Free verse № 138148
A Walk in the Park
Swaying gently in breezy park
skipping, tripping
mellow sun
grass waving
skirt fanned out
as if it saw you
an arm of womanhood
beckoning come
I knew how I looked
and loved what I knew
the essence of style
was me
was strong
could win battles
as a lily wins a bee
Then upon a rose
my flowing skirt did catch
jerked back
as father’s hand had years ago
when playing on a ledge
A little rip I heard
a scar in pink chiffon
its partner on my heart
Turning back along the pretty path
the road that brought me here
no more wise, no less giddy
for I am pretty just the same
no scar can hide the way I am
45 comments
Sorry not to be mysterious enough for you. The whole female mystique business escapes me. We're not nearly as mysterious as men.
As far as the mystery of men goes: In a cartoon I was watching with my neice and nephew a girl asked a magic scull why guys were so hard to understand. The all knowing skull replied, "Because men are simple".
Is that why they believe a magic skull?
Maybe the magic skull was a woman's. It certainly was insistant upon getting the last word in.
maybe you could write a poem about the way your father comunicates. Are there other shorthand words he uses?
Poets, if they're genuine, must also keep repeating "I don't know." Each poem marks an effort to answer this statement, but as soon as the final period hits the page, the poet begins to hesitate, starts to realize that this particular answer was pure makeshift, absolutely inadequate to boot. So the poets keep on trying, and sooner or later the consecutive results of their self-dissatisfaction are clipped together with a giant paperclip by literary historians and called their "oeuvre" . . .
I sometimes dream of situations that can't possibly come true. I audaciously imagine, for example, that I get a chance to chat with the Ecclesiastes, the author of that moving lament on the vanity of all human endeavors. I would bow very deeply before him, because he is, after all, one of the greatest poets, for me at least. That done, I would grab his hand. "'There's nothing new under the sun': that's what you wrote, Ecclesiastes. But you yourself were born new under the sun. And the poem you created is also new under the sun, since no one wrote it down before you. And all your readers are also new under the sun, since those who lived before you couldn't read your poem. And that cypress that you're sitting under hasn't been growing since the dawn of time. It came into being by way of another cypress similar to yours, but not exactly the same. And Ecclesiastes, I'd also like to ask you what new thing under the sun you're planning to work on now? A further supplement to the thoughts that you've already expressed? Or maybe you're tempted to contradict some of them now? In your earlier work you mentioned joy—so what if it's fleeting? So maybe your new-under-the-sun poem will be about joy? Have you taken notes yet, do you have drafts? I doubt that you'll say, 'I've written everything down, I've got nothing left to add.' There's no poet in the world who can say this, least of all a great poet like yourself."
The world—whatever we might think when we're terrified by its vastness and our own impotence or embittered by its indifference to individual suffering, of people, animals, and perhaps even plants, for why are we so sure that plants feel no pain; whatever we might think of its expanses pierced by the rays of stars surrounded by planets we've just begun to discover, planets already dead? still dead? we just don't know; whatever we might think of this measureless theater to which we've got reserved tickets, but tickets whose life span is laughably short, bounded as it is by two arbitrary dates; whatever else we might think of this world—it is astonishing.
But "astonishing" is an epithet concealing a logical trap. We're astonished, after all, by things that deviate from some well-known and universally acknowledged norm, from an obviousness we've grown accustomed to. Now the point is, there is no such obvious world. Our astonishment exists per se and isn't based on a comparison with something else.
Granted, in daily speech, where we don't stop to consider every word, we all use phrases such as "the ordinary world," "ordinary life," "the ordinary course of events." . . . But in the language of poetry, where every word is weighed, nothing is usual or normal. Not a single stone and not a single cloud above it. Not a single day and not a single night after it. And above all, not a single existence, not anyone's existence in this world.
It looks as though poets will always have their work cut out for them.
- From Wislawa Szymborska's Nobel Prize acceptance speech
Secondly, by the end of the book the author concludes;
"Fear God, and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man.'
12:14
The author laments that life 'means' pain and sorrow and death. But then he explains that each has a choice; to be wise or to be foolish. The entire book is peppered with examples of the good things in life; Love, youth, food, drink, friendship, wisdom. As much as you possibly can, fill your life with these good things, and rejoice now, while you're still a sentient being.
I think what Szymborska's says regarding Ecclesiasticus is hogwash.
In a sense, I think he really means that nothing is new, or can be new in the future. Of course, that's easy to argue against, but I think he felt that at some level that it's true. That's worth thinking about, I think.
As for what christians in this country commonly believe about the bible, there's so much entrenched mythology about the bible, as well as so much that has been left out or manipulated
that I believe most haven't got a clue.
Unfortunately one of the side- effects of this is that it becomes inaccurate. these are general purpose translations at best. But there are errors, as in poetry, words have connotations as well as denotations.. Have you read the gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdalene? Oh and if you can get your hands the the Jerusalem Bible buy it. it will set you back 30 smackers but it's worth much more. It's one of the few things the catholics did right. Maybe you can talk someone into getting it for you. A birthday present.
I said that the NIV and the NAS claim to translate from the best manuscripts. Statements to this effect are in their introductioins. They claim to have used the best available Hebrew and Greek texts, not the King James. I cannot verify or deny these claims.
I have read the gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdalene, and have browsed the Jerusalem Bible. It's been awhile but I found them interesting.
Thanks for helping me pull my head out off my ass.
Many of the writings attributed (by name or implication) to Solomon are now considered psuedepigraphical, because of anomolies with regard to dates, language, etc. It doesn't mean that the works are any less beautiful, inspiring, valuable, etc., just means that they weren't necessarily written by Solomon (or any other kings of Jerusalem).
Log in to add a comment.