Re: Shakespeare review
M.H.Benders
>>"Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend
>>Upon thyself thy beauty's legacy?"
>>
>>Is this ugly, or is it ugly?
>
> As Shakespeare pronounced it, it's as light and airy as meringue. As
> you pronounce it, it's no doubt hideous.
So you would say the beauty of this poem depends entirely on the sounds
it produces, and not on the ideas?
>>"Thy unused beauty must be tombed with thee,
>>Which, usèd, lives th' executor to be."
>>
>>Is this supposed to represent a metre?
>
> Iambic pentameter, obviously:
No doubt. But is it really pronouncable?
And: would it be pronouncable, is the
fact that it is 'iambic pentametre'
a garantuee for decent metre?
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>>>>As Shakespeare pronounced it, it's as light and airy as meringue. As
>>>>>>you pronounce it, it's no doubt hideous.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you would say the beauty of this poem depends entirely on the sounds
>>>>>it produces, and not on the ideas?
>>>>
>>>>Why do you suppose they're mutually exclusive,
>>>
>>>I 'suppose' nowhere that they are mutually exclusive. When will you
>>>finally start to learn to read?
>>
>> You are the one who posited the dichotomy.
>
>One might have guessed that you are actually dumb enough to think one
>pronounces ideas. In the world of grownups, pronouncation is about
>sounds. So it is you who suggested that these lines are beautiful,
>depending on how you pronounce them. If their beauty depends solely on
>sounds, then the ideas or imagery they contain is really irrelevant.
No. I did assume originally that you were talking about the sound; you
pointed out that they weren't. I, in turn, pointed out that sound and
idea are not mutually exclusive. I have never assumed that beauty
depends solely on sonics.
>A good poem, in my opinion, is a poem that's good regardless of how it's
>pronounced. Dependency on sound structures is a weakness. Take the
>Ritsos poem Chandra posted: it sounds marvelous in another language.
>It will sound marvelous in any language, even when the translation
>is far from perfect. That's the sort of power Shakespeare lacks
>completely, and it's mainly because of two things: dependency on sound
>structures and poverty of ideas and sharp imagery.
What poet would discard the beauties and possibilities of the language
he writes in because they aren't available in translation? Shakespeare
mined the richness of English -- its versatile sounds, its grammatical
flexibility, its immense vocabulary -- as no other poet has, and no
translation will ever be able to capture that, will ever be anything
but a faded copy of the original. But it is nothing less that
ridiculous to suppose that the poet who wrote of the milk of human
kindness, of the sceptered isle, and of greasy Joan keeling the pot
did not use sharp imagery, and it is equally preposterous to claim
that Shakespeare, whose ideational richness is unsurpassed and quite
possibly unequalled, was poor in ideas. And, of course, his works are
loved around the world.
>>>>or that ideas and
>>>>sounds are the only two components of poetry?
>>>
>>>Didn't 'suppose' that either.
>>
>> You are the one who posited the dichotomy.
>
>And you are an obnoxious dumbass that can't read simple english arguments.
Here is what you said:
"So you would say the beauty of this poem depends entirely on the
sounds it produces, and not on the ideas?"
This implies a dichotomy.
>>>You
>>>keep making the same amateuristic assumptions about beauty - it does not
>>>matter whether a thing sounds ugly or sounds good - neither qualifies a
>>>thing as poetry, and sometimes it is much better if a line sounds ugly,
>>>if the metaphors are ugly, or things sound clunky, unfinished, whatever.
>>
>> For fuck's sake, this is a love sonnet, not the Benders evening trash.
>
>Love is an ugly thing.
Bullshit.
> And it's the poet's task to show people the truth
>about love: to awaken them from the dull fantasies they call 'love'.
Nonsense.
>>>You seem to think, like some sort of modelboy, that poetry is about
>>>'beautiful things' or 'creating beauty' or some simular nonsense that
>>>belongs on a catwalk, not on a poetry group.
>>
>>
>> If it is true, it is, on one or another level, beautiful.
>
>Pfffft.
Like the savage, you make faces at what you fail to understand.
>>Or take that ridiculous idea of your that 'poems must be finished'.
>>>Picasso makes minced meat of that sort of delusions:
>>>
>>>"To finish a work? To finish a picture? What nonsense! To finish it
>>>means to be through with it, to kill it, to rid it of its soul, to give
>>>it its final blow the coup de grace for the painter as well as for the
>>>picture."
>>
>> Right, and you would find just as many painters who say the opposite.
>
>Haven't met any. Care to quote a few?
Nope.
>> But in fact I said that /your/ poems were unfinished, Benders.
>> Shakespeare did not need to revise, or even, for the most part,
>> correct. You do.
>
>No one agreed with you. Gwyneth didn't, and neither did the other
>commenters. Gwyneth knows more of poetry than you do. She is actually
>editor of a magazine - you are just an unemployed boyband expert.
Actually, most agreed with me that revision, up to a point, is
beneficial. There were, as I recall, a couple of comments about the
work itself; I am content to let my judgment stand.
>>>Is that supposed to be some great revelation? It is again the complete
>>>obvious disguised as an interesting 'philosophy'. It also completely
>>>evades the point - Shakespeare is 'beautiful' sounds combined with ugly,
>>>flat ideas. Most people are completely incapable of spotting the latter
>>>through the thick smog of beautiful sounds, it seems.
>>
>> Most people who care enough to find are bright enough to recognize
>> that the opposite is true, Benders, that Shakespeare had one of the
>> greatest intellects in human history.
>
>It does not show in his poetry, however, which is pretty much consistent
>with the dreary romanticism and Kantean ideals of the time he lived in.
>Shakespeare sure is no Bosch, that is to say: an individual who truly
>escapes the limits of his time. That is no sign of a 'great intellect',
>mind you. His contemporaries also felt he was dull and boring but for
>some reason College Professors started to rule the world a hundred years
>later and made a statue out of him. It's pretty laughable to present
>Shakespeare as one of the greatest inttelects in human history - that
>assertion says a lot about your own intellectual limitations.
Why do you always do this, always make a fool of yourself by making
sweeping pronouncements when you don't know what the fuck you're
talking about? Why do you go on about Kantean ideals when Shakespeare
lived in the renaissance rather than the enlightenment? Why do you
claim that Shakespeare's contemporaries "felt he was dull and boring"
when in fact they celebrated his genius? Why do you claim that
Shakespeare's reputation was made by college professors when it was
not? And why, after making, once again, a complete and utter fool of
yourself with these Korsakoffian confabulations, do you make an even
worse one with your laughable claim that Shakespeare was not one of
the greatest intellects in human history, and that the fact that I
recognize his ability is a sign of intellectual limitations on my
part?
If you don't want people to call you an idiot, Martijn, stop acting
like one.
--
Josh
Dale
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:21:07 -0400, "Jonathan" <j...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote in message
>>news:416D7D...@spamchello.nl...
>>
>>>the overdependance modern poetry has on sounds which dates
>>>back to Shakespeare,
>>
>>
>>This I would agree with.
>
>
> How is this excerpt from Chaucer any less dependent on sound than
> Shakespeare?
>
> Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote
> The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
> And bathed every veyne in swich licour
> Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
>
> This one from Beowulf?
>
> Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
> şeodcyninga, şrym gefrunon,
> hu ğa æşelingas ellen fremedon.
> Oft Scyld Scefing sceaşena şreatum
>
> Benders, as usual, is talking through his hat. Sound has been a
> fundamental part of poetry, almost its defining characteristic, since
> prehistory, and Shakespeare did not have any role whatsoever in
> elevating the dependence of poetry on sound -- hardly surprising,
> since such an elevation did not in fact occur except in his strangely
> florid imagination.
I'd go so far as to say poetry was originally almost entirely about
sound: "primitive" chants and the like. Of course, chanting so as to
arouse the gods is an idea. I don't see - at all - how Shakespeare did
anything to raise that bar, but if he had it would probably be to his
credit. It took the Dadaists - in fact - to reassert (against such folk
as Willy) the power of sound over idea, which was a rather useful revolt
against the intellectual wasteland that had bloomed in the West. I don't
think anyone reads Shakespeare only - or even mainly - for the sounds,
although they are nice enough: his plays are usually spoken of in terms
of humanist ideals (a refreshing tonic against a prevailing religiosity,
and one of the reasons the Renaissance existed).
dmh
dmh
>
Gonçalo Rodrigues
[text snipped]
>>Do you mean to tell
>> me that we are all born with a craving for imaginative literature or,
>> for that matter, for calculus or astrophysics? You are wrong precisely
>> because one of the great functions of the canon is to help each and
>> every individual to form *his own* opinions.
>
>What a ridiculous argument you have here! Your circular "reason" is that
>the canon represents what is aesthetically valuable, because it tells us
>what is aesthetically valuable, and - since people are unable to make
>aesthetic choices - people have created a process which makes aesthetic
>choices for them, because they are incapable of making them by
>themselves! Quite a belief system that! How did you come up with it? Was
>it created for you by a committee formed by you to come up with ideas
>you have no ability to come up with?
>
Either you are grossly misrepresenting what I am saying or I fail
badly at representing what I am thinking. Or both. Either way, I think
I said all I wanted to say on the matter. If I understand you
correctly you seem to think that the canon is a product of a sect
entrenched in the Academia , while I think that it was the artists
and, to a lesser extent, the critics that made them. You seem to
think, if I understand you correctly, that the canon is more a record
of survival of an ideological and political battle while I think that
it is a measure of aestethic vitality. You seem to think, if I
understand you correctly, that the canon is a mere fetish making
choices for people too lazy or ignorant to do them while I think that
the canon is a tutor in the sublime.
With my best regards,
G. Rodrigues
Josh Hill
<m.be...@chello.nl> wrote:
>Dale wrote:
>
>>> Benders, as usual, is talking through his hat. Sound has been a
>>> fundamental part of poetry, almost its defining characteristic, since
>>> prehistory, and Shakespeare did not have any role whatsoever in
>>> elevating the dependence of poetry on sound -- hardly surprising,
>>> since such an elevation did not in fact occur except in his strangely
>>> florid imagination.
>>
>> I'd go so far as to say poetry was originally almost entirely about
>> sound: "primitive" chants and the like.
>
>Oh sure - poetry is but a deviation of music. It's chanting with a bunch
>of words on paper. Let's go back to the Amoeba, shall we - it becomes
>clear if we do that that poetry is all about swimming around in foggy
>waters. Swimming around in foggy waters, that's right. Prior to the Big
>Bang, poetry was all about floating around in empty but infinitly
>compact space. But the ignorant cavemen who were chanting their poems
>to the hidden Gods had no idea. Luckily nowadays we know better. Poetry
>is all about floating around in a foggy but infinitly compact space. One
>of the reasons Josh feels so attracted to it.
It strikes me that, rather than arguing with what Dale says, you are
making fun of it, and, really, that seems to me somewhat cowardly.
In any event, the connection between poetry and music is an ancient
one. The Greek epics and tragedies were sung; we refer even today to
short poems as "lyric" verses, literally verses that can be sung to a
lyre. One could, in fact, argue that unsung poetry is the anomaly:
even today, most people hear song lyrics much more frequently than
they hear unsung verse.
--
Josh
Chandra P. Das
> Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>
>
>> And why is a work of art remembered? If, as Mr. Benders argues
>> Shakespeare was a mediocre poet, then why is it that after 400 years
>> he is still read, in fact more read than ever?
>
>
> Why is Britney Spears very popular? Surely, her popularity says
> something about the quality of her music?
But guy will say: well, Britney Spears is just here for today and will
be forgotten tomorrow. Nonsense. She'll be replaced by another Britney
Spears, just like she replaced the Britney Spears that was here before
her. Britney Spears is an institution that has existed through all of
time and will continue into the indefinite future. I can guarantee you
that we can make Britney Spears as revered and honored as Shakespeare in
two hundred years. It's a simple matter of conditioning and
brainwashing. With proper design and execution, we could create an
equilibrium in which 60 year old philosophy professors at top
universities will be discussing the greatness of Britney Spears two
hundred years from now. I'm not out to degrade Shakespeare by such
commentary -- I like the guy, his art serves a good purpose; but people
have got to realize that a significant part of his greatness is a
product of conditioning and training.
> M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>Conditioning. From sixth grade up, kids in the English speaking regions
>>are taught to worship Shakespeare as the height of poetic genius. His
>>worship is so blind and bizarre that an alien visitor would think he was
>>the inventor of the English language. But hey, I give Shakey plenty of
>>credit: he wrote a handful of excellent plays and a few great sonnets.
>
> Puhleeze.
>
> "Triumph, my Britaine, thou hast one to showe,
> To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe.
> He was not of an age, but for all time!"
>
> - Ben Jonson
Is this supposed to be a poem?
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>> Ah yes, conditioning and brainwashing. This is really a principle so
>> ample that it admits no refutation. On the other hand, there is some
>> solace in the thought that I have been brainwashed;
>
>No doubt -- it saves you from the work of thinking. And since you admit
>that you are brainwashed, there's really no need to read any farther
>into this post.
Foil hat time, Das. The mind rays are coming from Zeppelins, you know
that? Making us think we like Shakespeare.
