"Some modern travellers still pretend to find Acephalous people in America."
Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopædia; or, an universal dictionary of arts and sciences, 1753
awoken by brawl
two cats fight, the others flee
claws out on my chest
summer dawn
the heat, pervasive
clutch my lungs
death arrives
by temperature
to melt brains
stumble into tub
turn on faucet, the wrong one
head scalded again
try to towel back
but wrench it, now pain is where
no water should be
fast forward
my day is rather
dull, you see
sit down to compose
works of astounding genius
read Kotsko instead
write one good sentence
erase it now, a senseless
git is what I am
inhale slow and deep
inspiration, it will speak
to someone else now
do not yell at me
what right have you, to scold me
for accuracy
I am just haiku
don't blame me for shortcomings
not my fault you're dumb
to take it outside
you want to take it outside
screaming, you will bleed
poems like me can fight
beat the likes of you, crippled
but with pretensions
yes I like my dawns
and frogs, and dawn upon frogs
and snow on fields too
not on fields of frogs
have you ever read haiku
dumb ass, you dumb ass
do you like me now
all up in your grill, you cry
but Mom hates weaklings
bested by a poem
Scott curls in a ball, pussy
willow, he bends like
Scott best give up now
if he knows what's good, for him
death, I bring with look
see that pony there
I kill it now, for pleasure
and laugh when it dies
I look like a poem
but sting like an enraged bee
you die, for honey
death pangs, they suit you
worthless, all your work has been
give up, already
NEXT POST
No, You Weren't Thrown a Curve [File under Language Log-lite.] The phrase "throw X a curve" means "to surprise someone with something difficult or unexpected." That definition baffles your average baseball fan. Why would a hitter be surprised if a pitcher featuring a curve in his repetoire throws one? Yet, according to Google: throw * a curve ~89,400 throw * a curveball ~16,700 throw * a curve ball ~25,200 threw * a curve ~50,200 threw * a curveball ~14,200 threw * a curve ball ~17,600 Husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, sons, daughters ... bosses, employees ... assistant regional managers, assistants to the regional manager ... Mother Nature and Life-with-a-capital-"L" all throw unsuspecting "batters" unexpected curves. You would think, with all these curves being thrown, people would realize that everyone and everything can throw a curve. Then why is it so effective? Because everyone and everything also features hard cheese. (Get a little smug and you'll find some mustard on it.) By baseball logic, that's the only way to be "surprised" by a curve. Note the scare quotes. You're not "surprised" by the curve so much as you have to start your swing early in case you're thrown a good fastball. But a change-up (which looks like a fastball but flies 5-10 m.p.h. slower) would "surprise" you in the exact same way. The "surprise" lies in the speed differential. You cheat on the fastball and anything slower—be it a curve, change-up, slider, knuckler, what-not—will "surprise" you in the very same way. So why is the curve singled out? Why does X always get you with the curve? I'm not qualified to answer that question. (I would've been if LSU hadn't dismantled the linguistics department, but then I wouldn't have caught people having sex in my office and never come to your attention. He does work in mysterious ways.) But I insist on commentarying anyway: You have not been thrown a curve. You've been frozen by an eephus: The Eephus is thrown overhand like most pitches, but is characterized by the unusual high arc of its trajectory and its corresponding slow velocity, bearing more resemblance to a slow-pitch softball delivery than to traditional baseball. It is considered a "trick" pitch because in comparison to normal baseball pitches (70 to 100 miles per hour), an Eephus pitch appears to move in slow motion. Hitters typically get very anxious, swing wildly, or ground out. God and everything you imagine exists in His Creation don't throw a curve. They throw an eephus. You weren't looking for it. Didn't expect it. But there it is ... floating erratically, so very seductively ... yet there's nothing you can do. You've already finished swinging. You thought they'd throw you a curve, but they threw you for a curve instead. What? Threw you for a curve? Crap, I have no clue what that means ...PREVIOUS POST
Well, Who Would Conservatives Have Us Footnote? [This inflammatory baby originally appeared on The Valve. But you're welcome to comment and/or link to it here.] Laura Ventura, a law student from Indiana, picked up the then-latest issue of Critical Inquiry and read Anne H. Stevens and Jay Williams’ article The Footnote, in Theory. She was horrified: For those who doubt the far leftward tilt of college campuses, one needs to look no further than an article published in the University of Chicago’s Critical Inquiry to dispel such doubts. An article by Anne H. Stevens and Jay Williams titled “The Footnote, in Theory” chronicled Critical Inquiry’s most frequently cited theorists throughout its existence. The number one cited theorist by the magazine was none other than Jacques Derrida, “the father of deconstruction.” Exactly what deconstruction means is hard to say because even Derrida himself could not give a definition. In a nutshell, deconstruction is a method for discrediting historical theorists such as Aristotle and Plato for the sole purpose of promoting Derrida’s own beliefs. Her deep familiarity with Derrida’s oeuvre notwithstanding, I question Accuracy in Academia’s decision to publish such a laughably ignorant article. Maybe a friend should’ve told her that anti-Derridean polemics account for half of Derrida’s appearances in CI. Proof? Of course I have proof. Responsible scholars—future lawyers, even—read the works they criticize, lest they risk writing the equivalent of this: For those who doubt the anti-Americanist tilt of college campuses, one needs to look no further than an article published in the German Studies Association’s German Studies Review to dispel such doubts. An article by Anne H. Fritzsche and Jay Ametsbichler titled “Die Fußnote, in der Theorie” chronicled German Studies Review’s most frequently cited theorists throughout its existence. The number one cited theorist by the magazine was none other than some German Guy, “the father of some German school of thought.” Exactly what some German school of thought means is hard to say because even that German Guy himself could not give a definition. In a nutshell, some German school of thought is a method for discrediting historical theorists such as Aristotle and Plato for the sole purpose of promoting some German Guy’s own beliefs. Before you protest how unfair my parody is, consider what Ventura follows that with: Notably absent from the list is C. S. Lewis. It is a fair assumption that he was most likely left off the list because of his strong Christian beliefs and influences. This factor certainly sets him apart from number two on the list, Sigmund Freud, who did not have any religious convictions. Realistically, the fact the Lewis was a Christian most likely sets him apart from all the “theorists” on the list. I’m so blinded by the fact that C.S. Lewis rarely appears in CI because he’s a Christian, I can’t see her argument to refute it. “Realistically,” it is such “a fair assumption” I can do nothing but accept its accuracy. Sure, sure, the actual reason Lewis “was most likely left off the list” was that...
brooding over work -
some inspiration online?
back to empty page...
Posted by: N. Pepperell | Friday, 28 July 2006 at 11:17 PM
Will all commenters
Respond to this in haiku?
It was very droll.
Posted by: Chance | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 12:28 AM
"Bleeding, you will scream":
the most frequently used line
of all haikuists?
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 07:45 AM
That's an inversion.
Good haikuists always use
"Screaming, you will bleed."
Posted by: Chance | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 12:35 PM
I was pointing out
Scott's artful devitation
from the haiku norm.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 08:33 PM
(The above haiku
rests upon the assumption
that my line was right.)
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 08:34 PM
Be that as it may:
the best-constructed haikus
end in "Fuck you clown."
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 08:35 PM
everyone, please stop
both lines please, in their own way
now, who wants ice cream
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 09:36 PM
Pepperell, a name
with so many syllables
too much, for haiku
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 09:41 PM
he wrote a haiku
parenthetical, in throngs
people cheer for him
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 09:45 PM
addictive, haiku
is, poorly executed
so should I be, now
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 09:47 PM
We English speakers
find haiku easy and fun.
We're missing something.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 10:00 PM
For challenge,
why not write haikus
in Latin?
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 10:02 PM
my Latin
rusty, like a spoon
long immersed
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 10:11 PM
and Catullus wrote
epigrams, which brutalize
us, unspeakably
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 10:16 PM
stupid Latinate
words, too many syllables
to squeeze in haiku
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 10:17 PM
hit count, it rises
this haiku war, helps offset
the weekend doldrums
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 10:19 PM
Laughing so hard, my
Sides splitting, I say "Enough!"
No more haiku, you.
Posted by: Belle Lettre | Saturday, 29 July 2006 at 11:09 PM
Dorks, they are, big dorks.
Yes, Kotsko, of course, no doubt.
Especially Scott.
Posted by: CR | Sunday, 30 July 2006 at 01:48 AM
A summary:
US iconoclasts
filling lazy weekends with
ropey rhyme schemes
Posted by: BC | Sunday, 30 July 2006 at 06:32 AM