His eyes look empty under the
harsh lights.
In a voice like a beggars’ (half
breath and half desperation),
he implores the lost sheep of
his congregation.
His cadence quivers;
he has imported his rhythm from
Whitman,
his conviction from the
puritans.
He says,
“Every life
has so much influence
on every other life
that lacking
any person
the world could never
be complete—
and
that’s really what it comes down to,
isn’t it?”
Isn’t it.
That empty tag that flags his
stab at profundity,
tacked awkwardly onto the end of
his thought.
I don’t know, Dimmsdale, I
answer in my mind.
Is it?
Let’s take a poll. Let’s do the
math.
If train A leaves the station at
time x and train B leaves y at z,
how many passengers have to die
in the impending collision
before it’s considered a
tragedy?
This was mostly for fun. My preacher brother-in-law does use this emotional "isn't it" tag, and it always makes me want to be really condescending, so I let it out in poem form. I probably won't try to wrangle this one into the ten that are good unless I have to. Like, if you actually think about the rhetorical question, the human inside you is like, "well, I mean, one death in a train crash would be tragic for close friends and family..." The nature of an indignant tone is that it only works by appealing to a belief you and the reader find so obvious that it's offensive someone else could mess it up. I'm not convinced that the belief, "a single person is not worth enough for their death to be a tragedy" is that obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment