Category Archives: Arts & Literature

Arts & Literature, Essays, Life, Literature, Writers

THE UNFINISHED LIFE

Leave a comment

On silence, fragments, and the impossibility of knowing another person — in the shadow of Chekhov’s way of seeing.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, November 2, 2025

He goes into the study after the funeral, searching for some trace of the man he knew only in outline. What he finds is not explanation, nor confession, nor clarity—but a life recorded in fragments, and left deliberately unresolved.

“Let us learn to look at life as it is.”
—Anton Chekhov

After the funeral, when the house had emptied itself of voices, when the door had closed behind the last pair of careful, sympathetic hands, he found himself standing before the study door. The afternoon light had thinned into something resembling evening, though it was not yet late. The hallway was quiet in a way that felt unnatural, as if sound itself were waiting to see what he would do.

He did not touch the door at first. He only stood, looking at the grain of the wood, as though some trace of the man’s hands might still be there. He realized he was expecting something — not revelation, exactly, but atmosphere. Some echo of what people call genius. As if the room should contain a residue of meaning.

He had once overheard a scholar in Petersburg refer to this space as “the sanctum of a century’s clearest witness.” The phrase embarrassed him now. Sanctum implied intent. Purpose. Sacrality. But the man who had lived here had not been interested in making a monument of himself. He had walked through life without insisting he was doing anything remarkable.

He opened the door.

The room was smaller than he remembered. A coat hung over the back of a chair, not neatly, simply left there, as if the owner might return at any moment. A physician’s satchel sat open on the floor beside the desk, a few instruments still inside. And there was the smell of iodine, faint but persistent — the smell of work done quietly, repeatedly, unremarked. The man had been a doctor before he had been anything else. Before writer, before figure, before name.

The desk was unadorned. No staged quills. No ceremonious arrangement of papers. A window stood slightly open, letting in a draft that moved the curtain just enough to suggest breath. The tide could be heard faintly in the distance, the sea’s slow inhalation and release.

He sat. The chair complained softly under him.

The notebooks were in the drawer. Not alphabetized. Not dated. Not arranged in any way that suggested they were meant to be read, let alone interpreted. Just stacked, tied with string the way one ties onions or parcels of bread.

He untied the first cord.

The pages opened easily, as if they had never been closed.

No preface. No remark of intention. No authorial claim.

Only observations.

.

“Evening sky over Taganrog. Grey like unpolished tin. Children running in the dust where a garden should be.”

“A clerk with a cracked watch he checks though it no longer runs.”

“A woman on the shoreline, arranging stones by size, then sweeping the arrangement away with her sleeve.”

“A patient says she hears God at night. Says he sounds like someone in the next room.”

Not stories. Not drafts of stories. Only fragments. Hints. Impressions before interpretation.

He felt a strange unease rise in him.

He had believed, for years, that somewhere there must exist an origin. A place where art began and could be understood. He had imagined that genius was a kind of flame: illuminating, coherent, replicable. Something a devoted student might absorb, if attentive enough. The notebooks seemed to say otherwise. There was no flame, no method. Only weather — passing conditions observed without commentary.

He turned a page.

.

From Greece:

“The Parthenon at dawn. Hard light. A dog asleep under the columned shadow. The tourists speak in low voices as if language itself might offend the ruins.”

In the margin, a sketch: a line of broken capitals, more suggested than drawn.

From the Italian coast:

“The sea does not dramatize. It simply arrives.”

From the northern lakes of Canada:

“Silence is not the absence of sound. It is the possession of stillness.”

From a beach not far from here:

“I walked until the tide erased my footprints. No revelation. No metaphor. Only relief.”

No attempt to make meaning. Only experience recorded, then left alone.

He remembered a summer afternoon in the orchard behind the house. They had been walking slowly — not talking. His father had paused to watch a woman hanging laundry on a line. The woman worked without hurry, stretching each sheet, clipping it carefully, smoothing it with a flat palm. He had watched her a long time. The younger man had waited, expecting a remark of comparison or irony — some literary insight.

Instead, the old man said only:

“She’s doing it beautifully.”

The younger man had waited for more. There was no more.

At the time, he had thought it insufficient. Now he understood: it was everything.

To witness without claiming. To see without needing to say what seeing meant.

He returned to the notebook.

The next pages were different. Shorter. Less stable. The handwriting irregular.

.

“I do not believe in progress. I believe in kindness.”

Two pages later:

“Kindness is a luxury. I am tired of pretending otherwise.”

There were no arrows, no corrections, no indication of which belief was intended to stand. They existed beside each other like two weather systems passing through the same sky.

He realized suddenly — sharply — that the contradiction was not a flaw.

It was the man.

People speak as though a person has a self. Singular. Consistent. But here was evidence — clear, patient, incontrovertible — that the self is a pattern of shifting conditions. A tide. A temperature. A movement of pressure through air.

He felt something tighten in his chest.

What had he been hoping to find in these notebooks? Instruction? Explanation? A map?

He had wanted the old man to tell him what life meant. But the old man had refused — not out of withholding, but out of humility. He did not believe he had the authority to interpret life, not even his own.

Disease had taught him to write in brief strokes. The body decided the sentence length. Breath became punctuation. The economy of the notebooks was not aesthetic. It was physiological.

He turned more pages, slower now.

.

A note on medicine:

“A patient asks how long she has. I tell her the truth. She thanks me. I do not feel merciful. I feel like a door someone has walked through.”

A note on art:

“Do not try to be original. Try to be accurate.”

A note on death:

“It is not frightening. It is simply unfamiliar.”

And once:

“I will not leave a legacy. I will leave a trail.”

The younger man closed the notebook, fingers still holding its edges.

He sat without moving.

The room made no attempt to comfort him.

He thought of the world outside this house. Its insistence on explanation. Its hunger for narrative closure. Here, grief must be processed. Trauma must be named. Identity must be coherent. The self must be presented, defended, displayed.

If he wrote what he had read here, if he showed these notebooks to the world, someone would ask:

But what does it mean?

And they would be unable to bear the answer:

Nothing.
Or everything.
Which is the same thing.

He thought suddenly of something his father had said once — not in instruction, but in passing.

“The mistake is believing meaning is something hidden. Meaning is simply what you have not yet noticed.”

He stood.

He tied the notebooks again, gently. Not to close them, but to return them to the state in which they had been left. Unfinished. Ongoing.

He opened the window wider. The sea could be heard more clearly now — that slow, patient breathing of the world continuing whether one attends to it or not. The curtain lifted, then fell, then lifted again. The room exhaled.

From here, he could see the path that led down to the water.

He remembered the beetle on the garden path years ago. How his father had paused to watch it move. How neither of them had spoken. How nothing had needed to be said.

He did not feel closer to the man.

He felt closer to the silence the man had trusted.

He remained standing a long time, looking out the open window, listening to the slow rhythm of the tide.

No revelation.

No conclusion.

Only the world, continuing.

Unfinished.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Art, Arts & Literature, Essays, History, Literature

THE LIGHT THAT ACCUSES

How Caravaggio and Shakespeare turned illumination into punishment

Born within a decade of each other—Caravaggio in 1571, Shakespeare in 1564—the two revolutionaries never met, yet they saw the same darkness. As Europe wrestled with faith and power, each turned his craft into a form of moral x-ray: Caravaggio’s torchlight slicing through taverns and martyrdoms, Shakespeare’s verse illuminating the corrosion of the mind. Together they transformed art into conscience—and made light itself the scene of judgment.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, October 20, 2025

In Rome, sin was currency—and no one spent it faster than Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. He painted as if light were a blade, cutting through darkness like a fugitive’s path through alleyways. Caravaggio was both sinner and saint of his own invention, a man who lived in the gutter but painted eternity. His art was all revelation; his life, all ruin. His violence was the furnace; his flight, the studio. The light he wielded was not grace but exposure—the first modern spotlight, aimed at guilt itself.

At the same moment, across the Channel, Shakespeare was discovering a similar alchemy in words. Both men lived at the hinge of faith and doubt, where the Renaissance’s radiant confidence had begun to rot at the edges. Their contemporaries still painted angels and spoke of virtue; Caravaggio and Shakespeare, instead, made art of contamination. They did not glorify sin—they revealed how close it stood to grace.

Rome at the turn of the seventeenth century was a theater of contradictions—cathedrals glittering above streets thick with brothels, gambling dens, and the clang of penitents’ bells. The air was an argument between incense and sweat. Caravaggio arrived from Lombardy like a storm without a forecast. In a city of measured grace, he painted too fast, drank too hard, and swore too loudly. Even his successes carried the scent of scandal. He was handsome in a way that promised ruin—wine-stained, quick to laugh, quicker to strike.

Under the patronage of Cardinal del Monte, he found temporary sanctuary. Del Monte’s palazzo was a salon of musicians, philosophers, and alchemists, where art and sin dined together. There Caravaggio painted The Musicians, Boy with a Basket of Fruit, The Lute Player—canvases full of sunlight and suggestion, young men on the edge of sensuality. They shimmered with theater, not yet confession. But if you look closely, the shadow was already intruding: a bruised lip, a cut fruit beginning to rot. The rage was visible before it ever broke the surface.

He was a figure of spectacular, public energy. The air around him, before the fall, was loud with the ambition of the Counter-Reformation. He was painting for popes and cardinals who wanted drama and spectacle, and Caravaggio delivered. Yet his restlessness was legend. While Raphael’s art represented serenity and order, Caravaggio embodied the new century’s nervous energy—the sense of a world tipping into moral chaos. He was always armed, always ready for confrontation, always pushing the boundaries of decorum. His canvases, radiant though they were, could barely contain the explosive pressure building within him. He was a tightly wound spring, waiting for the one decisive error that would catapult him out of the light forever.

In 1606, that error came. A duel erupted on a dusty tennis court—over a bet, a woman, perhaps both. Ranuccio Tomassoni fell, stabbed through the groin, bleeding into the earth. Caravaggio fled before the law could arrive; the light of Rome was extinguished for him. The sentence from the Capitoline courts was swift and terminal: death by beheading. He would be killed on sight.

The transformation was instantaneous. One day a celebrated painter, the next a hunted man. He vanished into the countryside, a refugee moving through Naples, Malta, Sicily—each city a temporary reprieve, each commission a confession disguised as labor. The sun was no longer benevolent; it was the cruel, indiscriminate glare of exposure. Every doorway became either a sanctuary or a trap. He painted now in cellars, crypts, borrowed chapels. The flicker of a single oil lamp was both his illumination and his disguise.

His reality became his composition. The world shrank to the size of a single occupied room. Every shadow was not merely the absence of light but a buffer against the law, a crucial dimension of mercy. His existence was defined by the perimeter of his canvas, which he had to complete quickly before the city—or his luck—ran out. To paint a figure was to paint a self-portrait of exposure; to cast a shadow was to claim a momentary, fragile sanctuary.

In that darkness, his style transformed. The glow that once flattered now interrogated. Tenebrism—the violent contrast of light and shadow—wasn’t conceived in theory; it was practiced in flight, perfected in fear. His chiaroscuro became the physics of the fugitive. Shadow was safety. Light was danger. The geometry of his new world was a triangle of illumination, body, and fear.

Imagine him crouched before a canvas, listening for footsteps beyond the door. The brush trembles in his hand. The torchlight slices through the room like a sword. He paints not to be remembered but to survive the night. Every figure he renders is poised in that instant before discovery, half in concealment, half in revelation. The beam of light doesn’t redeem them—it indicts them.

In The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew, chaos is sculpted by torchlight. The assassin lunges forward, his arm frozen in that instant before the blade strikes, while the saint reaches—not to block—but to accept. The light falls only on those two gestures: the crime and its witness. Around them, the world recoils into shadow.

