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

Clinical Excommunication (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Clinical Excommunication (ROUND 1)

"Clinical Excommunication" is a poem about the coercive grammar of therapeutic and institutional interpretation — the way certain professional frameworks demand a particular kind of self-disclosure, and penalize those who withhold it not by engaging with their refusal but by converting it into a diagnostic category. Its nine lines move through three tercets with comic precision, deploying two extended analogies before arriving at the clinical notation that retroactively names what the speaker's resistance has been classified as. The poem's argument is compressed into its title: excommunication is a religious act, the formal expulsion of a member who has failed to conform to doctrinal requirement. The clinical setting, the poem insists, performs the same operation under different vocabulary.

The governing analogy structure — psychoanalyst, Pentecostal revival, mall hypnotist — is the poem's central formal achievement. Each figure represents a system that requires the subject's surrender as proof of the system's validity. The psychoanalyst needs the mommy-daddy answers: the stock narrative of parental origination that confirms the theoretical framework before the session has properly begun. The Pentecostal reverend — "Reverend Sho'Nuff," whose name carries its own freight of performative authority — needs the congregant to fall under the holy-ghost hand, to drop as physical evidence of the spirit's presence. The mall hypnotist needs the subject to bark, to perform the loss of autonomous will that justifies the whole enterprise. In each case, the subject's non-compliance is not interpreted as evidence that the system may be limited or wrong. It is interpreted as evidence that the subject is deficient — a "spoilsport," a resistant case, a pathology.

"Reverend Sho'Nuff" is doing more than comic work. The name evokes the villain of the 1985 martial-arts film "The Last Dragon," a figure of theatrical self-proclaimed authority — "the master" — whose power depends entirely on others' willingness to recognize it. Applied to the Pentecostal revival context, the name quietly argues that the revival's spiritual authority and the villain's martial authority operate by the same logic: both require the crowd's performed submission to sustain the performance of power. The speaker who does not drop is not failing spiritually; they are declining to participate in a theater that requires their body as a prop.

The mall hypnotist comparison is the poem's most democratizing move. By placing the psychoanalyst in a sequence that runs through a Pentecostal revival to a mall hypnotist, the poem performs a deliberate bathos — a descent in cultural register that is also an argument about structural equivalence. The psychoanalyst operates in the most credentialed and theoretically elaborated of the three frameworks; the mall hypnotist operates in the least. But the demand each makes on the subject is identical: surrender your autonomous interpretive authority, perform the response the system requires, and thereby validate the system's power. The poem does not argue that psychoanalysis is as intellectually thin as mall hypnosis. It argues that the specific demand for compliance, and the specific penalty for non-compliance, are structurally the same across all three.

The poem's punchline — "and so / the notepad scribble: 'sev antisoc.'" — is where the argument lands with its full weight. The abbreviation performs the excommunication: "severe antisocial" rendered in the shorthand of clinical documentation, a notation made not because the speaker has displayed antisocial behavior in any meaningful sense but because they have declined to provide the responses that the framework requires. The "notepad scribble" is the clinical equivalent of the excommunication document — the formal record of failed compliance, converted into a diagnosis. That it is a scribble matters: this is not careful clinical observation but the quick notation of professional irritation, the diagnostic category deployed as punishment for the subject's refusal to be legible in the expected way.

The title's "excommunication" holds the poem's deepest irony. Excommunication is supposed to name a genuine breach — a heresy, a departure from the community's essential doctrine. What the poem exposes is that the breach here is not doctrinal but procedural: the speaker has not denied the validity of psychology or the existence of childhood influence, has simply declined to produce the expected narrative on demand. The clinical framework, like the religious one, cannot distinguish between genuine dissent and the refusal to perform. Both get the same notation.

Formally, the three tercets mirror the three analogies with elegant economy. Each tercet introduces a figure of institutional authority and the specific performance that figure demands, building a cumulative case before the final tercet delivers the verdict. The enjambment is precise — "and so" at the opening of the final tercet functions as a logical connective, the conclusion of an argument the poem has been building, before "the notepad scribble" arrives as the punchline that is also a diagnosis. The colon before the quoted notation gives it the weight of evidence — this is the record, the document, the excommunication made legible in four characters of clinical abbreviation.

Meta Description

A poem about the coercive compliance structures of psychoanalysis, Pentecostal revival, and mall hypnosis — arguing that each demands the subject's performed surrender as proof of the system's validity, and converts non-compliance not into evidence of the system's limits but into a diagnostic category, rendering clinical notation as a form of institutional excommunication.

Keywords

Clinical Excommunication, psychoanalysis critique, institutional compliance, antisocial diagnosis, Pentecostal revival poetry, mall hypnotist, therapeutic framework, diagnostic coercion, excommunication metaphor, contemporary American poetry, comic poetry, tercet form, clinical notation, performed surrender, heresy and diagnosis

Read More
Rectal Raiders Volume 3 (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Rectal Raiders Volume 3 (ROUND 1)

"Rectal Raiders Volume 3" is a poem about the formation of erotic knowledge through coerced sensory exposure, and about the specific permanence of what is deposited in a child's sensorium before she has the vocabulary to name it. Its nine lines move through three tercets with lyric compression and psychological precision, arriving at a girl alone at night, involuntarily aroused by the smell of semen — a scent permanently rewired into erotic trigger by early proximity she did not choose — cursing the buttery aromas she cannot help but respond to.

The title does substantial work before the first line begins. "Rectal Raiders Volume 3" is a pornographic DVD title — anatomically blunt, serialized as commodity, numbered in a franchise entirely indifferent to who might find these volumes and what might happen to them in an ordinary household. Its bathos is not incidental. The poem insists, through the title, that the object shaping this child's earliest erotic cognition is exactly this object: graceless, mass-produced, one in a series. The comedy of the title and the damage of the poem are not in tension. They are the same argument.

The "third dad" is the poem's most structurally loaded detail. Not a father but a third father — a serial domestic presence, temporary, carrying his habits and carelessness into a household not originally his. His act of putting the girl's head under the sofa blanket while he masturbates to pornography is a concealment that functions entirely as exposure. The blanket blocks the visual; it cannot block the acoustic or the olfactory. What passes through the blanket — "spit strokes clicking," his mounting arousal, and finally the moment of climax — is everything the poem is actually about. The blanket is a moral alibi that the poem does not dignify with refutation. It simply describes what the blanket cannot contain.

The second tercet's syntax is the poem's most precise instrument. "She knew — before / any starlet told her to smack / the balls in her vision — his moans": the dash suspends the sentence at the threshold of what she already knew, before instruction arrived. The starlet's pedagogical function — providing the cultural script for what to do with aroused male bodies — comes after the imprinting, as a belated label for knowledge already lodged. What she knew first was acoustic: the specific sound of his moans. She could identify male arousal before she had the vocabulary for it. This is exactly how erotic imprinting operates under conditions of exposure rather than instruction — the knowledge arrives sensorially and lodges before it can be processed or refused.

The poem's final movement is its most compressed and most devastating. His moans at climax — the same moans she already knew — curse forth the semen smell: the profanity of climax and the release of ejaculate are simultaneous, the cursing and the bread aromas issuing from the same moment. The ellipsis the poem performs here is syntactic daring: moaning, cursing, and ejaculating collapse into a single event, the blanket failing to contain any of it. And what that moment deposits in her is permanent. Later, alone at night, the buttery aromas arrive unbidden in ordinary life and activate the same response — she curses them because they come for her without her consent, because the Pavlovian linkage was written into her sensorium in conditions she did not choose and cannot now undo. That she swirls herself to the DVD alone, privately, reflexively, shows the imprinting fully internalized: the external deposit has become her own involuntary inner life.

The aloneness of the final image is the poem's last and most significant pressure point. The third dad is gone. The blanket is gone. What remains is a girl in the dark, in full possession of a desire that was never fully hers to begin with, cursing a smell that will not stop telling her what she was taught before she was old enough to be taught anything.

Formally, the three tercets enact a causal sequence — adult behavior, child's prior knowledge, child's subsequent solitary life with that knowledge — while the number three recurs structurally as a principle of accumulation: three tercets, three dads, Volume 3. The serialization implied by that number refuses to frame this as singular incident. It is pattern, franchise, the nth installment of something that has been running long before the poem begins.

Meta Description

A poem about erotic imprinting through coerced sensory exposure — tracing how a child's desire is formed beneath a sofa blanket by a stepfather's pornography use, the moans of his climax cursing forth a semen smell that becomes a permanent involuntary trigger, deposited before she had the vocabulary to refuse it.

