Google+ Badge

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Triumphant Strangers To Success



Success Is Counted Sweetest

 
Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne'er succeed.
To comprehend a nectar
Requires sorest need.

Not one of all the purple Host
Who took the Flag today
Can tell the definition
So clear of victory

As he defeated – dying –
On whose forbidden ear
The distant strains of triumph
Burst agonized and clear!

 --Emily Dickinson

What is the true essence of success? I'm sure many would believe those people who had experienced the most things normally associated with prosperity and fortune could best understand the concept. We continually celebrate success, encourage it, and frown upon its foe -- defeat. We praise victory and demand achievement after achievement. No matter, the question does remain: "Who is best qualified to understand the impact success can have?" Is all success breading meaningful success?

So, what about those who have experienced little or no success? It just might be that these people who hunger for a rare success might best appreciate its true value and even gain most from the impact of succeeding.

In her poem "Success," Emily Dickinson contends that appreciating a boon requires privation. For example, a poor man who wins the lottery better appreciates his windfall than a millionaire executive who receives a six-figure bonus.We could say, "Of course, what a simple, meaningless statement."

Yet, if we consider the needs of those who work hard to achieve but reap few benefits for their efforts, we understand "success" does not always guarantee a prosperous termination of hard endeavors. Success and failure are both attainments that can teach us valuable lessons.

"Success is counted sweetest 
By those who ne'er succeed. 
To comprehend a nectar 
Requires sorest need."

Failure is inevitable. People gain wisdom from failure they can never acquire from success. The sweetest "nectar" of success comes to those who have persevered long and hard for it, not to those who experience it effortlessly. In "Success," Dickinson uses the word sorest as meaning "greatest." One drop of sweet "nectar" to those in dire need is an immeasurable blessing that may have untold dividends.

"Not one of all the purple host 
Who took the flag to-day 
Can tell the definition, 
So clear, of victory"

Those "purple host" who "took" a flag are the privileged, the "silver spoon" successful. Purple is associated with royalty and riches. Fine clothes such as the robes of kings and emperors have historically been dyed purple. Being born to a royal or privileged family, such a person could never realize how difficult it was to achieve that position because it naturally came to them as a heirloom.
When the privileged "hoist" and display successful positions, they signify their pride in victory. In fact, the act of victory or winning a battle in a war is often symbolized by the act of taking away a flag from an enemy or prominently displaying one's own banner for all to see. Dickinson notes that victors cannot understand the worth of winning as much as those who suffer defeat.

However, in truth, haven't the defeated paid the highest cost while the successful have the temerity to "wave" their egotistical symbols or "Flags" of status celebrating often meaningless, easy victories?

"As he, defeated, dying,
On whose forbidden ear
The distant strains of triumph
Break, agonized and clear!"

Those who lack success may feel defeated or near death. Dickinson does not mean the dying man's ears are "forbidden." Instead, she writes what is forbidden to his ears is the sound of success, as he belongs to the side of those who receive little praise for achievement. Isn't it tragic that success often requires the failure of another?

Yet, with his humble perspective, the dying, unsuccessful "warrior" who serenely lies far away from the champion legions can perceive the composition of success better than can the triumphant. The "clear" sounds of triumph of the other side are "distant" literally in being far off and metaphorically in not being part of his experience; defeat is the direct opposite of, or most "distant" from, victory.

Ironically, in the end, the person who is considered the "dying man" may be most successful since he can realize the futility of the "agonizing" warring of others for the meaningless hording of shallow success after success.

Dickinson is very direct with her theme: The person best qualified to evaluate the impact of success is the vanquished rather than the triumphant.


My Addition

It’s not just our abilities and talent that bring us success -- but whether we approach them with a fixed or growth mindset. Praising intelligence and ability or bragging about success doesn’t always foster self-esteem and lead to more accomplishment, but it may actually jeopardize any real success.

I have seen so many people who seem defeated and underprivileged grow with a little success. They appreciate winning "for once" and usually feel content with their improvement. Both the defeated and the victor must judge success by personal growth. That means the successful must help those who seldom experience the life-changing experience.


"A successful man is one who can lay a firm foundation 
with the bricks others have thrown at him."

--David Brinkley, renowned news anchor and reporter



Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Now Auditioning for Roles: "Substance Zombie Apocalypse"




Snort it, smoke it, inject it, ingest it. You won't find what you need even if you do get what you want. You will eventually find you are lost and compelled to travel mile after mile after mile of bad road. How many times have I heard the addict tell me, "Nobody wants to become an addict. No one gets high and expects to become diseased."

I sympathize as I hear these words derived from their personal dependencies and addictions, but I detest their fall to ignorance and their determination to bring down family and friends as the drugs "become" them. Without a strong will, intervention, or both, a person will fall and begin to morph.

The metamorphosis to Substance Zombie can be very slow or, seemingly, almost instantaneous. It begins innocently enough with what is perceived as common, rite-of-passage experimentation, then it becomes a habit that will spiral completely out of control. Once the drugs possess the host, the alteration is complete.

I think if a person is merely substance dependent, that person must seek treatment from qualified, professional people to return to a life of normalcy. That thorough treatment should be closely monitored and include research-based medical and psychological help.

However, I believe there is no "cure" for full-blown addiction because it is a chronic disease. Effective treatment? Yes. Vast improvement? Yes. Managed control? Yes. A return to a fruitful, satisfying life? Yes. But cured? No. Unfortunately, addicts must commit to life-long treatment and management of their condition.

As someone looking at addiction in my community with my self-gleaned knowledge and new perspective, I must empathize with those suffering from the disease and vow to help them, yet I must hold my ground, a ground I expect to protect from the invasion of chemicals, their lure, and their bondage. I stand on the bedrock of prevention, education, intervention, rehab, and punishment for those who directly or indirectly harm innocent others.

The object of a person's pleasure quest lies in reality, not in some substance-loaded Camelot fantasy and not in a state of chemically induced ecstasy. Ask those who live with Substance Zombies or who work with Substance Zombies or who try to love Substance Zombies. Reasoning is futile and hurt is always on the horizon. Lies are commonplace and deceit is normal for those possessed by drugs.

