Archive
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

Exorcism Rites for Cisnormative Panic (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Exorcism Rites for Cisnormative Panic (ROUND 1)

"Exorcism Rites for Cisnormative Panic" is a poem about the performative collapse of a denial that cannot complete itself. Its fourteen lines enact, through typographic emphasis and syntactic recursion, the psychological experience of a man attempting to talk himself out of a conclusion his own language keeps producing. The poem does not argue about trans identity or sexuality from the outside. It goes inside the specific cognitive loop of someone for whom the argument matters personally and urgently, and renders that loop with formal precision — the italics, the em-dashes, the repetitions — as the poem's primary expressive medium.

The title does substantial work before the first line. "Exorcism rites" frames what follows as a ritual of expulsion — an attempt to drive something out through the correct performance of the right words in the right order. Exorcism assumes that the thing to be expelled is external, an invading presence, something that does not belong to the self being cleansed. The poem's irony, established in the title and confirmed throughout, is that the thing being exorcised is the conclusion the speaker's own reasoning keeps reaching. The ritual fails not because the words are wrong but because exorcism cannot work on something that originates from within. "Cisnormative panic" names the condition being treated: the anxiety produced when one's cisgender self-understanding is destabilized by attraction to a trans person. The title is clinical, almost academic, and its clinical distance from the poem's actual anguished texture creates an irony the poem exploits from its first line.

The poem is structured as a single argument that cannot finish its own sentences. The opening quotation mark announces a speaker attempting to state a position clearly — "Dating a trans girl, that doesn't make / me gay" — but the statement immediately requires reinforcement: "dating a trans girl / does not make me gay." The shift from contraction to full stress — "doesn't" to "does not" — marks the first crack in the argument's confidence. The speaker is already amplifying before he has finished his first claim, which is the poem's first signal that the amplification is not rhetorical flourish but structural necessity: the claim requires more force because it is not holding.

The second stanza introduces the appositive — "a girl, / doesn't make me gay; dating / a trans girl — a girl who is a girl —" — and this is where the poem's real argument begins to surface. The speaker reaches for the appositive as a logical support: she is a girl, therefore dating her cannot make me gay. But the em-dash that opens and the em-dash that closes "a girl who is a girl" turn what should be a clarifying aside into a suspended qualification, a parenthetical that cannot close without drawing attention to its own defensive necessity. "A girl who is a girl" is not a neutral description but an argument the speaker is making to himself, and the dashes frame it as something inserted under pressure, something that needs to be said precisely because it might otherwise be doubted.

The third stanza is where the poem's syntax fully breaks down and becomes its subject. "Doesn't — does not — make me / or anyone gay" compounds the negation's failure to stabilize: first the contraction, then the full form, the dash between them marking not emphasis but revision, the speaker catching himself mid-word and reaching for a stronger formulation. "Or anyone" is the poem's most revealing addition — the sudden universalization of a claim that began entirely personal. The speaker cannot simply argue his own case; he needs the argument to be universally true, because a personal exemption would carry a different weight than a categorical principle. The universalization is the panic's footprint: if it were only about him, something would already be conceded.

"I mean — it just doesn't —" is the poem's final and most devastating line. "I mean" is the collapse of formal argument into colloquial appeal, the speaker abandoning logical structure for the register of someone trying to make a friend understand something obvious. And then the em-dash after "doesn't" — the sentence that cannot complete itself, the argument that ends not in a period but in silence. The poem closes on the interrupted syntax, the thought that runs out before it can arrive at a conclusion, which is itself the conclusion: the exorcism has failed. The thing being expelled has won not by argument but by the exhaustion of the argument against it.

Formally, the poem's typographic emphases — the italics on "make," "not," "a girl," "is," "does not," "me," "anyone" — are not decorative but diagnostic. Each italicized word marks a site of pressure, a location where the argument requires extra force, and the distribution of these pressure points across the poem maps the exact shape of the speaker's anxiety. That "me" receives italics — "make me" — tells us that the personal stakes are as fraught as the logical ones. That "anyone" receives italics tells us the universalization is doing defensive work. The poem's emphasis patterns are a seismograph of the panic its title names.

What "Exorcism Rites for Cisnormative Panic" achieves in fourteen lines is a complete portrait of a mind attempting to use language as a tool of self-persuasion and discovering, in the attempt, that language is a very poor tool for this particular job — that the more precisely you try to articulate a denial, the more precisely you articulate what you are denying. The poem does not adjudicate the speaker's sexuality or the validity of his anxiety. It renders the anxiety's internal mechanics with enough precision that the reader can feel the cognitive loop closing around the speaker even as he reaches, again and again, for the words that would open it.

