Used To / Used
I used to love.
I used to love writing.
I used to love reading.
I used to love learning.
I used to love listening.
I used to love talking.
I used to love thinking.
I used to love playing.
I used to love arguing.
I used to love sharing.
I used to love loving.
Yes.
No.
Not knowing the love of being loved.
Love, too, used.
Used, to love.
Not loved to use.
Now, know — love, I just feel used.
No love, know — now, used to being used.
In service or selfishness,
I have no interest in being known for it —
But, at least, I still love cooking.
Mom, did you use to love cooking?
No.
Even when cooking for your loved ones?
Never.
Oh. I never knew — On behalf of the people you love,
and loved you, too —
I'm sorry you used to cook for us, and not for you.
In selfishness or in selflessness,
I will always love cooking.
— Melissa/ Mo Jo Jo
Side Notes
I haven’t published anything for a while.
This started as a 6-line poem:
Used To / Used
I used to love to write.
I used to love to read.
I used to love to talk to people.
I used to love.
Now, love, I just feel used.
No love, just used to being used.— Melissa/ Mo Jo Jo
After that, the words, syntax, and semantics kept looping until the louvred linguistic labyrinth above emerged.
Somewhere off to the side, there’s a draft breakdown that walks through the mechanics, the multi-layered meanings (polysemy and other lexical ambiguities), and the conceptual-psychological layers of this poem. It’s more of a slow walk through the piece than a lesson: looking at what the language exposes, and how that use of language generates different possible interpretations, rather than a “this is what this means from the person who wrote it” analysis.
The analysis is both emotional and almost absurdly clinical from a “use of language” perspective—because this poem is, at its core, a linguistically framed psychological audit on Love, Use, Knowing, and Semantics.
If there’s interest, maybe I’ll publish that, too. Don’t worry: the analysis doesn’t use strange alliteration like this side note does, and it’s not written in overtly academic language. I like big fancy words, but I like simple and understandable too—especially when I’m talking about layered meanings and multiple perspectives.