Still, there are those who want to legalize potentially deadly drugs or those who refuse to accept the fact that we all must become responsible citizens and fight to stop drug abuse. So, just let me make this exceedingly clear: In most cases, I, too, believe the individual who snorts, smokes, injects, and ingests is ultimately responsible for his/her fate. This reality can be understood with common sense. However, I believe that a tremendous amount of indifference for those suffering from dependency and hatred directed at users fuel the drug abuse problems in our nation.

Until we come to grips with the truth, innocent people are going to continue to die by the millions in accidents and crimes directly related to drug abuse. What is the truth?

* To me, the truth is until we instill a new, effective philosophy of dealing with pleasure and pain, people will indiscriminately take medicines that do not help, but that harm and kill them.  

* To me, the truth is until we revamp a broken medical system, clean up the crime and greed in the FDA/Big Pharma connection, and put larger amounts of money into drug education and treatment, we will see the never-ending growth of our substance killing fields.
 
* And, to put it bluntly, the truth is until the majority of the populace begins to "give a shit" about drug abuse and addiction, Substance Zombies will roam our neighborhoods in increasing numbers.



Maybe it's true: "Nobody wants to become an addict." To me, if a full-grown adult capable of making good decisions decides to become addicted to anything -- drugs, gambling, sex, money, power, fanatic behaviors -- it's their decision to put themselves into deep water. And, I am well aware they will either sink or swim. Yet, I firmly believe many in Scioto County care more for their pet than for their fellow man.

Therefore, to me, to deny a diseased individual help, to be incompassionate, to be "above" dealing with the so-called "condition" of needy people is unacceptable. Which sins are the worst? It is not for me to judge. I can judge this though: One life saved and willingly changed for the better gives hope for us all. One addict saved may be the key to permanent, positive change we desperately need.

"For me, forgiveness and compassion are always linked: how do we hold people accountable for wrongdoing and yet at the same time remain in touch with their humanity enough to believe in their capacity to be transformed?"

--Bell Hooks, author, feminist, and social activist

 
 

Monday, May 13, 2013

Cincy Teacher Ties Up Her Kindergarten Students to "Teach Them" to "Sit Still"




"A Catholic school in Westwood fired a kindergarten teacher Thursday after she was accused of tying up two students with yarn to teach them to 'sit still.'
 
"Charlene Riva, a teacher at Our Lady of Lourdes for more than 40 years, lost her job because her actions violated the Archdiocese of Cincinnati’s child protection policies, a church spokesman said Saturday.
 
"School officials sent a letter to parents Thursday notifying them of the violation and said such behavior would not be tolerated.
 
“'The safety of children under our care is our primary concern,' said archdiocese spokesman Dan Andriacco.
 
"He said another teacher spotted the children tied with yarn on Tuesday and notified principal Aimee Ellmaker. Riva was placed on administrative leave Wednesday and fired Thursday.
 
"Andriacco said the children were lightly restrained with yarn and did not suffer injuries. The archdiocese’s Child Protection Decree, in place since 1993, forbids physically restraining children.

"Andriacco said school officials previously received one other complaint about Riva, but he would not discuss it in detail. He said an investigation in that case by the school, children’s services and parents determined the complaint did not amount to a firing offense.
 
"Riva previously taught fourth grade at Our Lady of Lourdes. A parish newsletter from last year indicates she has taught kindergarten for at least a year.
 
"Riva was not available for comment on Friday."

 
 
I understand Charlene Riva is innocent until proven guilty. But, I am assuming she did these actions. 
 
What kind of ignorance pervades the populace when educated, seemingly responsible teachers resort to such disciplinary measures in times of stress? I admit that I was a teacher who made my fair share of idiotic mistakes. I fully understand the error of my questionable actions on hectic days when a student drove me close to the brink, but this teacher tied up two of her kindergarten students with yarn. 
 
One student, Jacob Adams, spoke out after learning his former teacher had been fired. Adams called Riva “one of those teachers you'll remember” but said he understands what she did was wrong.
 
"I don't think they really needed to be restrained like that,” Adams said. “I think she could have just, like, sat them down and talked to them or sent them to the principal."

School administrator Father David Sunberg also believes Riva was a quality educator while at the school. He said she was a “good teacher who made a bad decision. ”

Any teacher can make a bad mistake in the heat of a trying day, but Riva's actions seem miles beyond the slightest sliver of reason. In fact, they are simply tortuous and cruel. I am amazed by her total lack of concern for school rules, for student safety, and, most of all, for basic human rights. Did she just burn completely out? Forty years in the teaching trenches is a long, long service.
 
What do I think? I believe this incident is indicative of something I frequently observe regarding authority and dominance. Too many people believe control and power, especially physical dominance, are admirable qualities. Today it seems power and strength are often used to gain unfair advantage in every conceivable distressful situation. Let's face it: Intimidation and size count for those with "dog-eat-dog" mentalities. Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and MTV endorse the view.

Am I a brute at times? Yes, I am guilty of shouting through steaming ears when I become very upset, yet I'm almost always sorry for my visible and audible displays of displeasure. However, restraining people and threatening them can do serious emotional harm and usually lead to sustained, increased violence. Exerting power over the weak is bullying.

I am no fan of the thug, the bitch, or the gangster. Perhaps Charlene Riva, in all her wisdom and experience and age, has fallen under the influence of those today who preach that dominance is power. On the other hand, maybe she is just lucky she hasn't been fired years ago. I don't know.

All I really know is that tying people up and restraining them -- Children! -- even with loose bindings of yarn is criminal, thuggish behavior. Her methods are not play and are not minimally invasive.

My cries go on like this... Please, please, replace your ignorance with knowledge. Please, teach your children that intellect and morals serve them best. Please, reduce incidents of being a bad role model to insure youth have sensible, logical alternatives to dominance and force when they face a tough, stressful situation. And, please, take time to make good decisions. Even if you must force yourself to have a little patience, take on that burden so you do not create needless trouble for others.

And, Ms. Riva, assuming all of this is true, I am sorry you lost your job after 40 years of teaching. It's a tough penalty to pay for learning a very simple lesson: "You can't teach kids to sit still by abusing them with bondage." I thought you might have already understood that. At least now, you can retire and use your yarn for knitting or another more humane activity. Damn, woman, what were you thinking? Maybe I really don't want to know.
 
