“Everyone is a reader… some just haven’t found their favourite book yet”

Everyone is a reader some just haven't found their favorite book yet

I find myself deeply frustrated when I ask someone what their favourite book is or what authors they like to read and they reply something along the lines of “I don’t like reading, it’s not for me” or even worse, “reading bores me”. Before I start, let me just note that my frustration does not come from a pretentious place. In fact quite oppositely it comes from a place of sympathy, for I really do believe that there is the ideal book out there for any and every one. I study English, 90% of my life is centred around books and reading, but there was an experience I had to have, that I believe everyone can have, in order to realise I was in fact a keen reader. This experience is not the first book you read, but the first time you read a book and it shifts you, and places you in this space whereby all you want to do is think and think, you have tons of ideas, passions, opinions etc. and they are simultaneously all consuming and all addictive; it’s kaleidoscopic.

After you find your favourite book you will want to read more and more! It gets you onside, it convinces you that reading is too enriching an experience to deny yourself. When you read you are introduced to places, ideas, emotional spaces, characters and philosophical depths that you may not otherwise get to spend time with and learn about. Of course it is impossible to enjoy every book you read, but when you read a book and you dislike it you can enjoy exploring the reasons why. Why did that character annoy you? And what does that tell you about your own character? Reading encourages you to be self-reflective and to meditate upon questions of selfhood, which are imperative things to do in order to have a healthy relationship with yourself.

(Okay I can’t stop myself, cue a delve into the benefits of reading…) Reading makes you a wittier person. When reading you enter a form of dialogue with the characters yes, but also with the imagery, the lexis, even the syntax. As you analyse and judge the merit of this book you are also perhaps unknowingly becoming a faster thinker. In those moments whereby you disagree with a character, or you notice something that intrigues you about the way they see the world and from your facial expression as you read on, you notice yourself reacting, you’re animated with strong opinions. Even if it doesn’t help you to sharpen your own wit, reading does provide a lovely little opportunity to ‘borrow’ certain witty statements from the characters you come across and slip them into your non-fictional conversations. As well as broadening your vocabulary almost sub-consciously.
Whether you read to study, or read as a hobby, reading is company and to be honest yes we shouldn’t read just for entertainment but sometimes we do and its okay, it’s comforting. Just think about the amount of voices you can access from reading a book. You have the narrator’s time and attention and they have yours. Whether you read poetry, short stories, novels, or even a daily column, you are a reader and even if it takes a really long time, I encourage you to persevere and I can almost promise that you and your favourite book will meet in the kaleidoscopic moment that results from the challenge of establishing your individual reading style.

A few suggestions (of varying genres):
Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte (I first read this at 17 and had read a lot before it. However, this was definitely that book that had a kaleidoscopic effect of me! First of all I felt compelled to read it all over again straight afterwards! And second of all, it was the first time I had read a book and broke down into tears, the sadness of which lasting for days! …but obviously I’m not suggesting that your favourite book should be judged on the tears you shed.)
Peter Pan, J.M Barrie
David Copperfield, Charles Dickens (for those that have a lot of time it is definitely worth it, the characterisation is fascinating)
The Plague, Albert Camus
One Day, David Nicholls
Frankenstein, Mary Shelley
Nights at the Circus, Angela Carter
Enduring Love, Ian McEwan
Sense and Sensibility, Jane Austen
Tender is The Night, F. Scott Fitzgerald
Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov
Watership Down, Richard Adams
Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck
The Kite Runner, Khaled Hosseini
The Five People You Meet In Heaven, Mitch Albom
The Complete Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle
The Sense of An Ending, Julian Barnes
Me Before You, Jo Jo Moyes (for those that want the floods-of-tears moment)
Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks
Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte
The Outsider, Albert Camus
The Child in Time, Ian McEwan
The Forrests, Emily Perkins
The Silver Sword, Ian Serrilier
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
Dubliners, James Joyce (fantastic short stories)
The Butterfly Lion, Michael Morpurgo (never rule out children’s literature as an adult)

