Emily Dickinson, "I've nothing else — to bring, You know" (224)

Hi all –

In the good old days of the Internet, back when StumbleUpon was a community, you gave attention and got attention. Nowadays that feels more hierarchical. You give attention, sure, but the people receiving it have no incentive to reciprocate. You, as the audience, are to be consolidated, sucked into the metric known as "time on site." A metric dominating content creators who must produce more instead of interacting with their own audience.

Those days are gone, but I miss helping curate the web. It's harder now: good stuff often disappears in the blink of an eye. There is a flood of slop and that quite frankly makes exploring hell. Moreover, because we're so platform dependent, a lot of things are tied to specific online cultures which don't translate easily for general audiences.

This last week I have been privileged to run into a lot of good things in places which could use a few more visits. Becca Goes Outside has a lovely bunch of comics on their site about the outdoors. I enjoyed flipping through the comics and reading about process, drawing, and photography. On another blog, I read "Short-circuiting civil disobedience: Do your local leaders hand out stimulants or sleeping pills?" by Jonathan Sriranganathan. It provides a lot to think about with regards to organizing, building pressure, and creating cultural and political change.

3 more reads of note:

• Brook Shelley talks about their cycling journey. I don't understand all the technical details in this post, but one part in particular hit like a truck: "...it continued to gall that I couldn’t easily ride with friends despite very consistent weekly training of around 8-10 hrs. If you’ve ever spent a lot of time practicing something without feeling progress, you’ll understand my frustration."
• "Sony Discontinues Physical Form" is a parody that feels prophetic.
• "Some Thoughts on UFC 329, In No Particular Order" – I don't typically care for UFC, but Rob Mealey is a fantastic writer. I learned a lot about different ways I could get into UFC: the backgrounds of the fighters, highlighted in this post, can be quite impressive.

I can't guarantee I'll be able to explore to this degree or depth regularly. In fact, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to: I'm struggling to keep up with my projects as is. But I had a good time reading these and thought I'd share. If you find the work of these creators valuable, please do let them know.

Emily Dickinson, "I've nothing else — to bring, You know" (224)

People vastly underestimate the power of flipping through poems. You can just turn a page after half-reading one and boom. There's a line, there's a vibe, you're hooked. In this case, Dickinson's "I've nothing else – to bring, You know" barely has to say much else. You hear someone in love making a very quiet plea for appreciation. Really, it's a tease: they know they're loved. Yet you realize immediately from that first line that if you're in love, you have nothing. Like, absolutely nothing. It's a realization you want to sit with; it felt to me a bit shocking.

I've nothing else — to bring, You know —
Emily Dickinson
  
I've nothing else — to bring, You know —
So I keep bringing These —
Just as the Night keeps fetching Stars
To our familiar eyes —

Maybe, we shouldn't mind them —
Unless they didn't come —
Then — maybe, it would puzzle us
To find our way Home — 

Dickinson uses that shock and develops a coy love poem. "I've nothing else – to bring, You know – / So I keep bringing These" is funny. What if who you're trying to attract actually doesn't want what you have to offer? And what are you giving, anyway? I can't help but think "These" are words. But they could be flowers. (1) Or even certain thoughts. This lyric sounds confident while hinting at an insecurity. It's the kind of paradox you might want someone who loved you to chew on.

So what is Dickinson giving her beloved? Whatever it is, it is endless. "Just as the Night keeps fetching Stars / To our familiar eyes." Whatever concerns "These" is intensely private. They are gifts of intimacy, only known to "familiar eyes." And unfortunately, despite their brilliance, despite their inherent beauty, people can be spoiled. Some do get bored of the stars, if they understand what's at stake in the first place.

A not-irrelevant aside: I got asked recently about what makes a loser. And this is tough because no one should throw the word "loser" around lightly. It's not a word I want to use or see used outside of some very specific contexts. (2) Still, I want to know if I'm doing what I should. I want to know if I have absolutely repugnant, counterproductive behaviors which force others to react. I think the rough answer is that when one gets past those who are always acting out, always out of control – e.g. they're blowing up at others, they're looking for opportunities to bully, they want to scream they're scared, they're throwing tantrums, they just don't care but expect everyone else to – there's a more subtle failing that can be missed. Your notion of what is good has to grow. It can't be exactly the same at ages 7, 17, 27, 47, or 67. It needs to be open to what you've got that's actually good and find ways to expand that.

I'm not saying "Be grateful!" I hate hearing that. This is more like someone is doing something that clearly works for them. For example, they've made art, they're reading a complicated book, they're writing, they're uplifting others, they're helping. It isn't quite clicking. It doesn't feel like winning, it isn't power, the gains seem way too slow. These are reasonable complaints. But instead of thinking "I have something good, how can I be proud of myself and build it into more," they just ditch what is good entirely. They may not act out and they certainly aren't ungrateful. But they're committed to a track where they can't win, not ever. How are you supposed to win when you can't set a real goal?

Dickinson's little love poem has a thought like this operating in the background. You're giving your beloved everything; it is ultimately nothing; you're willing to let them get bored of you. It's nothing complimentary to the beloved if you really pull on this thread. However, that's not where the poem goes. Dickinson would rather say darkness is beautiful–the mystery of us is all we have–because we know we can find home with or without the stars:

Maybe, we shouldn’t mind them  – 

Unless they didn’t come  – 

Then – maybe, it would puzzle us

To find our way Home –

Maybe we mind the stars because they interrupt our privacy. It is too bright out. And maybe we mind if they don't show at all. No matter: "maybe" we would be puzzled finding our way home.

Is Dickinson devaluing what she brings? Of course not. That's the supreme confidence of this poem. If what Dickinson said weren't valued, this would not have been written. But if what she brings is like the stars, then it is like darkness too. All that matters is "Home" is known to both. Something good is felt and can be built upon, but it is like nothing and everything, both at once.

Notes and References

1. The Prowling Bee has a good discussion of this poem which inspired mine: https://bloggingdickinson.blogspot.com/2012/05/ive-nothing-else-to-bring-you-know.html
2. You absolutely should call people who want to do violence to others or put others down losers. I'm not saying bully the bullies, but I am saying that if you give grace where it isn't warranted, you do as a matter of course deny grace to those who need it.