Meta Description

A poem that renders cisnormative panic as a self-defeating syntactic loop — tracking through italics, em-dashes, and recursive negation the precise cognitive mechanics of a man whose attempt to argue himself out of a conclusion keeps producing the conclusion he is arguing against, the exorcism failing not because the words are wrong but because what is being expelled originates from within.

Keywords

Exorcism Rites for Cisnormative Panic, trans identity poetry, cisnormative anxiety, syntactic recursion, self-persuasion failure, typographic emphasis, em-dash poetry, italics as diagnostic, sexuality and denial, contemporary American lyric, cognitive loop poetry, exorcism metaphor, close reading, gender and sexuality poetry, performative contradiction

Read More
Demons Outside of Hollywood Take Their Time (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Demons Outside of Hollywood Take Their Time (ROUND 1)

"Demons Outside of Hollywood Take Their Time" is a nine-line poem tracing the somatic lineage of a grandmother’s hand—from its current state of desiccated, rheumatoid decay back to the pungent, auditory reality of her adolescent self-touch. Moving through three tightly constructed tercets, the poem operates with the clinical intimacy of anatomical inspection, framing physical aging not as an arbitrary tragedy, but as a slow-collecting corporeal debt: the physical bill the Pied Piper eventually presents to the flesh for a youth spent without shame.

The title rejects the sensationalized, fast-moving horror of popular cinema in favor of a patient, domestic reality. "Demons Outside of Hollywood Take Their Time" establishes the poem’s core thesis before the first line begins: true terror operates over decades in the quiet erosion of tissue, joints, and domestic boundaries. The "demons" are not supernatural apparitions, but the persistent, unvarnished physical truths of human existence—desire, body funk, noise, and decay—that wait across a lifetime to settle their accounts.

"Granny’s hand—blue veins / bulbous against taut desiccation / milky in its translucence" opens the poem on microscopic anatomical detail. The speaker fixes on the physical tension between interior swelling and exterior drying; "bulbous" veins strain against skin defined by "taut desiccation," a state of complete moisture loss. "Milky in its translucence" completes this image of paper-thin old age, rendering the hand as a semi-transparent shell stretched thin over pressurized vascular structures.

"Fingers gnarled like afflicted / ginger—once churned that nub / into diced-onion agonies" transforms the hand from human tissue into something subterranean, twisted, and root-like, capturing the physical distortion of disease. The poem immediately bridges this modern decay with past action through the labor-intensive verb "churned." The hand now crippled by time once churned her own nub into "diced-onion agonies"—a phrase that strips adolescent female masturbation of any romantic or soft-focus framing, rendering youth as volatile, sulfuric body chemistry worked into a raw lather through sheer mechanical friction.

"The whole house could smell, / tacky tween plaps mean enough / to unzip Dad in the hall" expands the private physical act into an uncontainable domestic event. "Tacky tween plaps" is the poem’s central auditory compound, stacking heavy consonants to evoke the wet, suction-heavy sound of uninhibited adolescent touch. The impact radiates into the hallway, proving "mean enough / to unzip Dad in the hall." The verb "unzip" serves as a violent metaphor for psychological undoing and structural collapse, as her own father is dismantled out in the corridor by the raw, unavoidable sensory reality of his daughter’s bodily heat. The poem leaves the reader at the collision of two eras: the wet friction of a young girl's youth and the desiccated, ginger-knuckled debt of her old age.

Meta Description

A nine-line poem tracing the history of a grandmother's hand from the rank, onion-funky heat of her adolescent self-touch to the gnarled, rheumatoid decay of her old age—contrasting the wet auditory shock felt by her father against her desiccated physical present.

Keywords

Demons Outside of Hollywood Take Their Time, corporeal debt, rheumatoid aesthetics, diced-onion agonies, tacky tween plaps, somatic memory, domestic gothic, transgressive poetry, aging and decay, tercet form, intergenerational shock

Read More
Beyond Stitchable (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Beyond Stitchable (ROUND 1)

"Beyond Stitchable" is a poem about a specific and disturbing form of erotic fixation — one organized not around conventional sexual pleasure but around the involuntary physiological responses of neonatal bodies to sexual violation, specifically the cardiac response: the heart's unbroken squeeze in the milking gallop of ecstasy. Its nine lines move through three tercets with the compression of clinical observation rendered in the register of obsession, the speaker cataloguing what hooks her with the precision of a researcher and the investment of an addict.

The title names the poem's governing category before the first line begins. "Beyond stitchable" names the degree of damage the speaker's fixation concerns — not injury that can be repaired but injury that exceeds repair, the body opened past the threshold of closure. The clinical register of "stitchable" is the poem's formal key: the speaker approaches her obsession with the vocabulary of medicine, of damage assessment, of the body as a system whose tolerances can be measured.

"She cannot stop corralling / reports of neonatal cock sleeves" opens on the speaker's compulsive information-gathering — "corralling" naming the activity as herding, organizing, containing a proliferation that keeps escaping its enclosures. "Neonatal cock sleeves" is the poem's most deliberately clinical grotesque — the infant body rendered as a receptacle in the coldest possible vocabulary.

"What hooks her, hole ruin / just the tip" isolates the specific element of the fixation. "Hole ruin" and "just the tip" are in tension: the diminutive of "just the tip" placed against the absoluteness of "ruin," the minimization of the act set against the totality of its consequence.

"Are the thoracic / creampies, how even the tiniest / plum heart will squeeze" is the poem's central image. "Thoracic creampies" is the poem's most audacious compound — the slang of pornography applied to the thoracic cavity. What hooks the speaker is the cardiac response: the heart's involuntary squeeze at the moment of violation. "The tiniest / plum heart" renders the neonatal heart with a fragile sweetness that makes the image most disturbing.

"Unbroken, unlike beheaded / cloaca" is the poem's crux and requires its specific context to land fully. The beheaded goose cloaca is a known sexual practice: the goose is decapitated so that the cloaca spasms and contracts around the man during his climax. But those spasms are broken, irregular, convulsive — the twitching of a severed nervous system. The infant heart, by contrast, remains unbroken even as everything around it is destroyed beyond stitching. It does not spasm. It squeezes in its natural milking rhythm, steady and complete. The speaker's fixation is precisely on this — the heart that keeps its unbroken beat, that maintains the exact rhythm humans crave in ecstasy, persisting through total violation with a terrible fidelity to its own nature.

"In that milking gallop / humans in ecstasy demand" closes the poem on its most philosophically disturbing formulation. "Milking gallop" names the cardiac rhythm as simultaneously agricultural, mechanical, and erotic. "Humans in ecstasy demand" extends this to the species: the cardiac squeeze the speaker is fixated on is not aberrant — it is the same physiological rhythm that organizes all human sexual ecstasy. The poem closes on the suggestion that what separates the speaker's fixation from ordinary desire is not the rhythm itself but its location and context. The heart squeezes in ecstasy. Here it squeezes in violation. The distance between these two events is left as the reader's problem.

Meta Description

A nine-line poem rendering a speaker's compulsive fixation on neonatal cardiac response to sexual violation — the heart's unbroken milking gallop contrasted against the broken spasms of a beheaded goose cloaca, the specific object of obsession rendered through the collision of clinical anatomical vocabulary and pornographic slang.

Keywords

Beyond Stitchable, neonatal fixation, cardiac response, thoracic creampie, plum heart, milking gallop, hole ruin, beheaded cloaca, clinical grotesque, obsessive speaker, contemporary American poetry, tercet form, ecstasy and violation

Read More
Bulletproof Vow (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Bulletproof Vow (ROUND 1)

"Bulletproof Vow" is a poem about the specific failure mode of magical thinking under combat conditions — specifically, about the soldier whose private bargain with the cosmos remains not merely intact but actively strengthened by the carnage surrounding him, the evidence of mass death feeding rather than challenging his belief in his own protection. Its nine lines move through three tercets with the compression of a poem that knows the joke is on the dead man, and treats this knowledge with neither contempt nor sentimentality but with exact, dry precision.

The title establishes the central irony before the first line begins. "Bulletproof" names the soldier's belief in his own protection — the vow as armor, the promise as ballistic material. "Vow" names the instrument of that belief: a solemn promise carrying the weight of the sacred in a context where the sacred is the only available protection. The compound names both the aspiration and its failure simultaneously — the vow was supposed to be bulletproof, and the soldier never knew it wasn't, because the belief held all the way through.

"Beguiled by belief / in a just cosmos that strikes bargains" opens on the soldier's theological position with precision that is also a diagnosis. "Beguiled" names him not as stupid or delusional but as seduced, charmed, taken in by something appealing that turns out to be false. The just cosmos is appealing precisely because it operates by rules, honors agreements, can be negotiated with. "Strikes bargains" names the transactional theology organizing his thinking: if he does x, the cosmos will do y. The bargain has the structure of a contract, and the beguiled mind experiences contracts as enforceable.

"Dried brain on his canteen / less bother than bolster" is the poem's most formally compressed and most psychologically precise image. The dried brain on the canteen is the material evidence of what combat does to the people around the soldier — the physical residue of a fellow human being's death, carried on the object the soldier drinks from daily. And this evidence does not bother the belief. It bolsters it. This is the poem's central and most disturbing psychological claim: that the need for the vow to be true intensifies in direct proportion to the death surrounding him. The carnage is not a challenge to magical thinking but its fuel. The more desperate the conditions, the more desperately the vow must be believed, and the more desperately it must be believed, the more impervious it becomes to anything that might threaten it. The belief does not survive despite the horror. It survives because of it, the dried brain on the canteen becoming not a warning but evidence of how necessary the vow is.

"Ecce homo: yet another butchered / in battle after having sworn" — "ecce homo," Pilate's presentation of the condemned Christ, arrives as the poem's darkest formal joke. "Behold the man" — and the man is yet another soldier killed while believing his vow would protect him. The Latin invokes the tradition of sacred sacrifice while immediately deflating it: this is not martyrdom but the common fate of the man who thought his private bargain with the universe was enforceable. "Yet another" is the poem's most devastating qualifier — the soldier is not exceptional, not the first, the vow is not original, the error is repeated across the history of combat with terrible consistency. The cosmos has not been keeping its side.

"To deliver — hand deliver, / not cock — squadmate letters, / if need be, to cobwebbed wives" reveals the vow's actual terms and the moral architecture the soldier has constructed around them. He swore to deliver his squadmates' letters to their wives if they were killed — and specifically to do so without sexual opportunism, the "hand deliver, / not cock" distinction naming the temptation the vow forecloses. The cobwebbed wives are waiting, their marriages long-distance and neglected, the cobwebs naming the sexual deprivation of prolonged separation. The soldier's vow specifically forecloses taking advantage of that vulnerability. He is going to do this right, and doing it right is the currency of the bargain he believes the cosmos is honoring.

The poem closes on these terms — on the vow as it was conceived, the letters, the wives, the distinction between hand and cock — rather than on the manner of the soldier's death, which has already been named earlier as butchery in battle. This formal choice is the poem's most precise: the soldier's last defined act is the vow itself, the belief in its terms, the moral seriousness with which he took the bargain. He dies having kept his side. The cosmos, as always, was never keeping its side at all. The vow was bulletproof in the only sense that mattered to the universe: it held until there was no longer anyone to hold it.

What "Bulletproof Vow" refuses is both elegy and contempt. The soldier is genuinely moral — the vow to hand-deliver rather than exploit is a real ethical commitment. The belief in its protective power is the error, but the error is beguiling rather than foolish, seductive rather than stupid. And the carnage that should have opened the belief to doubt instead sealed it further, each death making the need more acute, the need making the belief more necessary, the belief becoming more impervious precisely because the evidence against it was everywhere. The dried brain on the canteen is the poem's governing image because it names this mechanism without explaining it away — the horror that the most devastating evidence becomes the most powerful confirmation of what the desperate mind needs to believe.

Meta Description

A nine-line poem about a soldier whose belief in a protective cosmic bargain is bolstered rather than challenged by the carnage surrounding him — the dried brain on his canteen less bother than bolster, the need for the vow to be true intensifying with every death, until he is butchered in battle having kept his side of an agreement the cosmos was never keeping, the poem closing on the vow's terms rather than the death, the belief held all the way through.

Keywords

Bulletproof Vow, combat magical thinking, just cosmos, transactional theology, ecce homo, cobwebbed wives, hand deliver not cock, dried brain canteen, bolstered belief, carnage and magical thinking, squadmate letters, beguiled belief, belief and need, contemporary American poetry, nine-line poem, tercet form, war poetry, irony and death, vow and protection, cosmos and contract, elegy refused

Read More
Quikrete (ROUND 2)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Quikrete (ROUND 2)

"Quikrete" is an exceptionally transgressive, structurally lean polemic that uses extreme imagery to launch an indictment of pathologically self-serving domesticity. Operating at the intersection of body horror, social satire, and forensic crime, the poem targets a nightmare inversion of parental responsibility: a dynamic where adoption becomes an engine for ego, competitive status, and objectification. Rather than depicting a calculated murder, the poem tracks the tragic, accidental outcome of long-term sadism—two adoptive fathers who view a child as a prized personal commodity, only to accidentally break that "toy" through reckless, competitive abuse. The title functions as the poem’s grim, material resolution: Quikrete—an industrial, fast-drying concrete mix—is invoked not to signify domestic construction, but rather swift forensic concealment: the fast-curing cement rushed in to encase a corpse, seal a grave, and preserve a suburban facade.

The poem opens by laying bare the psychological and social pretense that precedes the violence:

The adoptive gays, one-upmanship

revving waiting-list edging

into trichotillomania,

Here, the poem dissects the administrative gauntlet of modern adoption—a system reliant on socioeconomic auditing and moral vetting. By fusing "waiting-list edging" with "trichotillomania" (the compulsive, neurotic pulling out of one's own hair), the poem characterizes the prospective parents as driven to a state of self-cannibalizing fixation. However, this agonizing process does not yield nurturing readiness; instead, it fosters an entitled, competitive hunger for ownership. The desire for parenthood is transformed into a high-stakes game of "one-upmanship," where the child is conceptualized prior to arrival not as a human subject requiring care, but as a long-sought trophy acquired through endurance.

The shift into the execution of the assault highlights the complete moral detachment with which the perpetrators operate:

tag team a fatality (“Finish Him!”

skinned in synonym), colonic torsion neither dad—

Crucially, the parenthetical reference to Mortal Kombat’s iconic directive, “Finish Him!”, is explicitly noted as being "skinned in synonym." The text establishes that "Finish Him!" is not spoken dialogue; rather, the arcade framework serves as a conceptual blueprint that has been re-clothed—or "skinned"—in their own sadistic, real-world vernacular. By mapping the mechanics of a fighting-game fatality onto a physical assault, the perpetrators trivialize real-world harm as a competitive sport. The phrase "skinned in synonym" operates as a double entendre: it denotes the cosmetic "skins" of video game avatars while describing how language itself has been flayed to disguise severe abuse as collaborative play.

The second stanza introduces the poem's central tragedy and structural pivot:

whirler, impaler—meant

to bloody the kiddo creampie: “Fuck yeah! Spin that lil

prick!”

The critical phrase "neither dad... meant" provides the dark thematic core of the narrative. The catastrophic internal injury—"colonic torsion"—was not a calculated, premeditated execution. Having waited years on a waiting list to secure a human possession for long-term exploitation, the fathers did not intend to destroy what they had acquired. Instead, in their manic, competitive enthusiasm—acting as specialized instruments of torture ("whirler, impaler")—they push the assault past the physical threshold of human endurance. The sickening juxtaposition of diminutive affection ("kiddo") with crude predatory slang ("creampie") reveals their complete reification of the child.

The dialogue—““Fuck yeah! Spin that lil prick!””—captures the actual spoken commands into which the "Finish Him!" archetype was re-skinned. Mechanically, the open-vowel roar of "Fuck yeah!" maintains the breathless, uninhibited adrenaline of the act, while "Spin that lil prick!" acts as a sharp double entendre referencing both physical rotation and severe degradation. It represents the height of their unrepentant frenzy, captured mere seconds before the fatal collapse is realized.

When the physical rupture occurs, the frantic kinetic energy of the assault instantly vanishes, replaced by the cold, logistical imperative of the poem's title. "Quikrete" is the emergency solution to a broken possession. The poem leaves the reader at the exact threshold where sadistic play ends and forensic management begins: the realization that the long-sought commodity has been permanently ruined, requiring bags of fast-setting concrete to entomb the evidence beneath a slab before the outside world notices.

Meta Description

An exceptionally transgressive poem tracking two adoptive fathers whose ego-driven waiting-list one-upmanship culminates in an accidental, fatal colonic rupture of their child, leading directly to the industrial quick-dry concrete disposal of the body.

Keywords

Quikrete, literary analysis, contemporary poetry, transgressive poetry, child abuse, body disposal, adoption vetting, objectification, colonic torsion, whirler impaler, skinned in synonym, social critique, close reading.

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?