Image Cited From http://www.pintrest.com

My Pretty Face

The devious member of staff

The pretty face

‘The one to watch’ with her

 I’m-so-naïve glare


My little slave

As the deceiving twin would

I told her she was my salvation


In that salmon scale space she occupies

She is my fisherman,

Reeling in dinner as we speak,

A batch of fresh human eyes


This morning when I woke I was starving

In an attempt to feed me,

Pretty face drove her spear into a male heart

As quickly as a fallen apple bruises

The heart was brimming with my favourite poison

Hands as wet as my appetite

Pretty face handed me her resume

Well aware that when my hunger was appeased

She was dead meat defeated



Making sense of Derrida and his philosophy of language, and failing to put it into words (sorry, the pun was irresistible)


Jacques Derrida was a French Philosopher who developed the rather overwhelming and terrifying (if you ask me) concept that language fails us, as well as challenging the idea of an essential reality. Perhaps the best known out of the post structuralists, he launched a philosophical attack upon the idea that feelings, thoughts, and ideas exist outside of the language we use to express them. I suppose Derrida’s argument scares me, and maybe, well hopefully, others too because of the stark truth that there is no alternative to language to communicate meaning. If language is failing and deceiving us, we are immensely helpless to escape this deception.

Key Concepts
1. It is impossible to tell someone what you really mean: Derrida was deeply concerned with the failure of language. Language is all we have to express how we ‘feel’, yet it is also the very thing that fails to express this ‘feeling’ adequately. Derrida suggests that when attempting to describe a feeling to others the subject will always fail to capture meaning, they will be merely engaging in the process of what he calls differing. What is being described is not being defined by what it is, but by difference. So, to put it simply (if it is possible) when you are describing meaning you are only ever referring to other signs, you are merely free falling down the slippery linguistic system.

For example: you want to tell someone you love them, so, as is procedure, you utter the words “I love you”. However, the moment these words become phonic, they are taken from the real in which they were conceived and placed into the imaginary. I suppose the easiest way to get your head around the concept is to consider the idea that to every single person love surely does not meet the same definition? The meaning of “I love you” is so uniquely arbitrary to everyone, therefore, love has multiple meanings. Every time someone says “I love you” they temporarily become the author of the sentence, they attach to it a new meaning, then, someone else says “I love you” and once again, the words fall into slipperiness and meaning is redefined. So basically, whoever you fall in love with will never actually know, because you will fail to put whatever ‘love’ is into words. See, language is slippery and deceptive, it’s trying to ruin your relationship (okay, the last few sentences are not valid Derridean points, just me, trying to be funny, but hours of reading Derrida does that to you)

2. Words just refer to other words and not thoughts or feelings: to Derrida, nothing escapes this endless play of meaning, and the endless differing that takes place. The concept of ‘play’ is key here. Play refers to how language is right in our grasp and slipping away from us all at once! Look at the word play as a perfect example, play could refer to performance, to action, or to escaping language, for you need no words to play in some circumstances. The multiple meanings of ‘play’ in itself is an example of not only how words refer to other words, but of Derrida’s rejection of a text only ever having one meaning. Leading on to the next point….

3. “There is nothing outside of the text” (NATC 1692) Derrida rejects the idea of an assumed universal truth. For this idealises the idea of something having a centre, and subsequently, something fixed, meaning, fixed. Derrida favours de-centring. He urges a mode of thought that considers the idea of a text having an original presence as elusive. (getting metaphysical now) the very concept of ‘presence’ is reliant upon reconstruction and interpretation and is defined by what is absent, it gets its definition by it’s other, which is exemplary of Derrida’s point that the linguistic system is slippery and based upon differing in space and time, fixed definition is impossible in such a system. Another way to think of the concepts of ‘presence’ and ‘absence’ is the idea that if words refer to other words then how can there be a point of origin? Maybe there never has been, and never can be a ‘present’?

Of course, these key concepts I have constructed are only a very basic attempts to make sense of Derrida and deconstructive theories; spring boards into post structuralism. Derrida’s attack plunged right into the depths of meaning, truth, identity, and philosophy. What I have written is individual understanding and interpretation! I suppose this is okay, because (cue Derridean mode of thought) in essence surely everything is interpretation? In the giant web of meaning where our language habituates if every signifier points to another signifier then the meaning and authorship of words will always be arbitrary?

