in the absence of expected disaster, we are
left again to what we do not want to be
left again to: each other—each other’s eyes

to Hive being

welcome

What is Hive Being, and Why the Name?

You have likely heard talk of a hive mind, where one global mind finds more or less figurative expression in various local minds. Such talk is common enough in nature documentaries, especially ones concerning ants or bees, and in sci-fi programs. Take that notion, at least a loose version of it, and broaden its scope. That will be a decent first step in understanding the title I have chosen both for my Blog and for the first five-volume installment of my magnum opus Made For You and Me, a fragmentary collection of minimalist stanzas from 2016 to 2020.

In alignment with Spinoza (the 17th Century Rationalist to whom I devoted my doctoral studies), I view reality in its totality as a grand hive Being: all entities are but pulsating manifestations of the buckstopping fount of everything, an ultimate being we might call “God” or “Nature” (so long as, out of respect for the capital “G” and the capital “N,” we limit it neither to some anthropomorphic cloud father hurling lightning bolts nor to mere wilderness untouched by human smog). According to the hive-Being view (where reality is one lone superorganism, a monistic—and we might even say unividualist—conception I defend in both my creative and academic capacities), each non-foundational being (each being, that is, whose essence does not involve existence) is an utterly necessitated expression or eruption or exudation of this eternal source—each is, perhaps better put, a mode or manner of being, and so a focal point through which is disclosed, what classical theists sometimes call “being itself” (ipsum esse subsistens): the realness of the real, the being of whatever may be, the sheer activity of being, the very isness of whatever is. This Blog, which duplicates my Substack, throbs as but one among many literary unfurlings of this self-necessitated foundation, this supreme wellspring, of which we—like black holes and broken beliefs, like fractal ferns and flickering flames—are the inevitable stylings.

My Journey

I am an academic who found himself pressured into early retirement by the rising tides of cancel culture. The illiberal scourge of censoring, silencing, and shaming—although always with us throughout our evolution—reached a local peak around 2021. That was the turbulent year my creative pursuits, which the old left once encouraged as a healthy outlet for the stresses of a childhood steeped in poverty and illiteracy, drew the ire of the new safe-space left. A small cadre of self-proclaimed victims and their allies, several of whom continue to berate me years later under pseudonyms as see through as their sexual infatuation, sought to erase me and my heterodoxy. They found support from a wannabe-woke dean, covered in the grand inquisitor robes of our decadent modernity (full-body tattoos) and just itching to signal his commitment to protecting “vulnerable populations” from triggering material (even if just, as it was in my case, off-duty poems “unbecoming for someone calling himself a teacher”). Although I eventually won my due-process case with the help of The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, I slunk away from a college that turned its back on protecting freedom of expression and from an institution increasingly intolerant of intellectual diversity.  

The wrecking ball to my too-comfy office in the windowless ivory tower came with a silver lining. From the ashes of my professional aspirations rose a phoenix of increased freedom to fulfill the literary calling I have pursued for decades. Reputation concerns never stopped me, even within academia’s sterile halls of conformity. Indeed, my unapologetic defiance, which has long baffled friends and family, no doubt chummed even safe waters—almost as if I were asking for it all along—until the cancel shiver grew too frenzied to hold back its blind thrashings. But now, now I piston the most forbidden territories of human thought with no longer even a twinge of conscience. The newfound freedom means extra time to hone my craft. When not assisting special-needs communities (a day job far more rewarding than freeway-flyer drudgeries), I pursue my literary mission with Dionysian fervor.

Call for Co-Conspirators

This space, my digital sanctuary, showcases the fruits of my mission. Think of my posts, even those linking to my publications, as works in progress. I want your input, unflinching brutality included. Each post begins with an invitation to action: “Let’s workshop this [draft about x, y, z].” Your contributions, whether through public comments or my contact page, help hammer scraps of ore into polished blades fit for magazine publication.

