"The Book Worms," by Robert Burns

Poets Born In September

*
*
*
Who are/were some poets born in September? I'm glad you asked.

Theodore Storm, German poet. What a great last name for a poet. "Hi. Storm's the name, and poetry's the game."

T.S. Eliot, American and British poet, also known as Tse Tse [fly]--one of Ezra Pound's nicknames for him; and as Old Possum.

Robert Burns, poetic king of Scottish poetry and song. Allesandro Tassoni--Italian, as you might have guessed.

Siegfried Sassoon, British poet and "trench poet" from the Great War. Reed Whittemore--also a translator, if memory serves.

William Carlos Williams, American (of course), and one of those poets from whom other poets may learn a lot (in my opinion).

Michael Ondaatje, Canadian poet and novelist. He published a book of poems with "rat jelly" in the title. How great is that?

Jaroslav Seifert, Czech poet. I wonder if George Siefert, former coach of the San Francisco 49ers, is related to him.

Elinor Wylie--American poet, novelist, and nonfiction writer.

And Edith Sitwell, officially Dame Edith Sitwell, British poet. My favorite poem by her may be "Still Falls The Rain," and I have a recording of her reading it.

So much depends upon the red wheel barrow and on September poetic birthdays. I also have a brother who was born in September. The gift is in the mail, bro.

Change

"Change" is in the air, I mean the word, amplified by microphones, broadcast by networks.

Obama and McCain both represent change, according to their campaigns. The credit-crisis is alleged to foretell enormous changes in global economics.

Last week, when the market "crashed"--it didn't really crash; otherwise, it couldn't have glided a bit higher this week--I told a colleague that, if the stock-market gets really awful, all people will have left is change (you know, quarters, pennies). Okay, so it wasn't a very good joke. But I can report that he chuckled.

After either Obama or McCain become president, I wouldn't mind if he sought to rein in the powers of the Executive Branch, not just as expanded by Bush II but by presidents since and including Roosevelt. I'd like the shared-power concept (not really a balance of power) embedded in the Constitution to be effected more greatly. This is a kind of change that would please me. I'd like a lot more, and more transparent, judicial and congressional and private oversight of corporations, banks, and surveillance-organizations, including a review of how civil liberties have, arguably, been eroded.

In that spirit, and without veering into non-clinical paranoia, I did notice that an army brigade had been redeployed from Iraq to the U.S. to join the newly created Northern Command. That is, the 3rd army isn't just coming home from a tour; they're being redeployed to a nation called the U.S. Bush II created this Northern Command. Is he preparing for martial law? Is that an outrageous question? I don't know the answer to either of these questions. That I don't know the answer springs, I hope, from ignorance, and not from concern that is somehow valid. I can live with my ignorance. I'm used to that. I'm much less comfortable with the possibility of martial law, or, less dramatically, with the concept of a Northern Command. Anyway, here's a link to a discussion of that redeplyoment:

http://www.kinism.net/index.php/forums/viewthread/397/

The redeployment bears on the issue of the "posse comitatus" statutes, and that issue goes all the way back to the brokered presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes, who effectively ended Reconstruction. It's a wicked web, pax Robert Burns.

Anyway, all this talk of change, as alteration or as quarters and dimes, led to a poem:


Unsparing Change


Ritual, routine, and regulation distract
us from noticing the universe is never the
same, is reconstructed every second or less.
That King's Boulevard intersects with
Alpine Avenue is a sad wee show of stasis,
reminiscent of the joke Joe told every Friday
at the tavern before he lost his mind and the joke
and the tavern burned down. Every day,

every human's supposed to act like one
not bewildered by constant crashing change.
Sometimes we pull off this performance
of counter-reality to an audience of one or two,
or fifteen or more. Otherwise, nothing much
disguises disintegration, space's silent
screaming alteration, time's vulgar variety
show starring rot, riot, and ruin. This
is not a happy poem, but I'm determined
to be more upbeat, but not beaten up, I
hope, later today, when things will have changed.

Copyright 2008 Hans Ostrom

For Rose-Gardeners

Is there a flower that humans have been more obsessed by than the rose? Maybe the cherry-blossom; and, indeed, the rose-obsession may be more Western--Greco-Roman/Euro-American--than Eastern. And it's a bit ironic that the rose itself is a bush, a shrub, and of course the cherry is a tree.

Lilies, orchids, daffodils, and poppies have all drawn their share of attention. But especially in Western religious and poetic traditions, the rose seems to have it all going on. Bill the Bard, Robert Burns, Bill Blake, Gertrude Stein, Jean Genet, and even George Eliot (in a wee poem) have famously weighed in on the rose. Rose-poems must number in the millions.

To those who grow roses--or, more accurately, assist roses in their growth--the rose tends to discard its several cultural symbols and starts to represent work, a battleground (chiefly person v. fungus and person v. aphid), a vegetative entity with diva-like whims but also astonishing resilience, and unrequited love. Yes, rose-gardeners fall in love with their roses, in many cases. It's not a pretty sight. That's when the whole thorn v. blossom mythology kicks in.

I had a 20-year fling with roses. Mulching, pruning, spraying (I stuck to organic sprays like neem oil, and a mild, non-detergent soapy spray does just fine with aphids), weeding, staring. A lot of staring. And sighing--in frustration. Fertilizing (I liked organic fertilizers). There is, of course, the illusion that it's all worth it--such as when you pick what really looks like the perfect rose--a blossom, say, from a Mister Lincoln--and the color & perfume really do almost make you swoon, and then you show it to someone else, and they almost swoon. From different objective distances, however, one may raise all sorts of objections to the time and energy spent on roses, to the Rose Industry (floral shops, rose "breeders," garden shops), and to the culture's rose-fetish.

