The MRAs will have a field day with this…

I’ve been kindly linked by those who run the blog “Divorce Diva”. That’s nice, and it looks like it’s got some good advice for women going through divorces. But then there’s this introduction to me:

I am a big fan of blogs and just discovered an interesting one written by a woman named Hugo. Who is Hugo? Who knows and in blogland, it’s not important at all. Anyway, she is clearly a very successful blogger and I enjoyed perusing her posts but more importantly the follow up comments.

Perhaps my photo at right doesn’t show up well on Divorce Diva’s screen. Perhaps in DD’s world, many women are named “Hugo”. Perhaps my writing about divorce seems, well, more reflective of a woman’s perspective. (Some, not all, of the men’s rights activists — MRAs — have been questioning my masculinity for years. They probably think Divorce Diva’s got it about right.)

Look, folks, if my own claim to live as a man and my photos displaying my facial hair aren’t enough for ya, so be it. As long as you’re reading.

Here’s my favorite post of mine about getting married a fourth time, and what’s different this time ’round:

Jesus told me to grow the *%ck up: A response to the Countess.

Basketball and weightlifting: two women’s sports notes

A couple of women’s sports notes.

So much for women’s college basketball being less competitive than men’s! That old lie got put to bed these past few days. The lowest men’s seed to advance to the Sweet Sixteen was number 7 UNLV; the women have already sent a pair of double-digit seeds (Florida State, a #10, and everybody’s cinderella, Marist, a #13), to the regional semifinals. This is great for the women’s game, even though it shot my bracket. (I was surprised that Stanford lost, but as a good Cal alum, shed no tears for them.)

I’m late to the story that I read about both at Feministing and Feministe: Florida Girls Lift Weights, and Gold Medals. In recent years, competitive weightlifting for girls (as well as boys) has become very popular in the Sunshine State:

Extracurricular club programs for girls have sprung up around the country since women’s weightlifting became an Olympic sport in 2000. But Florida, with 170 high school teams that have produced two Olympians and several dozen world team members, has “set the gold standard” for the sport, said Rodger DeGarmo, director of high performance and coaching for USA Weightlifting in Colorado Springs, the governing body that oversees Olympic lifting.

It’s a very positive article, and here’s hoping the sport catches on.

I have friends of both sexes who are serious lifters. The sport has never appealed to me, largely because I generally like to minimize my indoor workouts. But what I honor about lifting weights is its fundamental democracy: anyone, at any size, can become a very strong lifter if they work at it. There are few other sports in which “God-given natural talent” takes such an obvious backseat to persistence and determination. It’s much, much easier to make a weak young person into a strong lifter than a slow young person into a fast sprinter! This doesn’t mean weightlifting is easy: it is (not literally) often backbreakingly difficult; it takes time and effort and concentration; it takes mental toughness. More than most sports, doing it well involves intense visualization; it teaches those who practice it to see themselves completing the task before they actually attempt it.

One vital feminist task, of course, is teaching women of all ages — particularly the young — that their bodies belong to them. They are not baby-machines-in-training, nor are they objects to visually (or physically) gratify men. Building strength and muscle serves to undermine the ugly cultural fetish for young women’s bodies that appear emaciated, frail, vulnerable. Lifting ever-greater weights gives young women a tangible sense of physical success; they can measure their body’s progress in terms that have nothing to do with beauty or sex appeal or reproductive potential.

Leigha, the Spruce Creek senior, said she loved the competitive aspect of lifting.

“It’s a rush, it really is,” she said. “We have boards in our weight rooms with the names of all the record breakers, and you’re thinking about how bad you want your name on that record for everybody to see.”

I like reading that.

After all, “weight” is always a feminist issue. Since the 1920s, generations of young American women have desperately tried to lose it, even as we live in a culture that celebrates “weight” and “heft” as attributes of power and influence. We speak of folks “throwing their weight around”; we note that the words of someone we admire “carry a lot of weight.” To call someone a “lightweight” is never praise; it suggests superficiality, incompetence, immaturity. Outside of the discussion of women’s bodies, “weight” almost always connotes something positive and powerful.