--
Josh
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>One might have guessed that you are actually dumb enough to think one
>>pronounces ideas. In the world of grownups, pronouncation is about
>>sounds. So it is you who suggested that these lines are beautiful,
>>depending on how you pronounce them. If their beauty depends solely on
>>sounds, then the ideas or imagery they contain is really irrelevant.
>
> No. I did assume originally that you were talking about the sound; you
> pointed out that they weren't.
Speak Inglish?
>>>>You seem to think, like some sort of modelboy, that poetry is about
>>>>'beautiful things' or 'creating beauty' or some simular nonsense that
>>>>belongs on a catwalk, not on a poetry group.
>>>
>>>If it is true, it is, on one or another level, beautiful.
>>
>>Pfffft.
>
> Like the savage, you make faces at what you fail to understand.
Like the Jonathan and The Chuckles, you have a sexual preference for
those that comprehend your complex philosophies much better than adults.
>>>>"To finish a work? To finish a picture? What nonsense! To finish it
>>>>means to be through with it, to kill it, to rid it of its soul, to give
>>>>it its final blow the coup de grace for the painter as well as for the
>>>>picture."
>>>
>>>Right, and you would find just as many painters who say the opposite.
>>
>>Haven't met any. Care to quote a few?
>
> Nope.
Translation: I am a loser. Speak Inglish?
> Why do you always do this, always make a fool of yourself by making
> sweeping pronouncements when you don't know what the fuck you're
> talking about? Why do you go on about Kantean ideals when Shakespeare
> lived in the renaissance rather than the enlightenment?
One might argue, then, that he was a bit ahead of his time, or -more
likely - that Kant was far behind his.
Why do you
> claim that Shakespeare's contemporaries "felt he was dull and boring"
> when in fact they celebrated his genius?
Nonsense.
Why do you claim that
> Shakespeare's reputation was made by college professors when it was
> not?
Because it clearly was.
And why, after making, once again, a complete and utter fool of
> yourself with these Korsakoffian confabulations, do you make an even
> worse one with your laughable claim that Shakespeare was not one of
> the greatest intellects in human history,
Of course he wasn't. He was a reasonably good poet who wrote a few nice
sonnets in his mother tongue, a few nice plays and that's about it.
I see no reason whatsoever to have to pretend the guy had some sort of
'super intellect' - sentimental zealotisch rubbish from a statue
worshipper.
> and that the fact that I
> recognize his ability is a sign of intellectual limitations on my
> part?
This is of course entirely true. Shakespeare has no choice but to
have a giant superintellect. If he wouldn't have that superintellect but
would be just a normal, flawed human being - then so would you.
And we all know that you need your superintellect, Josh. It's the only
thing in life you have. What else have you accomplished?
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
I agree completely. And I confess that I find this whole discussion
puzzling -- it's as if members of a music group were debating whether
music depended on notes.
--
Josh
Chandra P. Das
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:43:25 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>><vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's hard to go wrong with IP,
>>>>
>>>>What? Exactly the opposite: it's almost impossible to craft a
>>>>semi-interesting, non-puke-inducing poem in strict IP. The only things
>>>>that make an IP poem enjoyable to read are the subtle deviations and
>>>>irregularities, which of course can only be successfully managed by
>>>>experts, and even then only occasionally.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have any clue about any aspect of poetics at all?
>>>
>>>
>>>Spare us Poetry 101, Das;
>>
>>You need to start with Poetry 000.
>
>
> Am I the only one who's beginning to suspect that there's an
> uncreativity gene?
"In the night, when dreams have come
And hard day's fancies flutter free,
I wander up the meadow some
And there she waits for me."
You're calling other people uncreative? -- have you no shame, Josh?
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>>Sound is vital, period -- so why wouldn't it be vital to poetry? But
>>>>keep this in mind: in order for the voice of a poem to be credible, it
>>>>must sound like something somebody would/could say in everyday speech.
>>>>The diction has to be contemporary and real.
>>>
>>>Exactly. If during the Renaissance some guy would have started to write
>>>poetry in 'Roman Empire Style' and taunt at people who pass by in
>>>snobish Latin he'd be laughed at too.
>>
>> Do you ever cease confabulating, Benders? Renaissance poetry was
>> commonly written in Latin, and poets have frequently chosen to write
>> in styles influenced by other times.
>
>Oh yes. Take Pound, for example. There's nothing that works quite as
>well on my cheek muscles as playing some soundbites of Pound reading his
>'Cantos' - hilarious. Another example of a complete fraud that got
>Canonized by the likes of you.
Keep this up and you'll be as boring as Chandra.
>
>> It seems at this point that the only way to keep you from making a
>> total ass of yourself is to convince you to shut up.
>
>More sharp retoric straight from the pen of the supergenius.
>
>M.H.Benders
--
Josh
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>>You forgot the "after 400 hundred" years.
>>>
>>>Oh yes, the strange and irrational idea that the taste of the mob gets
>>>better as soon as the artist starts to age. Mob taste that survives the
>>>teeth of time is still mob taste. To present it as a set of esthetic
>>>values is ridiculous. It's popularity, and nothing else. You and P.Hill,
>>>however, constantly try to postpone the idea that this 'popularity' is a
>>>proof of the esthetic value of the work. This is sheer hogwash.
>>
>> Rubbish. The people who preserve these works are not the mob, but
>> those who love art the most, are the most familiar with it --
>> frequently the artists themselves.
>
>Sheer nonsense, and easily rebuked by someone who knows a thing or two
>about art.
>
>Take Dali, as an example. He is absolutely unloved by either artists or
>critics. There are almost no contemporary artists that like him, none
>of the contemporaries in his days liked him, the surrealists could drink
>his blood, and serious art critics do not like his work a lot either.
>
>And yet, there he is: completely canonized. It is popularity that
>canonizes people and nothing else. This extremely silly and naieve idea
>that there's some sort of tribe of geniusses out there who promote each
>others work into the Canon is both false and completely laughable.
Time will decide.
>Another good example is Nikolai Zabolotski. One of the best poets I have
>ever read, but it's almost impossible to find any book of the guy - no
>translationa available, out of print, the whole she-bang. Very popular
>amongst Russian intellectuals and artists, but clearly got not canonized.
I believe you just said "I like him, therefore." Doesn't work that
way.
>Another good example is the french painter Pierre Bettencourt. 20 times
>the genius Chagall or Dali was, but hardly known. It's even hard to find
>a decent website that mentions him.
Again, "I like him, therefore."
>Chagall is a good example of a painter that was easily Canonized by
>popularity - his reprints look so well above your cosy pink couch - but
>there's hundreds of Russian painters you'll never hear of that were much
>better than Chagall and will never be Canonized. Take Filonov, for
>example. There is no way Chagall could even come close to Filonov in
>terms of greatness. Yet there he is, worshipped and canonized, while
>Filonov is left forgotten in the dark corners of Russia.
Again, "I like him, therefore."
>
>So fuck you, you illiterate punk. Fuck you and your stupid postcard
>idea's about saints who all recognise each other and praise each other
>in to heaven. You're a complete nitwit who know nothing about art,
>arthistory, poetry or whatever else comes to mind, and the ridiculous
>rags you call your 'opinions' attest to that fact.
Surely, Benders, you can sing a note other than mi.
--
Josh
Josh Hill
One could, but it would be a remarkably stupid argument.
> Why do you
>> claim that Shakespeare's contemporaries "felt he was dull and boring"
>> when in fact they celebrated his genius?
>
>Nonsense.
You are such a total idiot.
Put this in your tiny braincase:
/You don't know./
/You are ludicrously wrong./
I'm not going to waste more time digging up the multitude of
contemporary quotes that celebrate Shakespeare's genius: they are
readily accessible to anyone who cares to look, and anybody who
doesn't know by now that you're a confabulating idiot is an idiot
himself.
> Why do you claim that
>> Shakespeare's reputation was made by college professors when it was
>> not?
>
>Because it clearly was.
Put this in your tiny braincase:
/You don't know./
/ You are ludicrously wrong./
You cannot conceive of the contempt I have for you, Benders. You're a
veritable encyclopedia of bad qualities: stupid, ignorant, arrogant,
dishonest, unprincipled, homophobic, anti-Semitic, nationalistic,
egomaniacal, juvenile, conventional, shallow, hierarchical, lazy,
bureaucratic.
> And why, after making, once again, a complete and utter fool of
>> yourself with these Korsakoffian confabulations, do you make an even
>> worse one with your laughable claim that Shakespeare was not one of
>> the greatest intellects in human history,
>
>Of course he wasn't. He was a reasonably good poet who wrote a few nice
>sonnets in his mother tongue, a few nice plays and that's about it.
>I see no reason whatsoever to have to pretend the guy had some sort of
>'super intellect' - sentimental zealotisch rubbish from a statue
>worshipper.
You're neither bright enough nor knowledgeable enough to know. You're
like one of those physics group kooks who thinks he's disproved the
Theory of Relativity.
>> and that the fact that I
>> recognize his ability is a sign of intellectual limitations on my
>> part?
>
>This is of course entirely true. Shakespeare has no choice but to
>have a giant superintellect. If he wouldn't have that superintellect but
>would be just a normal, flawed human being - then so would you.
>
>And we all know that you need your superintellect, Josh. It's the only
>thing in life you have. What else have you accomplished?
Benders, had my sole accomplishment in life been not being you, I
would be ready to die content.
--
Josh
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:40:37 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
>> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leisha wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>And how do you complain about our emphasis on the sound of things when
>>>>you have just posted Shakespeare and bitched about the awful sound of it?
>>>>
>>>>Sound is vital in poetry;
>>>
>>>Sound is vital, period -- so why wouldn't it be vital to poetry? But
>>>keep this in mind: in order for the voice of a poem to be credible, it
>>>must sound like something somebody would/could say in everyday speech.
>>>The diction has to be contemporary and real.
>>
>>
>> Poetic diction has seldom been "contemporary and real."
>
>Who gives a fuck how it has been? I'm telling you how it should be. I am
>not influenced by your precious icons and institutions so spare me the
>textbook bollocks.
I am no more interested in how you think it should be than in how
icons or institutions or textbooks think it should be.
>>>"In the night, when dreams have come
>>>And hard day's fancies flutter free,
>>>I wander up the meadow some,
>>>And there she waits for me."
>>
>>
>>>Could you ever utter this set of words in public without getting laughed
>>>at? The voice has 'fake' written all over it. It's a preposterous sham.
>>>If you want to be a poet today, you'd better pull your head out of the
>>>ass of the baroque years and try to acquaint yourself with the
>>>fundamentals of modern life and language.
>>
>>
>> There are no musts in poetry,
>
>Yes, there is, but just one: you must create art.
How profoundly trite.
>>save perhaps that some reader somewhere
>> must enjoy the work.
>
>Not really. Having gotten to know more clearly what kinds of readers
>there are out there, I'd think it might actually be something to
>celebrate if nobody liked your poetry.
Not a problem I've ever had, fortunately.
>>Only the fashion follower will suppose that
>> because one style happens to be popular, one cannot write in another.
>
>Write in any style you like, just make sure your diction isn't something
>that might split people's sides with laughter.
It never has.
>> And if you read the comments this particular poem received, you know
>> that reader reaction was warm;
>
>What? If you're open to comments then you'll have to deal with the
>comments offered by me and Benders. I'm not trolling or flaming you,
>Josh: that poem was quite dreadful. I've never claimed to be good or
>even a decent poet, but I'd never sign my name to that verse.
If you aren't trolling me or flaming me, then I thank you for your
opinion. It doesn't concern me; I can see the poem's flaws for myself.
>>indeed, an editor who saw it here
>> emailed me and received permission to publish it.
>
>Anybody can be an editor. You're just saying that somebody out there
>liked your poem. Good for you. Be happy, keep writing that kind of
>fluffy wankage, grease your readers, etc. I have no investment in you so
>I don't really care where you end up with your poetics. On second
>thought: I'm actually glad that there are many people like you around
>who are still writing in the eighteenth century -- leaves more space for
>me in *this* century. So, thank you, I guess.
Your poetry will neither gain nor suffer on the basis of what others
are doing: if it's like the samples Benders posted the other day, it
needs an influx of whole blood.
That being said, you will gain nothing by writing in the Approved
Styles except, perhaps, publication in journals with more contributors
than subscribers. Style is not the issue here; whether you write good
poetry is. And if you cannot understand the limitations of
contemporary academic style, cannot understand that it hobbles the
poet as surely as a stride chain, you do not have what it takes to
write good poetry.
--
Josh
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>>I'd go so far as to say poetry was originally almost entirely about
>>>sound: "primitive" chants and the like.
>>
>>Oh sure - poetry is but a deviation of music. It's chanting with a bunch
>>of words on paper. Let's go back to the Amoeba, shall we - it becomes
>>clear if we do that that poetry is all about swimming around in foggy
>>waters. Swimming around in foggy waters, that's right. Prior to the Big
>>Bang, poetry was all about floating around in empty but infinitly
>>compact space. But the ignorant cavemen who were chanting their poems
>>to the hidden Gods had no idea. Luckily nowadays we know better. Poetry
>>is all about floating around in a foggy but infinitly compact space. One
>>of the reasons Josh feels so attracted to it.
>
> It strikes me that, rather than arguing with what Dale says, you are
> making fun of it, and, really, that seems to me somewhat cowardly.
