Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The Golden Fiddle



The screech of a violin fills the air, effectively silencing the discordant background noise.  A reddish glow spreads across the horizon.  The approaching flickering light casts twisting shadows as the musician sways maniacally from side to side in time with the music of his own creation.  He takes no notice of the increasing temperature and plays on with greater passion.  The world will soon be rebuilt in his image.  Rome is burning.  We are all Nero.

The contemplation of this disturbing image is the main objective of poem XXXV in Emily Johnston’s Her Animals.  Perhaps this is an important objective of the entire book.  Johnston’s Her Animals, perhaps a poetry collection, perhaps an essay on the impending destruction of mankind, offers a very bleak picture of our future.  Even darker is the portrayal of human society, and our exploitive relationship with the earth. 

Nero’s “golden fiddle” is ever present in our lives, appearing on all our screens, and taking a position of leadership at the podium (Johnston XXXV).  The sound is our contented distraction.  “It drowns out the wailing; it drowns out the cries; it drowns out the drilling and clear-cutting…” Johnston writes (XXXV).  Our contented distraction comes at a price.  Our lifestyle is supported by the destruction of the earth, the using up of limited resources. 

This is not all.  Our contented distraction “drowns out the heartbeats silenced: the chirrups, the hums, the rustles, the snuffles, the squeaks” (XXXV).  How many species are on the endangered list?  How many will go extinct this year?  All to support a few more years of our contented distraction.

Is our downfall inevitable?  What can we really do? Recycle, conserve water and power, drive less, hug a tree…  All small steps.  Of course, we must start somewhere.  Give up our car, move to a cabin in the woods, go off the grid… Bigger steps, but not always practical or possible for the modern person.  Does it really make a difference?  Perhaps if everyone made even a few small changes.  But they are too busy being contentedly distracted.  What can we really do?  How do we wake people up and get them to join in?  Tell our friends, join environmental groups, march on Washington, write a letter to the Times, call people names, shout until we lose our voices…  Rome is already on fire.  Time is running out. 




Works Cited
Johnston, Emily. Her Animals. Seattle: Hummingbird Press, 2015. Print.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Stolen Eggs


            Curious visitors gawk at a magnificent collection of eggs sitting carefully arranged on a bed of cotton.  Large and small, spotted, striped, pink, white, and brown, these sphere-like canvasses are all unique and extraordinarily beautiful works of art.  But today is not Easter.  There are no rabbits here.  And no birds.  This artistic collection is displayed at the Museum of Natural History; nature was the artist.  This unnatural collection is not unusual.  Every year, millions of visitors swarm to museums across the country to gratify their curiosity.  Only a few, perhaps, notice that something is not right.

            In Refuge, the emptiness of the situation becomes painfully obvious to Terry Tempest-Williams.  These eggs on display are hollow and weightless.  The life has been blown out of them (Tempest-Williams, 262).  The eggs have been preserved for the purpose of education, but the life in them was destroyed in the process.  The life that those eggs held could have populated an entire marsh.  Now they sit arranged in rows, removed from nature, a lifeless and pointless demonstration of where birds come from. 




            The destruction of life is enraging to Tempest.  But so is the theft.  These eggs were stolen not just from nature, but from the warm nest of a mother bird.  These eggs had been guarded like secrets, the protective mother sheltering them with her feathers.  Eggs are not meant to be seen, and this collection amounts to sacrilege (Tempest-Williams, 262). 




            This conclusion was a bit surprising to me, I must admit.  As a history major, museums are not foreign to me.  They preserve the past for the sake of education.  For the benefit of current and future generations.  Perhaps for entertainment too.  Education does not have to be boring.  And if even one visitor gains a greater respect for the natural world, has the museum’s purpose been fulfilled? 




Really, what is so bad about looking at eggs?  While pondering this question, it was a funny surprise that one of my duolingo sentences for the day just happened to be “Wir sehen jedes Ei.”   We see every egg.  Looking at eggs is probably something that most people do fairly regularly.  Perhaps you ate some with your breakfast this morning?  I know I have about half a dozen in my refrigerator at this very moment.  A lot of you probably do too.  Were these eggs stolen?  No baby chick would ever have hatched from them.  Hens were removed from nature to serve our purposes. 




