August 03, 2009
Monday Poem
…in a curved space, a body can seemingly defy basic physics
and "swim" through a vacuum without needing to push on anything
or be pushed by anything.
………………….–Eduardo Guéron; Scientific American, August 2009
Swimming in Space Time
A short walk from our house
2 minutes tops
the river came through
in a bend at the end of
a short street where
on a small beach
built of slow sand
the river had sloughed
in the shelter of a prominence
upon which a monarch of a
tree stood its four foot trunk
under a green crown
cumulous as the cloud of
dark hair I’d one day wear
I dove down and came up
swimming in space time
in a vacuum when
a bird turned
above my head
and dove too
intent upon a dragonfly
which buzzed through
like the humming bird
with crimson neck
and impossible wings
(as invisible as she
was divine)
swimming in
space time
by Jim Culleny; 7/29/09
Posted by Jim Culleny at 10:00 AM | Permalink
Comments
Finally getting the hang of reading you, Jim. Didn't hurt that you gave us so many different kinds of clues. I'm thinking you're feeling pretty marvelous right about now--for having the talent to be able to compose it in the first place and possessing the wellspring of fellow-feeling to share it. That's what I'm thinking. And about rivenness.
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Aug 3, 2009 3:36:53 PM
I like this a lot, Jim. Vivid imagery (of the sort that appeals to me); some skilful enjambment and plays on words that add the right amount of ambiguity; all held together by a fascinating idea. Congratulations, and thanks.
Posted by: pohanginapete | Aug 3, 2009 4:59:17 PM
Play on words indeed. Nice poem, as stun-gun poems go, but surely this is not what the quoted physics guy is talking about, in any way, shape, or form. No matter how you multiply commonplace, ill-fitting analogies. Not that you care--I mean not that this isn't exactly your own type of irony, but it does seem a little, shall we say, rude. As in: blunt. (And if you dropped the quote, what would it be?)
Posted by: Lloyd Mintern | Aug 4, 2009 2:22:51 AM
Question: Isn't this exactly the kind of poem that gives people the impression that poets these days are simply frivolous?
Posted by: Lloyd Mintern | Aug 4, 2009 2:27:57 AM
I'm interested to see what Jim answers but I think he could easily drop the quote and the poem stands. The quote was maybe a kind of scaffolding, but the frequent use of the letter S, the bend in the river, the bird turning, then diving down and up create the curved space. The curves are also apparent in the shape of the poem, if you take a pencil and draw the line at the right margin. Or if you visually bind the repetitions of "swimming in space time" with one continuous drawn line, the S, the curved space is in there structurally, spacially. It's legitimate. Now, if you want to delve into layers of meaning that some but not all people get, and if some of those layers are personal or playful (even if they hit you, Lloyd, like a 2xfour), why does that make the poet frivolous? What's there for everyone to understand and appreciate is the poet's awareness of the divide between life and death--cumulous as mound and "the dark hair I'd one day wear"--and his acute sensitivity to his desire for life, motion and even flight.
Posted by: Frances Madeson | Aug 4, 2009 6:56:23 AM
Could be frivilous, Lloyd. Sounds like it is to you. I wouldn't know. One person's frivolous is another's fun, or any of a number of other possibilities.
Regarding the quote, if the poem's not literal, so what? If a painting is not starkly realistic, so what? There are other perceptions in the fabric of things that are as true and vital as the literal, or sober, or serious.
Artists bungie jump off the bridge between here and wherever into the chasm of whatever hoping they've made their lifeline the right length. If you think I've made mine a little too long (or short) it's your priviledge to keep telling what you see.
Posted by: Jim | Aug 4, 2009 8:03:24 AM
Oh, and Frances makes a good point. Lose the quote if it troubles you. It wouldn't change the poem for me at all.
Posted by: Jim | Aug 4, 2009 8:09:28 AM
My point was that the content of that quote, the "curved space" being referred to and the "seeming defiance of physics" is NOT THE SAME as what the poem achieves in its "space time" imagery, punning, references, etc. It is that the quote is being used disingenuously. There is no question it gives what follows an air of being a poetical commentary--even though what actually follows is merely witty, and has no bearing on the thing the physics guy is talking about! Ask a hundred readers (who are not poets) and they will all tell you this is the case; the quote sets it up, gives it class. Are you really indifferent to this, Jim?
I too like the imagery in the poem, by the way! It is just that I think these kind stylistic shenanigans are what make many readers think all poets are just effete managers of sound effects. If not frustrated comedians.
Posted by: Lloyd Mintern | Aug 4, 2009 5:19:47 PM
Lloyd-
Here's approximately how it worked with this poem:
I encountered the term "Swimming in Space Time" which sounded intriguing. I read the article and found it was, indeed, intriguing.
Thoughts of swimming occured to me so I started writing about some swimming I'd done —swimming in space time as a matter of fact, because if Einstein had it right where else could I have been swimming? It follows that dragonflies and hummingbirds must also swim in space time. And there they were. It was a regular swimming hole in space time. What fun we had!
I thought, Oh, two variations of swimming in space time; Eduardo Gueron's and mine. What possibilities!
Closely following all of that I did some vigorous editing, played with some words, never intended a single pun —and truth to tell I can't find one in there.
The connection between the article and the poem can be summed up in four words: swimming in space time. From them anyone can springboard anywhere they'd like as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Jim | Aug 4, 2009 8:37:21 PM
Thanks for the explanation. Can you say you understood what Gueron was talking about, or did it mainly serve to spark your own thoughts about swimming? I have to say I have no idea what Einstein is talking about, myself.
Posted by: Lloyd Mintern | Aug 4, 2009 9:27:08 PM
Post a comment