It strikes me that you are clearly a supergenius to be able to spot
irony in above paragraph. Maybe you are finally starting to learn to
recognise texts?
> In any event, the connection between poetry and music is an ancient
> one. The Greek epics and tragedies were sung; we refer even today to
> short poems as "lyric" verses, literally verses that can be sung to a
> lyre.
Oh yes. The connection between painting and pottery is also a very
ancient one. It is therefore completely legitimate to claim that the art
of painting is really about molding clay. Really. Just look at what the
greeks did!
M.H.Benders
Dale
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:00:01 -0500, Dale <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:04:38 +0200, "M.H.Benders"
>>><m.be...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>This is fine as things go - anything can be debated to good effect - but
>>>>>the argument between you and Josh on this and similar subjects isn't
>>>>>framed in such a manner as to elicit reasoned or even interestingly
>>>>>nonsensical statements. It is obvious that you're both just going after
>>>>>each other's manhood using Shakespeare (and Yeats, and others) as
>>>>>convenient blunt instruments.
>>>>
>>>>Houstman, I have always thought you are essentially rather slow, I don't
>>>>know if that's because of your age, or because of the fact you've
>>>>limited your artistic vision to surrealist hedgehumping. I agree with
>>>>your political opinions, but the simularities between us end about there.
>>>
>>>
>>>That seems to me a powerful complement.
>>>
>>
>>Strikes me as obvious, and that Bender's mentioning it makes him rather
>>dull himself.
>>
>>It just goes to show the main fracture in Martijn's conversational
>>style: he is incapable of admitting error, or of having a sense of
>>self-deprecation, or simple grace when someone even mildly disagrees
>>with him on a point or two.
>>
>>But I'm slow, so what do I know?
>
>
> It's the insecurity factor, isn't it? Different bodies, but the
> chassis is always the same.
>
You know: this group has simply become so filled with yahoos on the one
hand, and - well - yahoos on the other hand (with several other hands
waiting around to be filled with whatever comes out of those yahoos)
that is really isn't worth it anymore. Amongst the "America Right Or
Wrongers" and the "poetry is pissing in a bottlers" and the
"fill-in-the-blank is a pedophilers" and the "you misspelled
shitdonkeyers" and the "Jack Kerouac is a poeters" and a thousand other
even less savory savages...who needs it finally?
I like Shakespeare. I think America could use more people like him, and
Mark Twain for that matter. Unfortunately, all we've got is over-priced
vitamin supplements, bad movies, and a penchant for dropping bombs on
people without any real defenses, simply in pursuit of one man's success
story. Martijn's mainly a cranky little twat, Jonathan's a parrot
pretending to be a thinker, and you think America can pretty much do
anything it wants, even when it's murderous and uncalled for,
because...well, because George Washington once crossed a river.
Athlete's foot provides better company.
dmh
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Leisha wrote:
>
>>> Quite the contrary. It adresses some really important questions about
>>> poetry, such as the unjustifiable colonization of poetry by the
>>> English language, the overdependance modern poetry has on sounds which
>>> dates back to Shakespeare, and the inability of modern day readers to
>>> look beyond the mere 'sound of things' - subsequently, the argument is
>>> about
>>> the uselessness of beauty as a poetic concept and much more.
>>
>> The uselessness of beauty? I know you're rejecting Keats, too, but not
>> me. I feel we have a mandate from Keats to celebrate the beauty of this
>> life, and I'm happy to do so.
>
>I read some of your posts. You are not interested in poetry. You are
>interested in publishing. There's a big difference between these two.
>
>You won't have any chance to write real poetry until the prospect of
>having to publish it actually becomes revolting to you. When you
>overcome that stage, you'll be completely indifferent about it.
>
>Right now, however, you're at the stage where you'd be willing to sleep
>with anyone that wants to publish your trash. That's pathetic. It is
>also the stage 98% of the entire poetry scene is stuck up on. There
>is no meaning in recognition by sycophants.
>
>> And how do you complain about our emphasis on the sound of things when
>> you have just posted Shakespeare and bitched about the awful sound of it?
>
>You are not clever enough to follow my arguments.
Sheesh. And you wonder why I dislike you, Martijn. What a whiny,
stuck-up little princess you are.
--
Josh
Josh Hill
> "Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message news:pbgqm0ti070g1h1au...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:48:33 +0200, "M.H.Benders"
> <m.be...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> >So you would say the beauty of this poem depends entirely on the sounds
> >it produces, and not on the ideas?
>
> Why do you suppose they're mutually exclusive, or that ideas and
> sounds are the only two components of poetry? For example, a visual
> image is not an idea or a sound, but it may be beautiful.
>
>
>You have a soul and actually know something about art. Rare and refreshing.
Heh, thanks -- it's good to know the Devil hasn't claimed it yet! ;-)
--
Josh
M.H.Benders
Chandra P. Das wrote:
>> This is not the mob. There are always works aplenty to content the mob
>> -- Prince, Spielberg, Christo -- and so they have little reason to
>> look beyond their own time.
>
> Benders says you have a tendency to flare into anti-Christo rants every
> now and then. Is this the start of another?
Christo is just some buildings wrapped in cloth, Chandra. That's not
art. Putting some paint on cloth, that's art.
M.H.Benders
Gonçalo Rodrigues
>> You forgot the "after 400 hundred" years. More examples of
>> Shakespeare's pervasiveness, or what in the end is really a measure of
>> his aestethic power: The "rise to power" of Shakespeare started
>> already (though somewhat feebly) with Dryden, but 100 years, David
>> Garrick was led to describe him as "the god of our idolatry". The
>> height of Bardolatrty was in romanticism, all romanticism might I add,
>> be it english, french or german. Shakespeare is instrumental in Joyce
>> and Beckett (just read Endgame). I doubt it is possible for a novelist
>> to go beyond "Finnegans Wake" or Beckett's triology.
>
>Quite aprt from the "real" worth of Shakespeare, the fact that he (or
>antyone else) is still read 400 years later is no sort of measure of
>aesthetic value. And the praise of others is only received knowledge,
>and not a reasoned advocacy of his cultural position. After all, the
>Bible is still widely read and VERY influential upon as many writers,
>but is it great literature? I'd say it is a very uneven tome.
>
>>
>> In another post you resume Shakespeare in the following words:
>>
>> "That's the sort of power Shakespeare lacks completely, and it's
>> mainly because of two things: dependency on sound structures and
>> poverty of ideas and sharp imagery."
>>
>> What you fail to see is that the blank or ruin is in your own eye.
>> Your prejudices, Mr. Benders, are not weapons of critical discernment;
>> they are just that, prejudices. "Poverty of ideas and sharp imagery"?
>> Yeah, right.
>
>This is absurd, especially in light of the prejudicial and "received"
>nature of your "argument": Willy is great because a lot of people say he
>is. Whether or not Shakespeare is "great," your argument is not.
Willy is great not because the majority says he is popular (or as the
resident nazi Mr. Benders says, "The Mob") but because other great
artists say it *in their own art*. And, to a lesser extent, the body
of criticism that Shakespeare has engendered is also a testimony to
his continuing vitality. Shakespeare is also somewhat of a special
case inside the canon because *he is* endlessly popular, a fate
numerous great artists (the majority?) do not share.
But we are going in circles here, so I guess it's time to pick another
fight.
Josh Hill
>
>"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote in message
>news:416EE63...@spamchello.nl...
>I hate this! I have to agree with Martijn yet again. I have
>little interest in the past. Primarily due to some of the
>lessons of complexity science. I've found that understanding
>the present is found by looking to the future.
>
>The past is a very poor reference point in modeling the
>present or predicting the future. What is beautiful
>now will always exceed what was. If for no more
>reason than the distance from the specific contexts
>that existed ...then. The farther anything is removed
>from its home, the weaker it gets.
>
>Let's be rational about our concepts please.
>If you wish to accomplish something a goal
>must be set. The higher the goal the better.
>A goal is all about projecting into the future
>......first.
>
>Poetry is not a goal ....it...is...merely...a...tool.
>Without a cause it's not even that
Are you saying, then, that you would discard the results of Archimedes
and Euclid? Besides, poetry is not science. We have changed a good
deal less since Homer's day than our toys have: Achilles could sulk in
any age, Elpenor fall from a roof, Scylla and Charybdis require us to
accept a lesser loss to avoid a greater one.
--
Josh
M.H.Benders
>
> "Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net <mailto:Josh44...@snet.net>>
> wrote in message news:pbgqm0ti070g1h1au...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:48:33 +0200, "M.H.Benders"
>
> >So you would say the beauty of this poem depends entirely on the
> sounds
> >it produces, and not on the ideas?
>
> sounds are the only two components of poetry? For example, a visual
> image is not an idea or a sound, but it may be beautiful.
>
> You have a soul and actually know something about art. Rare and refreshing.
Chandra P. Das
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:43:01 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:40:37 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
>>><vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Leisha wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And how do you complain about our emphasis on the sound of things when
>>>>>you have just posted Shakespeare and bitched about the awful sound of it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sound is vital in poetry;
>>>>
>>>>Sound is vital, period -- so why wouldn't it be vital to poetry? But
>>>>keep this in mind: in order for the voice of a poem to be credible, it
>>>>must sound like something somebody would/could say in everyday speech.
>>>>The diction has to be contemporary and real.
>>>
>>>
>>>Poetic diction has seldom been "contemporary and real."
>>
>>Who gives a fuck how it has been? I'm telling you how it should be. I am
>>not influenced by your precious icons and institutions so spare me the
>>textbook bollocks.
>
>
> I am no more interested in how you think it should be than in how
> icons or institutions or textbooks think it should be.
Why not save us the drama and just say you're simply not interested in art?
>
>
>>>>"In the night, when dreams have come
>>>>And hard day's fancies flutter free,
>>>>I wander up the meadow some,
>>>>And there she waits for me."
>>>
>>>
>>>>Could you ever utter this set of words in public without getting laughed
>>>>at? The voice has 'fake' written all over it. It's a preposterous sham.
>>>>If you want to be a poet today, you'd better pull your head out of the
>>>>ass of the baroque years and try to acquaint yourself with the
>>>>fundamentals of modern life and language.
>>>
>>>
>>>There are no musts in poetry,
>>
>>Yes, there is, but just one: you must create art.
>
>
> How profoundly trite.
>
>
>>>save perhaps that some reader somewhere
>>>must enjoy the work.
>>
>>Not really. Having gotten to know more clearly what kinds of readers
>>there are out there, I'd think it might actually be something to
>>celebrate if nobody liked your poetry.
>
>
> Not a problem I've ever had, fortunately.
Because your poetry sucks and there's a large market for sucky poetry.
>
>
>>>Only the fashion follower will suppose that
>>>because one style happens to be popular, one cannot write in another.
>>
>>Write in any style you like, just make sure your diction isn't something
>>that might split people's sides with laughter.
>
>
> It never has.
"In the night, when dreams have come
And hard day's fancies flutter free,
I wander up the meadow some
And there she waits for me."
I can't stop laughing.
>
>
>>>And if you read the comments this particular poem received, you know
>>>that reader reaction was warm;
>>
>>What? If you're open to comments then you'll have to deal with the
>>comments offered by me and Benders. I'm not trolling or flaming you,
>>Josh: that poem was quite dreadful. I've never claimed to be good or
>>even a decent poet, but I'd never sign my name to that verse.
>
>
> If you aren't trolling me or flaming me, then I thank you for your
> opinion.
You're welcome.
It doesn't concern me;
Because you're not interested in poetry, obviously.
>I can see the poem's flaws for myself.
Really?
"In the night, when dreams have come
And hard day's fancies flutter free,
I wander up the meadow some
And there she waits for me."
Why haven't you scrapped these laughable, cartoonish lines?
>
>>>indeed, an editor who saw it here
>>>emailed me and received permission to publish it.
>>
>>Anybody can be an editor. You're just saying that somebody out there
>>liked your poem. Good for you. Be happy, keep writing that kind of
>>fluffy wankage, grease your readers, etc. I have no investment in you so
>>I don't really care where you end up with your poetics. On second
>>thought: I'm actually glad that there are many people like you around
>>who are still writing in the eighteenth century -- leaves more space for
>>me in *this* century. So, thank you, I guess.
>
>
> Your poetry will neither gain nor suffer on the basis of what others
> are doing: if it's like the samples Benders posted the other day, it
> needs an influx of whole blood.
Those samples need whole blood, body and soul, my boy, I don't deny it.
And let me tell you this clearly: if some fortune teller told me that in
my mid-fifties I'd be writing poetry of your caliber, I'd fucking stop
writing immediately, throw out all my notes and books and be done with
it once and for all. What a fucking nightmare!
>
> That being said, you will gain nothing by writing in the Approved
> Styles except, perhaps, publication in journals with more contributors
> than subscribers. Style is not the issue here; whether you write good
> poetry is.
Indeed. Now go away and try to write some good poetry.
>And if you cannot understand the limitations of
> contemporary academic style,
What are you on about? What limitations? If any limitations exist, they
are attached to the old styles in which you write.
>cannot understand that it hobbles the
> poet as surely as a stride chain,
It doesn't hobble you. If forces you to acquire enough strength and
balance to be able to stand on your own feet.
