Posts by: jmakansi

Who  isn’t at moments sappy around Christmas?

Candle in the Window

Candle in the window

Flirts with moonlit shadows beyond the glass

Colorful box beneath the tree

Bulges with love between you and me

From David’s star to shaved soaking trunk

This pole of limbs, needles, and evergreen scent

Flickering Lights of red, blue, yellow, and green

Ornaments jangle to family history

Sparkling lights mesmerize

Memories of innocence lost

pass through wormholes of time

Pages of this book turn themselves

On the Eve at this hour

Rich with meaning and hope

After tomorrow

Diminishingly so

Our young are not

Old is not dead

The candle in the window

For all our worlds to see

Furtively winks at me

Tagged with:
 

Words are what we use to get what’s inside to the outside, to construct, destroy, confuse, explain, articulate, cogitate, coagulate,comprehend, and confound. Each one, spoken or written, is nothing more than a musical note, a sentence a musical fragment, an essay or a lecture, a song, a story, an epic. Words are heard and committed to a memory or a feeling or a sense that may or may not be recoverable. Recorded and committed to paper or screen, they offer reverb of interpretation and meaning. Words create war. Words lead to peace. Words sooth. Words sow doubt. We inhale and exhale them like breath itself. The soul’s molecule’s at times, the ego’s triumphs and catastrophes, pride’s splat on the pavement, the sum total of our words are vapor, steam, ether, wisps here and there, parchment in files and folders, term papers and diaries, purses and pants pockets, journals and junk mail. Words cannot convey love, hate, anger, and hurt but in the absence of other sensation, they are considerable facsimiles for what we wish to express, or can’t, or don’t, or won’t. Hunt with your words, Haunt with your words. More words serve some; less serve others. Words turn you inside out. What was buried is exposed. Barnacles on your surface seek cover. Words are pricked out of you with acupuncture needles with knitting hooks on their ends. Words are raw shards of you dangling, drying in the open air like the thinnest wafers of meat. Others smell them. taste them. Others ingest them, and regurgitate them back to you, to others, unrecognizable. Words ooze like oxygen from the loquacious. Words constipate the reticent.

What are words? The swinging bridge from the inside to the outside that scares and thrills and kills. The sounds you hear from the canyon and the breezes when only the flimsiest of support keeps you from the abyss. What you are until your inside is your outside.

Tagged with:
 

I’ve owned seven cars. I lived in Manhattan for eight years so I’ve owned fewer than if I didn’t. It is the one place you can live, truly, without an automobile in this country.

I am about to go pick up my fourth bicycle. Well, since I’ve become an adult. The number would have been three except the third one I owned got stolen within a few months.

A bicycle is a sublime machine of personal mobility. Now that I have an office outside the home only a few miles away, I will ride this bike to work and back. I will do the regular “exercise” rides two or three times a week (anywhere from 15-30 miles each outing) that have been one of my better habits since 198o, when I purchased my first bike and used to do three or four laps around Central Park in the early evenings. Now I do the same thing in Forest Park here in St. Louis.

There’s just something about the interaction between human and machine, the periodicity of the pedals, the alloy construction that makes them so lightweight these days, the flexibility of the quick-release brakes and tires and adjustable seats. I wonder if a machine so perfectly suited for the way humans ought to live has ever been invented?

I should also be thankful that I am still alive to buy a fourth bike. It isn’t the safest mode of travel. Especially out in the suburbs and rural areas. The other day, when I made one of the last rides on my venerable old bike (see ya, old buddy!), I could feel the anger, frustration, and weariness of commuters in their cars rising from the pavement more than the heat will in the dead of summer. I sense that people in cars resent people on bikes that much more during rush hour.

Once, out the middle of southern Illinois where my in-laws live, an 18-wheeler driver blew his goddamn horn right as he was approaching near an Interstate entrance. I wobbled and almost fell off from the shock of it. I gave him the finger. Do you know, he slammed on his brakes, idled his rig, jumped out of his cab, and rushed me? I just stood there. He told me I had no business being on a major highway. I told him he had no reason to blow his horn other than to fuck with my head. Strangely, we came to some acceptance of each other by the end of the encounter.

