Dragon Bound, Part the Second: I have a theory.

When we left off last week, Pia and Dragos were about to be dragged into a goblin fortress, and I was seething with feminist (personist?) rage. dragonboundreadalongbutton-01

The rage is back, folks, but luckily for you, and Thea Harrison, I’m on my way back from my brother’s wedding in Cleveland, so this will be brief.

This section of the book brings Pia into Dragos’s world/demesne (yes, they escaped from the goblins. I was shocked.). We get to meet Dragos’s lieutenants, who, the interweb tells me, will get their own books eventually, as well as a fairy named Tricks, who seems to me like a magical Kristen Chenoweth in a business suit.

Sidebar: why is it that women in these books only drink white wine?

Dragos has his own skyscraper and ruthless lawyers (oh, did I mention that the book’s epigraph is attributed to Donald Trump?), and gosh, does the poor dragon man have a lot on his mind! Here’s a credit card, Pia! Have a latte and hit the gym, but don’t forget lunch with the girls! Oh, I don’t like your clothes, so please wear this expensive robe so that none of my hulking gorgeous male friends will get a look at your (no doubt quivering) thighs.

And then there’s the sex. The always-agressive (though with consent, this time), heteronormative, vanilla sex (I mean, he’s not a dragon at the time, right?).

Yes, it seems that once you hit the 1/3 mark, your main characters get to quit holding at second and thirdish base and run for home. A lot. The sex scenes are just as awful as you would think, with Pia feeling so affected by Dragos “wrecking” her that she feels she needs to go sit in a dark room and sort out her feelings.

I have a theory about all this “wrecking.” You know how A-list actors (for the most part) will only do graphic sex scenes if the scenes are integral to the plot of the movies? I’m thinking of Diane Lane in Unfaithful, Joseph Fiennes & Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love, Gael García Bernal (yes, I know he wasn’t famous yet) in the last scene in Y Tu Mamá También, for starters.

[Sidebar 2: I prefer sex in movies to be implied — see the curtains stirring in the breeze in The Maltese Falcon? Yeah, that’s Humphrey Bogart having sex.]

Well, I think Ms. Harrison is trying to confer an air of legitimacy on Dragon Bound‘s sex scenes with these claims that Pia’s whole self is changed when she has sex with Dragos (“He took her so far and deep outside of herself, she came back changed in fundamental ways she didn’t understand” [176].). It’s as if she’s saying, “Look! The book needs the sex! It’s part of the characters’ arcs!”

At least Dragos willingly performs cunnilingus.

As I said in my first post, I think there are some interesting dynamics at work in the book — the interaction between human and non-human societies in particular. And I get a kick out of Elves enforcing trade embargoes. Would someone with influence suggest to Ms. Harrison that she try her hand at less sex-centered mass market paranormal fiction?

Next week: Will Dragos learn to love? Will he accidentally-on-purpose kill his second in command? Will Pia reveal her Wyr-self? Stay tuned . . .

Check out the other readers-along:

Early Review*: We Do! American Leaders Who Believe in Marriage Equality, Edited by Jennifer Baumgardner and Governor Madeleine M. Kunin

First off, let me put my cards on the table: I’m a member of the LBGTQ community, and I support equal rights for LGBTQ persons. Period.We Do!

We Do! doesn’t offer the jazziest format or a comprehensive tour through queer history, but it’s an excellent resource for speeches and essays relating to the LGBTQ-rights movement. As you might expect, Harvey Milk’s “Hope” speech is the first to appear, and you’ll also find testimony from well-known political figures, up to and including President Obama.

Glaring omissions on this front: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois).  Senator Murkowki’s press release on her change of heart (June 2013) especially merits inclusion. (Senator Rob Portman [R-Ohio] made the cut.) Marriage equality is coming, and the longer Republicans hold out, the worse they’ll look, and I’m sure Democrats will gleefully bash them for it. However, ending discrimination against LGBTQ persons should trump party hostility, and the more moderate (or even conservative; see Cheney, Dick) GOP politicians come forward to support LGBTQ rights, the better, especially since they face animus from the right flank of their own party.

