The Bower of Nil by Frederick Glaysher (Earthrise Press, 71 pgs., $21.95)

At rare moments in our history a work of literary art comes along so profound, so complete that we have no choice but to recognize it as a product of true genius . . . and then there are books like The Bower of Nil:

"Palpable darkness invades the room,
surrounding, infusing, permeating
every nook and cranny in the study. "

It doesn't take a literary professor to figure out that this narrative poem is intended to be allegorical. The problem is that the allegory doesn't spring naturally from the narrative — rather, the narrative springs most unnaturally from the allegory, as heavy-handed and as purple as a ten-round beating from Lennox Lewis.

This narrative poem comes to us from the perspective of Peter Marsh, a philosophy professor, some hours after his wife Mary's funeral. On this occasion he is visited by his lifelong friend, David Emerson, a businessman. Unlike Peter, the uptight, conservative academic, David is the stereotypical white American male — an antisemitic, misogynist who refers to his ex-wife as a "Jewish whore," David is as ignorant as he is superficial. It is preposterous that the two men would be friends in reality. In truth, David Emerson seems to be no more than a device introducing the anti-intellectual id. Who more than the American businessman has come to represent the greed and decadence feeding on this world? David appears like Marley's ghost and quickly exits, leaving Peter to ruminate upon the evil that has infected humanity. One would think he would simply grieve for the loss of his wife. Of course, this isn't a work of realism and we soon learn that his family never held sway over his heart. His children, "are drug users — / one a lesbian with AIDS — / shallow, greedy, licentious filth." What we get instead of an honest exploration of love and grief is a long philosophical discourse in which Glaysher throws in every historical, philosophical and literary reference he can think of until he comes, finally, to present his case — an argument for a benevolent world government. What this could possibly have to do with a man dealing with the death of a woman he'd been with for thirty years, I cannot fathom a clue, but you've got to hand it to a guy who can go from Nietzsche to the resurgence of a loving God in seventy pages

Aside from the lack of actual poetry in this mess, Glaysher's ideas are hardly revolutionary or credible. When Peter speaks of a "Global Executive supported by an International Force, guided by a Global legislature," what is he saying? I mean really! If such a government is truly benevolent, what, pray tell, is this International Force doing in this better world? Exactly. A philosopher king by any other name is just another version of empire serving the needs and wants of empire. And what this "poem" needs is a little more empathy for the struggle of average human beings and a lot less intellectual masturbation.

--Reviewed by JCE