 
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits
to whatever is dictated to it."

--Thomas Paine
 
 


Should You Love Your Best Friend? Tales Of Prickly Briars and Sensuous Roses




"Love and Friendship"

By Emily Brontë (1818–1848)

Love is like the wild rose-briar,
Friendship like the holly-tree—
The holly is dark when the rose-briar blooms
But which will bloom most constantly?

The wild rose-briar is sweet in spring,
Its summer blossoms scent the air;
Yet wait till winter comes again
And who will call the wild-briar fair?

Then scorn the silly rose-wreath now
And deck thee with the holly’s sheen,
That when December blights thy brow
He still may leave thy garland green.


 
Lover. Friend. One a wild rose-briar, the other a holly-tree. We desperately need both types of companions in our fleeting lives. We treasure these essential acquisitions and live for the eternal "bloom" of our lovers and friends. During all seasons of our lives, we trust our friends and lovers will remain true and constant.
 
The speaker in Emily Bronte's "Love and Friendship" certainly affirms the necessity of a person acquiring sweet love during his/her time of blossoming. Even though the young "rose" has briars to be avoided, its seductive beauty leads to fruitful acquisition vital to the happiness of the human soul. 
 
Yet, she questions a steady passion and longevity in such an intense and delicate relationship. In contrast, she believes the "winter" of a person's existence is kept verdant by faithful friends who may be less "fair" but more valuable companions.
 
This poem brings to my mind an age-old question. What about a rather awkward intersection of personal emotions -- a time when a best friend becomes a lover? Can any lasting fruits of passionate and erotic love coexist with strong friendship when two people decide to commit -- to exist as best lovers and best friends. 
 
I have often listened to the debate concerning whether a best friend can be a lifetime love. Some say the twain can never meet while others claim their soul mates are, in honesty, their best friends and best lovers. I don't know. Can a mate find long-lasting love with a friend?
 


 
Let's Examine Love and Friendship
 
A psychologist may expound the theory that four types of attraction exist in a male-female friendship: friendship attraction, romantic attraction, subjective physical/sexual attraction, and objective physical/sexual attraction.
 
(Heidi Reeder Ph.D. "Can You "Love" Your Friend?" Psychology Today. February 7 2012) 
 
Friendship attraction is not romantic or sexual in nature, but is the kind of attraction we feel when we are drawn to someone because we like that person and enjoy being with him or her. In a survey, 96 percent, said they currently feel friendship attraction for their friend, and over two-thirds said their friendship attraction has increased over time.
 
Romantic attraction is not necessarily physical or sexual attraction. While the two can go together, it's certainly possible to find someone physically attractive but have no desire to be in a romantic relationship with them. Romantic attraction is about the desire to alter the friendship into a couple relationship. Only 14 percent of friends said they currently feel romantic attraction for their friend.  Yet, interestingly, almost half said they used to feel more romantic attraction at an earlier stage in their friendship than they do now. ("But now that I know what she's really like, I couldn't date her!")
 
Subjective physical/sexual attraction refers to feeling drawn to the other physically, and perhaps of wanting to make sex a part of the relationship. Almost a third of the survey respondents currently felt this form of attraction for their friend. Quite a few friends may want to "get busy," but the strong majority-over two-thirds-did not currently feel this kind of sexual attraction. This form of attraction can change over time, and when it does it is more likely to decrease (30 percent) than to increase (20 percent).
Objective physical/sexual attraction refers to thinking that one's friend is physically attractive in general terms ("I can see why others would find him attractive"), but not feeling the attraction herself. This kind of attraction was experienced by over half of the people surveyed; one-quarter more than subjective physical/sexual attraction.
 
Let's summarize the findings. Friendship attraction is by far the most common type of attraction. The next most common is objective physical/sexual attraction followed by subjective physical/sexual attraction. The least reported type of attraction in male-female friendship is romantic attraction which, when it did occur, tended to decrease over time.
 
Holy mackerel! Friendship attraction increases while romantic attraction decreases. And, most people don't really want to get horizontal with their sexy best friends, but they do "see" why so many others want to shag them. It seems to me that this survey says "friends make unacceptable stable lovers."
 
Also, a finding from a recent government-funded marriage study reported in the Wall Street Journal: “Twice as many unhappy spouses said lack of time for self was their main reason for being unhappy than those who cited an unsatisfying sex life.”
 
From a study of 1600 seniors published in a recent Archives of Internal Medicine: almost two thirds of seniors who reported feeling lonely were married or living with a partner. Researchers defined loneliness as feeling isolated or lacking companionship.
 
Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines friend as “a person one likes and chooses to spend time with, usually without sexual or family bonds; a sympathizer, helper, ally.”
 
Wow! A spouse who is one’s best friend yet leaves a person feeling lonely and/or smothered, or sometimes both?
 
One marriage/sex therapist says this:
 
"It is not at all unusual for someone who comes to see me for counseling to begin their story by stating that their partner is their best friend but…there is no sex, no fun, no time for solitary pursuits, or in some major way life is not being enjoyed to its fullest. Often, the problem would have an obvious solution without the profession of best friendship. If the client were single, or even coupled, and life were unfulfilling she or he would know what to do, if not exactly how – take some time for oneself and find some new friends.
 
"I always review other aspects of their life – general health, the work he or she does and feelings about it, other people in their life (family, friends), what recreational activities are pursued, and if the person has enough time for him or herself. Almost always the answer to this last question is “no”. While all the other aspects of a life I ask about may have some bearing on a relationship issue, this last one always does.
 
 "I strongly feel that you need to be your own best friend. Your own needs must be given some priority so that, as a fulfilled person, you can then be in a position to be more generous with your partner and others around you. If you’re feeling lonely and not getting the support, sympathy or help from your spouse that is the very definition of friendship, look elsewhere – for a friend, usually same sex, and not place that burden of such expectations entirely on your spouse. If you are feeling too much closeness within the coupled bonds, take what space you need for maximum enjoyment of life….and for maximum enjoyment of your partnership as well. Two people who each have their needs met, who take responsibility of fulfilling their own needs, will make much better and more interesting partners to each other.
 