A month ago, I really did almost get killed, about to fly through a major city intersection catching the walk sign, when a lady driving a hunk of an SUV pressed the gas pedal to make a right turn. I wrecked but my bike and my body were okay. The lady’s accomplice jumps out of the car and screams from the door, “Slow the fuck down! Slow the fuck down!” I calmly looked at him and said, “Pal, you see that walk sign? I have the right of way.” He continued stringing epitaphs together while I got myself together to proceed. Unfortunately, while his delivery wasn’t exactly courteous, his message was correct. I need to slow down.

But I love bikes. I love to ride. I love to be external to the artificial, atmospheric, antiseptic bubble we live our lives these days.

 

My daughter called from college in Chicago the other day (after texting me earlier the prior evening) in the middle of a heated debate with friends about the greatest rock n roll song ever. Her friends were converging on Bohemian Rhapsody (Queen) but she wasn’t so sure and wanted other suggestions. Some of her picks for discussion were Stairway to Heaven (Led Zeppelin) and Free Bird (Lynard Skynard). We talked about some Beatles songs and U2 songs (Sunday Bloody Sunday was one I mentioned as well as With or Without You) but couldn’t identify one in common. I suggested Let It Be and Long and Winding Road but while those are some of my favorites, they don’t necessarily work as strict rock n roll. So I posed the question as a Face Book “status.” Here are some of the suggestions and comments (names not given to protect the innocent) then I will tell you what I think.

-“NO on Bohemian Rhapsody!”

-Like a Rolling Stone (Dylan)

-(I can’t get no) Satisfaction (Stones)…”Bohemian Rhapsody too cerebral”

-Light my Fire (Doors), Layla (Clapton and Derek and the Dominoes), Whole Lotta Love (Led Zeppelin), Gloria, Brown Sugar, Rosalita (Springsteen)

-Louie Louie (but that’s my brother being funny)

-Loving Cup (Stones), Not Fade Away (several artists), Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Pink Floyd), It’s all over now, Baby Blue (Dylan), and In Memory of Elizabeth Reed (Allmann Brothers)

There are some great ideas in here! I was especially glad to see Elizabeth Reed and Pink Floyd (thank you, you know who!) in some capacity get in there. But around 1984 or so, I was coming home from a wedding with a bunch of friends who were single (and would, like me, remain so for several more years) and it was one of those three day weekends and they were doing the top 1000 or something crazy on the radio. Anyway, we were crawling into a diner at five in the morning wasted and the top two of all time were played, Born to Run (I was living in New York City at the time and the Jersey vote had to be overwhelming!) and Stairway to Heaven came in first. That probably qualifies as cerebral too. I wrote a poem about this night by the way, still one of my favorites. And of course all of these selections (what is my daughter’s excuse and her friends’?) are biased by the ages of the people who would even be responding to my FB Status. I was never a great fan of Grateful Dead but “Truckin” probably should be in there, and undoubtedly there has to be a Who song or two. While I would put Quadrophenia and Tommy in my list of all time great albums (along with Born to Run, Abbey Road, Joshua Tree, Bittersweet Symphony/Verve, Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall/Pink Floyd, and Ocean Rain/Echo and the Bunnymen), I’m not sure there’s a best song of all time. R.E.M. probably has one or two that might qualify. Mercifully, no one mentioned Do You Feel Like I Do/Frampton or some others that I would classify as one-hit wonders. There undoubtedly had to be some songs from the 1950s (Elvis after all is still alive) and early 1960s….

BUT I digress. If you combine all the qualities – noise, dance-ability, movement, love (good rock n roll is about love, protest, or having fun), and cerebral, out of this world instrumental work (the keyboard and slide guitar work in this piece are extraordinary, can you see where I am going now?), unique sound no one has ever duplicated (or I would argue can duplicate, and that is why few bands ever, ever cover this song), memorability, cool lyrics, etc, the greatest rock n roll song of all time has to be Layla, Derek and the Dominoes. The winner!