Weightlifters, like dieters, are very concerned with numbers. But while the goal of the dieter is generally to become smaller and smaller, lighter and lighter, the goal of the lifter is to push more and more, to see the numbers rise rather than fall. As with wrestling, competitive lifting offers different weight classs to its participants; a team that wants to be successful thus must have a group of girls with very different body types. More so than virtually any other sport, this encourages coaches and teachers to recruit a wide variety of girls.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m an exercise fanatic. My desire to share the gospel of fitness, however, is not motivated by a desire to get everyone to start chasing an unattainable physical ideal. We live in a culture in which most of us are alienated from our bodies, often ashamed of our bodies. The best kinds of fitness activity teach us to reconnect with our bodies, to love our bodies, to experience the power and pleasure our bodies can bring to us.

And in achieving this goal for high school-age women, Florida seems to be ahead of everyone else.

Cathy Seipp

I only infrequently read the blog of Cathy Seipp, a fellow blogging Angeleno, National Review contributor, and notable conservative. I disagree with her about virtually everything. But according to this post by her daughter Maia, Cathy is in hospital, dying of lung cancer, with only a few days left. Maia is very young and very brave; if you’re so inclined, join me in prayer for them both. (Hat tip to Rudy).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Tennyson and Sharon Olds, Ulysses and Telemachus: a very long post about endurance athletes, independence, and the single body alone in the universe against its own best time

Another busy Monday morning finds me sitting at the messiest desk in the Western Hemisphere. Really, it’s appalling — Clif bar wrappers and old tests, coffee-stained handouts and framed wedding pictures all jostling together. Merely to type a post or an e-mail requires blowing the crumbs off the keyboard. (I need a new keyboard annually, thanks to the food and drink spills).

I’m thinking this morning about a dear relative of mine. Because it’s a private family matter, I won’t share much, but I will say that this relation is a man in his mid-seventies, now suddenly frail and weak and battling serious illness. Though his physical diagnosis isn’t immediately terminal, he seems to have lost much of his will to live. I am praying and meditating for him daily.

This man and I have had a lot in common for many years. My relation was the first endurance athlete I ever knew; he started marathoning in the 1970s, back when the sport was first becoming popular. He ended up doing more than 80 marathons, as well as several Ironman distance triathlons (including a strong finish in the Hawaii Ironman back in the very early years of the event.) He was a great bear of a man, not terribly fast but with a tremendous will to compete and and a tremendous capacity to live with physical pain — two things any serious endurance runner must have. He gave me lots of good advice when I first became a distance athlete, and in many ways, has been an athletic role model for me for more than twenty-five years.

What he and I share, more than a love of sport itself, is an intense desire to maintain our own autonomy and to pursue self-perfection through the endless disciplining of our own flesh. So much of our identity is built around the very satisfying thought that we do things other people can’t do. While others sleep in, we push our bodies to their limits, always seeing what else we can do to improve. And while there is much that is praiseworthy about this tremendous longing to achieve maximum fitness and performance, there’s a dark side to all of this as well. At its worst, this addiction to endurance sports can isolate us from others, cause us to ignore social and familial responsibilities, lead us to prioritize logging miles rather than spending time with those who love us most.

Berkeley-born Sharon Olds’ most famous poem is surely the marvelous Sex without Love. I loved it the first time I read it, largely because it was as close to a perfect description of how my companions and I lived out our erotic lives in our twenties as anything I’ve ever seen. And as a man who was both sexually promiscuous and athletically obsessive, I recognized myself at once in the closing lines:

They do not
mistake the lover for their own pleasure,
they are like great runners: they know they are alone
with the road surface, the cold, the wind,
the fit of their shoes, their over-all cardio-
vascular health–just factors, like the partner
in the bed, and not the truth, which is the
single body alone in the universe
against its own best time
.

I long ago surrendered my sexuality to God, and gave up “sex without love.” I have received indescribable gifts in return. But I struggle, Lord how I struggle, not to think of myself as going through life as a solitary runner, alone in the world, always racing against my own best time. The danger for distance athletes, both world-class and amateur, is that we can become profoundly selfish. Beating “our own best time” becomes the one meaningful battle in our lives. We discipline ourselves with restrictive diets, we beat up our joints on endless hills, we drag ourselves out of bed hours before dawn to do solitary combat on the roads and trails and treadmills. And if we’re not careful, we mistake the pursuit of our own individual excellence with authentic virtue.