            The examination of stealing from nature is not limited to the work of Tempest.  The poetry of Emily Dickenson also contains this theme.  In Dickenson’s poem, “Who Robbed the Woods,” the woods, like a trusting child, proudly displays burrs and mosses to impress a visitor.  The visitor betrayed this trust and took what belonged to the woods, snatching it greedily and carrying away.  The poem positions the reader to sympathize with the forest, to share in the speechless outrage expressed by the fir and hemlock.  The childlike innocence is contrasted with the grasping curiosity and shocking robbery perpetrated by the unnamed male thief.




But what is the harm of taking a few burrs and mosses, or an egg or two?  Especially in the name of science?  The thief in Dickenson’s poem was curious about nature.  Perhaps he simply admired the beauty of nature.  Perhaps he did not know that he had offended the trees.  Perhaps he truly did not intend any harm.  Perhaps he, like visitors to museums of natural history, only wanted to learn.  The museum administration, too, surely does not intend harm in collecting artifacts to exhibit.  They more likely see their work as a boon to civilization.




But if collecting museum artifacts is harming nature, then why is it done?  What is the purpose of museums?  Does the education of millions of museum visitors justify destroying even one egg?  Does the end ever justify the means?




Humans are creatures of curiosity.  We want to know how things work, where things come from, and why things are the way they are.  Institutions of education, libraries, museums, self-help books, and a large number of google searches stand as monuments to human curiosity.  Still, nature holds mystery.  We want to discover the answers, so we examine nature, put it under microscopes, and display it in museums.  Eggs, in particular, symbolize the origin of life.  No matter how disconnected from nature humans may become, we share life with nature.  The mystery of life will always intrigue us, tug at the corners of our consciousness, worm its way into our thoughts every time a new green stem pushes its way out of the still half-frozen ground, and pull at our hearts every time we hear a baby cry.  We will always grasp for answers. 




Still, the disconnect between humans and nature remains.  The visitors to museums, like the visitor in Dickenson’s poem, were curious.  But they often do not understand the full implications of their actions.  They admire the beauty of nature, but they do not fully appreciate the tenderness and fragility of the natural world.  Nature, like a small child, should be cared for.  In the appreciation of nature, is not enough simply to visit a museum once in a blue moon while our hearts and our lifestyles remain unchanged.




Dickenson’s poem, like Tempest-Williams’ Refuge, promotes a respect and reverence for nature, as a sentient, living entity.  Nature’s beauty, even to the small curious details, the eggs, the burrs, the moss, the pinecones, should be respected as belonging to nature.  When interacting with nature, as well as with our fellow humans as we go about our ordinary daily lives, it is important to remember that even our smallest actions can have significant effects.

There is undoubtedly a place for museums in our world today.  That is, as long as these museums are conducted as institutions of preservation and education rather than as storehouses for plunder.  Hopefully, the artifacts on display are collected responsibly, with as little harm as possible.  If not, then let them serve as reminders of humanity’s potential for destruction.  True education entails a shift in thought.  This, no matter how much people resist it, means change.  If people fully understand the destruction they cause by their everyday actions, would they continue to make the same harmful decisions? 


Go visit a museum, but please do so with a willingness to learn.  Remember, too, that the world’s greatest museum is right outside your door.  This is the season of miracles, the time when life is renewed.  On my way home yesterday, I noticed that the tulips had started pushing their way through the melting snow.  Take a moment to celebrate the triumph of a few brave tulips.  Listen to the birds sing, too.  It has been pretty quiet all winter without them.  Even in the city, it is still possible to find the touch of nature.  Those trees that grow between the sidewalk and the street often hide birds’ nests.  Take a quick peek sometime, but do be respectful.  These outdoor museum exhibits are the real thing, in their natural state, not empty and lifeless like those that Tempest held and mourned over.  Here, the mother bird sits warming future generations.  Under her feathers, she guards the secret of life. 
 