But enough of politics (hasn’t it been a great two weeks here . . . UGH) Some high points of the book:

  • Transcriptions of speeches by Virgina Apuzzo and David Mixner: rousing, tragic, fundamental.
  • Andrew Sullivan’s prescience on the conservative case for gay marriage. He was way out front in 1989.
  • Personal testimony from LGBTQ legislators like Representative Bill Lippert.

I see this book as part of a growing awareness (in America) of LGBTQ history, which is *such* a positive development. Not everyone will run out to their bookstore to buy Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked a Revolution (though I wish it were so!), but a book like We Do! could be a gateway to more reading about the struggles the LGBTQ community has faced in this and past centuries.

Speaking of LGBT history, if you’re looking for another way to learn more, I suggest trying the Quist (Queer History smushed together) app for your phone. Daily tidbits of LGBTQ history, and it’s free. Full disclosure: My sister-in-law, Sarah Prager, created the app and owns it, and I (your humble blogger) edited it before its release.

We Do! American Leaders Who Believe in Marriage Equality will hit the shelves on Tuesday (October 15).

*I received this ARC through LibraryThing’s Early Reviewer program in exchange for an honest review.

Recommended Reading: Ragnarok, by A.S. Byatt

I was raised on opera as a child; I couldn’t identify a New Kids on the Block Song (still can’t), but I could pick Wagner out of a lineup every time. So with his Ring Cycle in mind, I was excited to read A.S. Byatt’s take on Ragnarok, or The End of the Gods, especially because I found Possession to be such a wonderful book (and if you read it, you might remember that Ash wrote a poem called “Ragnarok”).

Sorry, library copy.

Sorry, library copy.

Fans of A.S. Byatt will encounter her erudition and her command of language here, with cascading descriptions and lists reminiscent of Milton’s Paradise Lost. The language is so satisfying, so meaty, that this short book (171 pages) takes quite a while to savor.

What impressed me most, in this telling, is the structure of the work. It’s not exactly a novel, but not exactly D’Aulaires’ Book of Greek Myths, either (my favorite book of mythology when I was a child). But there is a narrative flow, and the book opens with “a thin child in wartime” encountering the stories of these irascible, imperfect, impulsive gods and their creations. But these myths, as A.S. Byatt points out in an essay that closes the book, differ greatly from fairy tales; the good do not always prosper, and the bad are not always punished; indeed, Ragnarok is the end of the gods. The world with its gods dies and is not reborn.

The book is not an allegory for the woes of our world, but present in the author’s mind was, she writes, the steady bursts of destruction we inflict on the earth ourselves, without any help from the gods.

“And beyond them a stretch of open country / That strives into the sea.”

Ashley McHugh*, a poet and friend, directed my attention to this poem, “A Figure of Plain Force,” by Michael Heffernan (to be more precise, she pointed out the next poem on the page, but I was drawn to the first poem).

Grass by C.R. Oliver

In “A Figure of Plain Force,” the speaker considers “you,” a person turned into an open door in the early morning. We aren’t given anything about their relationship, or even the person’s gender, but I couldn’t help imagining the speaker as a child remembering his mother readying herself to meet the day. She might work on “nothing of consequence,” or perhaps she’ll fall into a whirl of activity to finish a task she’d left undone.

As you’ll note from the line I pulled for the title, the location is somewhere near the ocean, but when I read these lines:

In this condition you pretend to lean
Solidly into the open while you gather
The winds about you by deliberate grace
Turning you into a figure of plain force,
Careful and candid, never in a dither,
Given to nothing noisome or unclean.

I can’t help but think of a pioneer woman looking out onto a sea of prairie grass, formidable in her determination.

