Tag Archives: Writing

More Cranly, More Stephen, Introducing Georgie

“I do not fear to be alone or to be spurned for another or to leave whatever I have to leave. And I am not afraid to make a mistake, even a great mistake, a lifelong mistake and perhaps as long as eternity too.”

Stephen says this to Cranly, after saying that he fears both that the Eucharist may actually be the body and the blood, just as he also fears that it might not be. This list is what he does not fear.

I want to be this fearless. I wish my fears did not revolve around being left, abandoned, being alone. Around being forgotten or disregarded. If I were to write a surrogate character for myself, which I have tried many times to create using the model of Stephan, she would not be able to make any statement such as this. Georgie would say

I do not fear the capacity of my own heart, to love and to care, and to break so often that it swells with scars.  I am not afraid to feel from now until the end of time.  However I do fear that these feelings might kill me.

How did he create Stephen so successfully? I want to have my own Stephen, because I feel like these things seem less trite coming from her mouth.  Or at least, I am unafraid of expressing such things if the name of the speaker is not my own.

I want to write a play in which James Joyce is a character, a sort of mentoring figment of the main character’s imagination.  She’s having a crisis of faith.  Because all I write about is Catholicism, James Joyce, and Japanese Internment Camps.  That last one doesn’t haven’t have a place in this play.  Of course, all I can think about is writing other things, rather than the actual assignments I need to complete.  Stephan Dedalus, why are you only a literary character?  I feel like we would be rather good friends…



Filed under Joyce, Self, Stephen Dedalus, Writing

Appropriation — What I learned in Hip Hop Theater

This is a poem I wrote in response to the assignment: CHOOSE A PIECE OF TEXT THAT AFFECTS YOU, AND THEN APPROPRIATE IT.  I decided to use the finale scene in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man as my starting point.




Cranly, or Convert-i-sation


I am not a cradle Catholic,
but I might as well have been.
10 years of education –
of learning my sins
and my time tables
in about the same breath.

Catholic guilt – not a matter
of blood anymore
than it ever was water.

It’s the choice to leave
food on my plate,
to go home with this boy,
to refuse an afterlife,
and always leave
something up to Fate.

He said dispassionately
how super-saturatedly
my mind is with the religion
I claim to have forsaken.

Did the idea ever occur to you,
…that Jesus was  not what he
pretended to be?

So, for me, the problem
was actually
between the altar and the stage:
two dueling devotions,
deifying myself,
missing Church to rehearse.
My mind occupied
with creations ill-defined
as temptations, a devil’s hand
transcribing my ideas
imbibing pure intentions
with dastardly machinations.
Maybe it was divine inspiration,
But I felt so trapped
in my own goddamn head
that it was Art (with a capital A)
or god (with a lower case g)
my pain or my prayers.
I felt frozen, numbed
to both His voice and mine.
Still I genuflect, and receive,
pretend to believe.

The first person to whom
that idea occurred,

was Jesus himself.

Jesus was no actor.
God is no writer.

I am never sure of it.

because you feel that the host too
may be the body and blood
the water and mud
that’s obstructing my vision
of the son of God and
not a wafer of bread?
and … you fear that it may be?

I feel that and I also fear it.

I could make a career
out of not believing this.

I will not serve
that in which I no longer believe…
I will not bow
to what I can barely perceive.
I will try to express myself
in some mode of life or art
as freely as I can
and as wholly as I can…
I will try to create
life within art
art within life, for
I desire to press
in my arms the
loveliness which has not
yet come into the world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Joyce, poetry, Writing

The Dilemma of the Lover in the Digital Age

……….Humanity is sending words over radio waves and communicating in short linguistic bursts. Text messages define relationships.  Hearts break, moments stop, dreams


are affirmed in the span of 160 characters with spaces. We begin with “i like u,” and end with “its ovr.” We use texts to infiltrate the conversations of others


, to assert our own presence where we are irrevocably absent.
……….It used to be romantic to tell someone “I’ll always be with you.” Now, we are. As long as the phon


e is on and the inbox is relatively empty, I can be with you whenever… even if I am just across the room from you. We can relay secrets, and tempt each other


to a bedroom or to madness with a word.  Keep me in your pocket – literally. I don’t ever want to be so far from you that you can’t hear your phone beep or feel


it vibrate.
……….Would you believe me if I told you that text messages are enabling manipulative complexes to flourish? That puppet strings are attached to five fing


ers, that control has never been so easy? That insinuation and context have never been so hard at work? That life clings to carefully chosen ellipses or an excl


amation point? I think you might just laugh, and then check your phone.
……….Full sentences and hand-written letters, the old tenants of genuine communication, have


been obliterated by the fast-flying-thumbs of the texter. It breaks my heart that I could write you a sonnet, perfectly footed and rhymed, and it wouldn’t fit i


n a text.  And thus, would not arrest your heart as much as that buzzing, as much as the pathetic, lifeless versions of words on that tiny screen. Can 160 chara


cters with spaces truly communicate my thoughts, my feelings? How do I reach you, if not via text? How do I connect to you, if not through cyberspace? How can I


show you that I love you? The power of writing is usually in the showing, not the telling, of something. How do I show you that I care, if not through short bla


sts of encouragement and words that may resemble affection?  Humans have created technology that sucks the humanity out of communication. Language has become an


equation, a game of reduction, how to type as much as possible without saying anything. “I love you,” becomes, “Love you,” becomes, “Love u


,”  becomes, “Luv u,” becomes, “<3 u,” becomes, “<3.” This combination of symbols – ❤ – actually means nothing. Less-than-three should not be synonymous with t


he most tender of feelings, with a most intimate affection. How do I tell you that I love you if words have lost all meaning? I can’t contain this to a text.

Leave a comment

Filed under fiction, Writing