BORED

All those times I was bored
out of my mind. Holding the log
while he sawed it. Holding
the string while he measured, boards,
distances between things, or pounded
stakes into the ground for rows and rows
of lettuces and beets, which I then (bored)
weeded. Or sat in the back
of the car, or sat still in boats,
sat, sat, while at the prow, stern, wheel
he drove, steered, paddled. It
wasn’t even boredom, it was looking,
looking hard and up close at the small
details. Myopia. The worn gunwales,
the intricate twill of the seat
cover. The acid crumbs of loam, the granular
pink rock, its igneous veins, the sea-fans
of dry moss, the blackish and then the graying
bristles on the back of his neck.
Sometimes he would whistle, sometimes
I would. The boring rhythm of doing
things over and over, carrying
the wood, drying
the dishes. Such minutiae. It’s what
the animals spend most of their time at,
ferrying the sand, grain by grain, from their tunnels,
shuffling the leaves in their burrows. He pointed
such things out, and I would look
at the whorled texture of his square finger, earth under
the nail. Why do I remember it as sunnier
all the time then, although it more often
rained, and more birdsong?
I could hardly wait to get
the hell out of there to
anywhere else. Perhaps though
boredom is happier. It is for dogs or
groundhogs. Now I wouldn’t be bored.
Now I would know too much.
Now I would know.

-Margaret Atwood

Here we have a different perspective on boredom from what I posted yesterday…  and I love this poem. But I wondered about the line, “Now I would know too much.” Why would the narrator prefer less understanding — which is what I took as the meaning of knowing — ? In what way would it be too much? But then I mused on how well I relate to the feeling of regret, regret that there were any moments or hours in which I was not fully conscious, and thankful for my late husband. That of course would have been the perspective of a saint; if I had the chance to go back, I’m sure I would still not be one of those.

That made me think, maybe the line I didn’t get refers to the fact the narrator has come to realize, that “he” was not going to be around indefinitely, and that the loss of him would be incredibly painful. It’s the sort of intelligence that sinks deep into the soul, where the struggle to comprehend it continues indefinitely. Now, if she could go back, she would not be the same person, and the kind of knowledge she would take back to the past would be truly too much to bear in that “present.” It isn’t given to us humans to skip back and forth through time, which is a good thing, because just reading this poem demands more of my mind than is comfortable. Most of us can barely attend to the present, and excessive theorizing can be a sad waste of our hours.

That I should read the poem during the holiday season, when I’m already prone to missing my husband a LOT… well, it happened, and it’s okay. It prompted me to think of some specific moments and places, my own husband’s hands (easy for me to pay attention to), and habits, and “boring” things he would talk to me about. I even remember a time when I was sitting in a boat, trying really hard not to be bored.

Nowadays, I’m increasingly thankful for all the days that God gave me before, during and after the years I lived with him, though I can’t go back and be this thankful retroactively. And even if I was not always present in the moment, God was always present with me. That is a thought that wakes me up, again and again.