Keywords

Rectal Raiders Volume 3, erotic imprinting, coerced sensory exposure, stepfather negligence, pornography and childhood, olfactory association, involuntary arousal, Pavlovian conditioning poetry, climax and profanity, ellipsis poetics, tercet form, contemporary lyric, domestic negligence, semen smell association, close reading contemporary poem

Read More
Fuckbot Errands (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Fuckbot Errands (ROUND 1)

“Fuckbot Errands” is a miniature poem about aesthetic self-modification under conditions of technological mediation. Its apparent subject is cosmetic contouring, but its deeper concern is the erosion of embodied reality by image culture. The poem asks a deceptively simple question: if a beauty practice already appears uncanny on a screen, what happens when that same aesthetic enters ordinary physical space? Beneath its humor lies a philosophical meditation on simulation, representation, and the increasing inability of contemporary culture to distinguish enhancement from deformation.

The poem begins with startling compression: “Two lines of fecal taupe to chisel / the cheeks of the porky podcaster.” The phrase “fecal taupe” immediately sabotages the glamour of contour makeup. Rather than invoking the language of fashion or beauty, the poem reduces the cosmetic product to an earthy, bodily substance. The choice is strategic. Contouring promises sculptural refinement—the creation of shadows where none naturally exist—but the poem insists on the material absurdity of the process. The face becomes something worked upon, artificially carved into a more desirable shape.

Yet the target is not merely an individual woman. The figure of the “porky podcaster” represents a broader cultural condition. She is someone whose existence is mediated through cameras, screens, and self-presentation. The contour lines are not being applied to a face encountered directly by others. They are being applied to an image-producing machine. This distinction is crucial. The poem is less interested in vanity than in the strange feedback loop whereby people increasingly modify themselves for technological reproduction rather than for face-to-face human perception.

The parenthetical interruption—“(normalized clown / insanity like overdrawn lips, / like Botox)”—broadens the critique. The phrase “normalized clown insanity” is not simply an insult. It names a process by which visibly artificial practices become culturally invisible through repetition. Clowns traditionally exaggerate facial features into caricature. Yet the poem suggests that contemporary beauty culture has rendered analogous exaggerations ordinary. Overdrawn lips and Botox are presented not as isolated phenomena but as examples of a larger aesthetic logic: the pursuit of enhancement until enhancement itself becomes distortion.

Importantly, the poem's criticism is not directed at individuals so much as at collective perception. The key word is “normalized.” The problem is not that people engage in artificial modification. Humans have always done so. The problem is that repeated exposure alters the standards by which reality itself is judged. What once appeared grotesque gradually comes to seem natural.

The poem reaches its philosophical center in the final question: “if these, too stiff / for true shadows, make her / a cadaver even on YouTube, / what must they do hovering / in the aisles of Trader Joes?” The movement from YouTube to Trader Joe’s is essential. It marks a shift from mediated space to physical space. On screen, contouring can succeed because cameras flatten depth and convert faces into images. But the poem asks readers to imagine the same cosmetic construction encountered in ordinary life.

The phrase “too stiff for true shadows” is especially incisive. Contouring attempts to imitate natural shadow, yet the imitation lacks the fluidity of actual light. The cosmetic shadow is static where real shadow is dynamic. It remains fixed despite movement, expression, or changing illumination. The result is a subtle uncanniness. The face begins to resemble not a living body but a representation of one.

This culminates in the image of the “cadaver.” The comparison works because the poem identifies a paradox at the heart of cosmetic enhancement culture. Practices intended to create vitality, youthfulness, and attractiveness can, beyond a certain threshold, produce the opposite effect. The pursuit of animation risks generating lifelessness. The pursuit of beauty risks producing something mask-like.

What gives the poem its force is its economy. In only a handful of lines, it compresses questions of simulation, beauty standards, technological mediation, and collective perception. The humor is sharp, but it serves a larger philosophical purpose. “Fuckbot Errands” ultimately suggests that modern aesthetic culture increasingly asks people to optimize themselves for screens, even when those optimizations become unsettling in the physical world. The poem's final image leaves us with a quietly disturbing possibility: that we have become so accustomed to artificial faces on screens that we no longer notice how strange they appear when encountered among groceries, fluorescent lights, and ordinary human life.

Meta Description

A satirical and philosophical poem about contour makeup, digital self-presentation, beauty culture, simulation, and the uncanny gap between screen-optimized appearance and embodied reality.

Keywords

Fuckbot Errands, beauty culture, contour makeup, cosmetic enhancement, simulation, digital identity, body image, social media aesthetics, Botox culture, uncanny valley, mediated reality, image culture, contemporary poetry, philosophical poetry, satire, embodiment, artificial beauty, screen culture, hyperreality, aesthetic

Read More
SpongeBob SquarePants (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

SpongeBob SquarePants (ROUND 1)

"SpongeBob SquarePants" is a poem about the unintended cruelties of conscientious parenting. Its argument is structured as a single grammatical sentence distributed across three tercets, and its central move is an inversion: the cultural product that health-minded parents identify as the risk turns out to be the immunization, and the deprivation they enact in the name of health turns out to be the pathogen. The poem's provocation is not that screens are good for children. It is that the cost of screen abstinence has been catastrophically miscalculated by parents who are operating with an incomplete model of what health requires.

The title does the poem's heaviest conceptual work before the first line begins. "SpongeBob SquarePants" is not merely a reference to a children's cartoon; it names the specific content of what the poem will call "peer currency." The title is the currency itself — the shared cultural knowledge that constitutes social belonging among children, the conversational medium through which friendships are made and tested and sustained. By installing the cartoon's full proper name as the poem's title, the poem insists on a kind of dignity for the content that the health-minded parents deny it. SpongeBob is not noise or waste. It is a social environment, a lexicon, a form of literacy — the one that matters most in the only economy children actually inhabit.

"Peer currency" is the poem's most compressed and generative coinage. It frames cultural knowledge as economic capital: what you need to trade in the social market of childhood, the medium of exchange without which you are not simply poor but unable to participate in the transaction at all. The screen-deprived child is not merely missing entertainment; they are missing the means of exchange. They arrive at the social economy bankrupt in the only denomination accepted. The word "currency" also implies that this knowledge circulates, that it has value only in relation to other holders, that its power is collective rather than intrinsic. You cannot spend peer currency alone.

The parenthetical embedded in the middle tercet — "(just a few Shakespeare plays / short of retarded)" — is the poem's most explosive formal and semantic device. It operates on several registers simultaneously. First, it deploys the familiar idiom-type ("a few sandwiches short of a picnic") to name the social perception visited upon the screen-deprived child by their peers. Second, it invokes "retarded" not as the speaker's diagnostic term but as the social verdict delivered by the peer group — the word that circulates among children, with its full derogatory charge, to name those who cannot function in the shared cultural currency. Third, and most precisely, it activates the word's clinical etymology: to retard means to delay, to hold back. These children are genuinely delayed — held back from the peer culture that constitutes their developmental environment — by the very intervention meant to advance them. The word thus enacts its own double meaning. But the parenthetical's deepest irony operates through its content: Shakespeare. The implied alternative to SpongeBob — the high-cultural program that health-minded parents would substitute — is precisely what marks these children as deficient in peer terms. The more Shakespeare, the less SpongeBob, and the more the child appears intellectually and socially disabled to the only judges whose verdict matters to them. High culture, in the social economy of childhood, is not capital but liability.

"Health-minded parents" is perhaps the poem's most carefully calibrated phrase. It does not say negligent parents, or ignorant parents, or cruel parents. It says health-minded — parents who have thought carefully about their children's wellbeing, consulted the literature, made deliberate choices in the name of long-term flourishing. The poem does not dispute their intentions. It disputes their model of health — specifically, its incompleteness. "Neglecting loneliness's impact / on longevity" invokes a now-substantial body of research establishing social isolation as a major determinant of lifespan, comparable in effect to smoking. The health-minded parent who restricts screen time to reduce one category of risk has failed to account for the greater risk of social exclusion. The irony is structural, not personal: a health framework that omits loneliness is not a health framework but a partial one, and partial health frameworks produce the harms they omit to calculate.

"Our ecosystem of endless screens" is where the poem's "our" becomes significant. The speaker does not stand outside the screen culture in judgment; the first-person plural implicates them — and the reader — in the ecosystem being described. "Ecosystem" is the poem's other major coinage. It naturalizes the screen environment: not a product, not a pollution, not an entertainment industry, but a habitat with its own logic, inhabitants, interdependencies, and survival requirements. To resist an ecosystem is not to make a consumer choice but to refuse a biome. The children whose parents make this refusal on their behalf are not protected from the ecosystem; they are simply excluded from it, which in biological terms is not safety but exposure of a different kind.

Formally, the poem's single-sentence architecture performs its argumentative logic. The sentence cannot be abandoned mid-clause; it must be followed through to its completion, just as the causal chain it describes — from health-minded resistance to social crippling — must be followed through to its conclusion. The two dashes create the sentence's two major suspensions: "crippled—" opens a wound that the subsequent clauses fill; "retarded)—" completes the social verdict before pivoting to causality. "Because" is the poem's hinge, and its position — straddling the second and third tercets — marks the structural center of the argument. The poem does not merely observe; it explains, and the explanation lands, in the final line, on "screens" — the word against which the entire health-minded apparatus had been organized, returned now as the term of the culture the children have been denied.

In the context of the broader project, the poem extends the work's sustained interest in the unintended pathologies of wellness culture — the same interest that drives "Endgame Wegovy" and the fat-praise stanzas of the mosaic. There, pharmaceutical capital waits for health culture to exhaust itself; here, health culture exhausts its children directly. The poem does not argue against health. It argues against health frameworks that mistake the absence of one risk for the presence of wellbeing — frameworks that, in their vigilance against the visible danger, produce the invisible one at scale.

Meta Description

A poem about the social cost of screen restriction — arguing that children denied access to the peer currency of shared screen culture are rendered permanently socially deficient by health-minded parents who, in calculating one category of risk, neglect the loneliness research that makes social exclusion the greater threat to longevity.

Keywords

SpongeBob SquarePants poem, peer currency, screen time parenting, childhood social exclusion, loneliness and longevity, health-minded parenting critique, wellness culture poetry, contemporary American poetry, unintended consequences parenting, screen ecosystem, aphoristic poetry, cultural capital children, social isolation health, single-sentence poem, contemporary satire parenting

Read More
Mr. Haldol (ROUND 1)
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Mr. Haldol (ROUND 1)

“Mr. Haldol” is a poem about the public performance of stability after private psychic rupture, and the uneasy re-entry of a medically stabilized subject into an institutional role that depends on the appearance of coherence. The poem’s drama is not primarily narrative but social and phenomenological: it examines what it feels like to be known, implicitly or explicitly, as someone who has “come / fresh from the nuthouse,” while nevertheless being required to enact the rituals of professional normalcy.

The opening stanza immediately establishes this doubled condition of presence and performance:

“There you stand one Monday / morning, greeting students / with a banker’s handshake”

The “banker’s handshake” is not merely descriptive but symbolic. It compresses an entire regime of institutional legitimacy into a bodily gesture: firmness, predictability, controlled affect, and social trustworthiness. Yet the phrase is immediately strained by the situation it inhabits. The speaker is not simply a teacher resuming work; he is a subject whose continuity has been interrupted by psychiatric hospitalization. The handshake thus becomes less a natural extension of self than a rehearsed mechanism for re-entering social intelligibility.

The poem complicates this performance further by situating it temporally within a fragile threshold state:

“at the door after weeks of subs—”

The reference to substitutes (“subs”) signals institutional substitution and administrative continuity in the speaker’s absence. While the school functioned without him, his identity as teacher was temporarily delegated. His return is therefore not restoration but reinstatement under conditions of partial dislocation. The phrase also subtly suggests substitution in a psychological sense: the self that returns is not fully continuous with the self that left.

This instability becomes more explicit in the next movement:

“bushy-tailed but, for these / first minutes, reining in / that jazz they loved”

Here, “bushy-tailed” invokes forced brightness, a performative vitality that sits uneasily alongside the speaker’s recent hospitalization. The phrase suggests that liveliness itself is now something regulated rather than spontaneous. More significant is the phrase “reining in / that jazz they loved.” “Jazz” functions as a metaphor for erratic affect, improvisational personality, and uncontrolled expressive excess. It is “loved” by the institutional environment precisely because it is entertaining, recognizable, and socially consumable, yet it must also be contained in order for the speaker to remain legible as authority.

The verb “reining” is especially important. It implies that this containment is not only externally imposed but internally enacted. The speaker is simultaneously subject and agent of his own modulation, both performer and regulator of his performance.

The final stanza removes any ambiguity about the social frame in which this performance occurs:

“the whole / school knows you have come / fresh from the nuthouse.”

The bluntness of “nuthouse” is decisive. It strips away clinical euphemism and replaces it with communal vernacular knowledge. The speaker’s condition is not hidden or delicately coded; it is socially legible and publicly acknowledged. Yet the phrase also registers the violence of that legibility. “Fresh” intensifies the immediacy of exposure, suggesting not merely past hospitalization but a return still marked by its proximity to institutional psychiatric containment.

What the poem stages, therefore, is not simply stigma but the paradox of reintegration. The speaker is simultaneously expected to perform normalcy and already marked as having failed it. The institutional space of the school becomes a site where coherence must be enacted precisely because coherence is known to be fragile.

At a deeper level, the poem also explores the tension between identity as internal continuity and identity as external recognition. The speaker’s sense of self is not presented as stable interior essence but as something continuously negotiated at the interface of social perception. The handshake, the reining in of affect, and the communal awareness of psychiatric history all converge to produce a subject who exists primarily as managed visibility.

In this sense, “Mr. Haldol” is less a poem about illness than about the conditions under which personhood is publicly maintained after its disruption. It asks what remains of authority, professionalism, and selfhood when those categories are shadowed by the knowledge of breakdown, and it locates its answer not in resolution but in ongoing performance under constraint.

Meta Description

A poem exploring institutional reintegration after psychiatric hospitalization, the performance of professional identity, stigma, and the fragile maintenance of social coherence.

Keywords

psychiatric hospitalization, institutional identity, stigma, teacher narrative, mental health poetry, performance of normalcy, social recognition, subjectivity, workplace reintegration, affect regulation, contemporary poetry analysis, psychiatric recovery, institutional authority, identity and rupture, phenomenological poetics

Read More
Crisis Center
Michael Anthony Istvan Junior Michael Anthony Istvan Junior

Crisis Center

“Crisis Center” explores the fractured attention and isolation of someone in psychological crisis, juxtaposing her fleeting connection to the external world with the indifferent clinical processes around her. The poem opens with her “pupils shiver[ing] doorward,” suggesting an initial, almost reflexive reach toward the presence of another person as the man enters, presumably a mental health professional. Her reaction hints at a desire for connection, but this potential relief quickly dissolves, displaced by her intense “chest-heaving distress.” This distress, physically manifesting in her breathing, conveys the depth of her emotional pain, suggesting a suffocating anxiety or despair that leaves little room for coherent thought or stable connection to her surroundings.

However, as her attention snaps back into herself—her gaze decoupling to a “thousand yards, infinity’s blank”—she regresses to a detached, inward state. The phrase “thousand yards” evokes the concept of the “thousand-yard stare,” associated with trauma and emotional dissociation, where one seems to look through their immediate environment rather than engaging with it. This visual distancing, often indicative of severe mental strain, underscores her sense of alienation and separation from reality, which may result from the repetitive or numbing effect of clinical interventions that lack true personal connection.

The man’s action—flipping through her chart—is imbued with a “terrible automaticity,” a detachment that mirrors her own blankness. This clinical ritual, devoid of empathy or deeper engagement, only reinforces her isolation. By focusing on the physicality of the gesture, the poem highlights the unfeeling routines that can pervade mental health care settings, where patient interactions risk becoming mechanical. Through this brief moment, the poem critiques how, in crisis contexts, professional detachment and procedural rigor can unintentionally contribute to patients’ sense of invisibility and detachment from humanity.

Ultimately, “Crisis Center” is a poignant portrayal of the disconnect between those in emotional turmoil and the often impersonal systems meant to aid them. The patient’s initial reach toward connection—quickly aborted by her automatic withdrawal into “infinity’s blank”—and the professional’s procedural response expose the hollow space between crisis and care, where both patient and caregiver remain isolated within their roles. In capturing this tragic misalignment, the poem questions the adequacy of institutionalized responses to deeply personal suffering, suggesting a need for more human-centered care.

crisis center, mental health, emotional detachment, clinical indifference, psychological distress, thousand-yard stare, trauma, healthcare critique, patient-caregiver disconnect, human-centered care

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?