>you do not have what it takes to
> write good poetry.
I'm not interested in writing anything that a dopey drone like you would
consider 'good' poetry.
Pax
"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote in message news:416D65A4...@spamchello.nl...
Josh Hill wrote:
> For example, a visual
> image is not an idea or a sound, but it may be beautiful.
It is not relevant to poetry whether a thing is beautiful or not. You
keep making the same amateuristic assumptions about beauty - it does not
matter whether a thing sounds ugly or sounds good - neither qualifies a
thing as poetry, and sometimes it is much better if a line sounds ugly,
if the metaphors are ugly, or things sound clunky, unfinished, whatever.
You seem to think, like some sort of modelboy, that poetry is about
'beautiful things' or 'creating beauty' or some simular nonsense that
belongs on a catwalk, not on a poetry group.
"Art is not the application of a canon of beauty but what the instinct
and the brain can conceive beyond any canon. When we love a woman we
don't start measuring her limbs." Picasso
By mid-twenties he became so popular that he, “had to suffer a public that was gradually suppressing his individuality by blindly applauding every single picture he produced.”After visiting an exhibition of children's drawings: "When I was their age I could draw like Raphael, but it took me a lifetime to learn to draw like them."About art: "You expect me to tell you what art is? If I knew it, I would keep it for myself."
“Everyone wants to understand art. Why don’t we try to understand the song of a bird? Why do we love the night, the flowers, everything around us, without trying to understand them? But in the case of a painting, people think they have to understand. If only they would realize above all that an artist works of necessity, that he himself is only an insignificant part of the world, and that no more importance should be attached to him than to plenty of other things which please us in the world, though we can’t explain them people who try to explain pictures are usually barking up the wrong tree.”
Picasso
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>>You cannot conceive of the contempt I have for you, Benders. You're a
>>>veritable encyclopedia of bad qualities: stupid, ignorant, arrogant,
>>>dishonest, unprincipled, homophobic, anti-Semitic, nationalistic,
>>>egomaniacal, juvenile, conventional, shallow, hierarchical, lazy,
>>>bureaucratic.
>>
>>Yeah, but take a look at this:
>>
>>http://www.kannibaal.nl/garden.htm
>>
>>These pictures were just taken in my garden. That girl is one of my best
>>friends and she admires me completely - you can see my arm on her left
>>side. She reaches out to touch me. We have great fun, always. Tomorrow
>>we'll go eat together in a nice italian Restaurant. She's actually a
>>filmmaker, and I really like her.
>>
>>Take in mind that I only show this picture because I know you're gay.
>>I'd never show them to a harelip that actually had some taste, who knows
>>what he'd do in front of his screen.
>>
>>What about if you take some pictures from your friends? This could be fun.
>
>
> Pathetic.
I know, Josh. It's good to see you finally realize that you can accuse
me endlessly of having no friends or being impopular - what's the point
if Mr Benders can directly present evidence to the contrary? Aren't
digital camera's great?
So what about you posting some pictures of those marvelous, intelligent
friends you hang out with? Oops, I forgot: you don't even have a
website. You probably don't even know how to upload a picture.
And, of course, that hairy neighbour of yours won't look very convincing
as inttelectual companionship.
Pathetic, indeed.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>> It's a simple matter of conditioning and
>>>brainwashing. With proper design and execution, we could create an
>>>equilibrium in which 60 year old philosophy professors at top
>>>universities will be discussing the greatness of Britney Spears two
>>>hundred years from now. I'm not out to degrade Shakespeare by such
>>>commentary -- I like the guy, his art serves a good purpose; but people
>>>have got to realize that a significant part of his greatness is a
>>>product of conditioning and training.
>>>
>>
>> Ah yes, conditioning and brainwashing. This is really a principle so
>> ample that it admits no refutation. On the other hand, there is some
>> solace in the thought that I have been brainwashed; it means that,
>> contrary to a lot of people, I still possess a brain, and a clean one
>> at that.
>
>My, my. Mr Rodrigues is really a bright light, isn't he?
That would be evident even if we didn't have your wired backwards
light meter to go by.
--
Josh
Dale
Leisha wrote:
> M.H.Benders wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dale wrote:
>>
>>> I must admit this ongoing argument over Shakespeare is quite dull.
>>
>>
>>
>> Quite the contrary. It adresses some really important questions about
>> poetry, such as the unjustifiable colonization of poetry by the
>> English language, the overdependance modern poetry has on sounds which
>> dates back to Shakespeare, and the inability of modern day readers to
>> look beyond the mere 'sound of things' - subsequently, the argument is
>> about
>> the uselessness of beauty as a poetic concept and much more.
>
>
> The uselessness of beauty? I know you're rejecting Keats, too, but not
> me. I feel we have a mandate from Keats to celebrate the beauty of this
> life, and I'm happy to do so.
Do we really need a mandate from Keats to celebrate beauty? I think the
human race beat him to this by a few thousand years or so, if cave
paintings are any indication.
dmh
Dale
Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 07:40:53 -0500, Dale <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> [text snipped]
>
>
>>>Do you mean to tell
>>>me that we are all born with a craving for imaginative literature or,
>>>for that matter, for calculus or astrophysics? You are wrong precisely
>>>because one of the great functions of the canon is to help each and
>>>every individual to form *his own* opinions.
>>
>>What a ridiculous argument you have here! Your circular "reason" is that
>>the canon represents what is aesthetically valuable, because it tells us
>>what is aesthetically valuable, and - since people are unable to make
>>aesthetic choices - people have created a process which makes aesthetic
>>choices for them, because they are incapable of making them by
>>themselves! Quite a belief system that! How did you come up with it? Was
>>it created for you by a committee formed by you to come up with ideas
>>you have no ability to come up with?
>>
>
>
> Either you are grossly misrepresenting what I am saying or I fail
> badly at representing what I am thinking. Or both.
Or neither. It was a clear response to your absurd notion that
individuals are incapable of forming aesthetic decisions without the
intervention of a pre-existing canon which is formulated by - ohmigod! -
other individuals. You said it. I responded. If you now want to chjange
what you said (either becauise you've had a sincere change of mind, or
are simply embarrassed to see how ridiculous it is) that's your perogative.
>Either way, I think
> I said all I wanted to say on the matter.
Since you've actually said nothing, it seems to be a bad place to stop
trying...
>If I understand you
> correctly you seem to think that the canon is a product of a sect
> entrenched in the Academia , while I think that it was the artists
> and, to a lesser extent, the critics that made them.
Artists don't make canons. Critics help, but that's just another layer
of bad advice, and doesn't help the flaw in your "idea": that
individuals are not the best judge of what is valuable to them, and so
we NEED an Academy (made up of critics and professors) to create a
pre-existing list to choose from. Martijn's tastes may be a matter of
prejudice - all tastes are - but at least it is an individual bias, not
the fossilized recommendations you champion.
>You seem to
> think, if I understand you correctly, that the canon is more a record
> of survival of an ideological and political battle while I think that
> it is a measure of aestethic vitality.
But the proof is in the eating of the pudding, no? Is the Bible's
preeminence (in literarure and culture) really an aesthetic process? Of
course not: I could cite hundreds and hundreds of works that are
"better" in the most basic aesthetic terms; unities, intellectual
validity, and sheer grace. The same goes for Shakespeare; he is
certainly not the most "graceful" of his contemporaries, nor the most
charming, nor the most original, nor the most of any number of
qualities. Does this mean he is useless? Of course not. But his very
inclusion at the top of some prejudiced list is an obstacle to cultural
reexamination of his and others' actual qualities. As for the canon
being an ideological artifact: scores of books have been written on this
very notion: that language itself is an ideological process in which -
like all struggles - the powerful get to write the history. The fact
that some of these choices are possibly correct - or at least not
baleful - is beside the point: which is that such pre-winnowing is not
the most useful measure of value, nor does it have anything to do with
the most essential relationship in "art": that one which transpires
between a work and an individual.
I was once hitchhiking through Europe and chanced to talk with a French
student of approximately my own age. I was - at the time and many times
since - reading Rimbuad's Illuminations, a work that I consider among
the greatest poetic creations ever, dwarfing (in aesthetic terms)
anything old Willy ever dreamed of. To this Frenchman Rimbaud was a
vague name from high school. And - it so happens - none of us would be
reading Arthur if his "friend" (the renowned pedophile, Paul Verlaine,
fresh from serving time for his "crimes") had not bothered to gather
together all of dear Arthur's manuscripts and have them published. The
mainstream Academic world considered Rimbaud a rather greasy little
stain on French culture. Baudelaire (another depraved little man,
although later filled with pathetic religiosity in the wake of disease,
poverty and guilt) was hated by the canonizing pimples of his and
subsequent times. And so it goes. Personally, I consider Alfred Jarry an
infinitely more satisfying author than Shakespeare, but that's me. The
canonization of any of them is often after the point, and almost always
unnecessary, at least as far as it relates to that moast essnetial
relationship between reader and text. Left to canons and canons only,
many of the most interesting artists of all time would be the stuff
which ragmen sell as nose hankies. Truth be known, canons are an
obstacle to creative reading, because a true imagination is fed not by a
barrage of "Greats" but by a panoply of interesting (if flawed)
trivilalities and "charmers."
>You seem to think, if I
> understand you correctly, that the canon is a mere fetish making
> choices for people too lazy or ignorant to do them while I think that
> the canon is a tutor in the sublime.
It all washes out to the same: this is circular on your part again,
since you are assuming - a priori - that the canonical choices ARE the
best representations of this sublime. I say they are not. And - after
all - it is YOU who asked HOW a person will ever get to this sublime
without a pre-determined canon, certainly postulating that individuals
are incapable of maiing these choices themselves, even though it is
obvious even the canon is determined by individuals. Your argument is
simply a dog chasing its tail.
dmh
Chandra P. Das
>> ample that it admits no refutation. On the other hand, there is some
>> solace in the thought that I have been brainwashed; it means that,
>> contrary to a lot of people, I still possess a brain, and a clean one
>> at that.
>
>
> My, my. Mr Rodrigues is really a bright light, isn't he?
I think I remember this clown from a while ago when he came here (or to
RAP maybe) with a SPAM-load of haiku. Kicked his ass so now he's back
with a vengance. Bwahahahaha.
> M.H.Benders
>
Gonçalo Rodrigues
>
>I think I remember this clown from a while ago when he came here (or to
>RAP maybe) with a SPAM-load of haiku. Kicked his ass so now he's back
>with a vengance. Bwahahahaha.
>
I really don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about but
the idea does make me smile. And I consider a praise being called a
clown. One of my biggest sadnesses is not wearing a red nose, an
orange wig and big extra large red shoes.
Regards,
G. Rodrigues
Pax
"Chandra P. Das" <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:9rnbd.258$4V3.172@trndny01...
Leisha wrote:
> M.H.Benders wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dale wrote:
>>
>>> I must admit this ongoing argument over Shakespeare is quite dull.
>>
>>
>>
>> Quite the contrary. It adresses some really important questions about
>> poetry, such as the unjustifiable colonization of poetry by the
>> English language, the overdependance modern poetry has on sounds which
>> dates back to Shakespeare, and the inability of modern day readers to
>> look beyond the mere 'sound of things' - subsequently, the argument is
>> about
>> the uselessness of beauty as a poetic concept and much more.
>
>
> The uselessness of beauty? I know you're rejecting Keats, too, but not
> me. I feel we have a mandate from Keats to celebrate the beauty of this
> life, and I'm happy to do so.
You can celebrate the beauty of life but you also need to call attention
to the ugliness of life. When you celebrate beauty too much, it becomes
lazy and corrupt; and when you neglect ugliness too much, it grows and
gets uglier. It is precisely because through history humanity has been
preoccupied with celebrating beauty that life today has become a
predominantly ugly business.
Jonathan
"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:6lrrm05dt1fv7nmi6...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >
> >> the overdependance modern poetry has on sounds which dates
> >> back to Shakespeare,
> >
> >
>
> How is this excerpt from Chaucer any less dependent on sound than
> Shakespeare?
I was responding only to the one sentence. I don't
see Chaucer anywhere~ Just a statement of
too much archaic language. I see more of it
than I care to.
>
> Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote
> The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
> And bathed every veyne in swich licour
> Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
>
> This one from Beowulf?
>
> Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
> şeodcyninga, şrym gefrunon,
> hu ğa æşelingas ellen fremedon.
> Oft Scyld Scefing sceaşena şreatum
One thing strikes me about these quotes. It seems
the effect is ruined if the reader has to keep
stopping and starting due to the odd or
difficult language. Like someone shouting
in the middle of a recital, kinda spoils the
trip. If you have to analyze it then it's not
meant for reading, but for ...studying.
It wouldn't be a performance, but a textbook
example.
Besides, you should know by now my mentor
is Dear Emily. I've found her advice and wisdom
unshakable. I refuse to cross her.
Language alone will never be sufficient.
"To tell the beauty would decrease,
To state the Spell demean,
There is a syllableless sea
Of which it is the sign.
My will endeavours for its word
And fails, but entertains
A rapture as of legacies
Of introspective mines."
s
>
> Benders, as usual, is talking through his hat. Sound has been a
> fundamental part of poetry, almost its defining characteristic, since
> prehistory, and Shakespeare did not have any role whatsoever in
> elevating the dependence of poetry on sound -- hardly surprising,
> since such an elevation did not in fact occur except in his strangely
> florid imagination.
>
> --
> Josh
Dale
Jonathan wrote
...but never once achieved the intellectual escape trajectory needed to
get him out of the nursery basement, where he had learned to mimic the
sounds coming out of the smarter kids mouths, while almost religiously
avoiding any of the content.
dmh
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>M.H.Benders wrote:
>> Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And why is a work of art remembered? If, as Mr. Benders argues
>>> Shakespeare was a mediocre poet, then why is it that after 400 years
>>> he is still read, in fact more read than ever?
>>
>>
>> Why is Britney Spears very popular? Surely, her popularity says
>> something about the quality of her music?
>
>But guy will say: well, Britney Spears is just here for today and will
>be forgotten tomorrow. Nonsense. She'll be replaced by another Britney
>Spears, just like she replaced the Britney Spears that was here before
>her. Britney Spears is an institution that has existed through all of
>time and will continue into the indefinite future. I can guarantee you
>that we can make Britney Spears as revered and honored as Shakespeare in
>two hundred years.
Rubbish.
> It's a simple matter of conditioning and
>brainwashing. With proper design and execution, we could create an
>equilibrium in which 60 year old philosophy professors at top
>universities will be discussing the greatness of Britney Spears two
>hundred years from now. I'm not out to degrade Shakespeare by such
>commentary -- I like the guy, his art serves a good purpose; but people
>have got to realize that a significant part of his greatness is a
>product of conditioning and training.
If you had even a minimal understanding of Shakespeare, you would not
say that. It's as silly as saying that Newton's greatness is a product
of conditioning and training.
You would, OTOH, be correct if you said that many assume that
Shakespeare is great simply because they have been told he is. But so
what? Many assume that Newton is great for the same reason; that makes
his accomplishment no less grand.
--
Josh
Josh Hill
You really don't get it, do you, Bonkers.
The analogy is more like this:
Christo is to an artist as a painter is to a house painter
--
Josh
Dale
A some have said he is crap. T.S. Eliot (for one example of a canonized
nazi) went to some length to explain why Hamlet is a shitty play. do I
agree with him? It would be the first time, but it does go to show that
your theory holds little water and much gas. And one would have to argue
the merit of each of the approving entities to see if their opinion was
worth considering, and that would only involve another layer of what is
basically received knowledge filtered through "accepted" channels. Which
is pure balderdash which - once more - attempts to subvert the only
canon which actually matters: that which is created by an individual
response. Once a group of such responses is leaped upon as a sort of
poll to determine a "hierarchy of the sublime" the original writer - no
matter what his/her merits - is basically dead meat. And the influence
argument is highly suspect as a measure of sublimity: Melville was
raised upon marine swashbucklers and the Bible, neither of which is
great anything. Dickens (in more than one novel) lists his influences,
and they are the basic childhood wash of the unwashed: sentimental
novelists informed by Petronius' Satyricon, which is a corrupted and
fragmented leftover of the ancient world. Is that the greatest piece of
classical literature? Probably not, but it IS enjoyable. so, it isn't a
purely aesthetic consideration, but an emotional one. Pliny the Elder's
books are - from an aesthetic viewpoint - dreary lists of
half-considered notions of the natural world; there is nothing "great"
about them, apart from their vast curiosity factor, which is what makes
them worth reading, if you can call that reading. And who knows what
many of those classical writers (who are VERY influential) actually
"sounded" like, considering that their works often come down to us via
corrupted copies. So - again - not an aesthetic process, but a
cultural/societal one. But the existence of the canon is no barrier to
those who are sharp enough: they will find their own influences. But the
canon (as it influences academic structure) IS a barrier to a wider and
vastly more seditious consideration of the artist. Many writers go
hungering for attention, despite their great qualities, simply because
they are either so far down those lists, or off them all together. This
is an essential disservioe to the imagination, which is born and bred in
that core relationship between the individual work and the individual
text in "real time" rather than in the episodic "great men" mentality of
those who would create a museum/mausoleum of "preferred servers."
And, to a lesser extent, the body
> of criticism that Shakespeare has engendered is also a testimony to
> his continuing vitality.
Again, a circular idea: he has attracted so much critical documentation
because he has been declared worthy of it.
>Shakespeare is also somewhat of a special
> case inside the canon because *he is* endlessly popular, a fate
> numerous great artists (the majority?) do not share.
So? Dickens and the Bible share this quality. And the way the Acdaemy is
going, Stephen King may eventually make it. In the 60s, Kurt Vonnegut
and Tolkien were taught in many universities, as was Herman Hesse. They
fit the zeitgeist of course. A hundred years from now, any or all of
them may enjoy a resurgence in collegiate attention. But so what? This
has nothing to do with the essential imaginative relationship. I
personally think the Iliad is as dull as a walk in a coal mine, and i've
read it several times in hopes of discovering its qualities. Others find
it, some put it on lists: okay. But the most important thing is my
individual response to it. It may even be that its canonization is part
of the patina which prevents me from easily grasping its values.
Sainthood has a habit of ruining the humanity of its subject. Mark
Twain's presence in the hierarchcy tends to make him into a mildly
cranky but basically decent human stand-up comic, when - in fact - he is
a revolutionary and dangerous mind of inifinite value to present-day
imperial America. But he IS defused neatly beneath the "pretty
attention" bestowed upon him. This is what canons do to imagination.
>
> But we are going in circles here, so I guess it's time to pick another
> fight.
I am afraid the circularity was built into your argument from the
get-go, and so it is not surprising you are still revolving.
dmh
Pax
Keep up the good fight... it really is worth it. :) Somehow these newsgroups
seem to make one lose sight of that at times.
Could I have a name for (or link to) that poem of yours the twit partially
quoted? Would like to read it.
> Josh
Be well - Pax
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Dale wrote:
>
>> I must admit this ongoing argument over Shakespeare is quite dull.
>
>Quite the contrary. It adresses some really important questions about
>poetry, such as the unjustifiable colonization of poetry by the English
>language
Pathetic. You're the poster boy for resentiment. Do you really think
we can't see that all you're saying is "I'm Dutch, so nobody much is
going to read my poetry"? Nobody /cares,/ Martijn.
>, the overdependance modern poetry has on sounds which dates
>back to Shakespeare,
Yeah, right, The Odyssey and Beowulf aren't dependent on sounds.
> and the inability of modern day readers to look
>beyond the mere 'sound of things' - subsequently, the argument is about
>the uselessness of beauty as a poetic concept and much more.
Yeah, right, modern readers can't look beyond the sound of things.
Where do you get this stuff? It's like you have a stupidity generator.
>So you can come and yawn, or you can join the discussion. Either way
>I think a metadiscussion about 'taste' is more useless than whatever you
>think would be useless about the debate.
>
>> Personally, I don't know what Benders has against Shakespeare, except
>> for the fact that he unfortunately has been canonized, thus giving us
>> all another saint to either stand in mindless awe in front of, or
>> another obstacle to get around
>
>There is more to the matter than just that. Shakespeare has become the
>central figure in the debilisation of poetry in general - the 'ear
>fondle church' where producing 'amazing sounds' seems to be the object
>of writing poetry in general.
Benders, if you were any more ignorant, they'd shoot you to prevent
the spread of mad cow disease.
/You don't know./ You obviously have never taken a college course in
Shakespeare, obviously haven't studied his works yourself, and so you
mischaracterize them about as badly as one possibly could, spout what
can only be described as sheer ignorance. And you do this again and
again, spout off without having taken the trouble to learn anything
about the subject of your pronouncements.
--
Josh
Gonçalo Rodrigues
>>
>> Either you are grossly misrepresenting what I am saying or I fail
>> badly at representing what I am thinking. Or both.
>
>Or neither. It was a clear response to your absurd notion that
>individuals are incapable of forming aesthetic decisions without the
>intervention of a pre-existing canon which is formulated by - ohmigod! -
>other individuals. You said it. I responded. If you now want to chjange
>what you said (either becauise you've had a sincere change of mind, or
>are simply embarrassed to see how ridiculous it is) that's your perogative.
>
Yup, you are misrepresenting what I said.
>>Either way, I think
>> I said all I wanted to say on the matter.
>
>Since you've actually said nothing, it seems to be a bad place to stop
>trying...
>
Rhetorical question: why are you answering to the nothing that I've
said? Noise is best met with silence not with more noise.
Regards,
G. Rodrigues
Jonathan
"Dale" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:416DBFD...@citilink.com...
>
>
> Jonathan wrote
>
> ...but never once achieved the intellectual escape trajectory needed to
> get him out of the nursery basement,
Quite right, I don't pretend I can write poetry. Gave
up trying long ago.
> where he had learned to mimic the
> sounds coming out of the smarter kids mouths,
Quite right, I search the internet for the brightest
minds I can find, and see if I can learn from them.
I've found one or two rather brilliant minds and
try my hardest to pass those ideas on.
> while almost religiously
> avoiding any of the content.
My religion is clear, unequivocal and
testable. In all things Nature shows the way.
The previous post is simply an attempt to
apply my religion to yours.
I do this because I sincerely believe that putting
your religion and mine together could change
the world.
I can't do your religion, you won't listen to mine.
But I'm nothing if not persistent.
Jonathan
s
>
> dmh
>
>
Josh Hill
>
>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:6lrrm05dt1fv7nmi6...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:21:07 -0400, "Jonathan" <j...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote in message
>> >news:416D7D...@spamchello.nl...
>> >>
>> >
>> >> the overdependance modern poetry has on sounds which dates
>> >> back to Shakespeare,
>> >
>> >
>> >This I would agree with.
>>
>> How is this excerpt from Chaucer any less dependent on sound than
>> Shakespeare?
>
>
>
>I was responding only to the one sentence. I don't
>see Chaucer anywhere~ Just a statement of
>too much archaic language. I see more of it
>than I care to.
>
>
>>
>> Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote
>> The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
>> And bathed every veyne in swich licour
>> Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
>>
>> This one from Beowulf?
>>
>> Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
>> þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
>> hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
>> Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum
>
>
>One thing strikes me about these quotes. It seems
>the effect is ruined if the reader has to keep
>stopping and starting due to the odd or
>difficult language. Like someone shouting
>in the middle of a recital, kinda spoils the
>trip. If you have to analyze it then it's not
>meant for reading, but for ...studying.
Well, what do you expect? One was written more than 600 years ago, the
other more than 1000. Though in fact, Chaucer's Middle English is
pretty accessible -- note for example that there's only one word in
the four lines above that isn't in current use, and the orthographical
conventions and pronunciation are quickly acquired.
Old English is more difficult in that it requires more trips to the
glossary, but again, once one learns a few tricks of orthography,
pronunciation, and in this case grammar, it becomes more accessible,
e.g., the seemingly obscure "Hwæt!" turns out to be the very familiar
"what," albeit used in the unfamiliar sense of "Attend!", and the
thorns (þ) stand for the "th" sound. Old English is very much like
Dutch in that it's basically English with most of the words removed;
however, it retains its inflections.
Whether you want to go to the trouble is up to you. Both are available
in modern translations, but both lose much of their flavor in them.
There are some wonderful online resources that pronounce the works,
have hypertext glossaries, and so forth.
--
Josh
Chandra P. Das
>
>
> Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> For fuck's sake, this is a love sonnet, not the Benders evening trash.
>
>
> Love is an ugly thing. And it's the poet's task to show people the truth
> about love: to awaken them from the dull fantasies they call 'love'.
>
I'm buying the little bandboy ninny 'Hallmark's Anthology of Lovey
Doves' for Hanukkah. It should keep him busy and out of here for a while.
Chandra P. Das
>
>
> "Chandra P. Das" <vze1...@verizon.net
> <mailto:vze1...@verizon.net>> wrote in message
Good observation. Next step: do you think we should leave those kids in
such conditions in order to preserve their beauty? If you acknowledge
their beauty then you must also acknowledge that there would be a loss
in the total sum of beauty if they were extricated from their ugly
environments. These are complex issues which, if you think about them
enough, will drive you insane. What is the value of beauty? At what
costs should it be preserved and created? Probably every single artwork
you canon people consider 'beautiful' was inspired and created in
miserable conditions. Beauty cannot be observed and appreciated without
the filtering out of some surrounding ugliness. Take the scene of a
seaside sunset. To most people this is a scene of pure, unadulterated
beauty. Rubbish. You're filtering out all the ugliness transpiring
within the ocean. While you're gazing at the sunset, thousands of little
fishes are getting a taste of the ugliness of life, right under your
precious sight. And the Sun, even -- what's so beautiful about it? Would
you ever go near it? It's an ugly monster that's approaching slowly to
destroy us (if we don't destroy ourselves first, of course). This whole
planet is eventually going to be incinerated by the Sun which affords us
life today. It's not just ugly but a rather cruel monster. People think
of God as the ultimate example of beauty. What nonsense. People are
wacked out. They're so comforted by beauty and so frightened by ugliness
that such topics never yield productive discussions.