Your input is valuable, even if you are neither a writer nor a reader of literature—twin disciplines dying by the cyber nanosecond. Sometimes—even if at the risk of uttering banalities—an outsider’s fresh vantage can pierce the veils of convention to reveal what insiders miss. It often takes an outsider to make us even think to question our ingrained presuppositions and attitudes. I stand by the hygienic value of contagion. That is one reason I advocate so strongly for intellectual diversity and freedom of expression. And that is also one reason I was so harrowed by the anti-diversity swell of cancel culture in academia (an institution that should be the utmost caretaker of such values)—harrowed especially insofar as that swell masqueraded under the gaslighting guise of “diversity”).

You will witness the breathing evolution of my writings over time. To track these changes, I label each revision by round: “ROUND 2,” ROUND 3,” and so forth. Each piece undergoes continuous refinement based on your feedback and my own revisitations. Sometimes changes will mar the work. That is the risk of creative tinkering as a finite creature. I hope you will alert me to missteps. After many semesters of university writing workshops, one rule has impressed itself upon me: when someone senses a flaw, something almost always needs to change—even if, yes, the proposed solution misses the mark (which often it does). From a quick look into the archives, accessible here, you can see how much I have benefited from your feedback so far.

My Hope

Sharing drafts can be daunting. But showing you the ravaged and unperfumed real deal unfiltered by makeup (stuttering starts and falsities, awkward line breaks and clumsy word choices, grammatical errors and misspellings)—that not only makes my work more relatable, but helps me refine things through your input. I hope the unfiltered look at the raw process of fumbling, rather than just the polished product, also helps other writers develop their craft. Imperfect works often instruct more than perfect ones: whereas the perfect ones tend to have a grace by which they slip inside us without activating our scrutiny, the imperfect ones—especially the near perfect ones—show us glaringly what not to do.

People laugh at me, seeing—in my tilting at the windmills of literary excellence—a Don Quixote clunking around in Arthurian armor in a post-knight era. I am not naïve. I am well aware of the diminishing ability to read, let alone well: slowly and deeply, with gratitude. I am also aware that my style, which often nests subpoints within larger points, never waters down virtuosity for the sake of mass appeal. I watch readers stumble over my sentences, unable to unlock even just the music of the envelope let alone the semantic meat within, which—given my tendency to flashlight through the darker facets of human nature (the addicts, the miscreants, the abusers among us)—only adds an additional alienating layer of difficulty). Beholding these depressive scenes of even supportive family members getting bucked off my syntactic bronco makes me feel like a dinosaur who should get a hint and, if not succumb to the brain rot of skibidi-toilet speak, just hang himself already. Even though the decline in linguistic background and grammatical voltage makes my compositions seem quixotic in a world binging Netflix and TikTok, I persist—raging against the dying of the light—by some internal compulsion to celebrate the richness of language and thought.

My hope is that, despite social media’s unparalleled power to farm our attention, people never forget the unique power of writing. Beyond unveiling hypocrisy, teasing out complex implications, and detailing the commonalities between even the most alien phenomena, writing offers something we need today—trapped in agoraphobic cyber bubbles only thickened by the Lyme dangers of forests and the COVID dangers of cities—perhaps more than ever. Granting us rich access to the first-person perspectives of others (to how things feel to them), writing serves as one of humanity’s best tools for combating loneliness. It allows us to linger, broadly and deeply and at high resolution, within the inner lives of others in a way that other arts can only suggest.

What to Expect

My work spans a broad spectrum: from metaphysical discourses on free will and determinism and the ontology of holes to the ephemera of western culture (whether the childhood impacts of the hypersexual mono-image of black woman as squirting twerkers or Terrence Howard’s sham revolution of mathematics). Some tight and minimal, others free-flowing sprawls; some heady and abstract, others emotional and imagistic—my inkwell musings, which often blend scholarly rigor with a dark humor from both high and low culture, aim to capture the visceral intensity of our personal and social and ultimately existential predicaments.

By no means can I deny that drug abuse, sexual assault, and the tales of the broken and the damned loom large in the tag cloud of my work. My writing will never be a paradise of easy truths and comforting lies. It will challenge you, provoke you, and at times even repulse you. I offer no apologies for the monsters I unleash. They are as much a part of us, at long root scared rodent mammals scurrying in the shadows of dinosaurs, as our noblest aspirations.

But make no mistake. It is not all downer darkness. The archives are my receipts. You will find pieces exploring the pursuit of authenticity in a media-saturated world, the search for meaning in an indifferent cosmos, and the celebration of beauty in both the sublime and the profane. I locate much of my inspiration, in fact, in novelists like Dostoevsky and poets like Ted Kooser—writers unafraid to pursue moral agendas or risk Hallmark sentimentality in an age that often sneers at sincerity.

Be they satirical dissections of modern social dynamics or poignant poems about addiction or academic articles on moral responsibility, my goal is to provoke thought, evoke emotion, and foster meaningful dialogue. Fear has not and will not stop me from challenging humanity’s fundamental taboos (like bestiality and cannibalism) or self-reflecting into the dark chaos of the subconscious, even if that means exposing the Jungian shadows—the inner Goebbels—lurking within us all!

Expect posts each day, no day missed. Donations are welcome, but I impose no paywall: it feels wrong to charge for art, especially given our date with obliteration. Feel free to explore what amounts to, at the time of writing this, close to a thousand pieces of poetry and prose here. That should give you a sense of what awaits.

Join me—specula holstered—on this literary odyssey into the public and private nooks of the hive Being. Let us navigate the labyrinth of creation together, confronting our demons and even slaying our darlings if we must. Let us dance on the razor’s edge between the sublime and the profane in pursuit of an elusive literary perfection never to be confused—as it has been confused in our declining civilization—with the pursuit of popularity or likeability over truth.

Featured Posts

RSS Feed Link

tag cloud


Posts

Crank Shaft (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Crank Shaft (ROUND 1)

"Crank Shaft" is a study in the irreducibility of fractured consciousness. Its narrator sits immobile on a curb in the aftermath of a child's death — a death he witnessed, could not prevent, and is implicated in by the precise act through which he was prevented from acting. The piece does not pursue his guilt as a legal or even moral verdict. It pursues something harder: the way consciousness, under the pressure of catastrophic self-implication, does not consolidate into remorse or clarity or collapse, but continues generating its ordinary traffic — desire, calculation, self-interest, animal solidarity, spiritual hunger — at the same frequency it always did, except now without the possibility of relief or discharge.

The title operates at multiple levels simultaneously, and its multiplicity is the piece's thesis in compressed form. "Crank shaft" is, mechanically, the component that converts reciprocal piston motion into rotational force — the machine's engine of transformation, turning one kind of movement into another. Cars have crankshafts. The car that kills the boy is driven by one. But "crank" as verb is also slang for masturbation, and "shaft" carries its own phallic register. The narrator was cranking when the shaft of the car's wheel passed over the boy's skull. The title fuses these two motions — the man's reciprocal autoerotic action and the mechanical rotation of the killing car — into a single mechanism, implying that the two "chains of causality" the narrator watches converge are not coincidental but structurally linked: joined in the crankshaft of the title before the event even occurs.

The opening paragraph achieves its effects through deliberate impoverishment. "I have not gotten up from the curb. The ambulance had taken the body long ago. I just sit here." The sentences are meager, sequential, declarative. They refuse emotional amplification because the narrator's consciousness has not yet begun to amplify — or rather, it exists in a state between amplification and something else, something the piece will not name until its final paragraph. The police officer who stood beside him has drifted away; he cannot say when. Time has become unreliable — a recurring feature of the piece's temporal architecture.

The second paragraph's extended silence is doing what silence in fiction always does: making the unusual feel cosmic. The twilight that "refuses to lift," the absent sub-woofers and weedwackers, the dogs that have stopped their chronic efforts to escape their minds — these details accumulate into a collective mourning the narrator's own consciousness cannot yet perform. The animals register what the man cannot. This is not anthropomorphism but its opposite: the piece suggests that intuitive attunement to catastrophe is more available to creatures unburdened by the narrator's particular form of self-consciousness. The feral cat, the squirrel, the dogs organize themselves around the event with a precision of response he finds himself unable to match from within. His vigil is, partly, an attempt to approximate what they do naturally.

The cat passage is one of the piece's most intricate moments. The narrator has a relationship with this animal built on patient habituation and mutual accommodation. The cat is "in that spiritual bind between needing to make biscuits and needing to maintain that sleepless guard" — a formulation that finds in feline ambivalence an exact analogue for the narrator's own divided state: between the need for comfort and the compulsion toward vigilance, between desire and danger. But today the cat refuses approach, slinking back into coverage "as if the world to him, even with the lack of usual traffic, were full of tripwires visible only to creatures more attuned to intuition." The cat has read something in the scene, in the narrator, that warrants withdrawal. This is one of the piece's quietest indictments.

The fourth paragraph initiates the retrospective account, and it does so with a sentence that refuses to soften its framing: "It happened while I was watching the mother's ass through the blinds." This is the piece's central confession, delivered without syntactic ceremony. The mother has been the narrator's sustained erotic preoccupation since Spring. The piece renders his desire in terms that are both psychologically precise and deliberately excessive — "the vision of how blown out she must be, especially against how tight she kept what was visible to the public eye" pulls at the pornographic logic of concealment and revelation, but the narrator's prose voice doesn't aestheticize this: it reports it, flatly, as part of a psychological inventory. The hunger "grunts" pulled from his throat are animalistic precisely at the moment when the animal world is quietly retreating from him.

The Vaseline, the dish soap, the paper towels — these domestic particulars are the piece's most morally weighted details. They ground the narrator's compromised state in the specific, unglamorized textures of ordinary self-gratification: not fantasy or psychology but petroleum jelly and kitchen sinks. "My hand was greased with Vaseline. I saw the tire run over the worst spot." The juxtaposition is not played for horror; it is allowed to speak at its own frequency. The piece trusts its materials.

The marathon analogy is the narrator's most sophisticated act of self-exculpation, and the piece exposes it without editorializing. The argument is that bodily states do not disqualify one from action — that if marathon runners can go on despite soiling themselves, masturbating would not have prevented a response. But the analogy fails at its premise. A marathon runner's diarrhea is not chosen. The narrator's masturbation was — and was chosen, moreover, in the direct presence of children playing outside, whose safety he had declared his "war" for nearly a decade. The piece does not point this out explicitly. It simply places the analogy in proximity to the facts and lets the distance between them become readable.

The prayer is similarly self-unraveling. "If I had really thought the prayer would have efficacy, would I still have taken this me time?" This conditional exposes the prayer as insurance rather than supplication — a hedged appeal to a God he does not actually believe in enough to act on. He prayed because praying was cheaper than stopping. The prayer's failure to carry conviction is itself a form of evidence: it tells us what he actually, in the moment, believed about the situation's severity — and what he chose anyway.

The intrusive sexual fantasy in the later paragraphs is the piece's most disturbing formal decision, and it is fully earned. Sitting on the curb, the narrator imagines going down on the mother after the funeral, imagines whispering "I'm gonna give you another baby" at climax. "The shame of such thoughts, just like the thoughts themselves — all of it keeps receding and I remain here." The piece does not present this as a moral revelation — as proof of the narrator's depravity — but as evidence of something more disturbing: that consciousness does not reorganize itself around catastrophe. The same erotic circuitry running while the child tipped off his bike continues to run after. Eros does not observe a period of mourning. The fantasy of giving the grieving mother "another baby" is not simply grotesque; it is the libidinal unconscious's attempt to perform reparation in the only language it knows, which the piece allows to be simultaneously obscene and, in its own broken way, legible.

The performativity passage is where the piece most directly examines its own procedure. The narrator lists the possible explanations for his continued vigil — spectacle for neighbors, cosmic gratitude, preemptive offering — and watches each explanation "drop away each time they rise." He cannot make these explanations stick because they are insufficient. Whatever holds him to the curb is not reducible to any instrumental logic. The piece does not replace the failed explanations with a better one. What remains after all of them have dropped away is the vigil itself, which the piece presents as genuinely opaque — not transcendent, not redemptive, but real in a way that exceeds the narrator's available categories.

The final paragraph enacts the dissolution it names. "The deep gears I have always known to spin have stopped." The mechanical metaphor reaches back to the title: the crankshaft is no longer turning. "I feel one with the tree, one with the buzzing wire." Through exhaustion or grace or both, the narrator has arrived at something like the animals' attunement — a state in which selfhood temporarily ceases to organize experience from the center and instead becomes part of the environment. But the piece refuses to aestheticize this. The sun burns his scalp. "I have reason to get up. But how can I?" The final line is not rhetorical. It is a genuine question about what it means to re-enter the self — to restart the crankshaft — after this.

Formally, the piece moves between impoverished declarative sentences and long recursive clauses in a rhythm that mimics the narrator's oscillation between numbness and eruption. The short sentences carry the facts; the long sentences carry the consciousness's attempts to process them. Neither mode achieves resolution. Tense shifts — present vigil, past event — create a palimpsest structure in which the event keeps returning into the present tense of the curb. The narrator cannot finish thinking about what happened because he has not left the site where it happened, and cannot leave because he cannot finish thinking.

What "Crank Shaft" achieves is a portrait of psychological fragmentation that neither condemns nor exonerates but insists on the full complexity of a consciousness simultaneously capable of deep care, chronic selfishness, genuine grief, and the unstoppable continuation of desire through all of it. The crankshaft is still the mechanism. The question the piece leaves open is whether the man on the curb is the driver or the engine — whether he willed this or was run by it — and the refusal to answer is the piece's deepest ethical act.

Meta Description

A prose piece examining psychological fragmentation in the aftermath of catastrophic witness: a narrator whose masturbatory act entangles him in a child's death sits immobile on a curb while his consciousness continues to generate desire, calculation, self-exculpation, and grief in equal, irresolvable measure — refusing every explanation for why he stays.

Keywords

Crank Shaft, psychological fragmentation, trauma prose, erotic consciousness and catastrophe, moral culpability literature, prose poem close reading, traumatic witness, dissociation and desire, interior monologue analysis, flash fiction guilt, consciousness and catastrophe, self-exculpation narrative, death and eros, contemporary American prose poetry, compromised narrator

Read More

blog

FAQ

Visit my Substack: Hive Being

Visit my Substack: Hive Being


Don’t let anyone tell you that real life is lacking in poetic interest. This is exactly what the poet is for: he has the mind and the imagination to find something of interest in everyday things. Real life supplies the motifs, the points that need to be said—the actual heart of the matter; but it is the poet’s job to fashion it all into a beautiful, animated whole. You are familiar with Fürnstein, the so-called “nature poet”? He has written a poem about growing hops, and you couldn’t imagine anything nicer. I have now asked him to write some poems celebrating the work of skilled artisans, in particular weavers, and I am quite sure he will succeed; he has lived among such people from an early age, he knows the subject inside out, and will be in full command of his material. That is the advantage of small works: you need only choose subjects that you know and have at your command. With a longer poetic work, however, this is not possible. There is no way around it: all the different threads that tie the whole thing together, and are woven into the design, have to be shown in accurate detail. Young people only have a one-sided view of things, whereas a longer work requires a multiplicity of viewpoints—and that’s where they come unstuck.—Goethe (Conversations with Eckermann)


Featured Blog Posts

in how many dreams might you
have appeared last night—
all those met along the way?