Small kindnesses

Danusha Laméris
The American poet Danusha Laméris.

Ran into the poem below on Facebook, where a friend had posted it. Did not know of this poet, Danusha Laméris, until now. She’s a keeper and winner, for sure.

What do we do with such illuminations? Read ’em and weep? Read ’em and smile? Read ’em and reflect on how they can be applied, if there’s such a thing as applied poetry, to our daily lives?

Gods know we are still tribal, even if, as the poet says, we are “So far / from tribe and fire.” We huddle in our own, old prejudices, I mean, and when we meet others we growl or bite.

Isn’t this especially true, these days, of politics?

Better to lavish on each other, however transient these exchanges, a smile, a helping hand? Even when we suspect the other guy/gal is crazy? As crazy as we are ourselves?

Small Kindnesses
by Danusha Laméris

I’ve been thinking about the way, when you walk
down a crowded aisle, people pull in their legs
to let you by. Or how strangers still say “bless you”
when someone sneezes, a leftover
from the Bubonic plague. “Don’t die,” we are saying.
And sometimes, when you spill lemons
from your grocery bag, someone else will help you
pick them up. Mostly, we don’t want to harm each other.
We want to be handed our cup of coffee hot,
and to say thank you to the person handing it. To smile
at them and for them to smile back. For the waitress
to call us honey when she sets down the bowl of clam chowder,
and for the driver in the red pick-up truck to let us pass.
We have so little of each other, now. So far
from tribe and fire. Only these brief moments of exchange.
What if they are the true dwelling of the holy, these
fleeting temples we make together when we say, “Here,
have my seat,” “Go ahead—you first,” “I like your hat.”

Chekhov and the Truth

Finished not long ago Donald Rayfield’s Anton Chekhov: A Life (1997) and am rereading Chekhov’s stories and plays.

This morning I run across an excellent essay in Literary Hub, “Everything You Think You Know About Chekhov is Wrong: What Would Chekhov Say of Vladimir Putin?,” by Boris Fishman. The author’s thesis seems to be that Chekhov was the opposite of programmatic and predetermined. That among classic Russian authors of the late 19th and early 20th centuries — Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Gorky — only Chekhov was modern: determined to observe closely and report faithfully, not indulge in polemics.

Anton Chekhov Biography
Anton Chekhov, 1860–1904

Fishman quotes Maxim Gorky, a “revolutionary” writer, about the Russian soul in Chekhov: “In the presence of Anton Pavlovich everyone felt an unconscious desire to be simpler, more truthful, more himself, and I had many opportunities of observing how people threw off their attire of grand bookish phrases, fashionable expressions, and all the rest of the cheap trifles with which Russians, in their anxiety to appear Europeans, adorn themselves, as savages deck themselves with shells and fishes’ teeth.”

So what does Chekhov have to do with Putin or politics? The only party to which Chekhov belonged, says Fishman, was the truth party. Not Truth Social or Putin propaganda. Neither liberal nor conservative. Only truth. And that as the only great Russian writer of the 19th century to emerge from the peasant class Chekhov alone was situated to provide what moderns would recognize as the truth.

In the US today, as in Chekhov’s Russia, most of us are drawn magnetically to one ideology or another. It’s as if our brains were reduced to filings, the flimsiest scraps, and they’re pulled to one irresistible position or its polar opposite. We want to be right (or left), correct (or  infallible), and declare our allegiance to the truth, at least the truth as it’s been formulated and decreed by the various parties with stakes in the game.

But to quote Fishman on Chekhov’s likely response to America today:

… he would savage, equally, the witch-hunts enacted by social justice warriors, the soul-sellers lining up to lie for Trump, the provincialism of liberal echo chambers like New York and San Francisco, and the media’s reductions and manipulations.

Whether we’re planning to flee from the wrath to come (Trumpugees stampeding to Canada) or celebrate our astuteness and decency here in New York, San Francisco, and other provinces of the mind, we haven’t yet gotten to where Chekhov, among the few literary sages, might like us to be. If we want to call this place the soul, that’s fine with me.