Works Cited
Dickenson, Emily.  “Who Robbed the Woods.” Bartleby.com.
Tempest-Williams, Terry.  Refuge. New York: Pantheon Books, 1991.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

How to Deal With Literary Historians and Other Boring People


             Surging purple, exploding red ribbons, rockets of fuchsia against the pink sky, deep peacock green and India blue swirl through the magnificent sunset, a moment of relief from an otherwise drab and colorless day.  This, the greatest show that Earth has to offer, is the view from your living room window every evening.  But your apartment is very expensive.  Would you give it up?  This is the question facing the narrator of Diane Ackerman’s short prose piece, “Visual Opium.”

            In watching the sunset every evening, the narrator finds a relief like no other.  In her urban setting, the enjoyment of this spectacular natural phenomenon was a moment eagerly awaited.  Even just picturing the vivid colors has a calming effect, which is particularly useful when trapped in dull conversation.  The speaker’s coffee-room nemesis: the “Literary Historian.”  Literary historians are apparently recognizable by their drab colored clothing, miserliness, and poor conversation skills.  At this point, I had to stop and assess the situation.  I tend to wear darker shades of brown or green.  I don’t like spending money.  I am horrible at small talk.  And I am less than a semester away from a Bachelor’s in English and history.  Oh dear, I think I might be a literary historian!

             Am I destined to a life of boring dullness?  What do I do to fix this horrible predicament? 

            The speaker’s assessment seems to be that the literary historian’s objection to the expense of the apartment was not simply monetary, but that it was a “too-extravagant experience of life” (Ackerman 76).  “Sensory misers,” the speaker reflects, “will inherit the earth, but first they will make it not worth living on” (76).   Those, like the literary historian, who refuse to enjoy the sunset, and who discourage others from doing so, are surely making life not worth living.

Really?

Not that I’m telling people not to watch the sunset if they want to.  My own house has a decent view of the sunrise, if I get up that early (never by choice).  But I wouldn't call myself a sensory miser just because I'm not a morning person.  Perhaps the literary historian isn't a sensory miser either.  Perhaps her enjoyment of life simply lay in another direction.  Consider her love of poetry, a source of endless (boring, to the speaker) conversation.  But the literary historian obviously takes pleasure in the subject.  Perhaps poetry is to the literary historian was what the sunset is to the speaker: a celebration of life.

Life is short, the speaker reflects.  Life should be enjoyed.  Otherwise, what’s the point? Go ahead and try too hard, care too much, ask silly questions, and don’t be afraid to make mistakes. Find something you enjoy in life.  Pick up an autumn leaf on your way to the mailbox.  Bask in the glory of its vibrant redness.  Read a poem.  Or two.  Listen to good music.  Watch a sunset.  Smell the rain.  Splash in a puddle.  And if the neighbors stare and think us eccentric?  Wave and smile. We know the secret. 



Works Cited

Ackerman, Diane. “Visual Opium.” Sisters of the Earth. Edited by Lorraine Anderson. New York: Vintage, 2003. Page 74-77.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

What does the fir tree say?



            A small child, innocent and trusting, proudly holds up a trinket for display, hoping to impress the gawking audience.  This mere bauble holds little monetary value, but it is the child’s most prized possession.  Suddenly, a thief snatches the trinket.  The child looks up with tear-filled eyes, surprised, shaking, unable to speak.  This scene seems to be suggested by Emily Dickinson’s poem “Who Robbed the Woods,” in which the innocence of nature is contrasted with the grasping curiosity and outright robbery perpetrated by an unnamed male thief.  

             In Dickinson’s poem, the woods, like a trusting child, proudly displays burrs and mosses to impress a visitor.  The poem states that "The unsuspecting trees / brought out their burrs and mosses / his fantasy to please" (Dickinson).  The visitor then betrayed this trust and took what belonged to the woods.  At first glance, the poem positions the reader to sympathize with the forest, to share in the speechless outrage expressed by the fir and hemlock.  

But really, what was the harm of taking a few burrs and mosses?  Have you ever picked up a vibrant fall leaf and carried it home?  Collected a few pretty pine cones to put in a bowl on the end-table in the living room?  The visitor "scanned their trinkets, curious" (Dickinson).  Perhaps he simply admired the beauty of nature.  Perhaps he wanted to learn more about nature.  Perhaps he did not know that he had offended the trees.  Perhaps he truly did not intend any harm.  

If the visitor was not truly an evil villain bent on intentional destruction, what is the meaning of the poem?  Perhaps it represents a disconnect between humans and nature.  He was curious about nature, but he did not understand the full implications of his actions.  He may have admired the beauty of the woods, but he did not fully appreciate the tenderness and fragility of the natural world.  Nature, like a small child, should be cared for.  In the appreciation of Nature, is not enough simply to visit and carry off a trinket.  

Dickinson’s poem promotes a respect and reverence for nature, as a sentient, living entity.  Nature’s beauty, even to the small curious details, the burrs, the moss, the pine cones, should be respected as belonging to nature.  There may be many beautiful wildflowers growing freely in a park, and it may not seem like taking a handful would do any harm.  But if every visitor took a handful, there would be fewer flowers for future visitors to enjoy.  If all the burrs, pine cones, and other seed containers were removed, plants would not be able to reproduce.  When interacting with nature, as well as with our fellow humans as we go about our ordinary daily lives, it is important to remember that even our smallest actions can have significant effects. 

Works Cited
Dickinson, Emily.  “Who Robbed the Woods.” Bartleby.com. http://www.bartleby.com/113/2017.html

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

That Troublesome Moth!

           Darkness closes in around the light of a dim lamp.  Black rain pours from the opened sky.  A spirit appears, drifting towards the light, fragile and full of power.  Thus opens Louise Erdrich’s poem, “Luna.”  This poem, about a moth at first glance, asks deeper questions about mortality, gender, sexuality, human agency, and the meaning of life. 


            The moth sits on the speaker’s windowsill, green fairy wings edged in blood.  The passing of night, however, comes with consequences.  The following morning, the poor moth’s thin wings are ragged and torn.  The moth may have appeared strong in the dim lamp-light, but the bright light of a new day reveals imperfections. 


            This female moth, the speaker of the poem reflects, is nothing more than a function of the life cycle of her species.  She will mate, lay eggs, and die.  Are humans really any different?  We like to think that our actions will matter in the future.  But how many of our actions will live on?  Why does anything do really matter, when we are all mortal in the end?


            The mortality of this moth bothers the speaker.  We, moths as well as human beings, all face the same end.  What, then, is the meaning of life, if we are no different from moths?  For example, what good is learning French?  It’s all just brain chemicals, which will someday become fertilizer.  The speaker of the poem seems to echo the famed wisdom of Solomon as expressed in the book of Ecclesiasties: “Everything is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 1:2b NIV). 


Still, we seem to have a human need to search for meaning.  “We lose ourselves most happily in tasks that partake of the eternal,” the speaker of Erdrich's poem reflects, “And once we realize that nothing really does, anything can” (Erdrich 21).  These everyday actions, such as picking apples, pulling weeds, and caring for children may seem trivial, the speaker implies.  But actions such as these shape the world around us and impact future generations in ways which may not ever be fully evident in our own lifetime. 


Learning French, too, may have benefits not apparent at first.  Second languages may improve communication, open wonderful new worlds, and even reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s.  Are actions truly meaningless if they improve our (short) lives?  Even if these actions don’t “partake of the eternal”?  Perhaps they really do, but we can’t see it from our present point of view.


In the end, the speaker looks into the moth’s eyes and accepts her.  The moth appears renewed, beautiful and strong.  Touching the moth even seems to burn the speaker’s fingers.  Excessive meditation on mortality or futility can result in unhealthy depression, but the moths in our lives should not stop us from engaging in useful or enjoyable daily activities, gardening or learning new languages, and living life to the fullest.  Learning not to fear the moth has the potential to unleash a powerful burning fire.  Who knows where this might lead? 

 



Works Cited

Erdrich, Louise. “Luna.” Sisters of the Earth. Edited by Lorraine Anderson, Vintage, 2003. Page 20-22.