Middle ground

Once upon a time, in sunset hues in a distant land, my father held Lehninger's Biochemistry on his lap and explained glycolysis and enantiomers, the cycles within cycles of breathing and respiration. In that same golden light, my mother's voice beckoned, the rhythm of Tennyson's Brook exacted to scientific precision, each word clear as the molten glass alchemists shaped once.

Now words flounder and stand bunched up in the spotlight, refugees fleeing clarity and fearing shadow. At work, I must write to simplify. The rhythms of oxidative phosphorylation and voltage-gated ion channels must be broken down, glued together with what's popular and catchy to appeal to the masses.'Science' must not be speculative. 'Interesting' is sacrificed and turned into the accurate, as if the two must necessarily be mutually exclusive.

To my eye, sunlight bouncing off chlorophyll and phytopigments is still poetry, still worth lyrics set to metered rhyme as precise as the electrons dancing. But I am told poetry must not be scientific or lucid, poetry may only be in abstract terms that complicate the most basic human emotions. Are emotions less meaningful because they have scientific explanations, or beauty lost because there is an explanation to it?

I teeter on the scales, searching for the middle ground where both sides of my childhood can still exist in that same equal, golden light.