Why Are Some – Rhapsodic (Maybe) Flash 55 (Um….)
Why are some….
so imprinted
with insufficiency; souls
lost fowl, cross-hatched between
chicken scratch and duck
waddle, the self-appointed undeserving, serving
an exacting God whom we carry in our foreheads
as an ache.
How escape?
In the ta-Dada of rhapsody,
chance of dance,
deep swallow;
through the reverse blink
of fireflies, pilots in night’s
blue sea.
*****************************
This is another version of my Post-Eden II poem posted yesterday, written for Kerry O’Connor’s prompt on With Real Toads re Rhapsody, and for the G-Man – Friday Flash 55 – do not tell him I cheated by calling the first three words my title.
(For those interested in process, the initial version of the poem called “insufficiency” “original sin” but I realize many people are not so involved with the concept of original sin these days – probably a good thing . Besides, it is two words.)
Explore posts in the same categories: poetry, UncategorizedTags: born with something missing, deep blue light night sea poem, escape in Rhapsody poem, firefly pilots poem, Friday Flash 55, insufficiency poem, manicddaily
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
ManicDDaily 
July 12, 2013 at 2:54 pm
this is exactly the sure, short, n sweet poetic
straightforwardness I needed/wanted to read on
this busier than usual day.
If I only read one, I’m glad it is this.
in our foreheads/as an ache
and
fireflies as pilots
Why? indeed.
July 12, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Really nice! I especially like the closing stanza!
July 12, 2013 at 3:06 pm
the god in our head eh? smiles….we carry as an ache…ha
ha the reverse blink of the firefly is rather magical as well k
July 12, 2013 at 4:22 pm
You are really rocking and rolling with this one Karin. Each of these you’ve done has commonality, in theme, in word choice and in tone, (though I think the mood shifts nicely in each)–but reading each in sequence is like turning a three dimensional object to see all the sides. What I like about this one is that in shortening it up, you’ve actually made it more, not less, especially in the lyric qualities for which I for one am a complete sucker. The last lines of both stanzas are just luminous, and illuminating.
July 12, 2013 at 4:31 pm
Thanks. This was mostly written before the other. So maybe first thought best thought, but I did revise a fair amount today. It is interesting to try different versions. I.
July 12, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Karin….
I will always have a blind eye to any of your alluded to imperfections!
To me you are a cherished treasure that I feel fortunate to have you visit.
Loved your fantastic 55
Thanks for playing, thanks for your great support, and have a Kick Ass Week-End
July 13, 2013 at 7:06 am
Ha! Thanks, Galen. You too. k.
July 12, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Marvelous ! I lean toward the prior one but not because of its content, they’re both excellent and ratifies Manley!
July 13, 2013 at 4:44 am
From a writer’s perspective, I just love how these words sit on the page:
lost fowl, cross-hatched between
chicken scratch and duck
waddle
The whole has an abstract feel (what an incredible nod to Dada), which touches on very human concerns, and the need to escape them sometimes.
July 13, 2013 at 5:26 am
It’s clever that you are! Using the title to carry the first three words works well, as does using “insufficiency” for original sin. (in fact, I think I prefer it — maybe I’m just tired of original sin!)
Both stanzas have some glorious lines,, which I will not quote as leaving out a single word diminishes the whole.
July 13, 2013 at 9:36 pm
I particularly like the lines Kerry quoted and the concept of “original sin” seems archaic…. but it’s an easy out in some regard. I mean, how nice to chalk up selfishness and nastiness as “I can’t help myself…” Very “deep” 55.
July 15, 2013 at 7:53 am
Thanks, Margaret. I agree that people find outs in their acceptance of a flawed nature. I tend to think of original sin in an even more old timey way, probably from reading Joyce, so in terms of damnation, but it is not a concept so explored as it used to be I think. Thanks for reading, k.