M.H.Benders
Dale wrote:
> It just goes to show the main fracture in Martijn's conversational
> style: he is incapable of admitting error, or of having a sense of
> self-deprecation, or simple grace when someone even mildly disagrees
> with him on a point or two.
Wanna talk about your personal griefs with your best pal, Josh?
He's there for you, you know.
M.H.Benders
Chandra P. Das
> Do wake me up when someone with a differently-metalled ear comes
> along.
Why do you bother with poetry when you can fondle your ears all day long?
Josh Hill
<op7...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>I end up with giving word to the fabulous Dr. Samuel Johnson. On his
>preface to Shakespeare:
>
>"Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of
>general nature. Particular manners can be known to few, and therefore
>few only can judge how nearly they are copied. The irregular
>combinations of fanciful invention may delight a while, by that
>novelty which common satiety of life sends us all in quest; but the
>pleasures of sudden wonder are soon exhausted, and the mind can only
>repose on the stability of truth."
>
>"Just represeentations of general nature" is, to me, the particular
>mark of Shaspeare's genius and pervasiveness.
Very nicely said.
--
Josh
M.H.Benders
>
> This is not the mob. There are always works aplenty to content the mob
> -- Prince, Spielberg, Christo -- and so they have little reason to
> look beyond their own time.
Prince is universally admired amongst musicians. He's often regarded as
one of the greatest musical geniuses of the late 20th century. I agree
with this observation - his compositions are superb. The guy plays at
least 20 different instruments himself (Beethoven? Bach? Plain paper
geniuses)- his first records was just that: him playing about 7
different instruments, singing, and he wrote the lyrics too. He's one of
the most universally accepted musical geniuses in modern day pop music.
So I find it rather odd that you,the great supporter of the 'artists
promote each other into the Canon' phlegm, suddenly think this little
theorem of yours does not apply to Prince. I suspect it's because of
racist motives, or maybe you just hate music. The latter is quite
likely, since you hate art and poetry as well.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>Those samples need whole blood, body and soul, my boy, I don't deny it.
>>>And let me tell you this clearly: if some fortune teller told me that in
>>>my mid-fifties I'd be writing poetry of your caliber, I'd fucking stop
>>>writing immediately, throw out all my notes and books and be done with
>>>it once and for all. What a fucking nightmare!
>>
>> You will never write poetry of my caliber.
>
>"In the night, when dreams have come
> And hard day's fancies flutter free,
> I wander up the meadow some
> And there she waits for me."
>
>
>> You see, the poems I posted
>> here were pretty much the first I'd ever written;
>
>What did you do before you were 55?
I'll tell you when I get there.
>> I revised a few I'd
>> written as a teenager,
>
>So you would have written these poems as a teenager if you would have
>the chance, but instead you wrote them when you were 55. How incredibly
>interesting.
It makes no difference when one writes a poem, Bonkers.
>"In the night, when dreams have come
>And hard day's fancies flutter free,
>I wander up the meadow some
>And there she waits for me."
>
>> If you had comparable talent, your own first works (and
>> I assume that the poems I saw were among your own first works) would
>> likely be of similar quality. They are not.
>
>They are much better.
Heh, no.
I find it interesting that you and Das are so obsessed with who's
better than whom. I've rarely felt the need to insult someone else's
poetry, whether that person was more or less talented than I; I much
prefer to celebrate what I enjoy, and to share what I write with those
who care to read it.
>>>I'm not interested in writing anything that a dopey drone like you would
>>>consider 'good' poetry.
>>
>> That would be Shakespeare, Milton, Yeats, Homer, Blake, Dante,
>> Coleridge, Elliot, Dickinson, Frost, Thomas, Goethe, etc.
>
>You can some that list up pretty decently by just saying 'Wigs', Josh.
>We'll all know what you're talking about, no need to sacrifice your
>keyboard to your mania.
Nope. It has its share of modernists -- hell, I remember when T S
Eliot was alive -- and there would, of course, be others if I
continued the list. Only someone with a child mind would suppose that
because someone happened to write 200 or 2000 years ago, their poetry
is inferior. The progressive sclerosis that has afflicted poetry in
the last fifty years is another matter. I would certainly admit poets
like Auden and Heaney to my list, but let's face it: the sound is
forc'd, the notes are few.
--
Josh
M.H.Benders
> Willy is great not because the majority says he is popular (or as the
> resident nazi Mr. Benders says, "The Mob") but because other great
> artists say it *in their own art*.
Dali is very impopular amongst artists, and very popular amongst the
public. He clearly got canonized. This clearly proves your theory is
complete hogwash.
As to you calling me a 'nazi' - you're clearly not able to comprehend
a few simple English sentences. In your case that might be becuase you
are a foreigner, an excuse P.Hill doesn't have.
M.H.Benders
Pax
news:htzbd.128$Am1.26@trndny03...
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? It's usually best to actually read
the post you're replying to before you reply.
> These are complex issues which, if you think about them
> enough, will drive you insane. What is the value of beauty? At what
> costs should it be preserved and created? Probably every single artwork
> you canon people consider 'beautiful' was inspired and created in
> miserable conditions. Beauty cannot be observed and appreciated without
> the filtering out of some surrounding ugliness. Take the scene of a
> seaside sunset. To most people this is a scene of pure, unadulterated
> beauty. Rubbish. You're filtering out all the ugliness transpiring
> within the ocean. While you're gazing at the sunset, thousands of little
> fishes are getting a taste of the ugliness of life, right under your
> precious sight. And the Sun, even -- what's so beautiful about it? Would
> you ever go near it? It's an ugly monster that's approaching slowly to
> destroy us (if we don't destroy ourselves first, of course). This whole
> planet is eventually going to be incinerated by the Sun which affords us
> life today. It's not just ugly but a rather cruel monster. People think
> of God as the ultimate example of beauty. What nonsense. People are
> wacked out. They're so comforted by beauty and so frightened by ugliness
> that such topics never yield productive discussions.
Good grief! Let me compose myself, I was left momentarily speechless in the
wake of your monumental twittiness. That was all so stupid there seems no
way to reply to it. I kept hoping as I read that at least one of those
beginning word fragments of yours would actually crystallize into a
full-blown coherent thought... was rooting for you, in other words. But
nope. Oh, well. Better luck next time.
My, my... isn't this cathartic? Need a dictionary? Need a definition of
"dictionary" first? Dictionary: A really big book with many words within.
(Often used by the mentally deficient to press flowers, in case you need to
locate yours.)
Chandra P. Das
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:40:10 GMT, "M.H.Benders">>>>>Sound is vital, period -- so why wouldn't it be vital to poetry? But
>>>>>keep this in mind: in order for the voice of a poem to be credible, it
>>>>>must sound like something somebody would/could say in everyday speech.
>>>>>The diction has to be contemporary and real.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. If during the Renaissance some guy would have started to write
>>>>poetry in 'Roman Empire Style' and taunt at people who pass by in
>>>>snobish Latin he'd be laughed at too.
>>>
>>>Do you ever cease confabulating, Benders? Renaissance poetry was
>>>commonly written in Latin, and poets have frequently chosen to write
>>>in styles influenced by other times.
>>
>>Oh yes. Take Pound, for example. There's nothing that works quite as
>>well on my cheek muscles as playing some soundbites of Pound reading his
>>'Cantos' - hilarious. Another example of a complete fraud that got
>>Canonized by the likes of you.
>
>
> Keep this up and you'll be as boring as Chandra.
Psst, clueless noobie: the idea of flaming is to insult your opponent.
See, Benders thinks I'm a pretty cool guy and he thinks you're a boring
old gasbag. So what you wanted to say above was: 'Keep this up and
you'll be as boring as I am.'
No charge this time, but in order to be able to afford the next lesson
you'll probably have to pawn all of your Bach goodies.
>
>
>
>>>It seems at this point that the only way to keep you from making a
>>>total ass of yourself is to convince you to shut up.
>>
>>More sharp retoric straight from the pen of the supergenius.
>>
>>M.H.Benders
>
>
>
Chandra P. Das
> But, with specific regard to beautiful ideas, it seems to me that in
> these brief 14 lines, Shakespeare has treated the great elemental of
> the human condition, that we live only so that we may pass on our
> traits to our progeny. and that he has done so in a love sonnet of
> preternatural deftness, at the same time witty and somber, inspiring
> and grim, while being at once an economic thesis, a celebration of
> beauty, a sendup of masturbation, a musing on mortality, an
> examination of altruism and a plea for generosity, both man's and --
> in what seems celebration but is in fact almost a cri du coeur --
> nature's.
Your poetry reviews read like the back covers of DVDs.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
> There are no musts in poetry, save perhaps that some reader somewhere
> must enjoy the work.
The most dumb expression I have ever read about poetry. Doesn't matter
what you do, as longs as some reader somewhere likes it. Pretty much
sums up your poetica, though.
> Only the fashion follower will suppose that
> because one style happens to be popular, one cannot write in another.
Styles can become obsolete. You can write in contemporary style, or
invent your own, but writing Victorean fluff is really unnecissary.
There is good reason why modern painters don't try to clone Rembrandt
when they paint. His style is obsolete. Painting in his style would
neglect 400 years of art development. Only retards or mentally deficit
people wouldn't understand that.
> And if you read the comments this particular poem received, you know
> that reader reaction was warm; indeed, an editor who saw it here
> emailed me and received permission to publish it.
Warm comments, oh please. It was a complete piece of trash - if you
don't beleive me or chandra, ask Dale or Sheard or Yourcenar what they
think of the piece. You won't, because your scared of what real poets
think of your work.
> This flatly
> contradicts your assumption that elevated diction will be "laughed at"
> by the modern reader.
You confuse 'me too' sycophants with real readers.
M.H.Benders
Chandra P. Das
>
>
> Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>> veritable encyclopedia of bad qualities: stupid, ignorant, arrogant,
>>>> dishonest, unprincipled, homophobic, anti-Semitic, nationalistic,
>>>> egomaniacal, juvenile, conventional, shallow, hierarchical, lazy,
>>>> bureaucratic.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but take a look at this:
>>>
>>> http://www.kannibaal.nl/garden.htm
>>>
>>> These pictures were just taken in my garden. That girl is one of my
>>> best friends and she admires me completely - you can see my arm on
>>> her left side. She reaches out to touch me. We have great fun,
>>> always. Tomorrow we'll go eat together in a nice italian Restaurant.
>>> She's actually a filmmaker, and I really like her.
>>>
>>> Take in mind that I only show this picture because I know you're gay.
>>> I'd never show them to a harelip that actually had some taste, who knows
>>> what he'd do in front of his screen.
>>>
>>> What about if you take some pictures from your friends? This could be
>>> fun.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pathetic.
>
>
> I know, Josh. It's good to see you finally realize that you can accuse
> me endlessly of having no friends or being impopular - what's the point
> if Mr Benders can directly present evidence to the contrary? Aren't
> digital camera's great?
>
> So what about you posting some pictures of those marvelous, intelligent
> friends you hang out with?
Haven't you seen pictures of chuckles and Tom Bishop? Two of JP's
tightest buddies. And that's enough, really; we don't want any more
visuals of his other friends.
>Oops, I forgot: you don't even have a
> website. You probably don't even know how to upload a picture.
>
> And, of course, that hairy neighbour of yours won't look very convincing
> as inttelectual companionship.
>
> Pathetic, indeed.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
Rik Roots
> "Art is not the application of a canon of beauty but what the instinct
> and the brain can conceive beyond any canon. When we love a woman we
> don't start measuring her limbs." Picasso
>
Depends what you're using as a ruler, surely?
My partner is 17 kisses from wrist to elbow. Mind you, he ain't no lady.
Rik, knee deep.
--
http://www.kalieda.org/pctp
A different approach to workshopping your poetry online ...
Chandra P. Das
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:22:44 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
[...]
>>Because you're not interested in poetry, obviously.
>
>
> Oh, uh, obviously.
>
> Chandra, you have got to be the most singularly uncreative person I've
> ever come across.
Thanks. If you thought I were creative or interesting, I wouldn't be
able to live with myself.
>
>>>I can see the poem's flaws for myself.
>>
>>Really?
>>
>>"In the night, when dreams have come
>>And hard day's fancies flutter free,
>>I wander up the meadow some
>>And there she waits for me."
>>
>>Why haven't you scrapped these laughable, cartoonish lines?
>
>
> Scrap them? I posted a draft here some years back, and people happened
> to like it. Perhaps some day I will revise it -- the underlying
> concept
There is no underlying concept in that poem. It's fluff. Dreams come by
night time and fly away by daytime? The blackening of blooms and the
brightening of blooms? Walking in a meadow with the apparition of a
girlfriend whom you've killed with a hairbrush? You out of your mind or
what? Scrap the poem.
>and structure are nice, and the language could easily be
> revised. Perhaps not.
>
>
>>>>>indeed, an editor who saw it here
>>>>>emailed me and received permission to publish it.
>>>>
>>>>Anybody can be an editor. You're just saying that somebody out there
>>>>liked your poem. Good for you. Be happy, keep writing that kind of
>>>>fluffy wankage, grease your readers, etc. I have no investment in you so
>>>>I don't really care where you end up with your poetics. On second
>>>>thought: I'm actually glad that there are many people like you around
>>>>who are still writing in the eighteenth century -- leaves more space for
>>>>me in *this* century. So, thank you, I guess.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your poetry will neither gain nor suffer on the basis of what others
>>>are doing: if it's like the samples Benders posted the other day, it
>>>needs an influx of whole blood.