1. For further reading Derrida’s book Of Grammatology (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Of_grammatology.html?id=95ZyM7vujG0C) a very short video of Derrida discussing deconstruction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgwOjjoYtco)
2. In order not to lose all of your sanity… go for a long, leisurely walk and think about everything but Derrida for a while!

Derrida, Jacques. “From Of Grammatology”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd Ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 2010. 1688 – 1607. Print.
Image Cited From http://www.giphy.com

How is the female body ‘docile’? Key concepts and quotes from Susan Bordo’s “Unbearable Weight”


Introductory Notes:

  • Susan Bordo:  modern feminist philosopher
  • Bordo’s work focuses on how gendered bodies are formed, in particular her essay “Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body” provides an analysis whereby Bordo looks at (with frustration) how popular culture shapes the female body
  • She is often considered as being amongst the “founders” of body studies, which may be understood as the way in which culture shapes how both sexes should be looking upon each other and what they should be deeming desirable in the opposite sex
  • Some Influences:  Michel Foucault, Helene Cixous, and Sigmund Freud (note that she is influenced by theory, but her purposely politically stirring work reaches to an audience further than academic studies)
  • She strives to note how women are more prone to suffer from illnesses both physical and psychological and focuses on hysteria, anorexia, and agoraphobia in particular to demonstrate how such illnesses can be seen as examples for how women use their bodies to insert themselves into “the network of practices, institutions, and technologies”
  • A Common Theme: the personal and political are not separate in Bordo’s work. The woman and her relationship with her body is a reflection of how culture moulds gender performance. The power source that sustains the mould is the hold that ‘being perceived as attractive’ has on us.
  • Note: Bordo is very careful not to assert that illnesses such as anorexia are purely social and cultural coding’s induced by dominant ideology – she offers a feminist interpretation, and analyses social discourses and the ongoing construction of the feminine body


Some Key Concepts:

  • The female body can be considered as a text in itself. It can be read as an example of how society uses cultural images to regulate the female, disciplines consisting of makeup, dress, diet to name but a few, are examples of how the body is subconsciously (and scarily) exacted and normalized in everyday cultural discourse
  • Eating disorders today parallel the hysteria that infected (metaphorically) women in Victorian Britain. Both disorders are indicative of greater cultural struggles.
  • Anorexia is a self-defeating form of protest – for whilst the subject is questioning the cultural ideals that shape her life and body, she is as the same time being absorbed into a self-absorbing, isolating fetish. In attempting to protest the way in which her body culturally functions, she is now physically unable to function in fully health – this highlights the self-defeating nature of such a protest
  • The living body is trained and shaped, it is docile. It is socially adapted into what Bordo calls a “useful body” an example of which being the nineteenth century ideal of the hourglass figure, which is symbolic of how easily bodies succumb to domestic and sexual ideals placed upon them, the strait lace, starvation and subsequent lack of mobility to look this way restricts the body to a sphere of correspondence to aesthetic norm
  • Bordo looks at the symptomology of Anorexia, Agoraphobia, and Hysteria and considers their political significance. For example;

–          Anorexia see’s the subject literally and physically whittling down the space in which they occupy in society, Bordo considers the anorexic body as a “caricature” for the ideal of “hyperslenderness” ideal for the modern woman. She suggests that the anorexic body is inscribed with very much alive and pulsing conceptions for the ideal for domesticated femininity, for the anorexic and the domestic woman share the similarities of feeding others before the self, nurturing likewise, and considering self-feeding as greedy. Not to mention that the physically weak body carries “connotations of fragility and lack of power” when placed alongside her male counterpart. Bordo also continues to develop an interesting point that in order to function neutrally and (for lack of a better word) happily in society, the subject must strike a balance between female and male sides of the self, when they are anorexic they are practising a masculine language and values of “emotional discipline, mastery, and so on” however, at the same time, their bodies are keeping these skills restricted to the task of keeping them away from the public arena, they are not occupying a ‘happy’ medium.

–          In Agoraphobia the woman loses her social mobility. In being homebound she is being restricted to a controllable sphere. Similarly, when she is hysterical and muted she becomes an ideal of “patriarchal culture” in that she becomes the “silent, uncomplaining woman” (2249).

