I sought that perfect image to make truth sing,
my readers weep. Fire and water, maybe.
Am I asking too much of the rain?
A few drops had fallen, as we entered Kansas,
where in Phillipsburg,
we drove past the “Yesterday Shop”
and the houses that looked like yesterday.
And when crossing the Republican River,
we noticed it was dried up. A sign of prophecy, yes?
Art or history? At this juncture,
I concocted a fathomable symbolism,
based on true belief, concerning what light
even our darkest corner may yet hold.
A part of the tale went awry in November:*
A spark cannot thrive in a downpour, you know,
a burning bush in a waterfall.
Was I asking too much of the rain—
looking for some tidbit of comfort
in which to increase my small but burning hope?
* when George W. Bush stole won the election.
First Published in Right Hand Pointing
**
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 3, 2008 at 11:56 pm
renaissanceguy
Wow! That is a brilliant poem. It blew me away. It is one of the most powerful things I have read in a long time.
(No, I don’t agree with the premise.)
October 4, 2008 at 12:02 am
helenl
Thanks, RG. May I ask specifically what you disagree with?
The basic premise is, there is something good – there is some light – even in the darkest among us (because we are all created in the image of God, and God is Light). And, that there is always hope for everyone.
Somehow, I don’t think that is what you don’t agree with.
BTW, the places mentioned are actual ones we went through in Kansas in the fall of 2004.
October 4, 2008 at 1:53 am
renaissanceguy
First, what I like most about it is the amazing images and how you create symbols out of them in a very fresh way. I also enjoy the various emotions that are evoked in turn, especially what I detect as frustration in trying to communicate. I have felt that many times. Poetry almost always moves me, but this poem moves me more than many others (and I have read and re-read many poems).
“A part of the tale went awry in November” is what I disagree with, of course. It’s too bad that you had to connect some unviersal ideas with a particular political occurrence.
Then again, it’s your perspective, and I can appreciate it as such. Perhaps this poem would never had its genesis without that catalyst.
October 4, 2008 at 10:36 am
helenl
Thanks for clearing that up, RG. And now my question is, Would you have know this was a reference to Bush winning without the footnote (which was NOT there when the poem was first published in February 2005)? Maybe I should have just left that off.
A dry Republican river surely symbolizes defeat (as in, no second term for the incumbent). Maybe I just explained too much and took mystery away. I always meant “defeat for Bush” but maybe I should have left you guessing.
I was taught (by Jane Mead – in graduate level poetry workshops at Wake Forest University) that the most effective political poetry is not overtly political. It seems like you are saying something similar. And no, without the catalyst the poem wouldn’t exist. I do think Bush is the worse president of my lifetime but also a child of God.
The poem was started before the election (of 2004) and revised afterwards.