Poetry and the Petit-bourgeois

Pettiness and poetry. Handmaidens of the margins? Increasingly I find myself coming to the conclusion that poetry is really a form of Sunday pursuit. That it is like painting by numbers. Even those who willfully refuse to paint in the required places - will do so in a conventional way. Their revolt is like those who use cash instead of a credit card.

to trade in stereotypical train spotted fare paid for by grievous
harm to the body of literature which the bastards holday in,
(from "Thistle I" , 2010)

Then there is the stand-up - Wikicommons remix approach to writing that wishes to muck up the form and take no risks except maybe a bit of abuse to one's own person.

of the joke, your language conserved and preserved like a battered Mars bar,
to make funny with the expression, och jimmy, och, och, fuck, fuck, fuck
(from "Thistle I " 2010)

What is the end of all of it? Baying at the ATM machine? Often it is:

cobalt blue thoughts, arabesque fantasties
which rhyme with expensive wall tiles
and they end up with other polished
artifacts that meet the house styles
of arts council funded magazines
where the finished product reigns
(From "Tired of" 2010)

Is everything said? Do we now need poetry installations and swing our genitalia about publically - or is that old hat too? Who cares? Are the readers like those who collect kitsch glass horses and place them about their caravans looking across from Weston to Wales? Or do we

Delight in the swing, hazard the future
(from "The Swing" "2010)

Yes indeed.

Compassion

Is there no greater human virtue than compassion? Probably not, because empathy or fellow suffering is entailed in the act and thought of compassion. Maybe it has evolved from altruism that is hardwired in other animals, but it has emergent properties that are connected with higher cognitive processes and social networks - though of course those of a religious frame of mind and heart will declare it to be a product of spirituality. In religions it is "compassion: Christianity; Daya: Hinduism; Rahman : Judaism and Islam ; kuruna: Buddhism. It is universal. So why is it not practiced more? Why is it that when we see someone who believes differently, dresses differently, has a different skin colour, has different tastes, is just plain different - we feel disgust or hatred. Why do we hate the criminal? Why do we hate the terrorist? Must we hate them? Is that what it is to be a civilised Westerner or Easterner? To hate. I feel that it is too easy. We can all cut the legs off an insect. We can all pass comment and judgement on others. We can call them names, we can throw stones at them. It is all so easy. Everyone has the power to kill another person. But the hardest thing to do is to practice compassion - and you need not be religious to practice this - I am not. I think we can take baby steps - starting with tokens and gestures -when we comment on the internet - seek a pragmatic approach. When people fly off the handle and attack a person - tell them that you have compassion for the object of their fury - this does not mean you condone violence or hurt - it means that you can understand and feel for them - you need not forgive either - it is to say that if an illegal immigrant steals - you do not start on your high moral road - from a position of comfort and righteousness - but you must feel as they do. You must become like in the Stanislavsky method - that person - and then your perspective will change. This does not mean that you love or hate them - it is just that you move towards a greater appreciation of the complexity and difficulty of the human condition. It is not liberalism or communism. It is a humanist position - grounded in a social and cultural empathy. I have tried and failed numerous times. But I think that general direction is a good we should aim for - one that gives not salvation or rewards - only a restoration of our humanity.