Oddly enough, the most amazing roses I've seen are wild ones growing in a pasture in the Sierra Nevada. They basically turn into huts--an igloo of vines. Once one of our neighbors read about how much Vitamin C was in rose hips--those knots that grow after the petals have fallen--and she began to brew and drink rose-hip tea. Apparently the wild rose-hips had something else in them, however, because she got a little loopy and had to give up the tea. Jonesing for rose-hips. Wow.

Solid tips I picked up over the years: in the Pacific Northwest, prune roses on or near President's day; prune roses into a kind of bowl-shape, and attempt to eliminate the branches on the inside (roses seem to need some space "inside" to ventilate themselves; don't over-fertilize (I know: but what does that mean?) ; checking for aphids is actually more important than waging war on them (when you see them, spray a mild solution of Ivory soap on them; also, ladybugs really do like to dine on aphids).

In the imaginary court of gardening, roses and I reached an amicable rose-divorce. When I stroll past an impressive rose garden, I am most intrigued--and then fatigued, as I imagine all that work, the constant attention.

I did exceptionally well with two kinds of roses, both venerable--Queen Elizabeth and Mister Lincoln, one pink and the other red. I did okay with Peace roses, too, and I had pretty good luck with yellow roses--Sun Sprite was one I liked. A rose called Oklahoma did not do well in the Pacific Northwest, at least for me (and I'm a rank amateur), but that one had my favorite rose-aroma. Roses by other names didn't smell as sweet, nyuk, nyuk.

A poem, then, for rose-gardeners (I think it's in iambic tetrameter):

For Rose-Gardeners

To one who cares for roses, rose
Refers to the whole plant; the flow-
Ers are a kind of coda. To one
Who cares, the tale is in the soil,
Which should be dark and rich and loose.
It should be mulched, and it should breathe,
Perhaps give off a faint bouquet
Of chocolate. The tale proceeds
In pulpy roots of rose, and in
The branches which shoot up so fast
The green-and-purplish growth can seem
A little other-worldly. Leaves
Have much to say as well. They should
Be waxy and deep green but are
Impressionable, go black or brown
Or yellow from the merest wink
Of fungus. Thorns amaze--ornate
Medieval armor for a plant. If
The flowers come and keep coming,
Then one who cares for roses has
Assisted earth and plant to tell
The story well and now may stare,
May bend to sniff perfume or clip
In twilight of a long ritual--
The caring for the whole rose plant.

Robert Burns and the Mouse

Robert Burns (1759-1796) is the poet--and song-writer--of Scotland. He wrote, among other things, "Auld Lang Syne," which I believe translates as Old Time Past; apparently Burns borrowed from other popular songs as he crafted this one. He is also famous for lines that he did not literally write: "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry." Steinbeck, of course, borrowed from the line to create a title for one of his most famous books. Because Burns wrote in Scottish dialect, the line(s) actually read as follows: "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men/Gan aft a-gley,/An' lea'e us noght but grief an' pain,/For promised joy." If you hear people quote these lines at all any more, they usually simply say, "Best laid plans," and sigh, never even getting as far as mice and men. Attributed to John Lennon (at least in sources I have seen) is a similar sentiment: "Life is what happens while you're busy making plans."

The mice-and-men lines are from the poem, "To a Mouse," which recounts an episode whereby Burns (or someone he knew) was ploughing a field and disrupted, to say the least, the nest of the mouse. In the poem, the persona (we'll call him Burns) speaks directly to the mouse. Burns is sorry about running over and through the nest, and he tells the mouse not to run. The poem is really not as sentimental as one may think. Burns empathizes with the mouse, creature to creature. He understands that, instinctively at least, the mouse saw December coming and built his nest. The ploughman, apparently, saw December coming and decided--what? To plough under dead crops, presumably.

[A detour: the poem has always made me think fondly of the field mice in the Sierra Nevada, where it's so cold in winter that the mice like to appropriate human space--a shed, a garage--use human materials, and build magnificent nests. In our garage, my father had stored an elaborate old-fashioned wood-stove, with a fire-box, a full-sized oven, and two heating-ovens, among other compartments. The mice turned this into one of the biggest mice-condominiums in history, using stuffing from cushions stored in the garage, and eating hard dogfood stored there. They were like the Rockefellers of Sierra Nevad mice. The condominium was discovered only when my father decided to bring the stove into the house and use it as our main source of heat.]

Additionally, Burns empathizes with the work the mouse put into building the nest: "That wee-bit heap o' leaves an' stibble/Has cost thee mony a weary nibble." Ever seen a mouse, or a pet rat, building a nest? Tremendous work is involved, and not a little craft and improvisation. So Burns is speaking worker to worker here.

Everyone (I exaggerate) remembers the (translated) famous line(s) of this poem--lines from what is actually the penultimate stanza. The last stanza makes the poem even more interesting, however, at least in my opinion:

Still though art blest compared wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But och! I backward cast my e'e
On prospects drear!
An' forward though I canna see,
I guess an' fear.

So, the deal is that, for mice and humans, the best-laid plans often go wrong and what one thought of as an avenue to joy turns out to be one of pain. But for the human, things are even worse, according to Burns, because the human can look back and regret mistakes or look back and think, "I did not get off to a good start." The human can also look ahead, and although he or she cannot see clearly, can only guess, he or she can certainly fear, whereas the mouse lives in the present, the way a Zen master would like us to do. I suppose the mouse thinks, "Some creature and thing that are quite large have just come through my world, so I think I'll run," and then the mouse, if it returns to the broken nest, thinks, "Better get to building again." No regrets, no fear of the future, though probably a glance around to see where the man and plough may have gone.

"To A Mouse" was written in 1785.

Good luck with any nest-building and or ploughing (or plowing) that may be in your present or your future. As for the past, . . .: Oh, well.