"Not too close. Not too far apart. Find the best equation for you so that you can enjoy your coupled relationship and not turn it into something it was never meant to be – a confinement in the name of an exclusive friendship."
 
 (Isadora Alman, M.F.T. "Is Your Spouse Really Your Best Friend?"
Psychology Today, June 22 2012)

 
My Take
 
I must confess I do understand what Alman means by calling a coupled relationship "a confinement in the name of an exclusive friendship." And, I do understand what she means when she implores me to be "my own best friend." Yet, what in the hell does this say about romance and passion as flames of love eventually die down to glowing embers? Why can't love remain intense and titillating?
 
I know what you're going to say. "Not my lover and me. We are just as romantic and passionate as we were during our first encounter. Our love grows stronger over the years."
 
So, I have to ask. What is "stronger" over the years in your relationship -- love or friendship or both? Has your "rose-briar" matured into your "holly"? Is your best friend someone other than your lover? Is Emily Bronte just an old bullshitter who never had her sensual buttons pushed? Is "tenderness" a substitute for sexuality?
 
Maybe you are so happy loving yourself that you could care less. Or maybe you have figured out how to get friendship from your friends and love from your lovers. Or, just maybe, you are loving your best friend. If so, why is easy to tell that trusted "someone else" in your life about the foibles and shortcomings of your mate?
 
The older I get, the less I know about love. I do know it's a beautiful, wonderful thing and it is the most powerful force on earth. I hope I am worthy of keeping some of it around always. The mystery and appeal never die, and, these days, I wish my body could generously cash the checks my sensual mind writes.
 
Love? I don't know what I've learned. However, I do think I get a little smarter about those I call "best friends." I'm trying to write down these thoughts about friendship now because I also realize my memory seems to fade more with each passing day. And, I seem to lose best friends now with the same regularity. Lovers and friends -- all treasures. I hope some of them think the same of my acquaintance.


"Though I know I'll never lose affection
For people and things that went before
I know I'll often stop and think about them
In my life I love you more"
 
"In My Life"  John Lennon and Paul McCartney


Emily Bronte
 

Saturday, May 11, 2013

No Second Coming: Yeats About Living With the Poetry of Unrequited Love

 


When You Are Old


By William Butler Yeats (1865–1939)

 
When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;
How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;
And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.


Unrequited love -- the hurt, the heartbreak, the scars. It's a popular subject in novels, films, and music, an experience that evokes such attention and empathy. Yet, how can a person truly understand the pain of a love that is not reciprocated unless that person has lived through such a malady? Like the genuine Blues man who has long suffered many trials, the unrequited lover has paid the unfortunate dues of loneliness.
 
James Patterson, best-selling author with nineteen consecutive #1 New York Times bestselling novels and the New York Times record for most Hardcover Fiction bestselling titles by a single author (63 total), says this of the incomparable hurt of unrequited love: “Because what’s worse than knowing you want something, besides knowing you can never have it?”  
 
Irish poet William Butler Yeats experienced a lifetime of love on a one-way street. His love relationship with Maud Gonne, the ravishing, revolutionary English-born, Irish beauty, is an astonishing story of passionate, unrequited love spanning fifty years from 1889 to 1939. 
 
Read this post, consider Yeats's poetry and his lovely muse.
 
 
Maud Gonne
 
 
Born in Surrey, England, Maud Gonne was the eldest of three girls. Her father was an officer in the English army who saw service in India. Maud was one year old when the family moved from England to Dublin, Ireland. When Maude was ten, her father Tommy Gonne rented a cottage in Cannes in the south of France and hired a French woman as governess. Her father went off to India to serve in the British Army, returning to France when Maud was sixteen. He then took her back to Dublin where she was launched into society, attending many parties.
 
In January of 1889, 23 year-old William Yeats first met Maud Gonne when she came to visit his family in London. Maude was very tall, with red-gold hair and hazel eyes, a twenty two year old, tempestuous, extraordinarily beautiful young woman whom Yeats could never quite fully understand. In fact, Yeats later wrote of their meeting, this is where “the troubling of my life began.”
 
His only other love affair during this period was with Olivia Shakespear, whom he had first met in 1896, and parted with one year later. (Just remember this name -- it reappears later in this story.)
 
Yeats fell in love with her, but his love was hopeless. Maud liked and admired him, but she was not in love with him. Her passion was lavished upon Ireland; she was an Irish patriot, a rebel, and a rhetorician, commanding in voice and in person. When Yeats joined in the Irish nationalist cause, he did so partly from conviction, but mostly for love of Maud.

How deep was the love of William Butler Yeats for Maud Gonne? Yeats believed her to be a
modern-day Helen of Troy. He was just carried away by her beauty, energy and self-confident heroic nature. He wrote the following description of her:

"I had never thought to see in a living woman so great beauty. It belonged to famous pictures, to poetry, to some legendary past. A complexion like the blossom of apples, and yet face and body had the beauty of lineaments which Blake calls the highest beauty because it changes least from youth to age, and a stature so great that she seemed of a divine race. Her movements were worthy of her form, and I understood at last why the poet of antiquity, where we would but speak of face and form, sings, loving some lady, that she paces like a goddess."
 
(William Butler Yeats, Memoirs, In The Trembling of the Veil: Four Years, 1887-1891)
 
In The Trembling of the Veil, Yeats said that Gonne's power partly came from her ability to always keep her mind free even when pushing an abstract principle to an absurdity. Crowds felt moved...
 
"...not only because she was beautiful, but because that beauty suggested joy and freedom. Besides, there was an element in her beauty that moved minds full of old Gaelic stories and poems, for she looked as though she lived in an ancient civilization where all superiorities whether of the mind or the body were part of a public ceremonial, were in some way the crowd's creation, as the entrance of the Pope into Saint Peter's is the crowd's creation. Her beauty backed by her great stature could instantly affect an assembly ... for it was incredibly distinguished, and ... her face, like the face of some Greek statue, showed little thought, her whole body seemed a master-work of long labouring thought, as though a Scopas had measured and calculated, consorted with Egyptian sages, and mathematicians out of Babylon, that he might outface even Artemisia's sepulchral image with a living norm."
 
With her in mind for the lead role, William even composed a play, “The Countess Kathleen.” It took him 10 years to complete. The play was performed at the opening of the Irish Literary Theatre in 1899, but Maud Gonne refused to take part in it. Yes, the muse "refused."
 
 
W.B. Yeats
 
Understand, dear reader, that while recovering from a bout of illness at a spa in central France, Gonne had begun an affair with her middle-aged lover, French journalist Lucien Millevoye, a married man with a son. Lucien had recently separated from his wife. Shortly thereafter Maud conceived a child by Lucien. Their son Georges was born in January, 1890. Gonne secretly gave birth to the boy.
 
On one of her frequent trips abroad she was suddenly notified that her baby was ill. Returning immediately to Paris, she learned to her horror that Georges had meningitis. Shortly after her return, Georges, aged five months, died.
 
Years later this tragedy, Maud discovered that Lucien, to whom she had always been faithful and who had been the love of her life for many years had left her for another woman. She promptly broke off her relationship with  him.
 
Before the affair ended in 1898, Millevoye and Gonne had a second child, a daughter, Iseult Gonne in 1895. She was conceived in the mausoleum of her late brother in an attempt by her parents to reincarnate their dead and still adored infant. Iseult would live to he passed off as her "younger sister" for many years. Maud had some pretty strange beliefs -- and certainly not quite the usual sexual fantasy for love and procreation.
 
During the time Maud spent with Yeats, she never mentioned the affair with Lucien Millevoye or her "secret" children. Ignorant of the nature of her association with Lucien, Yeats assumed she was merely "taken up" with Ireland's cause. Maud encouraged him to believe this was the case as she depended on his friendship and devotion.
 
Even when William followed Maud to Paris in February 1894 as she showed him around her beloved city, he was unaware that she was pregnant with Iseult.
 
A kiss must have caused muse Maud to confess. Gonne kissed Yeats on the lips for the first time in 1899, then immediately confessed the truth to him about the affair and her children she had told the world were adopted.
 
Still undaunted, the persistent William asked Maud Gonne to marry him, but she declined. And, at this point, you might think this is the end of the story, but far from it.
 
Their friendship survived at least four unsuccessful marriage proposals from Yeats. When Maud married Major John MacBride in Paris in 1903, Yeats was devastated that she had taken another nationalist for her husband.
 
There were two main reasons why Yeats was so horrified. To lose his muse to another made him look silly before the public. Yeats naturally hated MacBride and continually sought to deride and demean him both in his letters and his poetry. The second reason Yeats was horrified was linked to the fact of Maud's conversion to Catholicism, which Yeats despised. He thought his muse would come under the influence of the priests and do their bidding.
 
(WB Yeats Vain, Glorious, Lout by Anthony Jordan. Westport Books 2003 pp 139–153, Willie Yeats & The Gonne MacBrides by Anthony Jordan Westport books 1997 pp.83–88)
 
The following year, Gonne and MacBride's son, Seán MacBride, was born. However, in 1905, Gonne made allegations of domestic violence, including the molestation of her then 11-year-old daughter Iseult Gonne. A divorce was not given, and MacBride got visiting rights to see his son twice a week at his wife's home. But, he exercised these rights briefly and decided to return to Ireland and never saw his baby boy again.
 
Gonne raised the boy in Paris until her husband was executed in 1916 for his participation in the  Easter Rising. Then, she felt that she could safely return to live permanently in Ireland.
 
Yeats gave MacBride the following ambivalent eulogy in his poem "Easter, 1916":
"This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vain-glorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born."
Maud Gonne wrote to Yeats "No I don't like your poem, it isn't worthy of you & above all it isn't worthy of its subject... As for my husband he has entered eternity by the great door of sacrifice...so that praying for him I can also ask for his prayers."
 
(Gonne-Yeats Letters Eds. Anna MacBride White & Norman Jeffares, Pimlico 1993 p. 384)
 
Still, William comforted her. Some accounts say they finally consummated their relationship near the end of 1908 in Paris.. "The long years of fidelity rewarded at last" was how another of his lovers described the event. Yeats was less sentimental and later remarked that "the tragedy of sexual intercourse is the perpetual virginity of the soul."
 
(Cahill, Christopher. "Second Puberty: The Later Years of W. B. Yeats Brought His Best Poetry, along with Personal Melodrama on an Epic Scale."
The Atlantic Monthly, December 2003)
 
The relationship did not develop into a new phase after their night together, and soon afterwards Gonne wrote to the poet indicating that despite the physical consummation, they could not continue as they had been: "I have prayed so hard to have all earthly desire taken from my love for you and dearest, loving you as I do, I have prayed and I am praying still that the bodily desire for me may be taken from you too."
 
(R.F. Foster, W.F. Yeats: A Life, 1998)
 
Had the reality of sexual relations destroyed all illusions of love? William considered the possibility.  And, by January 1909, Gonne was sending Yeats letters praising the advantage given to artists who abstain from sex. Nearly twenty years later, Yeats recalled the night with Gonne in his poem "A Man Young and Old":
"My arms are like the twisted thorn
And yet there beauty lay;
The first of all the tribe lay there
And did such pleasure take;
She who had brought great Hector down
And put all Troy to wreck."
 
What About William?

After consulting with an astrologist, William Butler Yeats's final proposal to Maud Gonne took place in the summer of 1916. Gonne's history of revolutionary political activism, as well as a series of personal catastrophes in the previous few years of her life, including chloroform addiction and her troubled marriage to MacBride made her a potentially unsuitable wife, and biographer R.F. Foster has observed that Yeats' last offer was motivated more by a sense of duty than by a genuine desire to marry her. Hardly the stuff of passion and romance.
 
(Cahill, Christopher. "Second Puberty: The Later Years of W. B. Yeats Brought His Best Poetry, along with Personal Melodrama on an Epic Scale."
The Atlantic Monthly, December 2003)
 
Yeats proposed in an indifferent manner, with conditions attached, and he both expected and hoped she would turn him down. According to Foster "when he duly asked Maud to marry him, and was duly refused, his thoughts shifted with surprising speed to her daughter." Daughter? Uh, huh.
 