What’s your reaction to the poem?

*By the way, you should check out Ashley’s glorious first book, Into These Knots.

Dragon Bound, Part the First: Let’s Talk about Sex Consent

My reading of Thea Harrison’s Dragon Bound did not begin auspiciously. In the very first sentence, we have an unnecessary adverb, and I don’t mind those in blog posts, but when one has an editor? Tut, tut. I should probably tell you my least favorite line up front, too: “the sight of his bare chest had stolen every digit of her IQ” (93). GAG.

dragonboundreadalongbutton-01

N.B.: Spoilers, spoilers, spoilers.

After that start, though, the book grew on me. For a while.

Pia is a resourceful heroine with some serious baggage, which makes her more complex and interesting than the blushing rose I was expecting from a romance novel. Bonus: she swears and actually has sexual experience.. I was going to be all kinds of annoyed if the first person she sleeps with were to be a dragon-person. I mean, Wyr. Anyway, when we see her, she’s just stolen something from Dragos (more on him in a sec), and is on the run.

I think Ms. Harrison’s world-building is pretty interesting, and clearly borrows from Tolkien, and probably from other, more modern fantasy writers that I haven’t gotten around to reading. The basic idea is that in this world, humans co-exist with Elves, Fae (like fairies and trolls, I guess, both Dark and Light), and Wyrkind (think ‘were-kind’). The Wyrkind folks can turn into all sorts of animals, apparently. Pia is half-human, half-Wyrkind. I suspect that the revelation of her kind of Wyr will be a major plot point.

Pia knows who Dragos is before they meet, which saves us some conversational exposition. Combine that with what we learn in this first section and we have a list of pretty snazzy qualifications: He’s super-sexy (to Pia), incredibly rich and politically connected, all kinds of powerful (magic-wise), a telepath, and a huge dragon as old as the earth itself. Oh, and he likes to get his own way, apparently. I do think the description of his size leaves something to be desired, though: “Dragos Cuelebre exploded into the sky with long thrusts from a wingspan approaching that of an eight-seater Cessna jet” (9). Yes, that’s a “thrust” on page nine, folks. But my real problem is the Cessna thing. First of all, everyone knows what a 747 is. But a Cessna? A Cessna 8-seater? Um, no. Why can’t he just be as big as a jet? Or a helicopter or something?

So, for 42 pages, ok. No sex, some magical intrigue, reference to a harpy (!), some interesting ideas about an integrated human-magic world (including Department of Energy contracts, which seems pretty brainy for a romance novel). Also use of the word ‘demesne,’ which I enjoy. And a cool, older, possibly half-Elven friend named Quentin for Pia. Quentin is crushworthy. I would totally hang out with him and I’m pretty sad that he seems to drop from the novel completely after just a few pages.

But . . .

There’s this dream-ish thing.

Before Dragos can decide not to rip Pia into itty bitty pieces because he thinks she’s super cute, he needs to find her, and for that, he needs to know her name. So he does his magic thing and reaches out to her in a dream.  To be more accurate, he sends her a dream/beguilement, or maybe implants it into her subconscious while she’s sleeping (it’s magic, and I’m not an expert, so cut me some slack, ok?).

This undertone of incursion/violation/assault/drugging was such a turn-off that it was difficult for me to read about the hot almost-sex the dream/beguilement versions of Pia and Dragos have.

[Sidebar: Dragos is constantly referred to as “a male,” instead of “a man.” I get that this is technically accurate because he’s a dragon and all, but I find the construction distracting, like someone’s talking about a lab rat.]

So in the dream/magic incursion into Pia’s consciousness, Dragos’s Power (capital P) turns Pia on. He uses his magic voice on her, and before she knows it, she rushes toward him, and immediately “He took hold of her arms, dragged her across his body and slammed her into the mattress as he rolled on top of her. Pinning her down with his heavy body, he locked his hands around her glowing wrists and yanked them over her head. The corded strength in his fingers make [sic] the flesh and bone they shackled feel slender and fragile” (45).

Um, what now? Here are some words that are problems for me here: dragged, slammed, pinning, locked, yanked, shackled.

Call me a capital-F Feminist, but I like my sex with a heaping side of consent. The “juncture between her thighs” (OUCH) may “[grow] slick,” but is Pia really in a position to give informed consent? She certainly didn’t consent to this mind-violation. How do we know that Pia’s engagement with Dragos in the dream isn’t the result of the drugging-magic thing Dragos has going on?

I get that this is a romance novel, and that in the pages that follow Pia and Dragos will have lots of mutually-desired sex. Great. Pia wants to be dominated? Have fun, Pia. She’s an adult, and adults should be free to do whatever they like in their bedrooms (or kitchens or whatever) with other consenting adults. What I don’t like is that the novel’s first sexual encounter has very negative overtones of non-consent.

Sure, Pia seems to be into the encounter, but the important word here is seems. She didn’t want the dream/encounter to happen in the first place: “Pia dreamed of a dark, whispering voice. She tossed and turned, fighting to ignore it. Exhaustion was a concrete shackle. All she wanted to do was sleep. But the voice insinuated into her head and sank velvet claws deep” (43).

See what I mean?

At least they have a talk later (87-88) about how she was beguiled and how her choices are now her own, which makes me feel a little better. A very little. Until Dragos started spouting nonsense about how Pia “belongs” to him. GROSS. Pia does correct him before they indulge in some pretty hot over-the-clothes action, and when she tells him to stop he stops. Thank goodness.

Man, I really hoped this was going to be funny. I just don’t get it — why can’t a novel geared toward women, in which we know the characters are going to fall for each other, feature clear consent at all times?

The rest of this first-third is a pretty good time. Dragos catches Pia and tells her that her ex is dead (boo hoo), and then pulls a Mr. Rochester when she almost faints, getting her a blanket and a drink. Pia reveals that she’s got a cool trick—locks can’t hold her— and then proceeds to use some political wiles and an order of steak to get Dragos shot with some sort of elf dart (why are elves always archers?), but then finds him so irresistible that she stays by his side to nurse him. Aw. I think the message is pretty loud and clear: Pia is attracted to the huge, dangerous,  good-looking dragon.

Now I’ve written more than a thousand words about this treasure, so let’s cut to the end. Someone has been very naughty and betrayed Dragos, which means that he and Pia are captured by goblins and dragged into an “Other” land, some sort of rip in the space-time continuum where mechanical weapons don’t work (like the Terminator’s time bubble). Dragos is apparently too incapacitated to launch more than one fireball (using his eyes — like a cross between Cyclops and Gandalf). Pia’s really freaked out about bleeding (can I get a Freudian in here, please?), and when Chapter 7 ends, the goblins are about to take Pia and Dragos into their fortress. Because what would a romance novel be with a dungeon?

See? It’s my first one, and I’m learning already!

By the way, who else wants to turn the metaphors of consuming and devouring into a publishable paper?

Stay tuned for next week’s installment, and check out the other readers-along:

Recommended Reading: Asunder, by Chloe Aridjis

I think we l know how I feel about jacket copy and blurbs. To wit: not good. But for once, the blurbs are on to something, and it’s the gem that is Chloe Aridjis’s Asunder.

AsunderThe novel follows Marie, a guard at London’s National Gallery, through her perambulations at work, at home, and abroad. This is isn’t a novel with extravagant plot points; instead, it’s superb gathering of images and moments, a testament to a quiet life. To observation.

It’s about the entropy of decay and the possibility for violent change. It’s a weirdly beautiful excavation of life. And the images! New, lively, strange.  Here’s one example. Marie is examining a painting:

It was a mysterious painting, of a seaside landscape with a few human figures, and my eyes first came to rest on the wall of ancient wrinkled cliffs resembling a procession of tired elephants. (111)

Arresting, isn’t it?  I felt swallowed up the images as I read. I loved this novel, and if you’ll excuse me, I‘ll be off to find my own copy.