Continue the conversation. It’s all pointless anyway! What are your picks?

Maybe the start of a new decade has me waxing philosophical as I wait for the evening of December 31, 2009 to progress further before partaking of good friends, food, and family for the countdown.

I like root cause analysis. Must be my engineering education. Humanity’s “other” problem is the root cause of much warfare, strife, ill will, prejudice, racism, and poverty, the maladies of the human condition we aren’t good at containing. The “other” is the person who doesn’t look like me/us, think like me/us, or act like me/us.

Simply, the “other” problem is created by how we define ourselves and the groups we participate in. It is a problem of relativity. If the “other” is worse or different, that makes us or me better or not different. Morally and ethically, we know it shouldn’t be. But it is damn hard to think otherwise. And even harder to put those thoughts into practice and the pursuit of justice for all.

The other is the other class of religion, the other denomination, the other political party, the adjacent landowner, the inhabitants of the ghetto, the other country, the other genre of music, the other people at the top of the hill, the person with lower or higher test scores, the people who go to that college or work for that company. And so on.

The other works great for sports and competition. It’s good to define your opposition in ways that help you win. But in human relations, not so much.

When defining the “other” escalates into portraying the “enemy,” strife and warfare ensue. Or a personal breach. Someone you refuse to speak to anymore. If you’ve ever witnessed a divorce, or been part of one, you know how two people who loved each other can become enemies. Sometimes, the “other” results from a simmering historical confrontation on a national scale.

Philosophically, do we need “others?” It can be a dog eat dog world out there. Only so many can share the spoils of life. Or the limited resources afforded by this planet. Either you win or…an “other” does.

Economically, who makes money off of “others?” If you think you deserve more than someone else, well, isn’t that person an “other?” Extracting and moving resources among people and getting paid for the services is the raison d’etre of an economy. The more we move resources among people, and the faster we do it, the more money someone makes. If we all had only what we needed and no yearning for more, how much economy could there be? I doubt greed is leaving the human condition anytime soon, though.

With respect to religion, why does worship in one way seem to, even if covertly, exclude the way others worship? Sure, many churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples work together to help others in need. But just drawing the boundaries of a church or group in this way creates an “other.”

Why is it that creating our individual identities (which includes the groups we belong to and the beliefs we adhere to) seems to somehow necessitate excluding “others?” And while most nice and rational people profess the tenets of human equality, still we join clubs, attend schools, make money, and otherwise live in ways that prevent equality, if for no other reason than the imbalance in resources we suck up when we have all that money or power and influence. No way can everyone end up on top. Is human competition and accumulation part of the human condition?

Humanity’s “other” problem may simply be an unsolvable dimension of the human condition. And believe me, I am at least as guilty of creating “others” in my mind as anyone. I strive to distinguish myself on the world stage, and in doing so I undoubtedly, even subconsciously, create “others.” But on this New Year’s Eve, I am urging myself and others to deliberately pay attention to the “other,” think about the boundaries we impose and why, face the envelope we are compelled to operate within, the lines we draw in the way we think about ourselves, and put a human face to anyone and everyone on the other side.

Happy New Year!

 

I write short stories (even had a few published). I read short stories. I critique short story collections (for the The Short Review, www.theshortreview.com). I imagine several dozen if not close to a hundred pass my eyes each year.

“Another Manhattan” by Donald Antrim is one of the best short stories published in the last five years. I would say “ever” but I don’t want to be one of those “instant classic” types. Saying almost anything about this story would be saying too much unless you’ve read it. So I will only repeat here what I wrote to the author on his Facebook page:

“Every time I read it, I feel those characters vibrating on a Richter scale of their own undoing. ” I should have added, from the opening sentence.

