Dan Beachy-Quick whets the writing appetite.

The itch to write attacks me whenever I read Dan Beachy-Quick. Today, I came across an essay where he says that becoming a poet means accepting the debt of others as one’s own, and working to repay it so that the dead can be freed from their own debts of bondage. The work, here, involves forgetting the poems one has loved in order to be able to write one’s own.

He looks at a psalm, noticing how reading transforms each word from anticipation to memory.

Of Menelaus’ wife, he says: “A cloud is just dirt holding its breath.”

Of Augustine, he says forgetting is an awareness of “absence being present.”

Of betrayal, he says one the poet betrays the poem by desiring “quiet in words” or “silence in music.”

Of Greek verbs, he admires their middle voice as the space “when the verb acts upon itself.”

Beachy-Quick wrote his undergraduate thesis on Czeslaw Milosz and eschatology because he was curious about the end of time as a beginning. “Each memory has its own life,” he says, even though it pretends to be a replay of our own lives. Each memory makes its separate demands of us. I thought of the ghost who demands too much of its host — how this ghost is named a vampire, or one who sucks life from the veins of the living.

I use his essays as prompts. For example, this page which lists “Titles of Forgotten Books” makes me think of Anne Carson’s short lectures, and tiny prose poems that speak obliquely to a subject, leaning into a Dickinsonian slant. One might pick three titles from this list and use them as titles of short lectures, borrowing the form from Carson or Mary Ruefle.

DBQ teaches me to play with etymology continuously, unceasingly, as a monk prays atop a mountain which cannot be the peak of any world. Take a word you love — oracle, shell, carapace— and then do two things to it. Stain it and strain it. The difference between staining a word, where stain is to “tinge with color other than the natural one”, and strain is “to draw tight”, can illuminate how a word bounces inside its modifiers and context. A question to consider during edits, when eyeing a phrase or word: Do I want to stain this word or strain it? Why?

Two translations of Tudor Arghezi.

Because it is Saturday morning, and Arghezi returned yesterday in my readings of Benjamin Fondane. And so here is "Ceasul de apoi" by Tudor Arghezi, which could also be translated as “The Doomsday Clock.”

And here is one more… which feels awkward, which speaks of poverty and failure and carries the undercurrents of a wooden tongue. Arghezi titled it "Flori de mucegai,” which means “flowers of mold,” but one could argue for a translation of the title into “Mold, flowering” or “Mold flowers.”

Ending the first stanza with “it” and beginning the second stanza with this same “it” is very Arghezi, very typical of his elliptical moments and friskiness with pronoun-reference.

"LASS / LET" by Aria Aber.

Lass, which could mean many different things in English: sweetheart, young girl, a feminine darling. In German, it only means to “let” something happen...

The line that has carried me through my nights, companioned or no, my lyrical creation myth, begins as an imperative in both languages. It supposes obedience, wants to instruct. Like a master, this word heralds into the room with agency, with an agenda. Rilke wrote, “God talks to us before he makes each one of us”—what tameness brought him there?

Gott spricht mit jedem von uns ehe er in macht—

Rilke wrote The Book of Hours in Russia, where he was startled by God's presence. Like Nietzsche before him, Rilke thought God to be pantheistic, all-encompassing.

Marina Tsvetaeva said of Rilke that he was pure; poetry incarnate; that he was the only clean, and cleansing, soul among war-destroyed Europe, because his poetry refused to acknowledge that terror.

My mother let me happen to her. She let prison happen to her, simply because she believed in Women's Rights and Afghanistan as a sovereign state. She went to prison with her little sister, and she emerged. She was, I can say now, a political prisoner. She let it happen to her; then she decided to leave her family behind, move on for love, for family, for me.

This sacrifice let her become monstrous. She let monstrosity happen to her, then offered it back to me. When I ask, “God, who am I?” am I not just asking, Mother, who are you?

Let me rephrase this—are there any mothers that aren't cruel, perverse, unbelievable?

Rilke's mother, to this day, is called “perverse” and “unbelievable” by many male critics. She is ostracized, her own monster. She was a woman, she had her tics. She had opinions.

Rilke, who writes as neither man nor woman, is influenced mostly by God. Rilke loves God endlessly 𝑢𝑛𝑑 is not ashamed of it. Brecht called his relationship to God “gay.” I like to believe Rilke wouldn't have cared, would have said: “Let me be gay with God, then.”

As Ulrich Braer puts it, Rilke's God wasn't a fascist or heterosexist; he simply was, encompassing both the finite feelings of physical intimacy and his Drau fensein, his being-outside.

The transitive verb 𝑙𝑒𝑡 supposes danger; it is aware of the other, like paranoia. It is influenced by the other, only exists in relation. Let is only summoned when we want to be done away with: let me do this.

Meaning: give me permission. Let this happen to you. Let it go.

Meaning: I give you the permission to abandon it. Let me go outside!

Let me be

everything that happens to you.

[from Hard Damage, University of Nebraska Press]