>>
>>Those samples need whole blood, body and soul, my boy, I don't deny it.
>>And let me tell you this clearly: if some fortune teller told me that in
>>my mid-fifties I'd be writing poetry of your caliber, I'd fucking stop
>>writing immediately, throw out all my notes and books and be done with
>>it once and for all. What a fucking nightmare!
>
>
> You will never write poetry of my caliber.
How could I write worse? Hang on, lemme go put on a wig and give it a
try. I'll get back to ya.
>You see, the poems I posted
> here were pretty much the first I'd ever written; I revised a few I'd
> written as a teenager, wrote a few more, and posted the drafts to see
> what would happen; nevertheless, the best were greeted warmly, here
> and elsewhere. If you had comparable talent, your own first works (and
> I assume that the poems I saw were among your own first works) would
> likely be of similar quality. They are not.
>
>
>>>That being said, you will gain nothing by writing in the Approved
>>>Styles except, perhaps, publication in journals with more contributors
>>>than subscribers. Style is not the issue here; whether you write good
>>>poetry is.
>>
>>Indeed. Now go away and try to write some good poetry.
>
>
> I'd suggest the same to you; but, to be brutally frank (since this
> seems to be the tone you desire), I think you should find another
> hobby.
You first. And I've got too many hobbies as it is. There's only so much
time in a week, ya know? If I do tennis a few times and golf a couple of
times, that, unfortunately, leaves me with no time for poetry or even
the energy to go out to a club. Can you handle a racket or a club
without hurting yourself, let alone wield them well enough to win
competitive events? What exactly do you do with your time? You don't
write poetry, that we know already. You don't have a girlfriend, or any
friends even for that matter. How do you justify to yourself the
spending of a week's worth of time? Talk to me, Josh, I'm here to help
you out.
>
>
>>>And if you cannot understand the limitations of
>>>contemporary academic style,
>>
>>What are you on about? What limitations? If any limitations exist, they
>>are attached to the old styles in which you write.
>
>
> If you didn't have such an unlikable personality,
Gawd. The crybaby routine again.
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:15 GMT, "M.H.Benders"
>> <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Those samples need whole blood, body and soul, my boy, I don't deny it.
>>>>>And let me tell you this clearly: if some fortune teller told me that in
>>>>>my mid-fifties I'd be writing poetry of your caliber, I'd fucking stop
>>>>>writing immediately, throw out all my notes and books and be done with
>>>>>it once and for all. What a fucking nightmare!
>>>>
>>>>You will never write poetry of my caliber.
>>>
>>>"In the night, when dreams have come
>>> And hard day's fancies flutter free,
>>> I wander up the meadow some
>>> And there she waits for me."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You see, the poems I posted
>>>>here were pretty much the first I'd ever written;
>>>
>>>What did you do before you were 55?
>>
>> I'll tell you when I get there.
>
>Planning on getting younger, are you?
Gawd. Every time I think I've grasped your lack of creativity, you
prove me wrong.
>> Heh, no.
>>
>> I find it interesting that you and Das are so obsessed with who's
>> better than whom. I've rarely felt the need to insult someone else's
>> poetry,
>
>Oh? Who started the insults on his airplane crashing into a dictionary
>poem? You're a bald hypocrite, Joshkles.
Yes, I told the truth, as I did about your poetry. But, of course, I
didn't say "never," I said "rarely," and I said that because
anti-Semites and homophobes don't merit the same consideration as
others.
"You couldn't possibly pronounce it in a correct way with that
hooknose of yours." - Martijn Benders
"You worship cash more than any fuckheaded Hindu fundamentalist
worships his cow-dung patties." - Chandra Das
>>whether that person was more or less talented than I; I much
>> prefer to celebrate what I enjoy, and to share what I write with those
>> who care to read it.
>
>Let's not forget about your biggest joy: bombing the hell out of Arabs
>for no reason.
Yes, we know, Chandra. Why don't you just take these little pills and
we'll see if the voices go away.
--
Josh
M.H.Benders
>>So you would have written these poems as a teenager if you would have
>>the chance, but instead you wrote them when you were 55. How incredibly
>>interesting.
>
> It makes no difference when one writes a poem, Bonkers.
It makes a big difference. Writing teenage angst poems when you're a
troubled, spotty teenager makes sense. Writing teenage angst poetry
when you're a 50 year old baldening poseur without friends is frightening.
> I find it interesting that you and Das are so obsessed with who's
> better than whom. I've rarely felt the need to insult someone else's
> poetry, whether that person was more or less talented than I; I much
> prefer to celebrate what I enjoy, and to share what I write with those
> who care to read it.
I hardly ever get down on noobs nowadays - they're not interesting me at
all. You, however, are a noob that pretends he is a master. That makes
punching you around more enjoyable.
> Only someone with a child mind would suppose that
> because someone happened to write 200 or 2000 years ago, their poetry
> is inferior.
More ass twisting.
> The progressive sclerosis that has afflicted poetry in
> the last fifty years is another matter. I would certainly admit poets
> like Auden and Heaney to my list, but let's face it: the sound is
> forc'd, the notes are few.
More art-hating noob nonsense.
M.H.Benders
Chandra P. Das
> "Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
> news:v1atm05nu8uoq0abe...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:33 GMT, "Pax" <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:pbgqm0ti070g1h1au...@4ax.com...
>
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:48:33 +0200, "M.H.Benders"
>>> <m.be...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> >So you would say the beauty of this poem depends entirely on the
>
> sounds it produces, and not on the ideas?
>
>>> Why do you suppose they're mutually exclusive, or that ideas and sounds
>
> are the only two components of poetry? For example, a visual image is not an
> idea or a sound, but it may be beautiful.
>
>
>
>>>You have a soul and actually know something about art. Rare and
>
> refreshing.
>
>
>
>>Heh, thanks -- it's good to know the Devil hasn't claimed it yet! ;-)
>
>
>
> Keep up the good fight... it really is worth it. :)
Ever think about getting a webtv account? It would be a perfect match
for your literacy level and personality.
michael
"Chandra P. Das" <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lrHbd.1314$LS3.1213@trndny07...
> Josh Hill wrote:
>
> Who finds *you* interesting? Nobody, am I wrong? Of course not. And if
> nobody finds you interesting, then what interests you is of consequence
> at all. Time to try on a new wig, baldy, this look has gotten old.
Chandra, what is the point of you? You appear to be a very dull writer.
Chandra P. Das
>>>My, my. Mr Rodrigues is really a bright light, isn't he?
>>
>>I think I remember this clown from a while ago when he came here (or to
>>RAP maybe) with a SPAM-load of haiku. Kicked his ass so now he's back
>>with a vengance. Bwahahahaha.
>>
>
>
> I really don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about
Ok, maybe it was someone else.
>but
> the idea does make me smile. And I consider a praise being called a
> clown. One of my biggest sadnesses is not wearing a red nose, an
> orange wig and big extra large red shoes.
Don't be sad. Just ask Josh, he'll tell you how walking around all day
with a big red nose, an orange wig and extra large, pointy red shoes
isn't all it's cracked up to be. But it's a living and he does it.
>
> Regards,
> G. Rodrigues
Gonçalo Rodrigues
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>Oh, and one other thing:
>
>>
>> This is not the mob. There are always works aplenty to content the mob
>> -- Prince, Spielberg, Christo -- and so they have little reason to
>> look beyond their own time.
>
>Prince is universally admired amongst musicians. He's often regarded as
>one of the greatest musical geniuses of the late 20th century. I agree
>with this observation - his compositions are superb. The guy plays at
>least 20 different instruments himself (Beethoven? Bach? Plain paper
>geniuses)- his first records was just that: him playing about 7
>different instruments, singing, and he wrote the lyrics too. He's one of
>the most universally accepted musical geniuses in modern day pop music.
>
I can't comment on classical music since I'm deaf-tone to it (contrary
to Mr. Benders I don't turn my ignorant prejudices into aesthetic
statements), but that Prince is a great (pop) musician and composer
there is very little doubt. His albums in the 80's are among the best
popular music has produced; Unfortunately his last great album has
already a few years (If my memory serves me right "Diamonds and
Pearls").
Regards,
G. Rodrigues
M.H.Benders
> At the start:
>
> "All people, all views, all ideas ought to be given equal
> consideration"
>
> and at the end:
>
> "I have no respect or sympathy for anyone who chooses to belong to any
> particular race or religion."
>
> Does that lack of respect include the Muslims?
Muslims are neither a race nor a religion.
> I'm not sure how people actually choose to belong to some race but
> since I've chosen to be a (fierce) Christian I know I'll sleep better
> tonight not having your respect and sympathy.
We could have known: another Gristian dog.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>Prince is universally admired amongst musicians. He's often regarded as
>>one of the greatest musical geniuses of the late 20th century. I agree
>>with this observation - his compositions are superb. The guy plays at
>>least 20 different instruments himself (Beethoven? Bach? Plain paper
>>geniuses)- his first records was just that: him playing about 7
>>different instruments, singing, and he wrote the lyrics too. He's one of
>>the most universally accepted musical geniuses in modern day pop music.
>>
>>So I find it rather odd that you,the great supporter of the 'artists
>>promote each other into the Canon' phlegm, suddenly think this little
>>theorem of yours does not apply to Prince. I suspect it's because of
>>racist motives, or maybe you just hate music. The latter is quite
>>likely, since you hate art and poetry as well.
>
>
> You know, I find it interesting that the only two people here who have
> expressed racist sentiments, you and Chandra ("Of course there's a
> natural inclination to view once own race as superior." - Martijn
> Benders),
*That* is a racist sentiment? Hahahaha.
> As to Prince, I've heard him described as a genius, and I've no doubt
> it's true. You, however, have no understanding of the level of ability
> and skill of which I'm talking, and so do Prince the disservice of
> comparing him to the two greatest composers in recorded history. Your
> failure to understand that there are gradations of genius as of lesser
> talent also explains your misapprehension regarding the word of fellow
> musicians -- and you've missed the obvious point that great genius is
> most reliably recognized not by people of that level, but by those of
> great genius themselves. You also fail to understand the level of
> skill and learning requires for an art tradition as opposed to a
> popular one.
More gasbagisms. Gradation of geniuses in which only the highest
geniuses can promote the highest. Lower geniuses that stay low forever
unless those long dead higher geniuses start recognising them. Composing
is now an art tradition and not a musical tradition. Popular music now
excludes Bach, while Bach is one of the most popular composers. Prince
is a lower genius because someone who is not a genius at all, Joshua
P.Hill, the guy that goeth unreognised by anyone as a genius, says he´s
so, while all the great musicians say he is. But Joshkles, the great
unrecognised Genius, is so much elevated above those lowly musicians he
can say with great certainty that Prince is one of the lower geniuses.
And more nonsense about music too. There´s nothing about any of Bach´s
compositions that elevates him above Prince. There is nothing about the
compositions of Prince that make them inferior to Bach´s. You say
complexity is a sign of genius, I say funkiness is a sign of genius.
Complexity is a useless characteristic. As in writing, the complexity of
a piece is a sign of its immaturity. Now funkiness, that´s quite another
matter.
M.H.Benders
Gonçalo Rodrigues
<m.be...@chello.nl> wrote:
>> I'm not sure how people actually choose to belong to some race but
>> since I've chosen to be a (fierce) Christian I know I'll sleep better
>> tonight not having your respect and sympathy.
>
>We could have known: another Gristian dog.
>
Why do you bother?
I don't read sophisticated poets like Ritsos, I'm just a dog with
doggy tastes. I am one of "The Mob". Unlike you, I don't have a web
site, I haven't won juvenile poetry prizes, I am not a juvenile Chess
champion. I don't have a filmmaker girl admiring me completely with
her arm on my left side, reaching out to touch me. I'm just a simple
mutt with simple - what am I saying, simpleton! - tastes. I am just
one of "The Mob". I like Shakespeare. Forgive me, wilt thou?
So why do you bother? Why does such a luminary bother to dirt the tip
of his black leather boot on a scroungy Gristian Dog like me? Why?
Christian Regards,
G. Rodrigues
Chandra P. Das
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:58:26 GMT, "M.H.Benders"
> <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Chandra P. Das wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>This is not the mob. There are always works aplenty to content the mob
>>>>-- Prince, Spielberg, Christo -- and so they have little reason to
>>>>look beyond their own time.
>>>
>>>now and then. Is this the start of another?
>>
>>Christo is just some buildings wrapped in cloth, Chandra. That's not
>>art. Putting some paint on cloth, that's art.
>
>
> You really don't get it, do you,
Had to check the headers again to make sure this wasn't forged by the
chuckles. Gonna have to start calling you Joshkles from now on.
Chandra P. Das
> news:sNGbd.1265$LS3.1025@trndny07...> <mailto:Josh44...@snet.net>> wrote in message
> > news:v1atm05nu8uoq0abe...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:33 GMT, "Pax" <pa...@whitesweb.com
> <mailto:pa...@whitesweb.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net
> >
> > news:pbgqm0ti070g1h1au...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:48:33 +0200, "M.H.Benders"
> >>> <m.be...@chello.nl <mailto:m.be...@chello.nl>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >So you would say the beauty of this poem depends entirely on the
> >
> > sounds it produces, and not on the ideas?