Of course, take my bias into consideration. Look at the photo on the home page of this blog. Unequivocally, I am a miserable failure at trying to think of myself as an ex-New Yorker. Still, this story could only be set in Manhattan. And if you’ve ever spent time there, lived there, or dreamed of there, I think you’ll know what I’m talking about.

I’d like to avoid a one-way opinion piece on the story. I would like to “talk” about the story with others. It was published in The New Yorker (December 22 & 29, 2008). Read it (http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/features/2008/12/22/081222fi_fiction_antrim) and, if you don’t mind, come back and let me know. If you’ve read it, blog away!

This guy is worth your time.

Yes, I made that word up, “exponentialized.” Surely, a little latitude is allowed on your own blog!

But what I am referring to are acrylic mixed media works by artist Grant Miller (who hails from Kansas City) at a show a few weeks ago courtesy of the Cecille R. Hunt Gallery, Webster University, St. Louis.

http://www.webster.edu/news/releases/images/grantmiller1.jpg

http://www.webster.edu/news/releases/images/grantmiller2.jpg

http://www.blackandwhiteartgallery.com/press/miller.pdf;

http://oneartworld.com/artists/G/Grant+Miller.html

Miller constructs elaborate and exceedingly intricate three dimensional spaces from linear elements – interconnected lines, shapes, frames, and rope.  If you took all the shells of buildings (down to the girders and wiring) from a city skyline and jumbled them all together, you might get an inkling of what results in Miller’s work. They reminded me of labyrinths which themselves are interconnected and woven together. Three-dimensionalized. Exponentialized. Strangely enough, though, the resulting structure is anything but chaotic but rather seems to my eye to have an inherent structural stability, as in you couldn’t destroy it with wrecking ball if you tried.

As a music analogy, you might think Wagnerian, dense, robust, relentless, but every note connected to every other note and word (in the operas anyway) in some way.

The narrative description provided at the gallery (which, frankly, almost never make a lick of sense to me), say they are about overexposure (such as to cyberspace -hey, that’s where we are now!) and information overload. Perhaps, but here is what Miller’s work did to me: I felt like I was the center of these elaborate structures and that caused me to think about my relationship with the vastness (structural complexity?) of my interconnected world and even in specific ways, such has how I “connect” with people through this blog.

Then I realized something. This blog may be part of that vast astral cloud known as cyberspace but I’ve been connecting with a few people on a one-to-one basis through it. So, what results from this blog is perhaps the antithesis of Miller’s representations. A few solid human connections distilled from the miasma of information overload.

I found interesting to think about. I am anything but exponentialized at this moment.

Anyway, Grant Miller’s work is worth a closer look. I can’t recall anything quite like it.

So, I attended the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra’s Chamber Music concert (a woodwind quintet and a violin soloist) Wednesday evening November 18 2009 at the Pulitzer Museum in St. louis. It was sublime, marred by only one thing, which bothers me every time I visit the Pulitzer. There was a  museum docent standing behind the musicians the entire performance. It is an utter distraction. Who insists that a docent stand there the entire performance? And by the way, in such a glorious space (you have to see this place to believe it, wide open, concrete, just lovely), why have the concert arranged like every other concert, where listeners have to sit still in rows and columns?

Since the music was supposed to be correlated to the art, why not allow everyone to just wander around, experience the art and the music within the spaces, so to speak? After all, space is what the design of this museum is all about.

Which brings me to… Every time I go to the Pulitzer, there are more docents standing around than visitors. And they stare at you, And they follow you around. And they are sometimes on top of you to where you can’t even hold a quiet conversation with the people you came with without feeling like your privacy is being violated. It is the height of irony that such a glorious and open space (I do love it, don’t get me wrong) feels so confining. Even just approaching the entrance doors, you see some burley guy standing right there with his arms crossed, like your public enemy number one just for wanting to patronize and support the museum. I fully understand the need to protect the art. But can’t they find a less intrusive way of doing this? I go to museums all around the world and this is the only one that feels like it’s run by Homeland Security.

