can’t remember the movie – where Ebert liked it and Siskel did not, and Ebert said something like “I don’t think you wanted to like this movie”, a suggestion that seemed to physically hurt the usually more acerbic Siskel. “I love to like pictures!” he protested.

One time on Late Night with David Letterman, there was a segment that had Mujibur and Sirajul, the two Indian owners of a local store, reporting to Dave from somewhere in the country. And Dave says, “If you two are out there, who’s watching the store? Can we send a cameraman to see who’s in charge at the store?” So a cameraman goes into the store, to reveal a very stern-looking Siskel and Ebert. OK, I guess you had to be there.

Anyway, Ebert has been writing about the movies for decades now, and he is, by nearly any measure, the critic whose work I find the most illuminating and the most evocative. I’ve been reading him nearly almost as long as I’ve been watching him on teevee, and for a number of years, his annual review collections were required book purchasing of mine. Now he has produced a memoir, which he has titled Life Itself.

Ebert’s health struggles in recent years are well-known, and it’s been truly fascinating to watch him take to blogging in the wake of the loss of his physical voice, a medium he had initially viewed with suspicion but which allowed his authorial voice to finally blossom to its greatest strength. Ebert has always been a fine writer, but oddly, his disability-due-to-cancer has, for many, made him even better. Maybe it’s similar to that old saw about how when you lose one sense, the others somehow make substantial gains in acuity.

Reading his blog, I’ve mostly been struck by Ebert’s ongoing zest for life, even when there were occasional posts that took an especially elegiac tone that made me wonder if he was preparing for his own departure from this world. Ebert is still with us, though, and now we have Life Itself.

The book is more a series of vignettes than a straight telling of Ebert’s life. The vignettes are more or less in chronological order, but Ebert seems to be more exploring various themes in his life than the chronology of events. The book is something of a memory album that gives an impression of a life, which seems to me a good way to structure a biography. Sometimes when I read biographies, I get a sense of “plot” that couldn’t possibly be there. Ebert is well aware that life is plotless, and that many of the things that shape the paths of our lives for good or ill are often accidental, a function of our coming into the circle of this person instead of that person, or even something so prosaic as taking this flight instead of that one.

It’s telling that the book gives more of a sense of his development as a writer than as a critic; I suspect that Ebert believes that he would have been a writer no matter what, and it was just an accident of various circumstances that led to him writing about movies for the last forty years. There’s no “Through all my life the cinema has grounded my being” or anything like that; Ebert grew up as a talented kid who liked going to movies with his buddies on Saturdays. I love when he recounts his first reviews of avant garde films; finding himself in confusion as to what the films were about, he took the approach of simply recounting his experience in watching the film. This is an approach that has gone on to inform his entire approach to movie reviewing and film criticism.

Sometimes, in the course of his blogging over the last few years, a tone has crept into Ebert’s writing – that he seems to deny whenever it is pointed out, but it is there – that he is, in long form, saying goodbye to his life. I deeply hope that this is not the case. Ebert is, for me, to film as Carl Sagan is to science, and he’ll be missed by me in equal measure when he is gone.

Here are some excerpts from Life Itself.

On Mike Royko:

At about six p.m. On New Year’s Day of 1967, only two lights on the fourth floor were burning – mine and Mike Royko’s. It was too early for the graveyard shift to come in. Royko walked over to the Sun-Times to see who else was working. A historic snowstorm was beginning. He asked me how I was getting home. I said I’d take the train. He said he had his old man’s Checker car and would drop me at the L station. He had to make a stop at a twenty-four hour drug store right where the L crossed North Avenue.

Royko at thirty-five was already the city’s most famous newspaperman, known for compelx emoitons evoked with unadorned prose in short paragraphs. Growing up as the son of a saloon keeper, he knew how the city worked from the precinct level up, and had first attracted attention while covering city hall. He was ten years older than me and had started at the old City News Bureau, the copperative supported by all the dailies that provided front-line coverage of the police and fire departments. Underpaid and overworked kids worked under the hand of its editor, Arnold Dornfeld, who sat beneath a sign reading: If your mother says she loves you, check it out. When I met him he’d been writing his Daily News column for two years. It was his writing about Mayor Richard J. Daley that took the city hall word clout and made it national. He chainsmoked Pall Malls and spoke in a gravelly poker player’s voice. He drank too much, which to me was an accomplishment.

That snowy night the all-night drugstore was crowded. “Come on, kid,” he said. “Let’s have a drink at the eye-opener place.” He told me what an eye-opener was. “This place opens early. The working guys around here, they stop in for a quick shot on their way to the L.” It was a bar under the tracks so tiny that the bartender could serve everyone without leaving his stool. “Two blackberry brandies and short beers,” he said. He told me, “Blackberry brandy is good for hangovers. You never get charged for a beer chaser.” I sipped the brandy, and a warm glow filled my stomach. It may have been the first straight shot of anything I’d ever tasted. I’d been in Chicago four months and I was sitting under the L tracks with Mike Royko in the eye-opener place. I was a newspaperman. A blackhawks game was playing on WGN radio. The team scored, and again, and again. This at last was life.

“Jeez, they’re scoring like crazy!” I said, after the third goal in less than a minute.

“Where you from, kid?”

“Urbana,” I said.

“Ever seen a hockey game?”

“No.”

“That’s what I thought, you asshole. Those are the game highlights.”

On books:

Chaz [Ebert’s wife] and I have lived for twenty years in a commodious Chicago town house. This house is not empty. Chaz and I have added, I dunno, maybe three or four thousand books, untold numbers of movies and albums, lots of art, rows of photographs, rooms full of comfortable furniture, a Buddha from Thailand, exercise equipment, carved elephants from India, African chairs and statues, and who knows what else. Of course I cannot do without a single one of these possessions, including more or less every book I have owned since I was seven, starting with Huckleberry Finn. I still have all the Penrod books, and every time I look at them, I’m reminded of Tarkington’s inventory of Penrod’s pants pockets. After reading it a third time, as a boy, I jammed my pockets with a pocketknife, a Yo-Yo, marbles, a compass, a stapler, an oddly-shaped rock, a hardball, a ball of rubber bands, and three jawbreakers. These, in an ostensible search for a nickel, I emptied out on the counter of Henry Rusk’s grocery, so that Harry Rusk could see that I was a Real Boy.

My books are a subject of much discussion. They pour from shelves onto tables, chairs, and the floor, and Chaz observes that I haven’t read many of them and I never will. You just never know. One day I may nee to read Finnegans Wake, the Icelandic sagas, Churchill’s history of the Second World War, the complete Tintin in French, forty-seven novels by Simenon, and By Love Possessed. That 1957 bestseller by James Gould Cozzens was eviscerated in a famous essay by Dwight Macdonald, who read through that year’s list of fiction bestsellers and surface with a scowl. I remember reading the novel late into the night when I was fourteen, stirring restlessly with the desire to be possessed by love.

I cannot throw out these books. Some are enchanted because I have personally turned all their pages and read every word. They’re shrines to my past hours. Perhaps half were new when they came to my life, but most were used, and I remember where I found every one. The set of Kipling at the Book Nook on Green Street in Champaign. The scandalous The English Governess in a shady bookstore on the Left Bank in 1965 (two dollars, today ninety-one). The Shaw plays from Cranford’s on Long Street in Cape Twon, where Irving Freeman claimed he had half a million books. Like an alcoholic trying to walk past a bar, you should see me trying to walk past a used bookstore. Other books I can’t throw away because, well, they’re books, and you can’t throw away a book. Not even a cookbook from which we have prepared only a single recipe, for it is a meal preserved, in printed form. The very sight of Quick and Easy Chinese Cooking by Kenneth H.C. Lo quickens my pulse. Its pages are stained by broth, sherry, soy sauce, and chicken fat, and so thoroughly did I master it that I once sought out Ken Lo’s Memories of China on Ebury Street in London and laid eyes on the great man himself, dining alone in a little room near the entrance. A book like that, you’re not gonna throw away.

On his wife:

I sense from the first that Chaz was the woman I would marry, and I know after twenty years that my feelings were true. She had been with me in sickness and in health, certainly far more sickness than we could have anticipated. I will be with her, strengthened by her example. She continues to make my life possible, and her presence fills me with love and a deep security. That’s what a marriage is for. Now I know.

On Siskel:

One of the things I miss about Gene Siskel is that he’s not around to make jokes about my current condition. He would instinctively know that at this point I wouldn’t be sensitive, having accepted and grown comfortable with my maimed appearance. He wouldn’t have started joking too soon. His jokes would have the saving grace of being funny. Here’s one I’m pretty sure he would have come up with: “Well, there’s one good thing about Roger’s surgery. At least he no longer needs a bookmark to find his chin.”

On movies:

I have seen untold numbers of movies and forgotten most of them, I hope, but I remember those worth remembering, and they are all on the same shelf in my mind. There is no such thing as an old film. There is a sense in which old movies are cut free from time. I look at silent movies sometimes and do not feel I am looking at old films; I feel I am looking at a Now that has been captured. Time in a bottle. When I first looked at silent films, the performers seemed quaint and dated. Now they seem more contemporary. The main thing wrong with a movie that is ten years old is that it isn’t thirty years old. After the hairstyles and the costumes stop being dated and start being history, we can tell if the movie itself is timeless.

What kinds of movies do I like the best? If I had to make a generalization, I would say that many of my favorite movies are about Good People. It doesn’t matter if the ending is happy or sad. It doesn’t matter if the characters win or lose. The only true ending is death. Any other movie ending is arbitrary. If a movie ends with a kiss, we’re supposed to be happy. But then if a piano falls on the kissing couple, or a taxi mows them down, we’re supposed to be sad. What difference does it make? The best movies aren’t about what happens to the characters. They’re about the example that they set.

Casablanca is about people who do the right thing. The Third Man is about two people who do the right thing and can never speak to each other as a result. The secret of The Silence of the Lambs is buried so deeply that you may have to give this some thought, but its secret is that Hannibal Lecter is a Good Person. He is the helpless victim of his unspeakable depravities, yes, but to the limited degree that he can act independently of them, he tries to do the right thing.

What I miss, though, is the wonder. People my age can remember walking into a movie palace where the ceiling was far overhead, and balconies and mezzanines reached away into the shadows. We remember the sound of a thousand people laughing all at once. And screens the size of billboards, so every seat in the house was a good seat. “I lost it at the movies,” Pauline Kael said, and we all knew just what she meant.

When you go to the movies every day, it sometimes seems as if the movies are more mediocre than ever, more craven and cowardly, more skilfully manufactured to pander to the lowest tastes instead of educating them. Then you see something absolutely miraculous, and on your way out you look distracted, as if you had just experienced some kind of a vision.

May Ebert’s spot in the balcony remain reserved for years to come.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 4 Comments