Authentic virtue is never selfish, as Aristotle and a hundred other wise folks have pointed out. Authentic virtue is about balancing one’s own need to endlessly recreate and improve with one’s responsibility to the world at large. If our running gives us great pleasure, but leaves us so drained and self-absorbed that we are less available for our loved ones and our community, then we’re not being virtuous. We have to make choices, and in the past couple of years, I’ve made that choice. Many folks think I work out a lot (14-20 hours per week). But that’s nothing compared to what I would do if I gave up more of my outside commitments! Oh, how I long to take eighteen good months and train for a solid 100-miler. But running 120 miles per week would take too much from my wife, too much from my chinchillas, too much from my students and my youth group, my seven classes, my mentees, my colleagues.

The greatest danger for distance athletes, however, isn’t that we become selfish. The greatest danger, one that I see in the life of my ailing relation, is that we become so enraptured by our own physical capabilities that we begin to believe we are radically autonomous. Our bodies do such incredible things, and bring us such pride and satisfaction, that we start to think we’re indestructible. We become particularly loath to rely on others, jealously, often pridefully guarding our own independence. The phrase “our bodies, ourselves” takes on a radically different meaning: our identity as human beings becomes enmeshed with our sense of what our bodies can do.

We came into this world naked and helpless. We had no control over our flesh; we were diapered and dressed and spanked and bathed and fed on another’s schedule. We wailed and flailed, but for the first few years were utterly incapable of meeting our own needs. And unless we are taken young and suddenly, most of us will leave the world in that same way. Even if we retain the ability to use the toilet and feed ourselves up until the end, old age will rob us, sooner or later, of our precious independence. If we’ve spent fifty or sixty years building up a personal myth of indestructible autonomy, “alone in the universe against our own best time”, we’re going to be absolutely devastated by the slow surrenderings we will inevitably have to make as we age.

I’ve posted a bit about my Dad lately. His dying was relatively quick last year; he got the terminal diagnosis in mid-April and he passed on on June 22. A gentle man, not in the least concerned with “personal best times” or “faster and farther”, he surrendered himself easily to his caregivers. He was uncomplaining as he slowly lost his abilities to do for himself what he had done for nearly seven decades. He maintained his dignity and his sense of humor, and above all, he maintained his sense of self even as his body shriveled. My father, a philosopher by training and a wise soul by natural temperament, knew that he was not his body. While he had a hard time accepting the soul as separate from the flesh, he knew that his “Hubertness” was not defined by what his muscles and bones could do. That knowledge gave him the strength to surrender gently when his time came.

My ailing relative, my fellow endurance athlete, is not going so gently. He’s raging against the dying of the light. For him, the “light” remains connected to what his body can do, and losing those capabilities is devastating for him in a way that it wasn’t for my far-less competitive father. As for me, I have had both these dear men as role models all of my life. Though there is much I owe to my Dad, and though I love him still with all my heart, I did not get my manic restlessness from him. That longing I have to climb the next mountain, and the next, and the next, until I reach the final summit from which there is no descent — that obsession comes from somewhere else. My cousin has it in him; his were the first pair of eyes in which I saw what I so often see when I look in the mirror: the sense that life is a constant struggle against weakness, against darkness, against our own sense of limitations. And when at last our limitations overwhelm us… it’s hard.

On the list of the hundred most famous English-language poems, Tennyson’s Ulysses must rank near the top. I first read it in college in a frosh Comp Lit class. I loved it then and love it now, and remember fighting with my Marxist TA who insisted that it was the “Ulysseses” of the world who were responsible for colonialism and imperialism and slavery. She hated the poem (and hated Tennyson) and wanted her students to mock the sentiments within it. I nearly lost my temper, so eager was I to defend both the poet and his protagonist. And I think of Ulysses often as I think of my dear cousin, fighting so hard in his hospital bed.

Ulysses was a lousy husband, to put it mildly. He wasn’t much of a king either, if we take Tennyson’s view — he has no interest in doing what his son Telemachus does:

…by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties
, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness…

Ulysses is not centered in that sphere of common duty; he hears a different call:

How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breathe were life!

It’s whopping hubris to compare oneself and one’s relations to the ancient heroes, of course. But when I think of my father, I think of one very gentle, loving, devoted Telemachus. My God, Dad was “strong in the sphere of common duties”! Though he was not a political man or a natural leader, he was a pillar of his family and of the broader community; the hundreds and hundreds of mourners at his memorial service were all touched and moved by him. In my life, especially since his death, I’ve sought to become more and more of the sort of man he was. Kindness and grace came naturally to my father, and I long to emulate him in those virtues.