Literary Wives: Una Spenser and DIY Wifehood

literarywives2If you missed the Literary Wives introductory post, here’s the summary:  I’ll be joining founding bloggers Ariel, Audra, and Emily, as well as fellow newcomers Cecilia and Lynn, as we post every other month about a different book with the word “wife” in the title. This month, we’re writing about Sena Jeter Naslund’s Ahab’s Wife, the sweeping, imaginative, feminist answer to Moby-Dick.

Readers take note: Although I usually refrain from spoilers, what follows is a consideration of one aspect of the novel, and so I shall be spoiling away. Beware!

I read Ahab’s Wife years ago and remembered liking it very much, and I looked forward to reading it again. I like the gusto with which Ms. Naslund throws all she has at Una’s story, giving her connections not only to the characters and world of Moby-Dick, but also to the time and culture of Melville’s novel.

Ahab's Wife

Una experiences much and meets a cast of strange and interesting characters — including Hawthorne, Maria Mitchell, Margaret Fuller (sidebar to myself: a cenotaph to her memory is somewhere in Mount Auburn Cemetery, a must-find), and a young Henry James (this last strains credulity, really). I fear that I’m making the novel sound like a literary Forrest Gump. Ah well. It’s certainly interesting, with passages of real, sensual beauty.

As I read it through this time, I felt as if Ms. Naslund were trying to construct Una as a secular saint, progressive and feminist ahead of her time, flawed but thoughtful. Una understands that “choice lies in the purse” (142); freedom of movement, of action, is often dependent on financial independence, something we twenty-first century feminists think about often. Some of Una’s free-thinking, as it would be called at the time, seems more like wishful thinking on the part of the author.

In the narrative, Nantucket becomes a little free-thinking paradise, and almost everyone gets a happy ending. The lost and the dead are mourned, but never for too long; after all, when reading Goethe, Una prefers Wilhelm: “While Werther disintegrated, Wilhelm learned from the wonder of life, and grew” (387).

1. What does this book say about wives or about the experience of being a wife?

This novel’s first line is misleading in the opposite way that Moby-Dick‘s is deceptive. “Call me Ishmael,” begins the American epic, leading us to believe that we will learn much about the narrator, this Ishmael. Instead, we are offered lessons in cetology and monomania.

Here, Una begins her narrative: “Captain Ahab was neither my first husband nor my last,” which suggests that the novel’s focus will be on her husbands and their marriages. However, Ahab’s Wife is always Una’s story, told from her perspective and focusing on her thoughts and feelings, a bildungsroman that extends into middle life.

Along the way, her adventures offer Una many models of wifehood:

  • Una’s own mother, loyal to an abusive husband whose religious zealotry endangers Una; nonetheless, she is an educated, caring woman who protects her daughter the best way she knows how.
  • Aunt Agatha, in perhaps the novel’s ideal union. She and Torchy are equals, co-parents and co-workers, who face their isolated life with good cheer, open minds, and hands together. However, she, like her sister, is confined, an important epiphany for Una:

For my aunt and my mother, journeying lay in their fingers for the most part. They knew the landscape of colored patches, the rivulets and tributaries of stitchery. They knew the voyage of reading. It seemed an inward journey. But the sea! the sea! How could it not seem freer, wider, more uncharted than anything else one could know? I wanted it for Giles. For any man I loved. Perhaps in sending Kit to play the part of companion, Giles wished me to learn that many men could love me, that choice and not inevitability were the lot of both woman and man.

For my mother and my aunt, the thought of babies revitalized their beings. And yet, I did not just want babies, or men who went to sea. I wanted something for myself. (124)

  • Captain Swift’s absent wife, who died in childbed: “Her bed’s the grave . . . She gave her life for Chester of the darling curls” (161). A reminder of the very real danger Una and any other nineteenth-century woman faced in childbirth; an example of what I like to call the good-dead-wife trope.
  • Sallie Swain, feminine, generous, adherent to the standards of feminine behavior common to her time and place, even on board a merchant vessel.
  • Charlotte Hussey, vivacious and cheerful, practical to a limit. Warm toward her much-older husband, but overcome with her love for Kit.
  • Mrs. Macey, a widow who tells Una the joys of being a sailor’s wife: “You can come to love your own life. Alone” (348).
  • Mary Starbuck, steadfast and loyal, calm and religious and kind, the ideal Quaker wife.

(At over 650 pages, you’d expect it to be a long list, right?)

Una learns over time that the experience of being a wife is not an universal one; neither fidelity nor infidelity, neither solitude nor company, neither cruelty nor kindness may be expected of all spouses. Knowing her own mind, Una chooses her husbands with care; she compares herself to Maria Mitchell, reflecting, “my investments were so much in people” (464). By observing the women and marriages around her, Una chooses pieces of wifehood for herself, crafting an approach to wifehood all her own.

2. In what way does this woman define “wife”—or in what way is she defined by “wife”?

What magic there was in the word when it names all that I would be! Mother, daughter, neighbor, friend—I let go of all those names, except my own, for that of wife. I drank the word as if it were wine. (457)

Una comes to marriage on her own terms, and she defines herself as married even when, in the case of her last marriage, there’s no semblance of ceremony or state sponsorship to confirm the union. How she views her own position as “wife” varies from marriage to marriage, but in every marriage, as she says of the second, “I did not question the legitimacy of our marriage, our power to define our lives” (361).

In her first marriage to the mad (and frequently abusive) Kit, Una sees her role as that of caretaker and provider. She plans to sew to make money, to grow food in a garden, to cook and bake with Kit, and do her best to keep him sane. Her loyalty is shaken by his madness, but when Charlotte offers a possible avenue out of the marriage, by gently suggesting that a marriage at sea is not binding, Una refuses the gesture: “We have shared a bed . . . That binds” (320). However, when Una comes to realize that some harms cannot be undone, she lets Kit go with grace and good will, recognizing that his self-preservation will also be her own.

Una’s marriage to Ahab embodies Charlotte’s earlier admonishment: “The world is not closed off, Una, because a man and his wife make a small, inviolate circle at the center of it” (324). Ahab divorces Una from Kit (he had declared them married) and marries her himself on the Pequod‘s deck (“Ahab no more needed the validation of priest or paper than I” [360].). After their first night together, Ahab goes off on a whaling voyage, leaving Una to her own devices. They both relish this independence, especially Una, who realizes that this kind of relationship is not always typical: “Now I was married, but because my husband was independent, so was I” (386, emphasis mine).

Una regards Ahab as more capable of love and devotion than Kit, and delights in Ahab’s passion for her. They meet as partners, bearers of histories: “Nothing was concealed, and though nothing was overtly revealed, all was known. In guilt and in forgiveness we counted ourselves equals, and always had” (475).  Ahab regards their marriage as one of true minds (and I do love a good Shakespeare sonnet), a union of souls for which “marriage” is too common a word. He tells Una in a letter that he would go mad and destroy any thing that kept them apart. Unfortunately for Una, Ahab’s first encounter with Moby Dick leaves Ahab mangled, in body and mind. Though Una does not regard their relationship differently, she sorrows at Ahab’s monomania, and does not try, materially, to stop him from seeking revenge. She knows that he will not return, and grieves for it, but soon settles into new routines.

Una’s third marriage is with Ishmael (I’m afraid I think this last turn is too cute by half), whom she glimpses at times in the story — on board the merchant ship that rescues her with Giles and Kit, and at the dock before the Pequod’s last sailing, for instance. Together, the creative two “write” their tales, united by choice though not custom: “We are not legally married [. . .] but united by our natures. Each day and forever we choose to be husband and wife” (664). Once again, Una chooses a non-traditional (for the nineteenth century, of course) mode of wifehood, focusing on her own continuing choices and those of her partner. Each is independent, though they craft their companionship together.

Now that you’ve read my meanderings on the subject, please visit the other Literary Wives bloggers! 

Emily at The Bookshelf of Emily J. 

Audra at Unabridged Chick

Ariel at One Little Library

Cecilia at Only You

Kay at WhatMeRead

Lynn at Smoke and Mirrors

We’d love to hear what you think of Ahab’s Wife, and we hope you’ll join us on December 1, when we’ll be talking about The Wife, The Maid, and the Mistress, by Ariel Lawhorn (visit the site at http://www.ariellawhon.com/). 

Why I Love Parks & Rec, or “O were my Love yon Lilack fair”

I love Parks and Recreation. Amy Poehler can do no wrong, of course, but it’s the show’s pitch-perfect blend of snark and heart that gets me every time. And also Ron Swanson. Oh Ron, you magnificent bastard, with your mustache and your Lagavulin and your love of breakfast food and pretty dark-haired women  . . .

Image courtesy zirconicusso / Freedigitalphotos.net

Image courtesy zirconicusso / Freedigitalphotos.net

(This is not the time to ask, friends, if I bought a waffle maker to ring in the show’s sixth season.)

As I was saying.

Mr. O and I delayed our viewing of the premiere by a day because he was out of town (an act of true love, as those three of you who follow me on Twitter know).  Well worth the wait, the show pushed its characters around with wit and gusto. Stop reading now if you care about spoilers. Look for the bold when I start a-chatting about poetry.

By far my favorite set piece: Ron on a Leslie-designed train trip through northern England and into Scotland, culminating in a visit to the Lagavulin distillery. But here’s the best part: Ron sitting on a green, craggy piece of land, reading the poetry of Scotland’s favorite son out loud — “O were my Love yon Lilack fair.” And tearing up. I sure did.

So, let’s talk about poetry and Scotch, and you’re safe to come back now, people who didn’t want to read spoilers. 

I came across Bobby Burns some time in college, but his genius didn’t truly hit home until I hosted an ersatz Burns supper when I was a young lass in grad school. In reality, it was more like a boozy birthday party with poetry (January 25th, if you were wondering, is Burns’s birthday). My friend Emily, having brought a fine single malt, performed another wondrous service, reciting “The Mouse” with an amazing Scots burr. It was a fine evening. I recommend hosting one such gathering yourself to keep off the winter chill. Here are the steps:

1. Make some food and buy a bottle of Scotch.
2. Invite your friends to bring a bottle of Scotch over.
3. Eat, drink, read Burns, and assign designated drivers. (Be safe and make good choices, as my college roommate’s mother liked to say.)

Now that I’ve assured you that I, like Ron Swanson, enjoy scotch, let me tell you that I also love the subjunctive, fast becoming a forgotten mood in English. If there’s a poet who loves the subjunctive, that poet is Robert Burns.

Here’s Burn’s “O were my Love yon Lilack fair”:

O were my Love yon Lilack fair,
Wi’ purple blossoms to the Spring;
And I, a bird to shelter there,
When wearied on my little wing.

How I wad mourn, when it was torn
By Autumn wild, and Winter rude!
But I was sing on wanton wing,
When youthfu’ May its bloom renew’d.

[O gin my love were yon red rose,
That grows upon the castle wa’!
And I mysel’ a drap o’ dew,
Into her bonnie breast to fa’!

Oh, there beyond expression blesst
I’d feast on beauty a’ the night;
Seal’d on her silk-saft faulds to rest,
Till fley’d awa by Phebus’ light!]

In other words, sic transit gloria mundi, but isn’t it something in the meantime?