.JPG)
When I only knew one thing
about you, I imagined what
You could be, and {you}
were miraculous to see:
I wanted to belong.
When I knew two things about
you, I believed {you} even more:
two good things, the rest in hiding,
grounded in a spring. How deep,
how full (for how long)?
Then I came to know three things
about you, the third less than
ideal. But still, then I
knew that you were real –
my fondness no less strong.
But I had to learn four things
about you, and this one I
didn't like at all (not just
for making my ballad stall:
my heart was in that song).
Next I learned five fucking
things:
pestilent, breeding fast with
darkness like a rat under-
hearth in a cozy home, fat
on two, three things high-hung.
on two, three things high-hung.
Then I learned another thing,
six now (I was flinching
before it cut), a smell not
sweetly old like the pantry, but
midden-hidden, pink and young.
Some day there will be seven
things (through a door, from this
cold street) that I'll see of you:
a rats' or a hearth's majority
(then again, I might be wrong).
The title:
ReplyDelete“Qual,” in its main sense, is short-tongue talk for qualitative research … this poem is all about Grounded methods (letting the data inform the theory-building, guide analysis, and thus direct the ongoing data collection). You have to be constantly somewhat lost and curious – that's how you know you're staying true to the method (i.e., here, really trying to understand the nature of another person).
The “?” implies a (misspelled) second “cual” in Spanish – a word whose sound rolls off the tongue more fittingly for its meaning, I think, than our English counterpart, “which.” “Which” makes your face so purse-lipped and stern; “cual” makes you raise your cheeks and wrinkle your nose briefly, like you're squinting and looking for the answer … “Which one is she? Cual tipo de persona es ella? Una mujer como un dulce hogar, o como los ratones hambrientos quien envaden la despensa y hacer un lio de la buena comida que lo sustenan?”
Is it qualitative to try and decide whether a woman is worth dreaming about? Or is it quantitatively reductive – a binary: “To pursue, or not to pursue?” Which is it? And which is she? Maybe “What?” is a better question than which. More tangled (as many matters of the heart tend to be).
* Thanks to David (faces & sheep), Julie (forest fire), Laura (heart pajamas), Les (Bridge across gully {overlay}), and Maria (Whitman quote) for making this collage full.
ReplyDeleteOf course you also knew that "Qual" is German for torment, the exact sensation shooting through my veins while subjecting myself to this poem.
ReplyDeleteOkay, the last part is just because it offered itself, I actually like the poem, but nonetheless this 3rd layer of meaning to the title still fits somehow, ¿no?
The poem strikes upon a bitter and somewhat selfish but comical sentiment I often feel when meeting new people or even gaining greater depth on who a person is. The “{you}” we create in our minds provides for the beginning magic felt when so many possibilities exist. People are so much more miraculous as curate and imagine what they could be. You don’t even have to know, its just the sentiment of good things to come. The honeymoon period lasts even longer with the second thing giving more conviction (“I believed {you} even more”) but reality inches in there is a stop but still the dream is kept alive. It becomes comical as the feelings deteriorate into a too true dose of reality of the true nature of people articulated by “five fucking things.” We start to give up when our expectations are not met but the final line with “then again, I might be wrong” takes blame for what has happened. The real person being explored has not led on any false characterizations of themselves. It was the interpreter that created ridiculous expectations that were sure to fail. I’ve been told to lower my expectations because I will constantly be disappointed. But in the same vein, how terrible is it to lead a life of lowered expectations? I guess it just depends on if you are okay with being lonely and disappointed for a while.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think that to be quantitatively reductive is more of a reflection on yourself upon another person and your wants while qualitative is discovering who the person is and if you want to insert yourself into their world. I think it depends on who the person is and if they painfully create their worlds or join others. It also depends on the person. But it would be less selfish and less disappointing to just be qualitative.