Iseult had lived a sad young life. After all, she had been conceived as an attempt to reincarnate her short-lived brother, and, for the first few years of her life, she had been presented as her mother's adopted niece. When her mother Maud told her that she was going to marry MacBride, Iseult cried and told her mother that she hated him.
 
At fifteen, she had proposed to Yeats. That's right... Iseult had proposed to William.
 
Now, fully grown Iseult Gonne was widely considered a great beauty, but temperate and able to speak her mind. She attracted the admiration of literary figures including Ezra Pound, Lennox Robinson and Liam O'Flaherty.
 
In a very strange twist to this story of unrequited love, in 1916, a few months after Maud Gonne had turned down his last proposal, with her permission, 52 year-old William Butler Yeats wooed and proposed to 23 year-old Iseult Gonne. That's right... old William proposed to young Iseult with the permission of her mother, Maud.
 
Although she refused, he became the closest she would have to a father figure. At this point, I'm really confused. I guess deep unrequited love never dies?
 
But wait. That September, Yeats proposed to 25-year-old Georgie Hyde-Lees (1892–1968), whom he had met through Olivia Shakespear when Georgie was 17 years-old.
 
Despite warning from her friends—"George ... you can't. He must be dead"—Hyde-Lees accepted, and the two were married on 20 October. Their marriage was a success, in spite of the age difference, and in spite of Yeats' feelings of remorse and regret during their honeymoon.
 
The couple went on to have two children, Anne and Michael.
 
At last, William's Maud obsession seemed to ebb, nearly 30 years after they first met. Yet, his love life remained a tangle. Late in life he had a vasectomy, believed at the time to improve men’s potency. He charged ahead in romantic relationships with other women and possibly with affairs.
 
 
Ethel Mannin
 
 
Among his lovers were the poet and actress Margot Ruddock, and the novelist, journalist and sexual radical Ethel Mannin. As in his earlier life, Yeats found erotic adventure conducive to his creative energy, and, despite age and ill-health, he remained a prolific writer.
 
In a letter of 1935, Yeats noted: "I find my present weakness made worse by the strange second puberty the operation has given me, the ferment that has come upon my imagination. If I write poetry it will be unlike anything I have done" 
 
(Letter to Dorothy Wellesley, 17 June 1935; cited Ellmann, "Yeats's Second Puberty,"
New York Review of Books, 9 May 1985)
 
It is reported that on his death in January 1939, both his wife and his last lover stood vigil at his bed.
 
Although in later years he had , George herself wrote to her husband "When you are dead, people will talk about your love affairs, but I shall say nothing, for I will remember how proud you were."
 
 
 
 
And what do some critics say about the life of William Butler Yeats and his unrequited love?
 
"The late poems of Yeats are sharp cries in the struggle to hold on to the pleasures of the body when the body fails. "The Wild Old Wicked Man" (1938) brags that he has what no young man can have: "Words I have that can pierce the heart, / But what can he do but touch?" Settling in to compensatory pleasures, he can say with bravura that, while religion can burn out suffering eternally, "I choose the second-best, / I forget it all awhile / Upon a woman's breast."

"Yeats ultimately chose the body over the soul, in late life embracing the Tantric belief in sex as the path to divinity, but sex without consummation, a philosophy that must have been all the more appealing to a post-Steinach Yeats.
 
"In 1931 he began a friendship with Shri Purohit Swami, for whose spiritual autobiography he wrote an introduction and with whom he collaborated on a translation of the Upanishads when the two stayed together in Majorca in 1935-36. St. John Ervine, one-time temporary manager of the Abbey Theatre, paid a visit to Yeats while cruising in the Mediterranean and offered this description of the poet's spiritual guru: "The Yogi, dressed in bright pink and looking like a bright carnation, sat with his hands folded on his ample paunch." Stationery from the Hotel Terramar in Palma, on which the Swami wrote letters to Margot Ruddock, included in this new acquisition, is imprinted: 'Located on the famous C'as Catal Coast. Own sea beach. All comforts. Central heating.'
"So runs the fine line between wisdom and foolishness, the sublime and the ridiculous, inspiration and madness. Yeats never crossed this last line, though Margot Ruddock -- a Crazy Jane of a young and beautiful sort -- did. She appeared at the Hotel Terramar in May 1936 in the throes of a nervous breakdown, then went down to the shore to drown herself, only to begin to dance, a dance Yeats memorialized in two poems, "Sweet Dancer" and "A Crazed Girl." Her body had failed her spirit in a tragedy Yeats knew all too well by this stage of his life."
 
 (Clare M. Dunsford, "An Old Fool: The Last Passions of W.B. Yeats,"
Boston College Magazine, 2000)
 
And What About Iseult?
 
In 1920, Iseult eloped to London with the Irish-Australian writer, Francis Stuart. Under duress from both their parents, the couple later married. Their first child, Dolores, died in 1921 of spinal meningitis while three months old. The couple had two other children, Ian and Catherine.
 
Iseult made headlines during the Second World War when she was brought to trial for harboring Hermann Görtz, a German parachutist, a crime to which she confessed but was acquitted.
 
When Maud Gonne died in 1953, Iseult was not acknowledged as her mother's daughter in her will. Iseult died a year later.
 
 
Maud's Later Life
 
When Ireland’s Civil War came, Maud supported the anti-treaty side. She helped to found the Women’s Prisoners Defense League to help Republican prisoners and their families. In 1923, she once again found herself imprisoned, this time by the Irish Free State government.
Maud Gonne MacBride died on April 27, 1953, but her influence on Ireland and the world continued after her death through her son, Seán MacBride. As a young man, Seán fought on the Republican side in the Civil War and later carried on his mother’s crusade for the fair treatment of political prisoners, not just in Ireland, but all over the world. Seán was one of the founders of Amnesty International and, in 1974, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
 
My Take
 
I can't add anything to this story. It speaks for itself.
 
I believe experiencing unrequited love allows a person to empathize with the bluest blues and one of the saddest realities of love; however, thank God most of us "get over" the one that fueled our deepest desires but turned to walk away. Life is art, and art is life. OK. There is a strange beauty in the recollection of lost love. I feel the power of this muse in much of my favorite music.
 
Yet, I don't claim to be a poet, a great lover, or a philosopher, but I count myself lucky to know heartbreak because some soulful connection within me actually occurs I hear the blues. I still wonder how anyone who has not experienced rejection on the deepest levels can understand.
 
Damn, that W.B. Yeats and Maud anyway. Sometimes even when you get what you want, it's too late, or it's not as good as you thought it would be. Maybe a little bit of unrequited is actually good for the soul. Or maybe people like me are just too fucking crazy and enjoy being drawn too close to the flame. It makes me want to hide my face amid that crowd of stars. Yet, I remember still. And I hope to never forget... the times, the longing, and even the pain. How can I love best without experiencing the whole tipsy ride? And, yes, I still love you, baby.
 

Friday, May 10, 2013

Appalachian Dreamin' and Langston Hughes




"Let America Be America Again"
 
 
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine—the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!

 
by Langston Hughes
 

Langston Hughes

Langston Hughes (1902–1967)  was first recognized as an important literary figure during the 1920s, a period known as the "Harlem Renaissance" because of the number of emerging black writers.

Hughes turned out poems, essays, book reviews, song lyrics, plays, and short stories. He edited five books of African American writing and worked with Arna Bontemps on another and on a book for children. He wrote some twenty plays, including "Mulatto," "Simply Heavenly," and "Tambourines to Glory." He translated Federico Garcia Lorca, the Spanish poet, and Gabriela Mistral (1889–1957), the Latin American Nobel laureate poet, and wrote two long autobiographical works (a biography about oneself).

As a newspaper columnist for the Chicago Defender, Hughes created "Simple." This enduring character brought his style to perfection and solidified his reputation as the "most eloquent [fluent and persuasive] spokesman" for African Americans. The sketches of Simple, collected in five volumes, are presented as conversations between an uneducated, African American city dweller, Jesse B. Semple (Simple), and an educated but less sensitive African American friend.

The sketches that ran in the Defender for twenty-five years are varied in subject and remarkable in their relevance to the universal human condition. That Simple is a universal man, even though his language, habits, and personality are the result of his particular experiences as an African American man, is a measure of Hughes's genius.

"I am telling you," Simple says in one grand, sweeping pronouncement about the Negro's dilemma, the white man's guilty feelings, "life is liable to kill us before death does."

It was suggested to Simple that -- to hear him talk -- if he had lived in the Garden of Eden the world would still be Paradise, and man would not have fallen into sin.

"Not this man," said Simple. "I would have stayed in that garden making grape wine, singing like Crosby, and feeling fine! I would not be scuffling out in this rough world, neither would I be in Harlem. If I was Adam I would just stay in Eden in that garden with no rent to pay, no landladies to dodge, no time clock to punch -- and my picture on a Sunday school card. I'd be a real gone guy even if I didn't have but one name -- Adam -- and no initials."
     
Hughes received numerous fellowships (scholarships), awards, and honorary degrees, including the Anisfield-Wolf Award (1953) for a book on improving race relations. He taught creative writing at two universities; had his plays produced on four continents; and made recordings of African American history, music commentary, and his own poetry.

He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and to the National Institute of Arts and Letters. His work, some of which was translated into a dozen languages, earned him an international reputation. Forty-seven volumes bear Hughes's name. He died in New York City on May 22, 1967.
 
Early Criticism

Hughes and his contemporaries had different goals and aspirations than the black middle class. They criticized the men known as the "midwives" of the Harlem Renaissance: W. E. B. Du Bois, Jessie Redmon Fauset, and Alain LeRoy Locke, as being overly accommodating and assimilating eurocentric values and culture to achieve social equality.

His poetry and fiction portrayed the lives of the working-class blacks in America, lives he portrayed as full of struggle, joy, laughter, and music. Hughes and his fellows tried to depict the "low-life" in their art, that is, the real lives of blacks in the lower social-economic strata. They criticized the divisions and prejudices based on skin color within the black community.

Much of Hughes's early work was roundly criticized by many black intellectuals for portraying what they thought to be an unattractive view of black life.

For example, here are critic Estace Gay's comments on Hughes's work Fine Clothes to the Jew:

"It does not matter to me whether every poem in the book is true to life," Gay wrote. "Why should it be paraded before the American public by a Negro author as being typical or representative of the Negro? Bad enough to have white authors holding up our imperfections to public gaze. Our aim ought to be [to] present to the general public, already misinformed both by well meaning and malicious writers, our higher aims and aspirations, and our better selves."

Commenting on reviewers like Gay, Hughes wrote:

"I sympathized deeply with those critics and those intellectuals, and I saw clearly the need for some of the kinds of books they wanted. But I did not see how they could expect every Negro author to write such books. Certainly, I personally knew very few people anywhere who were wholly beautiful and wholly good. Besides I felt that the masses of our people had as much in their lives to put into books as did those more fortunate ones who had been born with some means and the ability to work up to a master's degree at a Northern college. Anyway, I didn't know the upper class Negroes well enough to write much about them. I knew only the people I had grown up with, and they weren't people whose shoes were always shined, who had been to Harvard, or who had heard of Bach. But they seemed to me good people, too."

 

 
The Appalachian Connection
 
The charge for native people to effect change is apparent in "Let America Be America Again." Although the title of the poem may seem to connote asking the reader's permission to allow America "to be the dream the dreamers dreamed," the word let denotes "to cause to" or "make" as in this sentence: "Let the news be known."
 
This poetic work echoes the challenge for present-day Appalachian people. It is they who must create or "make" America in their homeland. "America never was America to me" is a cry heard across Appalachia, a cry of inequality and injustice from those who have fallen into poverty, joblessness, and unhealthy living conditions.
 
Hughes writes of the poor -- white, Native American, African American -- who must find new vision and take determined action in order to revive their manifest dreams:
 
"O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!"
 
When rich, tyrannical liars, thieves, and criminals use certain conditions created by poverty to destroy the hope of the common people to overcome overwhelming odds, these oppressed folk lose their strength and will. In essence, the people lose all freedom. Instead, they become slaves in America held in bonds forged by the greedy and the powerful -- both are forces that kill the American Dream.

Unless the enslaved, themselves, rise up and fight to break the chains, those who dominate will profit and succeed as they continue to grind their boots on the throats of the unfortunate. The masters feel justified to crush the "nigger," the "hillbilly," the "illegal alien," the "addict," the "whore," the "homeless," the "dirty" and the "different."
 
"Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!"
 
I hope reading Hughes's "Let America Be America Again" allows you to feel indignity but also gives you vital inspiration. I am sure we can better ourselves and "redeem" our Appalachian communities; however, I am just as sure that little help from the critics outside our area will help us accomplish new dreams. "We" are the "people" responsible for "our" fate. And, Langston Hughes also questioned of a "Dream Deferred" -- Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore – And then run?"

Let us begin a new dream... today.
 
"Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!"
 



Saturday, May 4, 2013

If I Could Only Become My Songs




Most people measure their lives by judging their lowest valleys and their highest peaks, but lately I've come to the conclusion that any measure of my being is not indicative of these periods. Instead, I believe my understanding of who I am and who I have been reveals itself when my soul is at rest. During those times, I most understand then the core of my personage.

When I am doing things, I am usually so wrapped up in whatever is happening that I lose track of my feelings, and, sadly, sometimes, I am quick to display my emotions. I have been apt to do this even more as I traverse my so-called "golden years." Not only do I release my feelings and my emotions, but I have also become prone to lose track of my most significant intentions.

And, sometimes all this produces Good, Spontaneous Frank and sometimes it produces Bad, Rash Frank. Anyone who knows me well is familiar with my fickle temperament and probably judges me, and fairly so, by the jumbled, often contradictory things they witness me saying and doing during these times. I want to be more pleasing to everyone, yet like Popeye, "I yam who I yam."

I am never satisfied with the mixed impression I know I convey to others, yet, over a past filled with tons of personal fuckups and highlights, I have become somewhat numb to my own public self. I understand this egotistical behavior is not good. It is a very imperfect coping mechanism that has become a lousy habit.

But, I believe (at least I have convinced myself to believe) that when I am alone or in private settings with another, and my keel is even, then I am free to put my unbalanced, restless soul at ease. So, I relax and become the "me" I intend to be -- crusing speed engaged and direction straight ahead.

Although all this sounds pretty fantastic and appears to be just maddening ranting, I have given this subject much, much thought.

I invoke what I consider to be the most soulful bliss at home through recorded music. When I do this, I do not just play recordings to "hear" music, but I play recordings to "listen" to them and ingest them in all their exciting forms. The greater the dynamics of the experience, the more contented I become. I play music with volume because I want to waves to caress me diminuendo and arouse me in crescendo.

I believe I feel the Muses of art. I am not sure whether listening to music beckons Calliope, Terpischore, or any of the other notable Greek godesses; however, when I ignite the switch that feeds the medium, the electricity releases powerful forces that inspire me to become one with music, lyric, and dance. In my case, muses do not lend themselves to create form, but, instead, to appreciate form as it feeds my ravenous ears.

Hearing great recordings on good sound equipment thrills me, no matter whether the music is a song I am hearing for the first time or a song I have heard for the millionth time. When the atmosphere and the emotion and the vibration are righteous, the inviting muse seduces me for hour upon hour. Sorry for the strong sensual, provocative connotations, but often my musical experiences do become spiritually orgasmic.

Oh shit, I see now that I have just confessed to equating the meaning of my old, lonely life to sitting around and bonking imaginary goddesses with my fully cocked, horny ears...

OK, I'm guilty. I do it all the time, and damn it, I live for getting me some of that great sonic love. Sue me, arrest me, ridicule me, put me in a freaky reality tv show, or just hang me by my ears in the public square. I know I am willing to die for my music. It moves me; it drives me; it inspires me.




All I ask of you is to please, not ruin the magic I experience by pulling my fantasty existence toward the reality that CDs are "4.8 inch manufactured, injection-molded pieces of 4.8 inch diameter, clear polycarbonate plastic that can store a total of 74 minutes of digital musical data impressed with microscopic bumps arranged as a single, continuous, extremely long spiral track of data sputtered with a thin, reflective aluminum layer and oversprayed with a thin, protective acrylic layer."

Instead, let it play and let it do its magic. Let all the mojo out to be enjoyed -- the classic rock, the rhythm and blues, the soul, the blues, the Americana, the folk, the pop, the middle-of-the road, the standards, the jazz, the country, the gospel, the bluegrass, the resistable to classification.

If you are wise and appreciate the spice of variety, you will allow your ears to listen to all genres, find soulmates in each, and then allow your soul to open to the unique love offered by each. I believe satisfaction is guaranteed.

I can measure my life in my love for music. My torrid love affair with sound began when I was a toddler and it has never waned. To me, my musical sirens are just as beautiful today as the day I first met them, and they still consistently ignite my passion, my imagination, and my dreams. My music and I have learned to come together, to release the bounds of our real world, and to rise to ecstatic states.

If only my musical soul could live and love in reality, I would surely feel transparent and free. That is so far beyond my expectations that I hold no hope of achieving such harmony. In the meantime, I will continue to struggle with living out my uncoordinated actions and trying to make a decent song of my life. Just let me have a few hours of sound at the end of the day.

So, if you really want to know me, come on over and we can listen to some tunes together. Maybe then, you may understand how my axis is music, and why I continue to choose to listen to the soundtrack of a confusing life each day, reviewing at will all its beauty and poignancy.


Bold As Love

Anger, he smiles,
Towering in shiny metallic purple armour
Queen Jealousy, envy waits behind him
Her fiery green gown sneers at the grassy ground

Blue are the life-giving waters taken for granted,
They quietly understand
Once happy turquoise armies lay opposite ready,
But wonder why the fight is on
But they're all bold as love, yeah, they're all bold as love
Yeah, they're all bold as love
Just ask the axis

My red is so confident that he flashes trophies of war,
And ribbons of euphoria
Orange is young, full of daring,
But very unsteady for the first go round
My yellow in this case is not so mellow
In fact I'm trying to say it's frightened like me
And all these emotions of mine keep holding me from, eh,
Giving my life to RAINBOW like you
But, I'm bold as love, yeah, I'm bold as love
Yeah, yeah
Well I'm bold, bold as love (hear me talking, girl)
I'm bold as love
Just ask the axis (he knows everything)
Yeah,
Yeah,
Yeah!

--Jimi Hendrix