Key Quotes:

“female bodies become docile bodies” (2241)

“at the furthest extremes, the practices of femininity may lead us to utter demoralization, debilitation, and death” (2241)

“The symptomology of these disorders reveals itself as textuality” (2243)  – Bordo encourages one to consider the disordered body as symbolic and to pry at possible political meanings etched as deep as the suffering

“a steady motif in the feminist literature on female disorder is that of pathology as embodied protest (2247) – Bordo notes how within the language of suffering lies a violent protest – the language of which is not effective, it cannot be spoken, it has to be suffered through – it is counterproductive

“the social and sexual vulnerability involved in having a female body” (2250) – idea that female curves represent sexual vulnerability, in loosing these, the woman presumably also loses her sexual admirers and removes itself from harms reach; it is admired in a masculine nature, for the ‘strength’ and ‘will’ is connotes.

“The anorectic, of course, is unaware that she is making a political statement” (2248)

“the sufferer becomes wedded to an obsessive practice, unable to make any effective change in her life” she is as Toril Moi has put it“Gagged and chained to the feminine role” (2252) – suggestions that the anorexic is being distracted by an elusive acquirement of power

“I view our bodies as a site of struggle” (2254) – to Bordo it is crucial that an analysis of the contradictions in the practice of femininity are constantly analysed, and that this is how feminist politics perhaps should proceed

“The body – what we eat, how we dress, the daily rituals through which we attend to the body – is a medium of culture(2240)

“our bodies are trained, shaped, and impressed with the stamp of prevailing historical forms of selfhood, desire, masculinity, femininity” (2240)

“In newspapers and magazines we daily encounter stories that promote traditional gender relations and prey on anxieties about change” (2241)

“A dominant visual theme in teenage magazines involves women hiding in the shadows of men, seeking solace in their arms” (2241)

“following Foucault, we must first abandon the idea of power as something possessed by one group and levelled against one another” (2242)

A final thought… Bordo suggests the need for a new discourse in which the body and gender are formulated, suggesting that this discourse should be one that will confront the forces that sustain feminine oppression…

Questions to consider:

  1. What will happen if media advertising continues to prey on anxieties attached to body and gender perception?
  2. How are we raising young girls today? How vulnerable are contemporary young women?
  3. Although this essay is a feminist analysis and specific to the cultural pressures of females, I ask, what culture is doing to men? Men suffer just as much as women from cultural expectations and pressures, what can be read from the symptomology of psychological and physical illnesses common to men?



Image cited from www.feministliterature.net

Bordo, Susan. “Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd Ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 2010. 2240-2254. Print.

A Brush of Hot


In a recent and overdue clear out I came across my old art folders and sketch book. Whilst flicking through the mass of artist studies (a worryingly obsessive mass) I stopped on my study of Jean-Michel Basquiat, I stopped because my inspired piece gave me a sudden urge to write. I didn’t know what was going to come out, a story idea, a poem, or just a few dead end sentences but I had to write! (evidently) I ended up producing the slightly surrealist poem ‘A Brush of Hot’ (with a coincidently appropriate name for the heat of the moment nature in which it was written).

A Brush of Hot
Acrylic based, I love the
hungry egg white glare, look
right there, waving his arms at me
a red sky morning in his three finger warning
oh, there it goes
fire fire glow
oil based veins must hurt, tears surely leak
let that pain stain into the background
give in, be weak
Wave, wave, wave
but no one wants to hear you
ever so clear, why the smirking halo?
you know you should be fuming
at such a contradiction, fuming
because disproportion was just decided
that’s it, no consent
oh dripping mess,
look at you, waving around pretending
you’re hell bent!

Book Review: Starter for Ten by David Nicholls


Release: 2003                                                                                                                                                 

Publisher: Hodder and Stoughton                                                                                                                                                              

Age: Young Adult ( or, anyone who was a student in the late 80s wanting to reminisce)                                                                            

Pages: 469

‘1985. First year student and Kate Bush fan Brian falls for beautiful University Challenge queen Alice Harbinson in a brilliant comedy of love, class, growing-up, and the all-important difference between knowledge and wisdom.’