But my cousin and I — like so many of my friends in the endurance running community — have the restlessness of a Ulysses. We are the ones who find “how dull it is to pause, not to shine in use.” And though we don’t kill monsters, we devote our lives to killing our own limitations. Contentment scares us; complacency unnerves us; we embrace domesticity with often considerable unease. We are capable of common duties, but we’re not centered there. Our center is always a mile further up the trail.

Near the end of the poem, Ulysses says:

Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are…

That which we are, we are. I am thinking this morning of a man I love and admire, lying in his bed four hundred miles from here. A man who has climbed mountains, swum through oceans, run marathons on five continents. For him, the great question is finding the will to live now that so much has been taken. The question for him is whether “much abides”, and whether or not what remains is enough to continue to live.

Those with the spirit of Telemachus have an easier time letting go. They give up the bicycle, the running shoes, the car keys. They may mourn the loss of their independence, but they haven’t staked their identity to their autonomy the way those with the spirit of Ulysses have. And as one who struggles to reconcile his inner Telemachus with his inner Ulysses, I have much to think about this morning.

Viva Ireland

Not a lot of basketball upsets here in the States, but a St. Paddy’s day miracle at the cricket world cup has me stunned.

My late father played on a club team when he was in grad school at Berkeley. They toured California playing teams made up of folks from every corner of the Commonwealth. He was a bowler, and a fairly decent one. He gave it up when he came to Santa Barbara to teach and had no one to play with.

Though I understand the game better than 90% of Americans, that’s not saying much. I still watch cricket on TV when I’m in the UK and am forced to whisper urgently to someone nearby, “Uh, what just happened?”

UPDATE: Pakistan’s English-born coach died this morning, hours after the match, of apparently natural causes. The loss to Ireland can’t have helped.

Missing Dad on his birthday

Today would be my father’s 72nd birthday. From the time I was very small until one year ago today, I always spent time with him — or at the least, spoke to him — on March 16. But he’s been gone for nearly nine months now.

I haven’t blogged much about my father’s death. I miss him tremendously, as one would expect, and I’ve gone through the customary stages of grief over and over again. I had him until I was 39, of course; historically most sons and daughters didn’t reach that age without losing their dads. And my three younger siblings had less time with him than I did. I am so grateful for what I did have with this man. My favorite photo of us together is here.

I often go days without thinking about him. Then something will happen, and I’ll think “Oh, I want to talk about that with Dad.” I still have his cell number programmed into my phone. I don’t ever call it, because I don’t want to hear the little voice telling me that the number is no longer in service. Perhaps soon I’ll delete it.

But not yet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Friday Random Ten: themes of heartache, ecstasy, and the divine

You can configure your Itunes party shuffle to display both recently and not-so-recently played songs. But sometimes, the results of the FRT shuffle leave me wondering if another hand is at work. I sense a theme.

I think more people should annotate, however briefly, their FRTs.

#1 is an oft-recorded classic from a stalwart of the kind of authentic country rock I love so much. #2 is a new track from a favorite Christian band, and #3 is by the former leader of the Christian band Caedmon’s Call. #4 is my favorite track, oddly, off the sublime “Appetite for Destruction” (has it really been twenty years?) #5 is from a third Christian artist who is growing on me, #6 from my beloved Emmylou, and #7 a wicked good cover of the Prince track by a great trio. I remember driving a group of teenagers up to Big Bear two years ago, all of us singing #8 aloud, me wondering if I was going to get in trouble for doing so. #9, as popular and widely played as it was seven or eight years ago, still gives me chills. And #10 is off, well, my favorite album from the whole dang ’70s, the breathtakingly good “Late for the Sky.” Bonus track from my favorite Welsh band of the ’90s.

1. “Paradise”, John Prine
2. “Mirrors and Smoke”, Jars of Clay
3. “Wedding Dress”, Derek Webb
4. “Rocket Queen”, Guns n’ Roses
5. “Closer to Myself”, Kendall Payne
6. “Orphan Girl”, Emmylou Harris
7. “When Doves Cry”, Be Good Tanyas
8. “I Touch Myself”, Divinyls
9. “Cowboy, Take Me Away”, Dixie Chicks
10. “Before the Deluge”, Jackson Browne

Bonus Track: “Bulimic Beats”, Catatonia

“A man should love his wife more than she loves him”: rebutting a nasty old piece of conventional wisdom with some pro-feminist thinkin’

On Tuesday afternoon, I was talking to a woman with whom I regularly work out. While chatting about her recent break-up with her boyfriend, my pal repeated a line I find particularly exasperating. She said she’d been on her phone with her mother recently, and her Mom had said:

The best relationships are those in which the man loves the woman just a little bit more than she loves him.

My buddy was wondering about the wisdom of that oft-repeated line, and it occurred to me that I haven’t blogged about it.

I didn’t grow up with that particular piece of wisdom. The first time I heard the suggestion that “marriage is best when the husband is more in love with his wife than she with him” was when one of my cousins got married. My cousin’s new sister-in-law and I were chatting at the wedding (comparing the relative dysfunction of our respective clans) and she mentioned that her brother was absolutely enraptured by my cousin. She said something like:

“I know she loves him, but my brother loves her more. And I think that’s the way it should be. When a man loves a woman more, he’ll pay attention to her and won’t break her heart. When the love is equal, or the woman is the one more in love, there’s a much greater chance he’ll stray.”

This was not the sort of conventional wisdom we shared in my family, so I nodded politely at my new relation-by-marriage and wandered off to explore a new food station. But what she said stuck in my mind, and I began to check it out with my acquaintances. To my very great surprise, this notion that “the man should love the woman more” was actually fairly widespread. In completely unrelated situations, in the past couple of years I’ve had perhaps half a dozen women mention to me that they were raised with this particular relationship philosophy. And talking to my workout buddy on Tuesday really got me thinking about it.

As my regular readers know, if there’s one thing that really sticks in my craw, it’s the various ways in which our popular culture reinforces the “myth of male weakness.” Whether it’s armchair evolutionary biologists opining that promiscuity is hard-wired into the male brain, or misguided Catholic bishops insisting that women cover up to protect weak men from lust, or pop psychologists suggesting that women ought to accept male porn use as natural, a tremendous amount of damage is done by those who reinforce the lie that men lack women’s capacity for self-control, commitment, and relationship. Call it the “all men are dogs” theory, call it what you will — it’s a belief about human behavior that’s shockingly widely accepted, in and outside of religious communities and across vast political and cultural spectrums.

The bromide that “the man should love the woman more” is rooted in the expectation that virtually every man, sooner or later, will prove to be a colossal disappointment to the woman who loves him. If she loves him just a little less, however, this gives her a small “bargaining chip” with which to forestall his presumably inevitable infidelity or abandonment. The romantic imbalance, when it “works in her favor” gives her the chance to manipulate. If she loves him as much as he loves her, however, she loses that chance. And she leaves herself far more vulnerable to being heartbroken when he does disappoint, as popular culture seems to insist he invariably will.

One particularly frustrating way in which the myth of male weakness functions is to relentlessly urge women to lower their expectations for male behavior. Beginning when they hit adolescence, if not earlier, we often send messages to girls to “tone it down”, “don’t be too aggressive”, “don’t be too smart”, “don’t be too sexual”, “don’t want too much.” Older adults and cultural sages urge women not only to give up their girlish longing for a handsome prince, but to prepare themselves to “settle” for a “good-enough guy.” We urge young women not to have too many hopes about finding a man who is sexually attractive, capable, ambitious in his chosen field, emotionally articulate, willing to embrace monogamy in all its rigor and all its joy.

(Parenthetically, at the risk of getting flamed for racism, I see this “culture of diminished expectations for male behavior” particularly alive in my Latina students. Many of them were raised by their mothers to believe that the best one could hope for in a “good” husband was that he “doesn’t drink too much” and he “doesn’t hit” too often and he “doesn’t go to prostitutes.” While that particularly low threshold for masculine decency is certainly not unique to one culture, I do hear it more often from those whose families recently emigrated from Latin America to the USA. Perhaps the issue is more class than race.)

I am not defending genuinely unrealistic expectations for a romantic partner. Insisting that “perfect abs are a non-negotiable must-have” is silly, as is demanding one’s mate produce a seven-figure salary and a four-carat flawless diamond engagement ring. But there’s a world of difference between expecting a man to smother you in minks and jewels and expecting a man for whom emotional competence, fidelity, and a general sense of direction are givens! It’s one thing to teach women not to expect men to provide for all of their material needs; it’s another thing altogether to advise a woman that since most men will leave (physically or emotionally), she ought to “hedge her bets” by picking a man who will love her more than she loves him.

One of the most basic tasks of the men’s movement — not the MRAs, but the pro-feminist men’s movement — is really three-fold:

First, on a societal level, we need to work all the harder to deconstruct the “myth of male weakness.” We need to look at the various institutions (ranging from the inspid works of John Gray to the pious musings of church leaders who want our daughters covered up to the “popular science” articles that suggest that “evolution requires” men to be less capable of commitment, tenderness, and emotional depth than their mothers, wives and sisters) that promote the myth, and we need to take those institutions on directly. Whether the battleground is biology or theology, we need to rebut those voices that urge all of us to “give men a break”; we need to smash the Tammy Wynette school of gender theory. (Wynette famously sang that a woman ought to “stand by your man… because after all, he’s just a man.”)

Second, we need to raise young men’s expectations of themselves. Despite the claims of some men’s rights activists, pro-feminist men aren’t interested in transforming young men merely to turn them into the sort of lads who will fulfill female fantasies. Though raising consciousness and instilling accountability in young men will indeed serve to improve their relationships with all of the women in their lives, the real goal isn’t just ending rape or domestic violence, or improving romantic communication (as worthy as those goals are.) The real goal is to encourage young men to stop living lives of either quiet desperation or passive stupefaction. The real goal is not just to make men more responsible, accountable, and emotionally articulate (all good things) — the real goal is to make them active agents of transformation. It is to give them a sense that by living a life of justice, living a life of ambition, living a real life of sharing and generosity, they will discover a kind of happiness that they’ve never imagined. It’s about expanding their own sense of what it means to be happy.

Third, we need to continue to reach our daughters with a strong feminist message. We need to remind young women that a romantic relationship with a man is not the sole vehicle for personal happiness. But we don’t need to discourage an emphasis on love and enduring commitment altogether. While we can and should do more to encourage young women’s autonomy, we ought also to discourage young women from buying into the “myth of male weakness.” While some women’s fantasy desires may be unreasonable (insisting on the four-carat ring, for example) others are not (expecting fidelity, devotion, a commitment to egalitarian roles in the household, an ability to describe his own emotional terrain without becoming mute or haltingly inarticulate.) Though many women have had and will continue to have disappointing experiences that reinforce their sense that men cannot be trusted, we need to remind them that men are just as capable as their sisters of responsibility and forbearance.

And we need to assure them that settling for a man whom you love less than he loves you is selling everyone involved woefully, tragically, short.

Thursday Short Poem: MacNeice’s “Bottleneck”

On Tuesday, I posted about the possibility that one of my All Saints kids might join the army. And later that day, while reading the Guardian Online, I came across a most appropriate poem. Anglo-Irish Louis MacNeice was part of Auden’s generation, a “second world war poet”, and I’m surprised I haven’t put up any of his work before. I’d read this poem before, and instantly (and narcissistically) thought of myself for reasons I’ll share below. It fits today.

Bottleneck

Never to fight unless from a pure motive
And for a clear end was his unwritten rule
Who had been in books and visions to a progressive school
And dreamt of barricades, yet being observant
Knew that that was not the way things are:
This man would never make a soldier or a servant.
When I saw him last, carving the longshore mist
With an ascetic profile, he was standing
Watching the troopship leave, he did not speak
But from his eyes there peered a furtive footsore envy
Of these who sailed away to make an opposed landing -
So calm because so young, so lethal because so meek.

Where he is now I could not say; he will,
The odds are, always be non-combatant
Being too violent in soul to kill
Anyone but himself, yet in his mind
A crowd of odd components mutter and press
For compromise with fact, longing to be combined
Into a working whole but cannot jostle through
The permanent bottleneck of his highmindedness.

The final eight lines wouldn’t be a bad epitaph for me. I know well what this means:

..in his mind
A crowd of odd components mutter and press
For compromise with fact, longing to be combined
Into a working whole but cannot jostle through
The permanent bottleneck of his highmindedness…

Yup.

If I ever rename this blog, I’m calling it “Permanent Bottleneck”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged