Leveler Poetry Journal
About Leveler Submission Guidelines More Poems

Parallax

  

In 1728 the English

Astronomer James Bradley announced

His discovery of what came to be

Known as the aberration of starlight—

The slight shift in the position of stars

Due to Earth’s flight & light speed’s finitude—

By observing that Gamma Draconis

Seemed to have a mind of its own & would

Wiggle a bit sans science’s say-so

Thus calling for some new dogma at once

 

The Czech word for yes is no & therefore

I, Penelope Odelette Dartmouth,

Do put forth that the enigma of a

Contrary temperament can be neatly

Resolved by the simple declaration

Of oneself as Czech—& while I’m at it

What the heck?—Royal Society, note,

Due to Earth’s finitude & light’s long flight

I’ll propose, for your consideration,

The aberration of all telescopes




Penny O. Dartmouth

levelheaded: Parallax

 

 

This poem is split directly down the middle: ten lines on top, ten on bottom. The first ten playfully describe James Bradley’s discovery of astronomical aberration. They give us a blend of history and science (two disciplines that come across as authoritative but are constantly correcting themselves), and they introduce us to the poem’s preoccupation with perception and subjectivity. While these first lines introduce a large scientific concept – one  that confirms theories of planetary and galactic movement – the speaker is careful to downsize the discovery itself. To the speaker, Bradley discovered a “slight shift.” Gamma Draconis “would / Wiggle a bit.” The speaker emphasizes the smallness of these movements. These changes in stellar position are almost imperceptible.

 

That brings us to the second half of the poem. The speaker (who’s revealed as one “Penelope Odelette Dartmouth”) makes a big leap from the science of James Bradley to Czech’s apparent conflation of “yes” and “no.” The poem implies this conflation (“yes is no”) is another mere wiggle. This is convenient for the speaker because she shortly lets on that all this science talk is actually about mitigating her own “Contrary temperament.” Let’s syllogize:

 

  1. “The Czech word for yes is no,
  2. Penelope Odelette Dartmouth is (or calls herself) Czech.
  3. Therefore, for Penelope Odelette Dartmouth, “yes is no.”

 

We don’t need to point out the flaws in this logic, but it’s worth pointing out that these flaws are purposeful. The speaker seems to gradually become aware of argument’s fallacy. By talking about Czech, the speaker reminds us she is writing in English where “yes” generally means “yes.” Her “declaration / of oneself as Czech” is distinctly different than her actually being Czech. Therefore what she describes as a “Contrary temperament” cannot be as neatly resolved as she hopes. We can’t be sure what behavior she’s justifying, but we can nearly be sure she’s failing.

 

The poem brings everything full circle with the few lines in which she stretches her argument to include “The aberration of all telescopes.” Her logic is stretched thin here, and she’s grasping at straws. It’s an act of mischievous desperation and a subtle concession that if all the telescopes are wrong, maybe they actually aren’t.

 

-The Editors