The one positive from all this is the first time this happened, I came home and wrote a one-act play about the experience.

Imagine if the notes and sounds from the woodwind quintet and violin solo followed you around, nestled up to you, surrounded you, and “spoke” to you about the art you are viewing? Now that would be an experience!


Once again, David Robertson and the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra are downright avant-garde, performing a “Water Concerto for Water Percussion and Orchestra” by contemporary composer Tan Dun Friday evening on the eve of Halloween. I couldn’t tell you if this was great music or a great performance because I’d never heard any such thing before. But I can tell you I was fascinated by the idea, the new sounds, and the new instruments.

Picture several pedestal style sink bowls (elegant ones of clear glass, not the ones in my kitchen or bathroom) filled with water surrounded by a variety of devices to make sounds with them. The ones I remember are a hollow tube that reminded me of glassware we used to use in chemistry lab in high school and college, and gourds placed in the water played like a miniature drum set. I can’t describe what all of this sounded like except to say that it all seemed to me as fluid as the water I was watching being played.

The piece began with very quiet sounds emanating from the water percussion (Colin Currie the percussion soloist) and then the audience was definitely paying full attention after the entrance of the horns. The piece ended with a shower, the percussionist holding a strainer high above his head, letting the water drain back into the bowl. In between, well, get the recording, if there is one, or ever will be!

But here’s another unique thing: This soloist (a percussionist) moved around the stage among his various instruments and was even accompanied by his own “section” (two water percussionists at either end of the stage. At various points, he had to quickly grab his next instrument for making sound within a second after turning a page of his music. Then, he moved dance like to the Xylophone and played that for a while. Usually, a soloist moves around, but only around a fixed axis.

It was a bit humorous to watch the audience give a standing ovation as I am pretty sure none of them had any way to benchmark this performance either. But I guess that’s become the thing to do now – standing ovations no matter what. It must be like grade inflation in the schools. I suppose I like the newest of musical sounds but am still a fuddy dud in other ways. Maybe they were standing for the bold selections of our conductor.

It may be a few decades before Water concertos becomes part of the standard repertoire, but this listener, who has been going to symphony concerts for more than four decades, has nothing but admiration, respect, and praise for this conductor and the new sounds he is bringing to this somewhat weary Midwestern city. If I can’t bring myself to stand up at Powell Hall, I’ll certainly make a stand here.

Edith Wharton writes about the gilded age and New York “society” in The Age of Innocence. What can you add to a discussion on a book that’s been around for a century and an author that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1921? What the hell, not everything worth saying about this book resides in the stacks of the libraries of the Seven Sister colleges for women.

To me, Wharton’s novel represents how “systems theory” can be used not only to analyze fiction but social dynamics and group behavior. New York society is a closed system and its inhabitants struggle to maintain that system in an equilibrium. When Countess Ellen Olenska arrives on the scene, she disrupts the equilibrium. That disruption could probably be tolerated but Archer Newland falling in love with her cannot as he is already committed to May Welland. Thus, the novel is, in one sense, about how this social system works to rid itself of this “infection.” In more than one instance, Wharton uses the words system and systematized to describe how the society works almost like a machine to extract and discard what is not desired.

The tale of morality lurking within the novel is a juxtaposition between the deception New York society uses against Archer Newland and the deception Archer Newland must deploy to pursue his love of Countess Olenska. Which is worse? Clearly, Wharton allows society’s deception to win with a sly grin upon all of those in the know (including Archer’s wife May, who was in on the deception from the get go). Archer is such a broken man by the end that he cannot bring himself to accompany his son to visit the Countess thirty years later.

The one thing you can conclude is that deception rules the day and the social system trumps any individual member of it.

One other thing notable: The Age of Innocence reminded me a great deal of another of my favorite literary works, A Streetcar Named Desire. In both, a femme non grata enters and disrupts the social “system” and therefore must ultimately be banished and removed.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.