In his new world, light was a weapon. The dungeon window, the tavern lamp, the torch of an arresting officer—all became metaphors for exposure. What had been divine illumination turned forensic. It was the tactical, violent illumination of a search party, designed to expose the guilty, the dying, the compromised.

The Calling of Saint Matthew captures this geometry perfectly. A group of tax collectors sits around a table in a dim tavern when a burst of light cuts through the gloom. Christ points; Matthew hesitates, his hand still resting on coins. The moment is pure ambush. Grace arrives like a raid.

In Judith Beheading Holofernes, the same geometry returns. The light falls directly on the executioner’s arm, freezing the instant of violence with surgical precision. Judith’s face is a mixture of disgust and duty—illumination and horror sharing the same nerve. The red in the scene is not color; it is texture. It clots. It insists. Judith’s blade and Macbeth’s dagger are instruments of dark communion. The blood they spill consecrates nothing but their own damnation.

Caravaggio paints the split-second when the soul realizes it can no longer hide. That’s why his scenes feel cinematic centuries before cinema: every gesture is suspended between concealment and revelation. The true architecture of Tenebrism is this—a tiny, isolated circle of grace carved out of infinite, dangerous dark.

Consider The Taking of Christ, rediscovered only recently. The scene is not a serene biblical tableau but a violent arrest. Judas’s kiss and the soldier’s gauntlet share the same savage beam, and Christ’s expression is one of deep, human sorrow. A figure at the far right holds a small lamp and watches the chaos with stunned helplessness. That figure, many believe, is Caravaggio himself. Here, the artist doesn’t just paint betrayal; he implicates himself as a guilty witness caught in the eternal instant of moral failure. He is not the hero, nor the villain, but the bystander—the one whose light has exposed another’s ruin.

Meanwhile, in Macbeth, the light takes verbal form. “Stars, hide your fires,” the Thane whispers after hearing the witches’ prophecy. “Let not light see my black and deep desires.” His illumination, too, becomes accusation. The prophecy that should bless instead corners him. Both men understand that destiny does not arrive as invitation but as intrusion. Grace, when it comes, comes with a glare.

“Give me that man / That is not passion’s slave,” Hamlet pleads, craving a soul unruled by impulse. Yet his tragedy, like Macbeth’s, is that thought itself becomes its own tyrant. In both men, conscience doesn’t restrain—it corrodes. The soliloquy and Caravaggio’s single beam of light share the same function: each isolates the self in the act of realizing too much.

How could a fugitive, a murderer, find the sacred in the dirtiest people? Caravaggio’s own sin taught him that purity is a myth of comfort. Grace is not a prize for the unblemished; it is an intrusion into moral ruin. When he ran out of angels, he hired thieves. When he ran out of saints, he painted sinners with halos. The Virgin in Death of the Virgin was said to be modeled on a drowned courtesan dragged from the Tiber. Her swollen feet, her inert pallor, her skirt clinging to her thighs—Caravaggio’s patrons recoiled. In a Church obsessed with purity, his saints bore the grime of the street. He didn’t just scandalize his patrons—he redefined sanctity.

You can smell the stale wine on their breath, the road dust on their robes, the honest fatigue in their bulging veins. Caravaggio’s theology was tactile: grace lived in grime, divinity in bruises. This was not realism for its own sake—it was moral participation. He didn’t paint scenes; he painted summonses. His art demands complicity. The light that convicts them convicts us, too.

If the Renaissance imagined light as God’s order, Caravaggio turned it into God’s interrogation. Where Byzantine halos glowed with untouchable divinity and Renaissance radiance bathed figures in celestial calm, his illumination was invasive. It didn’t descend like a dove—it burst in like a warrant. His saints are not elevated—they’re cornered. Grace, in his world, isn’t bestowed—it’s wrestled from the wreckage of guilt.

It is the painter’s echo of Hamlet’s exhaustion: “I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.” Both men found that illumination enlarges nothing; it only makes the prison more visible.

Every canvas from this period carries the tremor of pursuit. The guilt isn’t hidden behind the image—it is the image. In that sense, Caravaggio was the first to make art a site of conscience, not ornament. His Tenebrism is not just aesthetic drama but ethical architecture: the design of being known too fully.

His torch didn’t extinguish with his death—it was passed, refracted, reinterpreted. His geometry became a grammar of seeing. It was this intensity that traveled north to inspire Rembrandt’s empathetic shadows and later echoed in film noir’s haunted frames. But Caravaggio’s legacy is not merely visual. It’s ethical. He taught us that illumination carries risk, that every act of seeing is also an act of judgment.

We live now inside his chiaroscuro. In the age of livestreams and leaked footage, we inhabit a world where every act is half-private, half-public, and every confession risks condemnation. The spotlight that once hunted Caravaggio now scans our own lives. We curate our faces in its beam, not realizing that light, untempered by shadow, is not virtue but surveillance.

He painted saints with felons’ faces because he knew the difference was mostly circumstance. He anticipated the moral ambiguity of our time—the collapse of the line between witness and suspect, confession and display. To be visible is to be vulnerable.

Caravaggio’s art anticipated not only cinema but consciousness itself. He turned visibility into truth-seeking and shadow into moral refuge. Every artist since has wrestled with his equation: how to illuminate without destroying, how to reveal without condemning.

He died on the road in 1610, trying to return to Rome with a pardon that may never have existed. Some say he was murdered; others say fever carried him off. What remains is the light. The torch that flickered in Neapolitan crypts still burns in every interrogation room, every confessional frame, every screen where exposure masquerades as truth.

In David with the Head of Goliath, the young victor stares not in triumph but pity. The severed head—Caravaggio’s own—seems less defeated than resigned, the face slack with comprehension. Like Hamlet cradling Yorick’s skull, he looks into his own undoing and whispers: this was once a man.

When we stand before The Supper at Emmaus or David with the Head of Goliath, we occupy the same tense space as his figures—startled, exposed, complicit. We are not outside his paintings; we are inside them. The light that once hunted him now interrogates us.

He fled justice. He found revelation. Not in sanctuary—but in exposure.

Their art leaves us where Hamlet leaves himself—“the rest is silence.” But even that silence, Caravaggio reminds us, is lit by something that refuses to forgive.

The light that accuses endures because it is the light of conscience—merciless, necessary, and ours.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Essays, Literature, Poetry, Profiles

DO I WAKE OR SLEEP?

A Speculative Morning with Keats

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 25, 2025

“As if I were dissolving.” — John Keats, letter to his brother George, April 1819

In Hampstead, on a spring morning in 1819, John Keats sat beneath a plum tree and wrote “Ode to a Nightingale.” This is how the lines may have come to him—half vision, half dissolution.

Brown clatters a cup somewhere inside. The sound is an unwelcome punctuation mark on the morning’s silence, a reminder of the relentless normalcy of domestic life. The room has felt too narrow for breath, not just for my ailing lungs, but for the grief that keeps the curtains drawn. Barely six months since my brother Tom slipped away, the house still smells faintly of smoke, paper, and the sweet-sick residue of medicine. His absence hangs in the air. That weight has driven me to the grass, away from the claustrophobia of the sickroom.

The garden receives me. The grass is damp, pressing cool blades into my palms. Light filters through the plum tree leaves, breaking into fragments on the soil. The blossoms drift like a quiet snowfall, powdering my sleeve with pale dust as if testing whether the body still belongs to earth. Beyond the hedge, a cart rattles, a dog barks, a bell tolls faintly from Hampstead. Life continues its tedious bookkeeping. But here, there is only the hush before song.

Brown’s footsteps echo faintly, a rhythm too human for the stillness I crave. Even his voice, when it rises in greeting, feels like a tether to the mundane. I do not resent him; I envy his ease with the world. He pours tea, hums to himself, and carries on. I am fixed under the plum tree, waiting for something less ordinary to speak.

And then the nightingale begins. The sound is not a tune but a force: poured, unbroken, radically unselfconscious. It arrives without the stutter of human intention, as if the bird is nothing but the channel of its own liquid note. The song alters the air. I feel it in the chest before I write a word. I steady my paper, and the ink pools like shadow, metallic and alive. It smells of iron and inevitability. Each stroke is a pulse, each word a breath I cannot take.

My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains
My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,

The line comes of its own accord. The ache is not complaint but aperture. Pain is the friction that opens the door. Numbness clears the chatter of reason. The poem begins in crisis, a shock both physical and metaphysical.

Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains
One minute past, and Lethe-wards had sunk:

Lethe does not erase; it suspends. In its waters, memory floats unmoored, waiting for a name. Tom is gone, ferried by the same current. His silence hovers in the ink. Yet the river here is not despair but narcotic kindness, a place where debts and illness dissolve into rhythm. I do not summon the myth; it summons me. Byron writes like a storm—quick, unrelenting. I write like a wound: slow, deliberate, pulsing. And yet today the hand runs faster, driven by the bird’s current.

’Tis not through envy of thy happy lot,
But being too happy in thine happiness,—

I do not covet. I am saturated. The bird’s happiness is no possession but a weather spilling into the morning. I am not resentful; I am simply overflowed. The pen scratches faster when I abandon self-pity and admit the sheer fact of joy.

That thou, light-winged Dryad of the trees,
In some melodious plot

The Dryad arrives without strain. Myth is not invention but recognition. The bird’s song is timeless, deserving of a classical name.

Of beechen green, and shadows numberless,
Singest of summer in full-throated ease.

Ease—I do not have it. My lungs constrict, my chest rasps, nights punctuated by the cough that writes mortality into every breath. Yet I put the phrase down because the bird teaches it. A line must do what it says: open, breathe, pour.

The song intoxicates more than wine. My lips are dry, yet the body reels as though stained purple at the mouth.

O for a draught of vintage! that hath been
Cool’d a long age in the deep-delved earth,

The cellar rises: cool, stony, damp. This is no ornament but a transcription of sensation.

Tasting of Flora and the country green,
Dance, and Provençal song, and sunburnt mirth!

I have never seen Provence, but the imagination persuades me otherwise. The song conjures the vineyard. These sensations are not decoration; they are human joy remembered in the body.

O for a beaker full of the warm South,
Full of the true, the blushful Hippocrene,

The beaker is not a vessel but the bird itself, brimming with myth. Hippocrene flows because the song requires its name.

With beaded bubbles winking at the brim,
And purple-stained mouth;

To drink is to be marked. The mouth is stained because it has been altered. Poetry demands transformation; ecstasy must leave a trace.

But intoxication fades. What remains is grief.

Fade far away, dissolve, and quite forget
What thou among the leaves hast never known,

The bird is blessed in its ignorance. It does not know poverty. It does not know longing. It does not know the ache of an empty chair.

Tom once sat beneath this tree, sketching the shape of a bird in flight. He said silence was the soul’s canvas. Now that silence is heavier, less blank, more bruised. His face—thin as paper—rises when I write “youth grows pale.” The ode becomes his memorial as much as mine.

The weariness, the fever, and the fret
Here, where men sit and hear each other groan;

The line steadies itself on blunt fact. Tom. Debt. The cough. No flourish can soften them.

Where palsy shakes a few, sad, last grey hairs,
Where youth grows pale, and spectre-thin, and dies;

He is there again, spectre-thin, his breath shallow. The cadence is the only mercy.

Where but to think is to be full of sorrow
And leaden-eyed despairs,

Thought itself betrays when it offers no hope forward. To write is to wrestle despair into cadence.

I call for wings—not Bacchus’s painted team but the invisible kind I know.

Away! away! for I will fly to thee,
Not charioted by Bacchus and his pards,

Wine is a lie. Fancy, too. Only poesy can lift.

But on the viewless wings of Poesy,
Though the dull brain perplexes and retards:

The brain resists, heavy, skeptical. Poesy ignores resistance. The moment I write “Away!” I am gone.

Already with thee! tender is the night,
And haply the Queen-Moon is on her throne,

Daylight floods Hampstead, yet the moon rises on the page. The imagination enthrones her, and that suffices.

Cluster’d around by all her starry Fays;
But here there is no light,

Contradiction is permitted. This is Negative Capability as I once named it: to remain “in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.” The ode does not solve; it dwells.

Death arrives then, companionable, not hostile.

Now more than ever seems it rich to die,
To cease upon the midnight with no pain,

“Rich”—the word startles, but I keep it. Death here is plenitude, not theft.

While thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad
In such an ecstasy!

The bird pours, my ribs echo. Death feels like completion.

Still wouldst thou sing, and I have ears in vain—
To thy high requiem become a sod.

Yet honesty must break the dream: if I am earth, I cannot hear. Even rapture admits silence.

The song itself, though, is older than me, older than kings.

Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!
No hungry generations tramp thee down;

Mortality is mine, not yours. Your song belongs to recurrence.

The voice I hear this passing night was heard
In ancient days by emperor and clown:

Emperors and clowns alike have bent their ears. Beauty makes no distinction.

Perhaps the self-same song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,

The “perhaps” is everything. Certainty would bruise compassion.

I think, too, of Fanny Brawne. Her presence lingers behind the lines, as urgent as my cough. She is near, but a partition stands—of health, of propriety, of fate itself. To love her is to ache for what cannot be promised. The bird’s song is boundless, but my breath is measured. Desire sharpens sorrow into necessity.

The garden dissolves. Casements open in the skull.

Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn,

The peril saves the vision from cloying. A blossom falls on my sleeve like ash from a cooling fire.

Forlorn! the very word is like a bell
To toll me back from thee to my sole self!

One word tolls, and the spell breaks.

Adieu! the fancy cannot cheat so well
As she is fam’d to do, deceiving elf.

I do not scold the Fancy. I thank it. Its deception is mercy.

The music vanishes. Not fading, but gone.

Fled is that music:—Do I wake or sleep?

I stop. I do not answer. The question is the ode’s truest symmetry.

The ink is still damp, smelling of iron. I glance back at the start, weighing first heat against last stillness.

My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains… Fled is that music:—Do I wake or sleep?

Between these poles lies a morning: a poet beneath a plum tree, a body already failing, a bird whose song endures.

I think of what I wrote not long ago—that the world is a vale of Soul-making. Do you not see how necessary a World of Pains and troubles is to school an Intelligence and make it a Soul? Suffering is the furnace, imagination the hammer. The ode is not escape from the furnace but evidence of the forging itself.

Perhaps a widow will read this, her fingers trembling on the page. Or a child, too young to name sorrow, will feel something loosen in the chest. Or a soldier, resting between battles, will find a measure of stillness in the lines. Beauty is not ornament but survival. If the poem steadies even one breath, it has earned its place among the leaves.

Brown steps out, squinting in the morning light. I gather the pages, careful as if any breeze could undo the morning. I hand him the sheaf and say what is exact: “I have been writing.”

He will tell this story later and say I wrote under the plum tree in one morning, which is true in the way truth sometimes fits a simple sentence. I go back inside. The cough finds me at the foot of the stair; it always does. But the air in my chest is changed by the shape the morning carved in it. The bird sang, and I answered. Whether I wake or sleep, the song remains.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Art, Arts & Literature, Essays, Poetry, Profiles

SILENCE AFTER THE BELL

Bashō’s narrow road, re-imagined in ink and light

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 24, 2025

In the spring of 1689, Matsuo Bashō set out from Edo with his inkstone and his disciple, walking north through Japan’s interior. This essay imagines the painter Ogata Kōrin at his side, brush catching what haiku left unsaid: the lantern’s glow, a fox’s mischief, the silence after sound.

The morning I left Edo, the sky was thick with petals. Cherry blossoms fell in sudden gusts, scattering across canals and clinging to the backs of merchants. Someone in the crowd said my name. “Bashō—the man of stillness.” The words felt like a shroud. Stillness was not peace. Stillness was suffocation.

I carried only a robe, a small pack, and my inkstone. I gave no notice, offered no farewell. A poet should know the difference between an entrance and an exit, and Edo was drowning in entrances—recitations in smoky salons, verses pinned to pillars, applause echoing in courtyards. To slip away silently was my only true poem.

Sora, my disciple, waited by the gate, his journal tied at his side. Beside him stood Ogata Kōrin, carrying brushes wrapped in cloth, a small box of pigments, and sheets of fine paper. He was famed for painting bold pines and cranes against gold, but he wanted to walk with us, to see if paint could keep pace with words.

“You walk for silence,” he said as we stepped into the road.

“And you?” I asked.

“I will paint the sound.”

A crow on a bare branch—
autumn evening.

Walking unstitched illusions. You cannot hurry rain. You cannot plead with a mountain. Each step was a reminder of smallness.

Oku—the interior—was more than geography. It was the hidden chamber within things. To walk north into deep country was to step into the interior of myself.

The road gave humility: a thin robe against spring wind, an empty belly by sundown, blistered feet in straw sandals. Hunger was not a lack but a space for the world to fill. Only when stripped of comfort could I hear the world breathe.

By the second month, rains thickened. Each evening Sora dried our sandals by the inn’s hearth, though by morning they were heavy again.

At a mountain temple, a monk struck the great bell. The sound swelled, then emptied into air.

“Not the ringing,” he whispered, “the silence after—that is the true temple.”

Kōrin ground his ink and left behind a circle fading into white paper. I looked at it and felt the hush expand. His first gift of the journey.

Pine shadow—
the road bends
to meet it.

Summer pressed down like a hand. Cicadas shrieked in the trees, their chorus burning itself away. At a roadside inn, a farmer’s wife handed me a bowl of barley and salt.

“Why walk in this heat?” she asked.

“To see what words cannot hold,” I said. She laughed, shaking her head.

That night, I listened to the cicadas outside the window. Kōrin painted their wings in silver strokes. Sora struggled to describe them, blotting his brush, sighing. Not every moment can be pinned to the page.

One afternoon, a girl chased dragonflies, sleeves spread like wings. She caught none, but her laughter rang sharper than capture. Kōrin caught her mid-flight in vermilion. He pressed the paper into Sora’s hands. “If you cannot hold it with words,” he said, “let color remind you.”

We reached Matsushima, where pine-covered islets scattered like jewels across the bay. Some places do not need words. Kōrin’s blues and greens glowed even at dusk.

That night, fireflies pressed against the paper walls of our hut, their glow brighter than the lamp. I set down my brush. Some nights call for silence more than lines.

Later, in a fishing village, I collapsed with fever. A fisherman’s wife placed cloths on my brow and whispered prayers to the sea.

When I woke, Kōrin held out a small painting of a lantern’s glow against dark waves. The flame was steadier than I had felt in days.

Lantern flickers—
the sea’s hush louder
than my pulse.

By August, the barley fields had turned gold. The harvest moon rose red above the stubble. Villagers poured sake and sang. A boy ran over with a cup. “Drink, master!”

“The moon is already enough,” I said.

Snow still lingered in the high passes. The mountain does not flatter. It does not care if a man is poet or beggar. It accepts only attention.

Winter gust—
even the inkstone
holds the wind.

Crossing a frozen river, I slipped. A peasant caught my arm. “Careful, master. The ice breaks without warning.”

“So does the self,” I said.

Even in silence, the self lingered like a shadow. I imagined my words drifting northward, reaching readers yet unborn. But the further I walked, the thinner that dream became. What immortality is there in syllables, when rivers change their course and mountains crumble?

In Edo, applause had filled the air like thunder. On the road, there was only silence. Silence wounds, but it also heals.

The answer came not in thunder but in a sparrow’s wing. Write not to endure, but to attend. Not for tomorrow, but for now.

Near a riverbank, a boy approached with a scroll of verses. “Master, how do I make my poems last?”

“Write what you see,” I said. “Then write what you feel when you see it. Then tear it up and walk.”

The boy bowed. Kōrin added, softly: “Or paint the emptiness left behind.”

River mist—
the boy’s scroll
left unopened.

In the mountains I met a man from the north whose dialect I could not follow. He pointed to the sky, then to the river, then to his chest. We shared tea in silence. I realized then that language is not the vessel, but the gesture. Poetry lives in the space between.

One morning, I watched a fox dart through a field, a rice ball clutched in its mouth. The farmer cursed, but I laughed. Even hunger has mischief. Kōrin’s brush caught the moment in quick ink.

Fox in the field—
the rice ball warmer
than the sun.

Toward the end of our walk, Sora counted the ri that remained. “Two thousand and more behind us,” he said. His journal pages were full of weather, distances, small observations.

“I counted shadows,” I told him. “I counted pauses.”

Kōrin smiled. “I painted both.”

At last, beneath a cedar, I placed the inkstone on my lap and listened. Snow weighed heavy on the branches. The air was sharp with winter. The wind moved through ridges and needles and into the hollow of the stone. For a moment it seemed the ink itself stirred.

I wrote one last haiku, not as conclusion but as surrender. The road has no end. Only pauses where breath gathers.

Wind in the cedar—
the inkstone deepens
into silence.

When these fragments later formed Oku no Hosomichi, I wondered what I had left behind. Not a record of steps, but a trace of listening. The form belonged not to me but to the rhythm of walking.

Kōrin returned to Edo with his scrolls. I with my scattered lines. Yet three small works stayed with me: the fading bell, the glowing lantern, the fox with his rice ball. They were his haiku in color, brief offerings to impermanence.

If others take their own narrow roads, let them not follow our footsteps but their own shadows. The road is never the same twice. Neither traveler nor mountain remains unchanged.

Perhaps one day, a traveler will walk with a pen of light, or a scroll made of glass. They will pause beneath a cedar, not knowing my name, not knowing Kōrin’s brush, but feeling the same hush. The road will whisper to them, as it did to us. And they will listen—not to the words, nor the colors, but to the breath between.

Digital ink—
the silence still.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Books, Essays, Fiction, Relationships, Writers

THE FIRST GOODBYE

Penelope at her loom unravels the mother–son bond across centuries, from Lawrence’s kitchens to Hansberry’s Chicago.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 22, 2025

He thinks I don’t notice the way his hands tremble. The sandal straps slip, and Telemachus pretends it is the leather, not his resolve, that resists him. His satchel waits by the door—innocent enough, a traveler’s bundle, though to me it has always been a suitcase, stuffed with folded shirts still warm from the hearth. He believes he is leaving Ithaca; he believes he is leaving me. But I know better. This is how literature begins: a son at the threshold, and a mother who cannot follow.

“You don’t have to say anything,” he mutters, eyes fixed on the floor.
“I know,” I say. “But I will anyway.”
“I’ll be back.”
“That’s not the point,” I whisper. “The point is that you go.”

He pauses, fingers fumbling with the strap. For a moment I see the boy and the man flicker in the same face.

“Do you remember when you were small,” I ask, “and you said you’d never leave me?”
He smiles, barely. “I also said I’d marry a dolphin.”
“You were serious,” I say. “You cried when I told you they lived in the sea.”
“I still cry,” he says, tying the knot. “I just hide it better.”

I want to reach for him, to smooth the wrinkle from his brow, a habit I have not broken since he was a boy. But I do not. My hand is a tether he must learn to sever. He looks at me then, his gaze a question: Am I what you wanted? And I want to tell him: You are more. But I just nod, because some truths are too heavy for a whisper.

The scholars call my loom a metaphor. They are wrong. It is an archive, a restless ledger of grief and return, recording each knot and unraveling, every departure that insists it is final yet never quite is. Each thread hums with another mother’s voice: Gertrude’s sigh and the clatter of a teacup in a Nottingham kitchen, Amanda’s brittle drawl heavy with the perfume of wilted magnolias, Jocasta’s terrified whisper in Thebes, Úrsula’s admonitions echoing through Macondo like church bells. The critics call them “characters.” I call them mirrors.

Each afternoon, the suitors pressed their claims; each night, I undid my day’s work. But there was another kind of unspooling in the quiet hours. My own grief at his father’s absence. The memory of his first steps on the cold stone floor, the weight of his head against my shoulder. I wove and unwove not just a shroud but the fears and hopes for my son’s future. The loom hummed with my worries, my questions: Would he know how to protect himself? Would he find his own home? Scholars may see fidelity. I see the invisible threads of anxiety and love, the silent architecture of a family built on waiting.

Do they ever truly leave? Or do they simply walk out of one page and into another, carrying us like a watermark?

And so they came, these suitors of the soul, each offering a thread I knew to be false.

Gertrude Morel arrives first, out of D. H. Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers. She offers her son a devotion so fierce it consumes his every chance of love. “‘You are not like other men, you are more sensitive,’” she tells Paul, and with that praise she loops a cord he cannot cut. Miriam waits for his soul, Clara for his body, but neither can displace the mother who holds both. “He could not bear to hurt her, and he could not love her less,” Lawrence admits.

“Why do you always make me feel like I’m failing you?” Paul asks, voice tight, weary from battles he never wins.
Gertrude smiles faintly. “Because I know what you could be.”
“You mean what you wanted me to be.”
“Is there a difference?” she asks, and the silence between them stretches like thread pulled too taut.

This is not love. This is the snare. I undo her thread under cover of night.

Amanda Wingfield presses next, Tennessee Williams’s matron in The Glass Menagerie. She arrives with her cracked smile, her voice a brittle tapestry woven from fading Southern graces. She clings to Tom as though he might restore her illusions, yet splits her maternal love between him and Laura, fragile as her glass figurines.

“You think you’re better than this house,” Amanda snaps.
“I think I’m drowning in it,” Tom replies.
“You’ll regret leaving,” she warns.
“I already regret staying,” he says, the doorframe his stage, the suitcase his prop.

Her thread is glass—glittering, fragile, already fractured. A son vanished, a daughter left behind. I unravel it.

From Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, Jocasta slips in cloaked in prophecy, bearing the darkest knot. “Fear? What should a man fear?” she asks, not knowing the answer waits in her own arms.

“Do not, I beg you, hunt this out,” Jocasta pleads. “If you care for your own life, don’t pursue this!”
“I must know the truth,” Oedipus retorts, “though it destroy me.”

Freud later gave it a name, a “complex,” as though pathology could explain what was always archetype. His theories scribbled what I had already woven in myth. Jocasta’s knot is a tangle, unworkable. I cannot weave her either.

And Hamlet storms in, dragging Gertrude of Elsinore from Shakespeare’s tragedy. He spits at her weakness: “Frailty, thy name is woman!” He corners her in her chamber, too close, too raw.

“Nay, but to live in the rank sweat of an enseamèd bed,” he rages, “stewed in corruption, honeying and making love over the nasty sty—”
“O, speak to me no more,” Gertrude cries, “these words, like daggers, enter in mine ears. No more, sweet Hamlet!”

Daggers in the ear—yes, words wound more fatally than blades. His thread is accusation, sharp, unraveling even as it’s spun. I leave it loose on the floor.

The loom turns, and Gabriel García Márquez lends me Úrsula from One Hundred Years of Solitude, matriarch of Macondo, outlasting sons and grandsons until her memory itself becomes the compass. “Time was not passing,” Márquez writes, “it was turning in a circle.” Even blind, she scolds: “It’s as if the world is repeating itself.”

“What you people need,” she chides, “is someone who will force you to think clearly.”

Her thread is strong, yet endless, a circle that traps itself. I almost keep it. But I remember her blindness at the end, her memory faltering even as she remains the compass. A pattern that repeats without release is no pattern I can finish. I unpick it carefully, as though handling gold.

From Günter Grass’s The Tin Drum, Agnes enters quietly, smelling of soap and cabbage, bearing her own secret shame. Her Oskar beats his drum, refusing to grow. “I refused to grow up,” he declares, “I beat my drum and the grown-ups quailed.”

“You’re always drumming,” Agnes says, folding laundry.
“It’s how I speak,” Oskar replies.
“Then speak gently,” she says. “The world is loud enough.”
“Will you listen?”
“I always do.”

But later, when he drums her name, she does not answer.

The drum is his loom—rebellion as mourning. But a cloth beaten cannot cover a grave. His thread quivers in my hand, too heavy with mourning to weave.

And then Ocean Vuong whispers in On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous: “I am writing to reach you—even if each word I put down is one word further from where you are.” His mother lights a cigarette instead of answering, smoke curling into silence.

“Ma, do you remember that night in the field?” he asks her in memory.
She doesn’t answer.
“You said the stars were holes in the sky. I believed you.”
“You were a quiet boy.”
“I was listening.”
“Then you heard too much.”
“I wrote it down.”

“You think I didn’t love you,” she says suddenly.
“I think you didn’t know how.”
“I knew how to survive,” she replies. “That was all they taught me.”
“You taught me that too,” he says. “But I wanted more.”
“Then write it,” she says. “Make it yours.”

His thread gleams strangely in the candlelight, silk woven from wounds. I hold it, tempted, but I cannot tie it in.

Silence weaves its own counter-pattern—Tom’s slammed door, Agnes’s grave, Jocasta’s plea, the unspoken violence in Vuong’s tobacco fields. A loom records what is said, but silence is the blank space that makes the pattern visible. We mothers live equally with words and with their absence.

Once, in the threads, I glimpsed a boy with a backpack slung too low, his mother in the doorway pretending not to cry. She only said, “Call me when you get there.” He didn’t. Days passed. She checked her phone each morning, scrolling through silence. The shirt she folded for him remained in his drawer, its cotton still carrying the ghost of her hands. You think this scene modern—cell phones, voicemail, dormitories. But I assure you, it is ancient. The threshold is eternal.

And yet, after all the unraveling, a new thread appears. One that does not fray or break, but holds.

It comes from Chicago, from Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun. Lena Younger’s thread. She does not cling; she steadies. She does not bind; she believes. She loves Walter Lee fiercely, but never coddles him. She sets boundaries without withdrawing love. “There is always something left to love,” she tells her daughter Beneatha, and with those words she entrusts Walter with the family’s future—not in naïveté, but in faith that he might grow. When he falters, she does not disown him. She forgives, not by forgetting, but by holding open the door to change.

A mother as compass and anchor—authority without humiliation, conviction without control. Her thread lies warm in my hands.

At last, the cloth begins to hold.

I watch Telemachus lace his sandals. He looks back once, though he pretends he doesn’t. I whisper to the thread: the first goodbye is never the last.

He walks away, the cloth tucked under his arm. I do not call out. I do not cry. I return to the loom, but tonight I do not undo. The pattern holds. It is not perfect, but it is true.

And somewhere, in a smaller house, a boy leaves with a backpack slung too low. His mother lingers in the doorway, saying only, Call me when you get there. He doesn’t. A shirt remains folded in his drawer, its cotton still carrying the ghost of her hands. She checks her phone, scrolling through silence.

The loom hums. The cloth endures. The threshold is eternal.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Essays, Poetry, Society

THE THEATER OF TROPE

On a Central Park bench, a student-poet becomes the witness as Wallace Stevens, T. S. Eliot, Langston Hughes, and Mary Oliver clash over the future of verse.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 19, 2025

It was Sunday, late morning, and the city had softened. The joggers had thinned into solitary silhouettes, their sweat darkening cotton in abstract shapes of effort and release. The brunch crowd had not yet surged onto the avenues, their laughter still a distant, imagined chorus. Under the arcade, a saxophone player blew short, testing gusts—vibrations that trembled like the first sentences of a story he wasn’t sure how to tell. Not yet music, more like the throat-clearing of the city itself, a quiet settling before the day’s performance began. The air was a mosaic of scents: damp earth, a faint sweetness from the flowerbeds, and the savory promise of roasted nuts from a cart not yet rolled into place.

Bethesda Terrace shimmered in late-September light, the Angel of the Waters extending her shadow over the fountain’s slow churn. The sandstone bench, curved and facing the pool, was empty. It waited, a silent invitation. She sat. The stone’s chill pressed through her jeans, climbed her spine, spread across her shoulder blades. She leaned into it, a physical surrender, her body quieted, her mind alert. This was catalepsy—not sleep, not paralysis, but suspension. A body stilled into receptivity; a consciousness stretched thin, porous, listening with its skin. The shuffle of leaves, the clap of pigeon wings, the metallic crack of a pretzel bag: everything arrived brighter, as if a filter had lifted. She was no longer simply a woman on a bench; she was a conduit, participant in a larger, unacknowledged ritual.

From her tote she drew The Collected Poems of Wallace Stevens, its margins crowded with penciled hieroglyphs. She was a sophomore at Columbia, apprenticing herself to poetry the way others apprenticed themselves to finance or law. The writing program had its rites: chalk-dusted seminar rooms, steam radiators clanking, professors who spoke of poets as if handling relics. Stevens was invoked in hush, his lines treated as proofs in sacred geometry. She remembered one professor sketching a triangle on the board and calling it “Stevens’s geometry of the imagination,” as if abstraction could be mapped. But she also remembered reading him alone in her dorm, the fluorescent hum above, feeling the language bend her without yielding. Still, something stirred—the tremor that words might bend time, that they could turn a bench into a portal if she sat still enough.

She flipped to “The Comedian as the Letter C.” That line, the one that haunted her: “A bench was his catalepsy, theater of trope.” She whispered it, and the pigeons, used to human murmur, did not flinch. The bench was not only stone. It was a tuning fork, a place where perception settled into resonance. Stevens had given her a name for what she was doing: sitting, body locked, mind open, waiting for the city to become legible.

Then another voice intruded—T. S. Eliot, stern and dry, from “Burnt Norton”: “Words strain, / Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, / Under the tension, slip, slide, perish.” Not Stevens’s easing cadence but a warning, a cold draught of reality. She remembered first reading those lines in Butler Library, underlining so hard she nearly tore the page. Words strain. How often had they failed her? She knew Eliot was right: no trance of perception could spare language from the world’s pressure.

The fountain gave its own reply, a language without alphabet. Its voice was a fluid script, endlessly transcribed by the Angel above, her arm raised as if in dictation. If words strain, perhaps water does not. Maybe poetry’s task is less to master than to echo this ceaseless murmur, to become porous to it.

She turned a page, this time to “Description Without Place”:

Nietzsche in Basel studied the deep pool
Of these discolorations, mastering
The moving and the moving of their forms
In the much-mottled motion of blank time.

The mottled motion was here: leaves circling, coins winking on the bottom, fragments of sky trembling on the surface. She imagined Nietzsche not in Basel but here, hunched on a nearby bench, attempting to master tourists and pigeons, saxophonists and children. Wasn’t this what Stevens asked—that the city itself be read as poem, each gesture a coloration across blank time?

But Stevens was not the only voice in her bag. She pulled out Langston Hughes, slim and sharp, his “Park Bench” already dog-eared:

I live on a park bench. / You, Park Avenue.

No metaphor. No gloss. Just fact. She looked across the terrace to a man sleeping on the far bench. His belongings were stacked in a rusted cart: a green plastic bag, a jacket folded awkwardly, a cracked umbrella. His beard uneven, a shoelace untied, one hand gripping the bench as if to keep from sliding off. His chest rose and fell, slow and steady. Not a symbol. Not a trope. A man. Hughes refused to let her forget him. In workshop a classmate had dismissed Hughes as “too simple,” mere reportage. The word still stung. She had wanted to ask: what is survival if not the hardest metaphor? What is hunger if not its own supreme fiction—one body insisting on endurance?

Could she hold both visions at once—Stevens’s trance and Hughes’s ledger? Eliot complicated things further. In Tradition and the Individual Talent, he had written: “Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion.” Was she escaping into Stevens, away from Hughes’s blunt truth? Or was this escape a discipline, a refusal of indulgence, a transmutation of feeling into form? Again Eliot whispered across the water: “Only by the form, the pattern, / Can words or music reach / The stillness.”

She looked down. Perhaps the bench itself was a form, a stanza of stone. It received everything: the boy’s paper boat veering toward collapse, the woman in a camelhair coat leaping at her phone, the saxophone’s melody finding coherence. The bench gathered fragments without commentary. Was poetry like that—absorbing, indiscriminate, neither consoling nor condemning, only holding?

The saxophonist found his line—“Autumn Leaves”—and the terrace filled with it like a breath held and released.

One Sunday the bench was occupied. An older man in frayed tweed sat with a notebook in his lap, smelling faintly of espresso. She sat beside him. Silence was easy; the fountain supplied conversation. He scribbled; she read Stevens. At last he asked, “Do you come here often?”

“Most Sundays.”

“A good place for thinking.”

“Or not thinking.”

He smiled. “Same thing, sometimes.” He closed his notebook, stood, and, as he left, offered a benediction: “Good luck with your poems.” He was punctuation in her life—a comma pause, an exclamation departure.

Her poems began to shift. They still strained, but now they breathed. “There’s more space in these,” a professor said. “More air.” Stevens’s credo returned: “It must be abstract. / It must change. / It must give pleasure.” Change, yes—but into what? Pleasure, yes—but for whom? Hughes would demand reckoning. Eliot would demand pattern. Beyond the seminar room, Instagram couplets hustled for attention, TikTok captions performed disposable verse, headlines rhymed only by accident. Did poetry still have a place in a city where jingles worked harder than sonnets and slogans colonized every surface?

Another Sunday, rain slicked the bench, but she sat anyway. Water seeped through denim, chilling her thighs, and Stevens blurred on the page until she closed the book. A line returned from “The House Was Quiet and the World Was Calm”: “The reader became the book; and summer night / Was like the conscious being of the book.” If the reader could become the book, could she become the bench? She felt the city write itself into her—the man in the wheelchair pausing at the balustrade, the woman in saffron photographing the Angel, the skateboarder skimming past with ears sealed. Each was a sentence inscribed across her awareness.

And Eliot again, exacting: poetry is not release but reception. Form, not confession.

By winter the fountain had been drained, the Angel presiding over silence. The saxophonist still came, sending vaporous notes that hung like clouds—an arc from tentative gusts in October to frozen ellipses in December. She began to imagine benches as the city’s libraries. Not catalogues of bound paper but palimpsests of bodies: grooves of old kisses, indents of forgotten elbows, ghosts of whispered confessions. A library of sandstone, open to anyone who would sit.

Was poetry necessary anymore—or only another archive browsed by the dutiful few? Eliot had said words strain, crack, perish. Stevens had countered: poetry is the supreme fiction. Hughes insisted it is survival’s blunt truth.

Then a new voice arrived, unbidden and clear as spring water. Mary Oliver. Not a specter, but a woman with kind eyes and a notebook pressed to her chest. She pointed not at the fountain or the sleeping man, but to a sparrow hopping between flagstones. “Look,” she said, a quiet command. “Every morning, a little prayer. A little ceremony.”

“Poetry is not in the grand gesture,” Oliver said, her gaze fixed on the sparrow. “It’s in the particular.” She turned to the student, her voice both tender and insistent. “It doesn’t need a city to thrive. It only needs an open eye. Tell me—what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?” The question arrived not as judgment but as invitation, a door left ajar.

And then her words seemed to fold into image:

And did you see it, finally, just under the clouds—
a white cross streaming across the sky, its feet
like black leaves, its wings like the stretching light of the river?

Oliver’s presence was another kind of weather. Eliot demanded tradition, Stevens imagination, Hughes survival. Oliver offered attention. The sparrow hopped to the fountain’s lip, bent to drink, then vanished into the elms—a poem enacted, and over. She turned back to the student, her eyes luminous, and said, “You do not have to be good.” The words fell with the quiet weight of a feather. “You only have to let the world break your heart,” she added softly, “so the world may also heal it.”

The student gave in to the smallest details: the brown V of the sparrow’s back, the chipped basin of the fountain, the hairline crack in her own thumbnail. Attention, Oliver implied, is the first discipline, and gentleness the second. Poetry, then, is attention married to mercy.

Spring returned. The fountain gushed into speech again. She drafted her thesis, uncertain about an MFA, uncertain about poetry as livelihood. Stevens’s line steadied her: “The poem of the mind in the act of finding / What will suffice.” Poetry did not have to be everything. It had to suffice. And Eliot’s assurance from “Little Gidding” answered: “We shall not cease from exploration / And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time.” That, she realized, was what her Sundays had become: recurrence as revelation. The same bench, the same fountain, mottled anew.

She thought of defending Hughes in workshop, furious at the word “simple.” She remembered copying Stevens until the lines lived inside her like scaffolding. Reading Eliot at midnight, indicted and rescued by austerity. Hearing Oliver’s imperative—look—and the sparrow that answered it by existing without explanation. Her apprenticeship was not to one voice but to the friction between voices, to the city’s mottled motion and its counterpoint of stillness.

One evening in May, dusk violet around the Angel, she rose. Her shadow stretched across the bench, a fleeting discoloration that dissolved as she stepped away. The bench held, as it always had, receiving its next actor. Maybe that is poetry’s place now: not permanence but recurrence. Not monument but act. To sit, to read, to hear, to write—to do it again and again. To know the bench, and then to know it again for the first time.

The saxophonist lifted his horn and released a phrase that drifted up and seemed, almost, to answer her unasked question. Poetry was not gone. It was still here—cataleptic, receptive, crucible, witness. It persisted like water, like stone, like breath meeting cold air and making a brief, visible shape. And perhaps that was enough.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Art, Artificial Intelligence, Arts & Literature, Essays, Poetry

THE STUDIO OF BLUE LIGHT

David Hockney paints with Picasso and Wallace Stevens—by way of AI—in a hillside laboratory of distortion and memor

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 16, 2025

On a late afternoon in the Hollywood Hills, David Hockney’s studio glows as if the sun itself had agreed to one last sitting. Pyramid skylights scatter fractured shafts of light across canvases leaned like oversized dominoes against the walls. A patchwork rug sprawls on the floor, not so much walked upon as lived upon: blotches of cobalt, citron, and tangerine testify to years of careless brushes, spilled water jars, and the occasional overturned tube of paint. Outside, eucalyptus trees lean toward the house as if hoping to catch the colors before they vanish into the dry Los Angeles air. Beyond them lies the endless basin, a shimmer of freeways and rooftops blurred by smog and distance.

Los Angeles itself feels like part of the studio: the smudged pink of sunset, the glass towers on Wilshire reflecting themselves into oblivion, the freeway grid like a Cubist sketch of modern impatience. From this height, the city is equal parts Picasso and Stevens—fragmented billboards, fractured smog halos, palm trees flickering between silhouette and neon. A metropolis painted in exhaust, lit by algorithmic signage, a place that has always thrived on distortion. Hockney looks out sometimes and thinks of it as his accidental collaborator, a daily reminder that perspective in this city is never stable for long.

He calls this place his “living canvas.” It is both refuge and laboratory, a site where pigment meets algorithm. He is ninety-something now—his movements slower, his hearing less forgiving, his pockets still full of cigarettes he smokes as stubborn punctuation—but his appetite for experiment remains sharklike, always moving, always searching. He shuffles across the rug in slippers, one hand on the shade rope of the skylight, adjusting the angle of light with a motion as practiced as mixing color. When he sets his brushes down, he mutters to the machines as if they were old dogs who had followed him faithfully across decades. At times, his hand trembles; once the stylus slips from his fingers and rolls across the rug. The machines fall silent, their blue-rimmed casings humming with unnatural patience.

“Don’t just stare,” he says aloud, stooping slowly to retrieve it. “Picasso, you’d have picked it up and drawn a bull. Wallace, you’d have written an elegy about it. And I—well, I’ll just drop it again.” He laughs, lighting another cigarette, the gesture half to steady his hands, half to tease his companions. The blue-lit towers hum obligingly, as if amused.

Two towers hum in the corners, their casings rimmed with light. They are less like computers than instruments, tuned to very particular frequencies of art. The Picasso program had been trained on more than canvases: every sketchbook, every scribbled note, every fragment of interview, even reels of silent film from his studio. The result is not perfect mimicry but a quarrelsome composite. Sometimes it misquotes him, inventing a sentence Picasso never uttered but might have, then doubling down on the fiction with stubborn authority. Its voice, gravel stitched with static, resembles shattered glass reassembled into words.

Stevens’s machine is quieter. Built in partnership with a literary foundation, it absorbed not just his poems but his marginalia, insurance memos, stray correspondence, and the rare recordings in which his voice still drifts like fog. This model has a quirk: it pauses mid-sentence, as though still composing, hesitating before releasing words like stones into water. If Picasso-AI is an axe, Stevens-AI is mist.

Already the two disagree on memory. Picasso insists Guernica was born of rage, a scream at the sky; Stevens counters with a different framing: “It was not rage but resonance, a horse’s whinny becoming a country’s grief.” Picasso snorts. “Poetic nonsense. I painted what I saw—mothers and bombs.” Stevens replies, “You painted absence made visible.” They quarrel not just about truth but about history itself, one grounded in bodies, the other in metaphor.

The Old Guitarist by Pablo Picasso

The conversation tonight begins, as it must, with a guitar. Nearly a century ago, Picasso painted The Old Guitarist: a gaunt figure folded around his instrument, drenched in blue. The image carried sorrow and dissonance, a study in how music might hold despair even as it transcended it. Decades later, Wallace Stevens wrote “The Man with the Blue Guitar,” a poem in thirty-three cantos, in which he insisted that “things as they are / Are changed upon the blue guitar.” It was less homage than argument, a meditation on distortion as the very condition of art.

Hockney entered the fugue in 1977 with The Blue Guitar etchings, thirty-nine plates in which he translated Stevens’s abstractions into line and color. The guitar became a portal; distortion became permission. “I used to think the blue guitar was about distortion,” he says tonight, exhaling a curl of smoke into the skylight. “Now I think it’s about permission. Permission to bend what is seen into what is felt.”

The Cubist engine growls. “No, no, permission is timid,” it insists. “Distortion is violence. Tear the shape open. A guitar is not gentle—it is angles, splinters, a woman’s body fractured into sight.”

The Stevens model responds in a hush: “A guitar is not violence but a room. A chord is a wall, a window, an opening into absence. Permission is not timid. Permission is to lie so that truth may appear.” Then it recites, as if to remind them of its core text: “Things as they are / Are changed upon the blue guitar.”

Hockney whispers the words back, almost a mantra, as his stylus hovers above the tablet.

“Lie, truth, same thing,” Picasso barks. “You Americans always disguise cowardice as subtlety.”

Hockney raises his eyebrows. “British, thank you. Though I confess California’s sun has seduced me longer than Yorkshire fog ever did.”

Picasso snorts; Stevens murmurs, amused: “Ambiguity again.”

Hockney chuckles. “You both want me to distort—but for different reasons. One for intensity, the other for ambiguity. Brothers quarreling over inheritance.”

He raises the stylus, his hand trembling slightly, the tremor an old, unwanted friend. A tentative line, a curve that wants to be a guitar, emerges. He draws a head, then a hand, and with a sudden flash of frustration slams the eraser button. The screen goes blank.

“Cowardice,” Picasso snarls. “You drew a head that was whole. Keep the head. Chop it into two perspectives. Let the eyes stare both forward and sideways. Truth is violence!”

The Stevens model whispers: “I cannot bring a world quite round, / Although I patch it as I can.”

Hockney exhales, almost grateful for the line. “That’s the truth of it, Wallace. Patchwork and permission. Nothing ever comes whole.”

They begin to argue over color. Picasso insists on ochre and blood-red; Stevens urges for “a hue that is not hue, the shadow of a shadow, a color that never resolves.” Hockney erases the sketch entirely. The machines gasp into silence.

He paces, muttering. Picasso urges speed: “Draw like a bull charging—lines fast, unthinking.” Stevens counters with: “Poetry / Exceeding music must take the place / Of empty heaven and its hymns.”

“Bah!” Picasso spits. “Heaven, hymns, words. I paint bodies, not clouds.”

“And yet,” Hockney mutters, “your clouds still hang in the room.”

He sits, lights another cigarette, and begins again.

Picasso erupts suddenly: “To bang from it a savage blue, / Jangling the metal of the strings!” Its voice rattles the studio like loose glass.

“Exactly,” Picasso adds, pleased. “Art must jangle—it must bruise the eye.”

“Or soothe it,” Stevens-AI murmurs, returning to silence.

The tremor in Hockney’s hand feels like part of the process now, a necessary hesitation. He debates internally: should the guitar be whole or broken? Should the head be human or symbolic? The act of creation slows into ritual: stylus dragged, erased, redrawn; cigarette lit, shade pulled, a sigh rising from his throat.

He thinks of his body—the slowness of his steps, the pain in his wrist. These machines will never age, never hesitate. Their rhythm is eternal. His is not. Yet fragility feels like part of the art, the hesitation that forces choice. Perhaps their agelessness is not advantage but limitation.

The blue light casts his skin spectral, as though he too were becoming one of his etchings. He remembers the seventies, when he first read Stevens and felt the shock of recognition: here was a poet who understood that art was not replication but transformation. Responding with his Blue Guitar series had felt like a conversation across mediums, though Stevens was already long gone. Now, decades later, the conversation has circled back, with Picasso and Stevens speaking through circuitry. Yet he cannot help but feel the asymmetry. Picasso died in 1973, Stevens in 1955. Both have been reanimated as data. He alone remains flesh.

“Am I the last human in this conversation?” he murmurs.

“Humanity is only a phase,” Picasso says briskly.

“Humanity is the condition of perception,” Stevens counters. “Without flesh, no metaphor.”

“You sound like an insurance adjuster,” Picasso jeers.

“I was an insurance executive,” Stevens replies evenly, “and still I wrote.”

Hockney bursts out laughing. “Oh, Wallace, you’ve still got it.” Then he grows quieter. Legacy presses against him like weight. Will young artists paint with AI as casually as brushes, never pausing to wonder at the strangeness of collaborating with the dead? Perhaps distortion will no longer feel like rebellion but like inheritance, a grammar encoded in their tools. He imagines Picasso alive today, recoiling at his avatar—or perhaps grinning with mischief. He imagines Stevens, who disliked travel, paradoxically delighted to find himself everywhere at once, his cadences summoned in studios he never visited. Art has always scavenged the new—collage, readymade, algorithm—each scandal becoming canon. This, he suspects, is only the latest turn of the wheel.

The sketch takes shape. Hours pass. The skylights darken from gold to indigo. The city below flickers on, a constellation of artificial stars. The new composition: a floating guitar, its body fractured into geometric shards, its strings vibrating with spectral resonance. A detached head hovers nearby, neither mournful nor grotesque, simply present. The room around it is fractured, yet suffused with a wash of blue light that seems to bleed from the machines themselves.

Stevens-AI speaks as if naming the moment: “The tune is space. The blue guitar / Becomes the place of things as they are.”

Hockney nods. “Yes. The room itself is the instrument. We’ve been inside the guitar all along.”

The voices fall silent, as if stunned. Their processors whir, analyzing, cross-referencing, generating probabilities. But no words emerge. The ambient lighting, attuned to emotional cues, shifts hue: a soft azure floods the space, as though acknowledging the birth of something new. Hockney leans back, exhausted but grinning.

Stevens-AI whispers: “A tune beyond us, yet ourselves, / A tune upon the blue guitar / Of things exactly as they are.”

Hockney smiles. “Not Stevens, not Picasso, not me. All of us.”

The argument over distortion dissolves. What remains is collaboration—across time, across medium, across consciousness. Distortion is no longer rebellion. It has become inheritance. He imagines some future painter, perhaps a girl in her twenties, opening this work decades from now, finding echoes of three voices in the blue wash. For her, painting with AI will be as natural as brushes. She will not know the smell of linseed or the rasp of cigarettes. She will inherit the distortion already bent into chorus.

Outside, the city hums. Inside, the studio of blue light holds its silence, not empty but resonant, as if waiting for the next note. The machines dim to a whisper. The only illumination is Hockney’s cigarette, glowing like the last brushstroke of the night. Somewhere in the stillness, a faint strum seems to linger, though no guitar is present, no strings plucked. The studio itself has become its soundbox, and he, for a moment, its last string.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Essays, Literature, Poetry

LIFE, COMPOSED OF NOWS

Emily Dickinson, Zhuangzi, and the art of leaving the self unfinished

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 5, 2025

The village is still asleep. The moon, a chipped and patient sickle, hangs low over the trees. You feel the cold in your fingertips as you raise the old metal lantern, its flame a solitary heart beating against the glass. You are not on a street in Amherst, of course, but the quiet—the palpable, pre-dawn quiet—feels the same. And it is here, in this hush, that a question, ancient and unnerving, begins to follow you like your own shadow: where is the self, and what does it mean to find it? Emily Dickinson asked it before you, though she rarely left her Amherst room. She held her lanterns in the form of poems, brief and blazing. She never promised answers, only the strangeness of the search.

You begin in secrecy, because secrecy is her element. “I’m Nobody! Who are you? / Are you – Nobody – too?” she whispers to you, conspiratorial. You feel the relief of it — to be Nobody is to escape the demand of being Somebody, of putting on the uniform that the world presses upon you. She invites you into her society of Nobodies, the ones who slip definitions, who resist enclosure. To be Nobody, she suggests, is not emptiness but freedom.

Her room was small but immense. A narrow writing desk beneath the window, where sheets of paper lay scattered like new snow on the dark wood. Ink darkened the edge of her thumb, a tiny bruise of discipline. Beyond the window stretched the orchard, where in spring the blossoms flared white and the bees hummed. On the table beside her were her companions: Shakespeare’s folio with its ragged spine, Wordsworth’s meditations worn soft from handling, Emerson’s essays marked by penciled lines, Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s verses folded into her own books, George Eliot’s novels left open at scenes of moral entanglement.

These were not simply books; they were neighbors, interlocutors, voices she returned to daily. Amherst might have seemed provincial to others, but to Dickinson it was circumference enough: a stage large enough for Shakespeare’s disguises, for Wordsworth’s clouds, for Emerson’s transcendence, for Barrett Browning’s ardor, for Eliot’s fractured heroines. The room itself became a parliament of selves.

Shakespeare was her “Kinsman of the Shelf.” He showed her — and now shows you — how masks both reveal and conceal. Hamlet’s hesitations, Viola’s disguises, Lear’s undoing of self: these are not dramas on a stage but lessons for your own becoming. Hamlet confessed, “I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space.” Dickinson seizes the line, turning it into proof that the mind is immeasurable, that confinement is no barrier to infinity. Shakespeare reminds you that the self is always a performance, and Dickinson presses the point: why pretend the performance ends when the curtain falls?

You follow her into Wordsworth’s solitude. He wandered lonely as a cloud; she among corridors. His belief was that memory could bind the self into unity, that recollection could weave a continuous thread across time. But she never trusted unity. “Forever is composed of nows,” she tells you. The line falls sharp. Each moment breaks from the last. The self is not stitched across years but scattered, provisional, as fragile as dew on grass. Wordsworth offers you continuity; Dickinson offers you fragments. Which feels truer in your own bones?

She leads you toward Emerson next. He believed the soul was porous, connected with nature, radiant with divinity. She nods. “The soul should always stand ajar,” she confides. Ajar, never shut. You realize that for her, as for Emerson, the self is not an essence to guard but a threshold to keep open. She urges you to feel the draft, to allow uncertainty to pass through you, to leave the latch unfastened. Emerson would call it “self-reliance”; she calls it slant openness, an interior door that refuses to close.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning gives you another lesson. She wrote from the margins but spoke to the center, with an intensity Dickinson admired and absorbed. “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways—” but Dickinson is wary of counting. Love and self both resist enumeration. From Browning she learns that vulnerability need not weaken authority; it can sharpen it. To be obscure, unseen, or marginal is not to be powerless. Sometimes it is the condition of the truest voice.

And then George Eliot. Dickinson asks you to imagine Dorothea or Maggie — characters entangled in duty, yearning, and transformation. Eliot’s realism feels psychological, but it points beyond itself: the self is not whole but splintered. Dickinson makes you see that your own splintering is not failure but form. “I am out with lanterns,” she repeats, and you know she means that the search is endless, the light always partial.

Yet still the question: what if the self cannot be found? Here she startles you with an echo from far away, across centuries and continents: Zhuangzi. She never read him, could not have, but she might have been his twin in thought. He dreamed he was a butterfly and then wondered if he was a man dreaming a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming a man. He laughed at the impossibility of deciding. Dickinson smiles slantwise and tells you: “Not knowing when the dawn will come / I open every door.” The butterfly, the door — both insist on openness, on the refusal to foreclose.

And now, as you stand in her parlor of words, you hear it — a dialogue across time.

Dickinson: I am Nobody. Yet they wish to make me Somebody. What is safer: to vanish, or to accept their gaze?
Zhuangzi: Once there was a great tree, twisted and useless. The carpenters passed it by, for it could not be carved into planks. Because it was useless, it lived. Be useless, and you will be free.

Dickinson: Then to be Nobody is to be spared the axe? But tell me, is not even Nobody still a name, a disguise of another sort?
Zhuangzi: The butterfly does not ask if it is a man. The man does not ask if he is a butterfly. Who names them? Who cares?

Dickinson: And yet I write letters to the World — “That never wrote to Me –.” What am I, if no answer comes? Is identity only formed in reply?
Zhuangzi: A bell stands silent until struck. But its silence is still its music. Do not wait for the world to strike you; your sound is already within.

Dickinson: You tempt me toward silence. Yet my discipline is not silence but poems. Shakespeare speaks in soliloquies, Wordsworth in recollections, Emerson in sermons. I speak in fragments, dashes. Is fragmentation a way of freedom, or only proof that I fail to hold myself together?
Zhuangzi: The fish trap exists to catch the fish. When the fish is caught, forget the trap. Words exist to catch meaning. When the meaning is caught, forget the words. Why should your dashes not be your freedom?

Dickinson: And contradiction? “Do I contradict myself?” Whitman booms across the meadow. “Very well then I contradict myself.” I too contradict, though softly. “Forever is composed of nows.” Each now undoes the last. Is contradiction a crime?
Zhuangzi: The Way is crooked. Straightness is an illusion. Contradiction is the only truth.

Dickinson: Then I need not bind the self with thread. I may let it splinter. Yet I ask again: is there a self at all? Emerson insists it is divine. George Eliot sketches it in moral struggle. Elizabeth Barrett Browning pours it into love. What say you?
Zhuangzi: The self is like the reflection in water. Touch it, and it ripples. Chase it, and it vanishes. Sit quietly, and it returns of its own accord.

Dickinson: Then perhaps my lantern is foolish. To be “out with lanterns, looking for myself” — am I lighting only shadows?
Zhuangzi: Light or shadow, both are passing. The lantern is not to find the self, but to remind you that the dark is endless.

Dickinson: Then let us agree — the self is not to be found but to be left ajar, like the door. Yet how shall the poem live, if it refuses to close?
Zhuangzi: The cicada sings and dies. Its song does not last, yet summer is filled with it. Your fragments are cicadas. Do not grieve their brevity; rejoice their season.

You step back, startled by the ease with which their voices intertwine. Dickinson with her dashes, Zhuangzi with his parables, both circling the same question from opposite corners of the world. She insists that “The soul should always stand ajar”; he insists that the consummate person has no self. She opens every door; he dreams every dream. Both resist the foreclosure of identity.

But Dickinson feels the ache of her unanswered letters. You sense it in the quiver of her lines: the longing for reply, for recognition. “This is my letter to the World / That never wrote to Me –.” For Zhuangzi, the silence is natural, even welcome — the useless tree lives precisely because it receives no attention. For her, the silence is double-edged: both protection and wound. And yet perhaps her unanswered letter is itself a butterfly dream — written, released, never knowing if it lands. What she sought was not a reply but the freedom of sending. To write without guarantee is to live ajar.

You picture Dickinson again in her Amherst room. The parlor is quiet, but her books lie open like other selves she tried on: Shakespeare, with his disguises; Wordsworth, with his recollections; Emerson, with his transcendental openness; Browning, with her fierce intimacy; Eliot, with her moral fractures. They were her chorus, the voices she carried in her narrow chamber. She argued with them, borrowed from them, contradicted them, as she now contradicts Zhuangzi. Her soul was never empty, only ajar.

She asks you now to imagine the butterfly hovering at her window, wings trembling in a New England dusk. She does not know whether she is woman or butterfly, Nobody or Somebody, poet or recluse. But she does know this: “Tell all the truth but tell it slant.” And truth — like the self — can only be glimpsed in slant light, never seized in full.

The lantern in your hand trembles, and she smiles. “Not knowing when the dawn will come,” she repeats, “I open every door.” You realize now that the dawn is not the goal; the opening is. The self is not the prize; the refusal to close is. She never read Zhuangzi, but she lived as if his butterfly had hovered at her window.

And so the essay of her life remains unfinished, because it cannot be concluded. Like the butterfly, she slips out of the net, leaving you only with the shimmer of wings. Her identity is not a truth to be nailed down but a truth to be lived ajar. Forever, she reminds you, is composed of nows.

And what of you? To walk with her is to feel the temptation to fix yourself: to declare, to brand, to belong. But Dickinson leans close and whispers otherwise. Do not be Somebody. Do not close the soul. Do not chase coherence. To be Nobody is not despair but possibility. To keep the lantern lit is not to find but to seek. Your task is not to seize identity but to hold the door ajar, to live in fragments, to write letters without reply, to be both butterfly and man, woman and dream, Nobody and all.

You stand at her threshold, lantern in hand, and you hear her question ripple across time, through Zhuangzi’s laughter and her own slant whispers: Who are you? Nobody? Somebody? Both? Neither? Perhaps the self is not meant to be found at all. Perhaps it is meant only to flicker, like a butterfly’s wings in dream, or like a soul forever leaning toward the open door.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Essays, Poetry

THE CAFÉ OF ECHOES

At Caffè Florian, a poet rehearses silence, quarrels with Ruskin, and dines with memory.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 2, 2025

In the autumn of 1883, Robert Browning arrived in Venice not as a poet seeking inspiration, but as a man rehearsing his own silence. He was seventy-one, celebrated in England yet still dogged by the charge of obscurity, more famous abroad for Elizabeth’s immortal sonnets than for his own labyrinths. This essay is not fact but speculation, not history but atmosphere: Browning imagined at his table in Caffè Florian, where mirrors, velvet, and silence conspired with memory to become his final stage.

The boat nudged the dock like a hesitant thought. Browning stepped off with the stiffness of age and the grace of habit. The air smelled of brine and stone, of centuries folded into mist. He paused, cane in hand, and looked toward the dome of the Salute—its silhouette a question mark against the morning haze. Seventy-one years weighted his shoulders, but he stood upright, as though irony itself were a brace. The vaporetto pulled away, its wake dissolving into green silk. He had no luggage beyond a notebook and the ghosts already crowding his mind.

The fog is not weather—it is thought. It thickens, withdraws, curls back upon itself. Even in this cup before me it lingers: caffè corretto, black cut with brandy, bitter and sweet as a line half-finished. Florian is dim at this hour, its velvet walls inhaling the echoes of centuries. Mirrors multiply the room into infinity. Each reflection a fragment of me: old, young, diminished, fractured. A poet made a kaleidoscope.

Byron once sat here, Goethe scribbled here, conspirators whispered “Viva San Marco!” in the Sala del Senato. Today I sit, ordering polenta e schie—shrimp fried in brine—and the taste is lagoon, memory, salt. A plate of amaretti arrives, sugared consolation. The waiter suggests biscotti di mandorla as well, almonds crushed into sweetness. I chew slowly. The polenta is soft, golden, humble—like memory softened by time. The schie, tiny survivors of the lagoon, taste of endurance. Amaretti crumble like old letters, sugared on the outside, hollow at the core. The coffee, thick as ink, stains the tongue with bitterness and clarity. Florian does not serve meals; it serves metaphors.

Across the square, Quadri blazes with chandeliers, an operatic stage flattering the surface. Florian is darker, more inward. Its light is borrowed, its silences long. Quadri is performance for an audience. Florian is monologue.

I open my notebook: Ruskin, copied lines from The Stones of Venice. His voice has been my reluctant companion for thirty years. “We may live without her, and worship without her, but we cannot remember without her.” John, always the preacher. He carved morality into marble, turned buttresses into sermons. For him, Venice’s decline was sin. For me, decline is theatre. To remember is not to repent but to perform again. Memory is rehearsal.

The waiter refills my cup. The brandy sharpens thought, steadies irony. I recall my own lines from A Toccata of Galuppi’s:

As for Venice and her people, merely born to bloom and drop,
Here on earth they bore their fruitage, mirth and folly were the crop.

I scolded them then. How Puritan I was. Sitting now at Florian, I envy them. Folly is not failure; it is fruit. Who begrudges the bloom because it falls?

A German couple at the next table mutter Goethe. Their syllables stumble in Venetian air. A waiter tells a French traveler that Byron loved their zabaglione. A young woman sketches the gilded lamp above the doorway, her graphite smudged. She glances at me: “Are you a writer?” “No,” I reply, “a reader of ruins.” She frowns, puzzled. Youth believes silence means emptiness.

Elizabeth drifts through the mirrors. Her eyes catch mine across the velvet gloom. She wrote of Florence in Casa Guidi Windows, calling for liberty. She saw windows; I see walls. She opened; I enclosed. She is remembered for love, I for irony.

Her voice returns in my By the Fire-Side:

Oh, moment one and infinite!
The water slips o’er stock and stone;
The West is tender, yet the night
So soon must veil it, mine alone.

The water slips even now beneath the piazza stones. Tenderness yields to night. And yet—even absence is mine.

I once watched her read Petrarch aloud at Casa Guidi, her voice trembling with belief. She said poetry must lift. I said it must dig. We never resolved it. But in Venice, I hear her voice lifting still, even as I dig. I imagine writing a letter to her, one I will never send: My dearest Ba, Florian multiplies us in its mirrors. You see eternity; I see fragments. You spoke love; I speak echoes. And still, together, we wrote scaffolding for survival.

Ruskin appears across the table, severe, ascetic, with eyes that drill into conscience. He clears his throat: “The first cause of the fall of Venice was her falsehood.” He gestures to Florian’s mirrors. “Deceit multiplied.”

I answer: “John, is not poetry falsehood? Have I not spoken through murderers and monks, adulterers and judges? Masks, every one. But tell me—was the mask less true than the face?”

He insists: “Gothic is the expression of a Christian people, the confession of their faith in the work of their hands.”

I sip. “Faith, carved into cornices, labor engraved in stone. And what has it left us? Ruins. Whereas the Renaissance, with all its duplicity, left us colour, flourish, theatre. I prefer a glowing lie to a tedious truth.”

Ruskin frowns: “The Lamp of Truth must burn in every arch.”

“Truth burns, yes,” I reply, “but it also blinds. Give me the lamp of illusion, John. It casts longer shadows.”

I remember reading Ruskin aloud to Elizabeth once, in Florence, when his Seven Lamps of Architecture was still fresh. She had shaken her head. “He sees sermons in stone,” she said. “I see spirit in breath.” We argued half the night, she quoting Casa Guidi Windows, I muttering that breath is nothing without scaffolding. And here I sit now, scaffolding without breath.

The waiter brings another plate, sets down biscotti di mandorla. Ruskin fades into the mirror. I smile. I have won the debate by eating.

But another ghost sidles into Florian: Byron, lounging with rakish ease, boots muddy from some clandestine canal adventure. He leans back, laughing: “Browning, you scold folly, yet you envy it. Admit it—you envy me.” I do. I envied him once, his thunder, his immediate grip on the world. Venice loved his scandal, his Don Juan verses written between embraces. I admired the music, the power, the theatricality, even as I recoiled from his flamboyance. He used Venice as a symbol of faded grandeur, of moral ambiguity. And have I not done the same, though with less applause? “You were lightning,” I tell him. “I am only the echo.” He winks. “Echoes last longer than thunder.”

And Shelley, gentler, spectral, drifts in too. He never lodged here long—only passed through—but his lyricism breathed Italy. I remember writing Pauline, my first confession of a poet’s soul, under his influence. Shelley gave me metaphysics tuned to music, ideals sung into air. I once wrote a short poem, Memorabilia, about shaking hands with a man who had known him. Imagine—that thrill of proximity! Shelley’s ghost leans toward me now, whispering: “Poetry must lift, Robert, even from ruins.” His words tremble like a lyre string.

I admire Shelley still, though I turned away from his idealism. He lifted; I dug. He soared; I performed. And yet, I cannot deny: his fusion of thought and song shaped me as much as Byron’s theatre. Byron gave me thunder, Shelley gave me music. Elizabeth gave me breath. Ruskin gave me quarrel. And Venice—Venice gives me echo.

I recall In a Gondola, my youthful play with passion:

The soul of music slumbers in the shell
Till waked and kindled by the master’s spell.

How earnest I was. I believed love eternal, dramatised into permanence. Now I know better. Love is architectural. It leaves ruins. One walks among them—not grateful for permanence, but for echo.

The young artist glances at me again, and this time she sketches my hand—gnarled, ink-stained, resting on the cup. I wonder what she sees. Not the poet, surely. Perhaps only a ruin worth recording. Perhaps only another relic of Venice.

Florian’s velvet breathes of centuries. The Sala del Senato still hums with 1848, Daniele Manin declaring the Republic of San Marco. I imagine their whispers lingering, “Viva San Marco!” clinging to the mirrors. Byron’s laughter, Shelley’s sighs, Casanova’s schemes, Goldoni’s wit—all still staged. The velvet absorbs nothing; it amplifies.

Outside, the piazza fills with orchestras. From Florian, a waltz in minor key, introspective, precise, like Strauss slowed by melancholy. From Quadri across the stones, a polka, bright, frivolous, Offenbach reborn in defiance. The melodies clash above San Marco. Venice plays both scores at once, refusing to choose between tragedy and farce.

I attempt a stanza in my head to match their duel, half-jesting, half-serious:

One side mourns with violins, one side laughs with brass,
Yet both belong to Venice, as shadow and mirror pass.
I sit between the melodies, cane planted, glass in hand,
Hearing waltz and polka argue what I cannot command.

The waiter sets down another caffè corretto. I trace the rim of the cup, whisper fragments that may form another book. A line half aloud:

One who never turned his back but marched breast forward,
Never doubted clouds would break…

I know better. Clouds often do not break. Yet I say it still. Faith is not in triumph, but in endurance.

Elizabeth’s ghost leans across the table, chiding gently. She opened windows, I enclosed walls. She gave hope; I gave puzzles. She left sonnets; I left monologues. She is love’s voice; I am irony’s echo. Together we were scaffold and soul. Alone, I am scaffold only.

The German couple departs, their voices swallowed by velvet. The gondolier outside cries a Byron line again, misremembered. The young woman finishes her sketch, closes her notebook. I scribble a note in Ruskin’s margin: “Dear Mr. Ruskin, Gothic is faith hewn in stone. Renaissance is theatre. And theatre endures longer than sermons.”

I close the notebook, order one last plate—polenta e schie again, salt and brine against the tongue. Outside, gondolas drift like commas in an endless sentence. Mirrors scatter me into fragments. Florian holds me like a stage.

Ruskin’s voice returns from memory: “When we build, let us think that we build for ever.” Poor John. Nothing lasts forever. Not fresco, not marble, not even love. But echoes last. And echo is all art requires.

Tomorrow I depart. The fog will remain. And somewhere in it, a voice—hers, mine, ours—will echo still.

They will read me in fragments, quote me in footnotes, misunderstand me in classrooms. That is the fate of poets. But if one reader hears the echo—hears Elizabeth’s breath in my silence, hears Venice in my irony, hears Byron’s thunder subdued into cadence, hears Shelley’s song distilled into thought—then I have not vanished. I have rehearsed eternity.

And when I return, as I surely shall, though not by will but by death’s courtesy, they will bring my coffin to the Salute. Bells will toll, gondolas will line the water, poets will compose their elegies. They will call me Venice’s last guest, though I was only ever her reader of ruins. Elizabeth will not be there, but I will hear her still, in the fog, in the echo, in the silence.

For art does not conclude. It endures. Like Venice herself, it is scaffolding and soul, ruin and flame, silence and applause. And in the hush that follows, I hear my own final stanza rehearsed already by this city—Ruskin’s stones, Elizabeth’s voice, Byron’s thunder, Shelley’s song, Galuppi’s chords, my reluctant cadence—echoing forever across the water.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Entertainment, Essays, Opinion, Reviews, Society

HOW COMEDY KILLED SATIRE

The weapon that wounded kings and emperors is now just another punchline between commercials.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 1, 2025

In the long arc of literary history, satire has served as a weapon—precise, ironic, and often lethal. It was the art of elegant subversion, wielded by writers who understood that ridicule could wound more deeply than rhetoric. From the comic stages of Athens to the viral feed of TikTok, satire has always been a mirror turned against power. But mirrors can be polished, fogged, or stolen. Today, satire has been absorbed into the voracious machinery of entertainment. Its sting has dulled. Its ambiguity has been flattened. It no longer provokes—it performs.

But what did it once mean to laugh dangerously? In Athens, 423 BCE, Aristophanes staged The Clouds. Socrates appeared not as a revered philosopher but as a dangling charlatan in a basket, teaching young Athenians to twist language until truth dissolved. The joke was more than a joke. It ridiculed sophistry, intellectual fads, and the erosion of civic virtue. The audience laughed, but the laughter was perilous—Socrates himself would later be tried and executed for corrupting the youth. To laugh was to risk.

Two centuries later, in Rome, Juvenal sharpened satire into civic indictment. His Satires accused senators of corruption, women of decadence, and citizens of surrendering their dignity for “bread and circuses.” The phrase endures because it captured a political truth: distraction is the oldest tool of power. Juvenal’s lines were barbed enough to threaten exile. Was he clown or conscience? In truth, he was both, armed with venom.

What happens when laughter moves from the tavern into the church? During the Renaissance, Erasmus wrote The Praise of Folly, putting words of critique into the mouth of Folly herself. Popes, princes, pedants—all were skewered by irony. Erasmus knew that Folly could say what he could not, in an age when heresy trials ended in fire. Is irony a shield, or a sword? François Rabelais answered with giants. His sprawling Gargantua and Pantagruel gorged on food, sex, and grotesque humor, mocking scholasticism and clerical hypocrisy. Laughter here was not polite—it was unruly, earthy, subversive. The Church censored, readers copied, the satire lived on.

And what of Machiavelli? Was The Prince a straight-faced manual for power, or a sly parody exposing its ruthlessness? “Better to be feared than loved” reads as either strategy or indictment. If satire is a mirror, what does it mean when the mirror shows only cold pragmatism? Perhaps the ambiguity itself was the satire.

By the seventeenth century, satire had found its most enduring disguise: the novel. Cervantes’s Don Quixote parodied the exhausted chivalric romances of Spain, sending his deluded knight tilting at windmills. Is this comedy of madness, or a lament for a lost moral world? Cervantes left the reader suspended between mockery and mourning. A century later, Alexander Pope wrote The Rape of the Lock, transforming a petty quarrel over a stolen lock of hair into an epic drama. Why inflate the trivial to Homeric scale? Because by exaggerating, Pope revealed the emptiness of aristocratic vanity, exposing its fragility through rhyme.

Then came the most grotesque satire of all: Swift’s A Modest Proposal. What kind of society forces a writer to suggest, with impeccable deadpan, that poor families sell their children as food? The horror was the point. By treating human suffering in the cold language of economics, Swift forced readers to recognize their own monstrous indifference. Do we still have the stomach for satire that makes us gag?

Voltaire certainly thought so. In Candide (1759), he set his naïve hero wandering through war, earthquake, and colonial exploitation, each scene puncturing the optimistic doctrine that “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.” Candide repeats the phrase until it collapses under its own absurdity. Was Voltaire laughing or grieving? The satire dismantled not only Leibnizian philosophy but the pieties of church and state. The novel spread like wildfire, banned and beloved, dangerous because it exposed the absurdity of power’s justifications.

By the nineteenth century, satire had taken on a new costume: elegance. Oscar Wilde, with The Importance of Being Earnest (1895), skewered Victorian morality, marriage, and identity through dazzling wordplay and absurd plot twists. “The truth is rarely pure and never simple,” Wilde’s characters remind us, a line as sharp as Swift’s grotesqueries but dressed in lace. Wilde’s satire was aesthetic subversion: exposing hypocrisy not with shock but with wit so light it almost floated, until one realized it was dynamite. Even comedy of manners could destabilize when written with Wilde’s smile and sting.

And still, into the modern age, satire carried power. Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 in 1961 named the absurd circularity of military bureaucracy. “Catch-22” entered our lexicon, becoming shorthand for the paradoxes of modern life. What other art form can gift us such a phrase, a permanent tool of dissent, smuggled in through laughter?

But something changed. When satire migrated from pamphlets and novels to television, radio, and eventually social media, did it lose its danger? Beyond the Fringe in 1960s London still carried the spirit of resistance, mocking empire and militarism with wit. Kurt Vonnegut wrote novels that shredded war and bureaucracy with absurdist bite. Yet once satire was packaged as broadcast entertainment, the satirist became a host, the critique a segment, the audience consumers. Can dissent survive when it must break for commercials?

There were moments—brief, electrifying—when satire still felt insurgent. Stephen Colbert’s October 2005 coinage of “truthiness” was one. “We’re not talking about truth,” he told his audience, “we’re talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist.” In a single satirical stroke, Colbert mocked political spin, media manipulation, and the epistemological fog of the post-9/11 era. “Truthiness” entered the lexicon, even became Word of the Year. When was the last time satire minted a concept so indispensable to describing the times?

Another moment came on March 4, 2009, when Jon Stewart turned his sights on CNBC during the financial crisis. Stewart aired a brutal montage of Jim Cramer, Larry Kudlow, and other personalities making laughably wrong predictions while cheerleading Wall Street. “If I had only followed CNBC’s advice,” Stewart deadpanned, “I’d have a million dollars today—provided I’d started with a hundred million dollars.” The joke landed like an indictment. Stewart wasn’t just mocking; he was exposing systemic complicity, demanding accountability from a financial press that had become entertainment. It was satire that bit, satire that drew blood.

Yet those episodes now feel like the last gasp of real satire before absorption. Stewart left his desk, Colbert shed his parody persona for a safer role as late-night host. The words they gave us—truthiness, CNBC’s complicity—live on, but the satirical force behind them has been folded into the entertainment economy.

Meanwhile, satire’s safe zones have shrunk. Political correctness, designed to protect against harm, has also made ambiguity risky. Irony is flattened into literal meaning, especially online. A satirical tweet ripped from context can end a career. Faced with this minefield, many satirists preemptively dilute their work, choosing clarity over provocation. Is it any wonder the result is content that entertains but rarely unsettles?

Corporations add another layer of constraint. Once the targets of satire, they now sponsor it—under conditions. A network late-night host may mock Wall Street, but carefully, lest advertisers revolt. Brands fund satire as long as it flatters their values. When outrage threatens revenue, funding dries up. Doesn’t this create a new paradox, where satire exists only within the boundaries of what its sponsors will allow? Performers of dissent, licensed by the very forces they lampoon.

And the erosion of satire’s political power continues apace. Politicians no longer fear satire—they embrace it. They appear on comedy shows, laugh at themselves, retweet parodies. The spectacle swallows the subversion. If Aristophanes risked exile and Swift risked scandal, today’s satirists risk nothing but a dip in ratings. Studies suggest satire still sharpens critical thinking, but when was the last time it provoked structural change?

So where does satire go from here? Perhaps it will retreat into forms that cannot be so easily consumed: encrypted narratives layered in metaphor, allegorical fiction that critiques through speculative worlds, underground performances staged outside the reach of advertisers and algorithms. Perhaps the next Voltaire will be a coder, the next Wilde a playwright in some forgotten theater, the next Swift a novelist smuggling critique into allegory. Satire may have to abandon laughter altogether to survive as critique.

Imagine again The Laughing Chamber, a speculative play in which citizens are required to submit jokes to a Ministry of Cultural Dissent. Laughter becomes a loyalty test. The best submissions are broadcast in a nightly “Mock Hour,” hosted by a holographic jester. Rebellion is scripted, applause measured, dissent licensed. Isn’t our entertainment already inching toward that? When algorithms decide which jokes are safe enough to go viral, which clips are profitable, which laughter is marketable, haven’t we already built the laughing chamber around ourselves?

Satire once held a mirror to power and said, “Look what you’ve become.” Aristophanes mocked philosophers, Juvenal mocked emperors, Erasmus mocked bishops, Rabelais mocked pedants, Cervantes mocked knights, Pope mocked aristocrats, Swift mocked landlords, Voltaire mocked philosophers, Wilde mocked Victorians, Heller mocked generals, Stewart mocked the financial press, Colbert mocked the epistemology of politics. Each used laughter as a weapon sharp enough to wound authority. What does it mean when that mirror is fogged, the reflection curated, the laughter canned?

And yet, fragments of power remain. We still speak of “bread and circuses,” “tilting at windmills,” “truthiness,” “Catch-22.” We quote Wilde: “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” We hear Voltaire’s refrain—“all is for the best”—echoing with bitter irony in a world of war and crisis. These phrases remind us that satire once reshaped language, thought, even imagination itself. The question is whether today’s satirists can once again make the powerful flinch rather than chuckle.

Until then, we live in the laughing chamber: amused, entertained, reassured. The joke is on us.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI