The Best Story You Will Ever Hear About an Orange!

Oh Snap! You Must Listen to the Best Story Ever Told About an Orange!

 

This is, I absolutely promise you, the best story you have ever heard about an orange.Click on the word “orange.” With that click, you will be taken to the site, Snap Judgment, where award-winning story tellers, can tell you some of the best stories!
When you get there, hit the play button and just listen to this story about this orange. Be sure especially to listen to the descriptions of this orange!  Write them down! I want you to write down everything that you think about this orange, (featured in the picture) before you hear this story; and then, I want you to write down everything that you think about the orange after you hear this story.
And remember, always remember, the sweet things in life!

An Article Summary Example

No Thinking Allowed!

Is anyone allowed to think anymore? With the state of our American/Global/Corporate News industry, being what it is, no thinking allowed might be a slight exaggeration…but not by much. We are certainly entering times when thinking is not exactly encouraged. Not by the quality of news being printed by alleged “reputable sources;” and certainly, by their own admission, they are practicing a sort of “newspeak.”  To ensure that thinking is an activity that the next generation can engage in,  I’m walking my students through the process of critical thinking by having them work on, what I call, “Google Worksheets.”

The idea of the Google worksheet is pretty basic. My students must become search engines. They have to look for articles on the Internet, about a particular issue that I’ve identified. After they have personally selected an article that they believe is the best, they have to determine, in groups which articles are the absolute best. By best I mean, the most factually accurate, persuasive and well thought out articles, that provide useful information. Supposedly, allegedly, Google identifies the “best” of the Internet through the use of algorithms, whatever those are. (According to Dictionary.com algorithms are the solving of a problem in a finite number of steps.)
So, here in America, we definitely have a problem. The problem is finding good, reliable, unbiased news sources, so that we, the people, can make informed decisions about how to proceed, react and respond as responsible citizens in our alleged “democracy” and our world.
Therefore, I’ve put my students to task on solving the problem. In order to do this, I’ve basically created an algorithm of sorts. My students must go through a finite number of steps, (listed below) in order to locate the best news out there.
I never ask my students to do anything that I wouldn’t do myself; and so, in working through my own good-news-seeking algorithm, I found myself, disgusted, by how difficult it has become to get any kind of unbiased news, even from the most allegedly “reliable” of news sources.
I choose an article in Newsweek. Clearly, I should be good to go, right? It’s Newsweek! As a fellow blogger, “laxjournalistic standards” stated, “Newsweek, you used to be a bastion of strong news reporting and engaging story telling.” Clearly, we could always look to Newsweek and Time to be at the very top of the journalistic game. But not anymore.  According to laxjournalistic, who was once an avid Newsweek reader, “Somewhere over the years, you’ve lost your heart as mergers have pummeled your staff, you’ve lost your soul to corporate sponsors, and sadly (for you, since you don’t even care about your readers anymore), you’ve lost me.”
After my article review, I would tend to agree. Newsweek has lost a lot, but most critically, sound, well-reasoned articles. I found the Newsweek article I reviewed insulting to my intelligence. The subject I was attempting to read up on? The cause of the current problems in the American economy. The article I selected? A four-page article in Newsweek entitled “Rich America, Poor America” by Niall Ferguson, the week of January 23, 2012.  Ferguson is allegedly an academic, Oxford educated, Harvard professor of Economics and History, published author, blah, blah, blah. You’d think we’d be able to get some good reliable information from this guy. After going through my own algorithm, I came to realize, not so much.
 
  The First Step in the Process an Article Summary
So my students have to find an article and simply summarize it. Below is my summary of “Rich America, Poor America”
In this article, Niall Ferguson, who describes himself as a “conservative historian” explains, not just what is the problem with the American economy right now, but he also explains, and provides some interesting factual information on what has happened to the American economy over time.
His basic premise is that there are two Americas now, a rich America and a poor America. These two Americas are problematic because it is very difficult to get out of poor America to move into rich America, even though, that is what America has always aspired to be about. In America, we like the idea that everyone can have a shot at the good life, the American dream, as long as they work hard. But, that is just no longer true. Ferguson explains:
Americans used to be proud of their country’s reputation as a meritocracy, where anyone could aspire to get to the top with the right combination of inspiration and perspiration. It’s no longer true. Social mobility has been sliding in the United States. A poor kid in America now has about the same chance of becoming a rich grown up in socially rigid England.
Ferguson tries to explain why this is happening. First he provides what the “liberal” or “left” explanation is.
Financial deregulation by Ronald Reagan ushered in an era of rampant greed in finance; meanwhile, Republicans ruthlessly hacked back New Deal and Great Society social programs to finance tax cuts for their Wall Street cronies.
Ferguson also explains that “liberals” bolster the argument by pointing to European countries like Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands – because there rich do not get richer and social mobility is still possible.
Ferguson wants to offer a “conservative” counterpoint to this argument, so, in response he provides a summary of a book, Coming Apart by Charles Murray. He claims that Murray offers “by far the best available analysis of modern American inequality.” I agree with Ferguson in that Murray’s analysis of what is happening in America is probably sound, but I don’t agree with Murray’s and Ferguson’s solution, which is ridiculously simplistic, at this point, and therefore, cannot be implemented unless Murray has a magic wand.
With regard to all the economic situation. I like that Murray seems to place blame in the appropriate places: According to Ferguson, Murray states:
The boards of directors of corporate America- and nonprofit America and foundation America – have become cozy extended families, scratching each others backs, happily going along with a market that has become lucrative for all of them, taking advantage of their privileged positions-rigging the game, but within the law.
I’d disagree with the last part. I don’t believe that this rigging of the game has been legal- and if it has been legal, it’s only been legal because these corporate/nonprofit entities are paying to change the laws.
But, Murray doesn’t not stop with the corruption of what I refer to as “the system.” He doesn’t completely place the blame there, but instead takes a deep look at what has been going on in America since 1960. Murray explains that “The upper class has gotten rich mainly because the financial returns on brain-power have risen steeply since the 1960′s”
Basically, Murray says, smart educated people in America are getting smarter and richer, while uneducated people in America (defined as such by Murray with high-school diploma or less) are getting dumber and much poorer.
The Problem with American Wages
Meanwhile, wages for most Americans have not risen (when you account for inflation SINCE 1970.) This fact, jumps off the page for me, because I keep seeing this statistic referenced by both liberal and conservative scholars. The fact that I keep seeing this particular fact referenced, quite often, by scholars on both sides of the political/ideological divide, gives it greater credibility to me. Basically everybody, who is educated, and knows something about economics, history or politics, keeps pointing this out.
If you don’t understand how inflation works, this is tricky to understand. But with the limited knowledge that I do have of inflation and money, it seems to be true. According to Ferguson, in 1975, the average American family income was $12,000. By contrast, in 2010, the average American family income is $49,000. When you look at how much the costs and prices have risen, it seems that wages may not just be staying the same, they may be- and in the case of the lower 25% of Americans THEY ARE going DOWN. People are earning less a year, than they have in the past.
But this is not true for Americans who are in the 95%. Americans who are in the 95% are seeing wages jump up by about 25%. Americans who are in the 99% (the 1% that the Occupy Wall Street movement is complaining about) are seeing wages jump up by about 50%. But really, that’s chump-change when you consider what is happening with the super rich.  The super rich, (which accounts for the .01% of the population and quite honestly I think, this is where the real problem is) have seen wages jump by 700%. Seven hundred percent!!!!! What is up with these Ritchie-Rich System Gamers? Are they gaming the system at the expense of the rest of the 99.99 percent of Americans? You bet!
Amber’s Opinion on the Richie-Rich System Gamers
I believe that the jump of the .01% to 700% has occurred by theft, manipulating the financial systems, not playing fair or with any kind of integrity. CEOS of the 500 largest corporations (which are now pretty much global world corporations) have seen their income increase by 1300% since the 1970s.
The problem with the super, super, super rich, I believe, is that they have discovered that they way for them to get super-rich, is to not only, screw around with and game the system…but to also keep workers wages low, and they do this for a couple or reasons.
Reason One – withholding the additional money for wages to worker, is how they are getting rich by 700% increases. The additional money that everyday workers should be getting to LIVE, are being withheld by the Ritchie riches to line their own pockets.
Reason Two – Crazy Debt! Debt is Great for Richie-Riches! But Crushing the Typical American Worker. If workers do not have enough money to live at the typical American standard, they can always borrow money to make up for the difference. The 700% increase Ritchie riches are more than willing to lend out this money because, with all this lending out of the money from their 700% wage increase, they are making EVEN MORE MONEY, on the money that they are withholding in wages.
So let me break it down on a day-to-day basis. Suppose the typical American needs $100 to live a nice, normal decent American life. What the Richie-Rich system gamers have discovered is, instead of paying the American worker that $100, it can pay her $80, loan her the other $20 (which will make the system-gamer much wealthier) and then also charge her $10 for that 20 that was lent. And the system gamer gets even richer!
But enough of the wage/debt shell game. Let’s get back to Ferguson’s review of Murray on the Rich America, Poor America.
The Poor Dumb-Dumbs
Okay, so if you have only 5% of the American population seeing real increases in wages, what is going on with the poor dumb-dumbs? Oh my God, nothing good. A downward spiral with regard to critical social trends that provide stability is literally causing the bottom to fall out, in poor, dumb-dumb America. Well, what are the four social trends? Family, Work, Community and Faith. According to Murray, in poor dumb-dumb America there is “a sad underclass of never married mothers who also happen t be the worst educated women in town.”
Also according to Murray “industriousness…has plummeted among white males.” Why Murray felt the need to classify according to race and gender, I don’t know.  Probably because he’s a racist asshole and figures no one other than white males is really even worth mentioning, when we’re talking about America, but whatever. But Ferguson laments “work ethic has been replaced by jerk ethic.” Ha…ha…ha. Ferguson is a little bit funny.
But the bottom line is, in poor America, there is no longer any sense of family. Not only that but, people, without a good education, cannot find any meaningful work. When people are not working, they don’t have any sense of purpose. Without family or work structures in place, it is difficult to build a strong community. Organized religion needs that community in order to thrive, and the community in turn relies on organized religion to strengthen its sense of itself. I agree with both Ferguson and Murray on the fall of the four social pillars. I’ve seen this occur, in my hometown of Cleveland. I’ve seen the effects…they are disastrous.
First, Let’s Kill All The Liberals
Ferguson blames liberal politics from the 1930s through to the 1960s for the collapse of the four social pillars of family, work, community and faith. Specifically he says, in agreement with Murray, “We should scrap the institutions of the New Deal and Great Society and replace them with the system of guaranteed basic income he first proposed in In Our Hands (2006).”
To which I respond…okay…WTF?? Seriously! What is thus guy talking about! I can’t sign off on the fact that he just tries to say in one really ridiculous broad and sweeping statement, that The New Deal and The Great Society initiatives destroyed the four social pillars he identified. Now, while I do agree that in poor America, these four social pillars are crumbling, I do not, and I absolutely cannot sign off on the ridiculous statement that they are basically crumbling because the liberals did it. That is such an oversimplification, such an intellectual punk-ass cop-out. This is where Ferguson basically says,I’m tired of thinking, so now I’m going to say something ridiculous and blame someone for problems that I don’t really want to completely understand. It’s too hard, wah, wah, wah, I’m just going to blame the liberals.
I am so tired of so called, informed and educated people making ridiculous and idiotic statements like this. The liberals did not do it! There are at least 101 reasons for why these four pillars of society have been crumbling over the past fifty years. There have been a great many complicated events – stagnant wages for one have led to this crumbling of the four pillars in poor America. These stagnant wages have been caused by corporate greed! There are other things like DRUGS…illegal ones like crack, cocaine and even the legal ones offered by Big Pharm, trying to keep everyone doped up or down for their own profit margin. More lenient divorce laws, more economic freedom for women, birth control, legalized abortion, vast racial and ethnic diversity in America, unchecked greed in America, the end of the industrial economy in America, the beginning of the information age in America, a severe breakdown of basic values about work and family. I could go on.
But, out of the hundred or so reasons why these four pillars of society are crumbling, the “liberal agenda” should not be blamed for even a small percentage of the fall. Especially since for every step forward, the “liberal agenda” advanced, the “conservative agenda” pulled it two steps back. Vice versa, for the “conservative agenda” being undermined by the “liberal agenda.” It is this insane back and forth, back and forth, do it, then undo it, do it, then undo it march to nowhere that has landed us exactly where we are right now. We are stuck. No one is offering any real solutions, because it’s so much easier – and I guess, in some ways gratifying – to play the blame game.
I am so damn sick of conservatives scape-goating liberals. I am so damn sick of liberals scape-goating conservatives. I really, really, really just want some smart, pragmatic people to find some f*cking answers! Is that so much to ask for?
We’re off to See the Wizard! (Pay no Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain…)
So, okay, back to the article. Ferguson claims that Murray has an answer. “There is a conservative solution to the problem of inequity.” Oh really? Well let’s hear it, buddy.
Scrap the failing welfare programs of the 30s and 60s before the bankrupt America. Ensure that everyone has a basic income. Then simplify the tax code to restore the incentives that used to exist for everyone to work hard. Finally, end the state monopoly in public education to launch a new era of school choice and competition.
He also advises us to elect Mitt Romney as president, and he also advises Romney, and I quote, “readComing Apart before your campaign comes apart.”
To which I say, what planet is thus guy from? Is this some kind of joke? If he’s serious….he can’t be serious…well he writes for Newsweek so I guess he is serious…HE IS A LOON!
You know what, I have a better idea Ferguson, let’s just turn the clock back fifty years by clicking our heels three times while wearing ruby slippers and saying, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home! While believing that the great conservative Wizard Romney can solve our problems! He’s an all-powerful wizard, after all!
 I am deeply insulted by Ferguson’s so called solution! It’s ridiculously simplistic, given how very complicated our American financial system is. Meanwhile everyone…and I do mean everyone in the entire world is invested in it. So we can’t simply, “scrap the failing welfare program of the 30s and 60s” and “ensure that everyone has a basic income” which actually sounds a whole lot like the Scandinavian socialism that he sneered at earlier in his article.
And while we’re “scrapping welfare programs” are we going to be scrapping corporate and bank welfare programs (to the tune of 700 billion bail out dollars?) Are we scrapping those programs as well? I mean, he points out that yes, admittedly, corporate greed and game playing is a big part of the nation’s current economic problems-and yet, he offers no type of solution for this! What’s his theory on this? If we don’t look at them or talk about them, maybe they’ll go away?
And what about his pathetic plug for Mitt Romney? Don’t go all out for your candidate of choice! On the one hand, he advises that a conservative president is the answer to the problems plaguing the country. On the other, he feels like he personally needs to tell Mitt Romney what to do (and he does this publicly in his article.) This is not likely to inspire voter confidence in Romney. I feel like if Romney is so clueless that he needs to take advice from this guy, who is only half right, well, that is not a man who I want as my American president!
[image error]Ending the state-run public school system…well…as bad as it is in some places, it’s just as well. But what are we going to do with the people who are not good enough to be educated? Kill them? Ending the charade of public education is just going to leave a lot people uneducated (which happens already, anyway) while moving them closer to prison or an early grave. In many of those systems, student’s are not educated, but simply warehoused…they are held in storage until they are old enough to enter other facilities and institutions, primarily correctional ones. (A euphemism if ever there was one. Correctional facilities are more like government funded concentration camps.)
There is a reason for our public education system, we decided, long ago, that we needed it in order to have an effectively functioning democracy. But, it really does seem like we as a society are turning our back on that concept. Clearly Ferguson has; and like most “conservatives” I’m guessing he has a much stronger preference for pouring tons of money into the government funded concentration camps, instead of education.
Which leads me to my next question, does he really place any value on family, work, community and faith? I don’t think so. He advocates the destruction of systems that bring some sort of stability to our communities and offers no real solutions to any of the problem we face. He’s just another “conservative” double-talker.
[image error]Second Step in the Process – Critical Thinking
In this section, I expect students to critically examine the article. They need to do a bit of research on the author. They may need to double-check certain facts that are presented. They need to select- from nine options I provide, what particular rhetorical style is being used in the article. After, all of that, they need to state where they stand. I’m such a critical thinker, that I’ve already included a lot of my critical thinking about the article in my summary.  But I also included more critical thoughts about “Rich America, Poor America” below.
  Critical Thoughts on the Article
 Whenever I evaluate what a writer has written critically, the first thing I do is Google the writer. This is critical. Lot’s of clever people can make very convincing arguments, that sound very factually on point, but are either very biased, skewed or blatantly false. Therefore, you almost have to do some research.
So I googled Niall Ferguson. In doing so, I found out that he is a history/econ professor at Harvard. He is Oxford educated, and so, as far as his degrees are concerned, he is supposed to be someone who a reader can trust and believe in. He’s written a few books on in his area of expertise: Civilization: The West and the Rest, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, as well as many others.
All of this lends to his credibility in my eyes. Also, he writes for Newsweek, which has historically been a reliable news source. But, even so, in recent years, journalistic standards have become ridiculously relaxed. Also, even with strict journalistic standards in place, every writer has an agenda. They are trying to make you believe in something that you may or may not agree with.
Ferguson identifies with a conservative/republican agenda, and backs Mitt Romney. For this, he loses credibility in my eyes. I think that scholars should be apolitical. Not backing either a conservative or liberal agenda because both parties are so screwed up.  Real Critical thinkers will look at what the individual people/politicians say and do. They will not blindly back one party or another…that’s idiotic, in my opinion.
Even though Ferguson is factually on point, about the state of American today, I find the ridiculously idiotic solutions that he proposes insulting to my intelligence. He loses major credibility points with me, for that.
I’ve posted most of my critical thoughts in my summary. Clearly, I do not accept what Ferguson writes at face value. A lot of what he has written makes sense and resonates with me, but a lot of it also sounds like conservative, ideological, drivel. I think that Ferguson did a great job of identifying the problems that we are experiencing today in the American economy and the American society as a whole. However, I do not agree with the solutions he proposes. I think they are ridiculously simplistic. I am looking for someone to provide some real solutions. Ferguson does not deliver, and especially not on the issue of corporate greed and corruption. He simply mentions the problem, and moves on.
Rhetorical Style:
Ferguson uses several different rhetorical styles. The most prominent being argument and persuasion. He is making a basic argument where, he explains that there is a real rich/poor American class divide and it is problematic. He makes a really good case for that. I don’t really disagree with any of the facts or stats that he provides with regard to this. His logos- his factual support for his argument is indeed sound. His persuasion, or pathos- his emotional appeal to the reader is weak. He uses the typical “conservative speak.”
Work hard. Love God. Love your family. It will all be okay then.
This is his emotional appeal. Clearly it’s going to resonate with a lot of readers who like that particular kind of “conservative speak.” But not me. It’s just far too simplistic. It’s like that quote we read earlier by O’Reilly. Conservatives think in black and white and liberals think in grays. I do not like the simple black and white thought process, not because it’s “conservative” but because it’s simplistic and doesn’t solve any problems! The fact that I am willing to look at the greater complexities of any given problem, does not make me, in my own opinion, “liberal” or “conservative” but someone who thinks! Critically!
It’s a very important skill to anyone who hopes to be successful in life, so when conservative pundits try to push a really simplified thought process on people, I often wonder if they are purposefully trying to dumb people down in pursuit of a bigger agenda. An agenda that the .01% want to see in effect so they can keep their 700% profits, while all other Americans suffer.
Another rhetorical style that Ferguson uses is compare and contrast. In a number of ways he compares wages, and income of all Americans at all different levels. He compares the top 1% of Americans, and the top 01% of Americans and the top 5% of Americans, to everyone else.  He compares, basically “rich America” to “poor America.” In order to compare these two groups, he uses the rhetorical style of illustration. He gives us details about where the rich and poor Americans live, where and how they are educated, whether their parents are married or not. He also provides details on what they do with their time.
Step 3 Discuss the Article in Groups – 5 Points
The third step in the process is that everyone has to present their article for the group and make the case for it being one of the best pieces of news of the week. Only one article can be the best, and so they will have to reach a consensus on the best news in whatever manner they decide.
Step 4 Blog About It – 10 points
The best articles get blogged about. Once the best summaries are posted, group members  should make one comment about the article and respond to at least one of your classmate’s comments.
Step 5 Blogging Bonus Points – 5 points
In a fifth and final bonus step, I offer bonus steps for the location of other informative blogs, that lend a better, greater understanding to whatever issue we are researching.
 Many times, while surfing the news on the Internet, an article will link you to another blog. Did you find any additional useful blogs? If so what was the link, and what was the blog about, and why did you find the information there useful?
I found, Niall Ferguson’s blog. I have to say, I do like reading up on the conservative view of things from someone who is highly educated, and provides accurate information.

T.S. Eliot and Eminem

Quotalicious! (T.S. Eliot)

Hey there students! We will be comparing the poem below , “the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” to Eminem’s Eight mile, because they basically have the same narrative structure. Both artists are telling an age-old story, can you figure out what it is?

There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,

And time for all the works and days of hands

That lift and drop a question on your plate;

Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,

And for a hundred visions and revisions,

Before the taking of a toast and tea.

Thomas Stearns Eliot…Don’t Sleep! Alfred Kazin (some big time literary geek) described Eliot as ”the model poet of our time, the most cited poet and incarnation of literary correctness in the English-speaking world.” Northrop Frye (another big time literary geek) explained,  ”A thorough knowledge of Eliot is compulsory for anyone interested in contemporary literature. Whether he is liked or disliked is of no importance, but he must be read.”
And clearly Alfred Kazin and Northrop Frye are not household names, and so who cares what they think? Not very many, except other literary geeks/snobs like them. Even though I teach English, I’m not really big into literary critics or literary criticism or defending the Western Canon or fighting for is dismantlement. But I will say this, Kazin and Frye are right about one thing.
T.S. Eliot is a literary beast! You gotta read him! At least one of his more famous works, like “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” It’s just genius, on top of genius spiraling around to more genius! “There will be time to murder and create?” or, or “I have measured out my life with coffee spoons!” or “Do I dare? and Do I dare? Do I dare Disturb the universe?” or “Though I have seen my head (grown slightly bald) brought in upon a platter,

I am no prophet–and here’s no great matter.”
And while this lil diddy of a poem is jam packed with almost everything that you need to know and examine and question about life and love and desire and risk and gain and fear and defeat and (many literary critics think) sex – it also speaks to morality, lonliness, alienation and death. Will there be time? Will there really always be time? No. Of course not, because as Eliot brings this to a close, even Prufrock knows that, “We have lingered in the chambers of the sea, By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown, Till human voices wake us, and we drown.” BAM! And there you have it.
YOU MUST READ THIS POEM! If you read no other! Pluto Artist in Da House! Pluto Artists in Da House!  Give it up for T.S.! (Clap, Clap, Clap!) Check out the full poem below.
 
The Love-Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
By T.S. Eliot

Let us go then, you and I,

When the evening is spread out against the sky

Like a patient etherized upon a table;

Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,

The muttering retreats

Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels

And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:

Streets that follow like a tedious argument

Of insidious intent

To lead you to an overwhelming question. . .

Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”

Let us go and make our visit.
In the room the women come and go

Talking of Michelangelo.
The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes

The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes

Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening

Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,

Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,

Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,

And seeing that it was a soft October night

Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.
And indeed there will be time

For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,

Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;

There will be time, there will be time

To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;

There will be time to murder and create,

And time for all the works and days of hands

That lift and drop a question on your plate;

Time for you and time for me,

And time yet for a hundred indecisions

And for a hundred visions and revisions

Before the taking of a toast and tea.
In the room the women come and go

Talking of Michelangelo.
And indeed there will be time

To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?”

Time to turn back and descend the stair,

With a bald spot in the middle of my hair—

[They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”]

My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,

My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin—

[They will say: “But how his arms and legs are thin!”]

Do I dare

Disturb the universe?

In a minute there is time

For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
For I have known them all already, known them all;

Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,

I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;

I know the voices dying with a dying fall

Beneath the music from a farther room.

So how should I presume?
And I have known the eyes already, known them all—

The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,

And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,

When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,

Then how should I begin

To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?

And how should I presume?
And I have known the arms already, known them all—

Arms that are braceleted and white and bare

[But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!]

Is it perfume from a dress

That makes me so digress?

Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl.

And should I then presume?

And how should I begin?

.     .     .     .     .
Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets

And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes

Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows? . . .
I should have been a pair of ragged claws

Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.

.     .     .     .     .
And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!

Smoothed by long fingers,

Asleep . . . tired . . . or it malingers,

Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.

Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,

Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?

But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,

Though I have seen my head (grown slightly bald) brought in upon a platter,

I am no prophet–and here’s no great matter;

I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,

And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,

And in short, I was afraid.
And would it have been worth it, after all,

After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,

Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,

Would it have been worth while,

To have bitten off the matter with a smile,

To have squeezed the universe into a ball

To roll it toward some overwhelming question,

To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,

Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”

If one, settling a pillow by her head,

Should say, “That is not what I meant at all.

That is not it, at all.”
And would it have been worth it, after all,

Would it have been worth while,

After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,

After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor—

And this, and so much more?—

It is impossible to say just what I mean!

But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:

Would it have been worth while

If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,

And turning toward the window, should say:

“That is not it at all,

That is not what I meant, at all.”

.     .     .     .     .
No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;

Am an attendant lord, one that will do

To swell a progress, start a scene or two

Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,

Deferential, glad to be of use,

Politic, cautious, and meticulous;

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;

At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—

Almost, at times, the Fool.
I grow old . . . I grow old . . .

I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?

I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.

I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me.
I have seen them riding seaward on the waves

Combing the white hair of the waves blown back

When the wind blows the water white and black.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea

By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown

Till human voices wake us, and we drown.

So You Want to Be a Storyteller?

This is an amazing blog on story-telling! Check it out to get some great ideas for your personal narrative.