David Nicholls manages to give his books personalities, and Starter for Ten is certainly exemplary of that. Firstly, the book is hilarious! I think I laughed out loud at least once in every chapter (picture me sitting in a café chuckling on cue every 10 minutes). The most compelling aspect of the novel for me however, was the way in which Nicholls provides a documentary about being a student in 1980s Britain. He uses popular music, fashion, food, and celebrities to give the novel a distinct place in time, which makes for an educational experience. The novel is written for modern young adults, and whilst Brian is a student in a completely different cultural context there is no doubt they are still  able to cohere and empathize with the embarrassing skin problems (more than anything else) and relationship traumas Brian endures. The novel is all at once relatable yet historic. Back to the point about Nicholls giving his books personalities, if this book was a person it would be an agony aunt! It deals with anxieties students are bound to face like rejection, embarrassment, fear of failure etc. and the constant humor really does dilute them.

Brian is SO awkward that It’s reassuring. No matter how socially inapt you may think you are, or how embarrassing you believe people think you are, it’s okay, you are not as awkward as Brian! Okay, we all trip over our words when trying to impress someone or when socializing with a new crowd but after a while we’re fine, Brian never quite gets there. For example, He instantly harbors a huge ‘crush’ for Alice who is evidently miles out of his league, and at first it is endearing that he communicates with her through very simple dialogue, of course he does, he’s nervous. However, he seems to never really get past this nervous stage, endearing quickly becomes pitiful. Brian does get a cathartic ending, he gets a girlfriend similar to himself, he becomes less anxious, but he also describes himself as “a lot wiser” (469) yet he is only nineteen. Personally, my pity for Brian was confirmed in this line, perhaps at nineteen you are a little wiser about life and relationships, but a lot? I can identify with the feeling of finishing a year at university and feeling more learned and far more resilient, but not omnipotent that ‘wisdom’ would suggest. I suppose to me, this ‘wisdom’ Brian may be referring to is actually more of a loss of naivety, and of acquiring a certain savvy streak in your personality.

The heavy dialogue signature to Nicholls style makes for an addictive read. The book can easily be read (and re-read in my case) in a day. I would recommend Starter for Ten, or any of Nicholls novels for readers looking for a light-hearted, funny and warm experience. Written from Brian’s first person perspective, it is also the perfect read for anyone interested in the drama of a book, and the nature of relationships. It may seem odd for me to say you should read it if you’re interested in storyline or drama, for what else do we read for? To me reading isn’t always for the storyline alone. Some books we read as research to collect a list of different style and techniques of creating drama, or we persevere through books we quickly decide aren’t for us to eliminate storytelling techniques from our own style. Starter for Ten for me was a luxurious read for those times when we have a free afternoon, or even a holiday read we can indulge our attention in completely, and for anyone that enjoys watching drama on stage or on television this book is an ideal alternative.


Image cited from http://www.babybarista.com

Shaking Still

If you asked me,

What is a shaking still?

I would say,

it is a seagull in love with an eel.

It is angelic like a threat to kill,

two enemies at peace with one another,

a sisterly man and a brotherly mother.

Genuinely not afraid to die,

It is a spider too naive to eat that fly.


After I failed to tell you,

After I failed at why

You would say I’m mad, so wicked, so bad

I would point,

because now you know

A shaking still,

is leaking through my lashes,

Vibrant, yet subtle

 like a buttercup glow

A Critique of Phallocentrism: Helene Cixous, “the Laugh of Medusa” (key concepts and quotes)


Introductory notes:

  • Helen Cixous: French feminist writer and philosopher
  • Her work is often considered as being deconstructive and of poststructuralist mode
  • Cixous wrote during the mid-70s, during the period of second wave feminism that was primarily concerned with the economic, social and economic limitations placed upon women
  • Her writing focuses upon the relationship between language and sexuality
  • Influences include: Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Sigmund Freud
  • Phallocentrism: the idea that woman exists separated from her body and desires. The phallus is the desired and the concept is dependent upon a ‘he has’ ‘she lacks’ binary.
  • Cixous’s article The Laugh of Medusa was translated from French to English in 1976. The highly metaphorical article proposes the idea of l’ecriture feminine, of women using her body as a means of communication and as a way to assert herself into “the text – as into the world and into history” (NATC 1942)

Key concepts: (note that when Cixous refers to ‘woman’ she is referring to the “universal woman subject” and her “struggle against conventional man”) (1943)

  1. Cixous seeks to destroy the prison of sexual impudence
  2. She urges women NOT to identify themselves in relation to men
  3. Before woman can write herself into a new type of text that liberates as oppose to merely oppressing further, she must discover where her own sexual pleasure is located. This will debunk mythology that suggests woman is defined by what she lacks (the phallus).
  4. She argues that the entire history of writing has been one of “phallocentric tradition” and that woman is yet to be given her turn
  5. Cixous asserts a solution. Her solution is the concept of l’ecriture feminine, this is female writing that communicates a new language, this language isn’t restricted by the ‘traditional’ binaries of woman and man, passive and active etc. This language is one whereby woman reconnects with the body that has been “confiscated” from her from the typical “masculine – economy” that has previously governed literature. This language is woman using her body as ink, or as Cixous suggests writing in “white ink” which is a metaphor she uses to further assert the importance of reunion, for just like female presentation of herself in writing, the maternal body is a place whereby lack and separation is overruled by connection and wholesomeness.

Key quotes:

“I wished that woman would write and proclaim this unique empire” (1943)

“Write! Writing is for you, you are for you; your body is yours, take it” (1943)

“Woman must write woman. And man, man.” (1944)Cixous notes that man still has everything to say about his sexuality, that he (in the universal sense) is encouraged to view l’ecriture feminine as opportunity for a redefinition of binary opposition that he can benefit from.

“Woman will return to the body that has been more than confiscated from her” (1946)

“the act of writing Is equivalent to masculine masturbation (and so the woman who writes cuts herself out a paper penis)” (1950)

“they riveted us between two horrifying myths: between the Medusa and the abyss” (1951) – note that in Freudian terms female sexuality is seem as a “dark continent”, as a place of fearsome riddle, as a black hole whereby the penis may disappear. The reference to Medusa refers women as being coherent with the fear of castration.

“you only have to look at the Medusa straight on to see her. And she’s not deadly. She’s beautiful and she’s laughing” (1951) – Cixous suggests that beauty is no longer to be forbidden as Medusa’s was.

Men say that there are two unpresentable things: death and the feminine sex. That’s because they need femininity to be associated with death” (1951)

“women must write through their bodies, they must invent the impregnable language that will wreck partitions, classes, and rhetorics, regulations, and codes” (1952)

“sweeping away syntax” (1952) – (activity of female writing referred to with a an allusion to the story of Theseus led out of the Minotaur’s labyrinth by Ariadne’s thread)

her language does not contain, it carries; it does not hold back, it makes possible.” (1955)

“When pregnant, the woman not only doubles her market value, but – takes on intrinsic value as a woman in her own eyes and, undeniably, acquires body, and sex” (1957) to Cixous motherhood is a major catalyst for writing -(back to Freud again)  to Cixous giving birth is proof that women know how to live without fear of detachment or ‘castration’.

“Besides, isn’t it obvious that the penis gets around in my texts, that I give it a place and appeal? Of course I do. I want all. I want all of me with all of him.” (1957)

“In one another we will never be lacking” (1959)

A final concept… woman has always existed as being within a male discourse, she must invent her own language in which to function.


Works Cited

Cixous, Helene. “The Laugh of Medusa”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd Ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 2010. 1942-1959. Print.

Image cited from www.parfumdelivres.niceboard.com


Fatal Man

With the possibility of a mere crack,
Fatal man is on his way back.
He is the wind he changes direction.
A flea lands,
laughs, bites, and my body
she dissolves with infection.
His face is sure to make me cry, I’ll leave
As soon as he arrives.
With a six foot descent
My greed for us should fade,
And for the first and last time,
Fatal man will hand me the spade.

Let Me Be Your Death

Let me be your death, let me

be the filthiest clean you know.


Let me be a dream-stopper,

wake up, time to be rehomed.

The middle of the equator, you and me

sleeping safe in God’s acre.


Let me be your breath, let me kill

every almost dream.

Give birth to a definite, to nightmares,

breathing clear, supreme.


Let me kill night time parasites

for they prey paralysis upon my legs,

legs that wake every day ready to coil themselves around you

and mimic some affectionate python.


Let me be your death, let me

be the loudest hush you know.