> >
> >>> Why do you suppose they're mutually exclusive, or that ideas
> and sounds
> >
> > are the only two components of poetry? For example, a visual
> image is not an
> > idea or a sound, but it may be beautiful.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>You have a soul and actually know something about art. Rare and
> >
> > refreshing.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Heh, thanks -- it's good to know the Devil hasn't claimed it yet! ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Keep up the good fight... it really is worth it. :)
>
> Ever think about getting a webtv account? It would be a perfect match
> for your literacy level and personality.
>
Why would I waste time trying to get witty with a nobody like you? Go
find a few good writers here who'll vouch for your wit first and then
maybe I'll think about taking you on half way seriously, dig? Dismissed.
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:40:10 GMT, "M.H.Benders"
>> <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Sound is vital, period -- so why wouldn't it be vital to poetry? But
>>>>>>keep this in mind: in order for the voice of a poem to be credible, it
>>>>>>must sound like something somebody would/could say in everyday speech.
>>>>>>The diction has to be contemporary and real.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly. If during the Renaissance some guy would have started to write
>>>>>poetry in 'Roman Empire Style' and taunt at people who pass by in
>>>>>snobish Latin he'd be laughed at too.
>>>>
>>>>Do you ever cease confabulating, Benders? Renaissance poetry was
>>>>commonly written in Latin, and poets have frequently chosen to write
>>>>in styles influenced by other times.
>>>
>>>Oh yes. Take Pound, for example. There's nothing that works quite as
>>>well on my cheek muscles as playing some soundbites of Pound reading his
>>>'Cantos' - hilarious. Another example of a complete fraud that got
>>>Canonized by the likes of you.
>>
>>
>> Keep this up and you'll be as boring as Chandra.
>
>Psst, clueless noobie: the idea of flaming is to insult your opponent.
No, the idea of flaming is to insult your opponent in a manner that
isn't so boring it would make an accountant scream.
>See, Benders thinks I'm a pretty cool guy and he thinks you're a boring
>old gasbag.
A bit like winning the Special Olympics, innit.
--
Josh
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>I know, Josh. It's good to see you finally realize that you can accuse
>>me endlessly of having no friends or being impopular - what's the point
>>if Mr Benders can directly present evidence to the contrary? Aren't
>>digital camera's great?
>
> What evidence? One hollow cheeked woman? You could have rented her on
> the street corner, for all I know or care.
She's gorgeous Josh, and you know it. Or maybe you don't. How could
anyone possibly be so consistent in his bad taste?
But what really strikes me
> as pathetic is that you keep trumpeting your pathetic and sublimely
> ordinary "accomplishments" -- a girlfriend, a couple of poetry prizes,
> a juvenile regional chess championship -- as if they were anything out
> of the ordinary.
I have a very nice grilfriend, interesting friends, I've won a few
poetry prizes and I was the youth chess champion of the South of
Holland. All true.
Ordinary? Well, for a supergenius such as you, yes. To me its very
special. When you walk around at 55 with an weird wig on your head and
write poetry about murdering your girlfriends with a hairbrush - hell,
anything is ordinary compared to that.
>>So what about you posting some pictures of those marvelous, intelligent
>>friends you hang out with? Oops, I forgot: you don't even have a
>>website. You probably don't even know how to upload a picture.
>
> Yeah, right, like I'm so pathetically insecure I have to post pictures
> of my friends.
Face the music , Josh. I gave you a nice opportunity to prove you're
actually a real person and not some faceless crybaby with no
accomplishments. You blew it, yet again.
>>And, of course, that hairy neighbour of yours won't look very convincing
>>as inttelectual companionship.
>
> Right, the homo lame.
Why do you associate hairy neighbours with homosexuality?
M.H.Benders
Chandra P. Das
>
>
> "Chandra P. Das" <vze1...@verizon.net
> <mailto:vze1...@verizon.net>> wrote in message
Learn how to use the ellipsis before you post into a poetry group.
>Let's see... your standards
Again, learn how to use the ellipsis before posting to a poetry group.
> are that poetry should be unimaginative, uncertain, unrhyming,
> unemotional, unbalanced, unthinking, undemanding, uncouth, unappealing,
> and unsure or completely devoid of beauty.
>It seems as if you've
> constructed yourself a measure that you can be sure fits you.
Fits me? I am unfit, rest assured. But I'd sell my soul to be able to
write like Ritsos. And just in case you missed my post of his 'almost a
conjuror' poem, here's another:
THE LAUGH
He saw the clouds from the park bench.
He tore out his coat lining,
removed his hat band,
wrapped the kidnapped infant
and pitched it in the well. Standing with his feet apart,
he pissed, smiling before you did.
I'm speaking about this smile, about night's spectacles
about the moon's spectacles. The infant,
no, it wasn't kidnapped. Nor did there exist
a well or an infant. Only the clouds.
Yannis Ritsos, translated by K. Myrsiades.
Pax, go read some poetry before you tell me what poetry is.
M.H.Benders
>>We could have known: another Gristian dog.
>>
> Why do you bother?
>
> I don't read sophisticated poets like Ritsos, I'm just a dog with
> doggy tastes.
Right.
> So why do you bother? Why does such a luminary bother to dirt the tip
> of his black leather boot on a scroungy Gristian Dog like me? Why?
It's fun and it kills time.
M.H.Benders
Jonathan
"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:hsbum05jlrvupssf1...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:54:41 -0400, "Jonathan" <j...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote in message
> >news:416EE63...@spamchello.nl...
> >>
> >>
> >> Josh Hill wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>I'd go so far as to say poetry was originally almost entirely about
> >> >>>sound: "primitive" chants and the like.
> >> >>
> >> >>Oh sure - poetry is but a deviation of music. It's chanting with a bunch
> >> >>of words on paper. Let's go back to the Amoeba, shall we - it becomes
> >> >>clear if we do that that poetry is all about swimming around in foggy
> >> >>waters. Swimming around in foggy waters, that's right. Prior to the Big
> >> >>Bang, poetry was all about floating around in empty but infinitly
> >> >>compact space. But the ignorant cavemen who were chanting their poems
> >> >>to the hidden Gods had no idea. Luckily nowadays we know better. Poetry
> >> >>is all about floating around in a foggy but infinitly compact space. One
> >> >>of the reasons Josh feels so attracted to it.
> >> >
> >> > It strikes me that, rather than arguing with what Dale says, you are
> >> > making fun of it, and, really, that seems to me somewhat cowardly.
> >>
> >> It strikes me that you are clearly a supergenius to be able to spot
> >> irony in above paragraph. Maybe you are finally starting to learn to
> >> recognise texts?
> >>
> >>
> >> > In any event, the connection between poetry and music is an ancient
> >> > one. The Greek epics and tragedies were sung; we refer even today to
> >> > short poems as "lyric" verses, literally verses that can be sung to a
> >> > lyre.
> >>
> >> Oh yes. The connection between painting and pottery is also a very
> >> ancient one. It is therefore completely legitimate to claim that the art
> >> of painting is really about molding clay. Really. Just look at what the
> >> greeks did!
> >
> >
> >
> >I hate this! I have to agree with Martijn yet again. I have
> >little interest in the past. Primarily due to some of the
> >lessons of complexity science. I've found that understanding
> >the present is found by looking to the future.
> >
> >The past is a very poor reference point in modeling the
> >present or predicting the future. What is beautiful
> >now will always exceed what was. If for no more
> >reason than the distance from the specific contexts
> >that existed ...then. The farther anything is removed
> >from its home, the weaker it gets.
> >
> >Let's be rational about our concepts please.
> >If you wish to accomplish something a goal
> >must be set. The higher the goal the better.
> >A goal is all about projecting into the future
> >......first.
> >
> >Poetry is not a goal ....it...is...merely...a...tool.
> >Without a cause it's not even that
>
> Are you saying, then, that you would discard the results of Archimedes
> and Euclid?
Let me try to say it better. I wouldn't start there. For the simple
matter of reducing the search space. The past is an enormous
reservoir of knowledge. Trying to 'learn it all' first, then
use those lessons to achieve something is the efficient
search method ....possible. As would be learning 'all
about' poetry first before deciding what to do with it.
Setting a specific goal first allows one to focus clearly
and quickly on the lessons of history that are relevant
and most useful. The 'cause' creates a path for one
to follow.
I don't even try to write poetry as I'm still working
on the goal. I suspect that once it's clear for
me what I want to do that the path will draw
itself. With poets I suspect the words would
flow like water.
All I'm saying is that instead of studying
raw information first then setting a goal, study
the goal in minute detail first. Then you can
be very selective in what raw info you
....need... to learn.
A precisely narrowed search combined with the
vast totality of knowledge and minds cannot
fail /any possible/ goal.
The conventional frame of learning is backwards.
> Besides, poetry is not science.
My point for several years is that complexity science
changes that. It provides insight into the creative
processes/methods of nature, the most beautiful of all.
You can apply those lessons to anything and
everything under the sun.
I set my goal as lofty as I could imagine for a reason.
To force me to narrow which kind of knowledge
needed to the smallest possible subset.
My goal is simply to return the world to Nature.
Since I've concluded a narrowed search amidst
all of human wisdom can accomplish any goal, I
believe that goal ...is possible.
I've been meaning to type up the 'plan' to the unfinished
point it is now. The pot guy stopped by work today
so I'm in the mood for a good long rant this weekend.
I intend to convince that the present state of affairs
of humanity and the latest science provides an
opportunity of timeless proportions towards that
goal. And I intend to show how this unprecedented
change can be accomplished by a few people typing
into a few keyboards.
Or...how to create the maximum possible change with
the least possible effort.
Life began with but a spark, nature knows how, where and
when to strike the match. Complexity science is unraveling
that knowledge. I want to know it.
s
> We have changed a good
> deal less since Homer's day than our toys have: Achilles could sulk in
> any age, Elpenor fall from a roof, Scylla and Charybdis require us to
> accept a lesser loss to avoid a greater one.
>
> --
> Josh
Pax
"Chandra P. Das" <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ksKbd.3624$9f1.1393@trndny05...
So far I've only told you what I personally think poetry isn't, primarily by defining what I believe your definition of poetry is. Notice that "personally"? By posting that poem, you not only validated my evaluation you made it obvious I was being generous with it. If you want to elevate psychopathically perverted daydreams to the level of poetry, you have my pity, since poetry indicates a level of aspiration. Knew your level of aspiration was low, just didn't realize how low until that poem.
Jonathan
"Jonathan" <j...@home.com> wrote in message news:416f41de$1...@127.0.0.1...
>
I meant to say ....least efficient.
Trying to 'learn it all' first, then use those lessons to achieve
something is the (least) efficient search method ....possible.
M.H.Benders
> THE LAUGH
>
> He saw the clouds from the park bench.
> He tore out his coat lining,
> removed his hat band,
> wrapped the kidnapped infant
> and pitched it in the well. Standing with his feet apart,
> he pissed, smiling before you did.
> I'm speaking about this smile, about night's spectacles
> about the moon's spectacles. The infant,
> no, it wasn't kidnapped. Nor did there exist
> a well or an infant. Only the clouds.
>
> Yannis Ritsos, translated by K. Myrsiades.
>
> Pax, go read some poetry before you tell me what poetry is.
>
> So far I've only told you what I personally think poetry isn't,
> primarily by defining what I believe your definition of poetry
> is. Notice that "personally"? By posting that poem, you not only
> validated my evaluation you made it obvious I was being generous with
> it. If you want to elevate psychopathically perverted daydreams to the
> level of poetry, you have my pity, since poetry indicates a level of
> aspiration.
Another dumb, art-hating American zealot. If one would dump the entire
nation into a trashbin it wouldn't even make a sound when it hits the
bottom. Freaks.
M.H.Benders
Pax
"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@chello.nl> wrote in message news:416f89dc$0$559$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
You are such a clueless hypocrite. Worse, you are so boorishly pedestrian.
M.H.Benders
>>>Benders says you have a tendency to flare into anti-Christo rants every
>>>now and then. Is this the start of another?
>>
>>Christo is just some buildings wrapped in cloth, Chandra. That's not
>>art. Putting some paint on cloth, that's art.
>
> You really don't get it, do you, Bonkers.
>
> The analogy is more like this:
>
> Christo is to an artist as a painter is to a house painter
So, once again, we see that the fact Christo is recognised by other
artists as a conceptual genius is really not relevant. He must be
accepted by Bach to make it into the Canon. Josh, who channels
the dead Bach every night when he is cleaning his wigs, has
a holy mission assigned to him by the Master himself to emberass
himself and the legacy of his Master in a public newsgroup online,
by insulting artists with the most hollow types of slurs.
Wunderbar!
M.H.Benders
john adams
"Dale" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:416E73D5...@citilink.com...
>
>
> Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:00:52 -0500, Dale <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>>
>> [some snipped]
>>
>>
>>>>The "canon" is Martijn's agenda, not mine: he seems obsessed with the
>>>>creation of artistic bureaucracies.
>>>
>>>I think it is - in different manners - an agenda both of you are obsessed with.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Really, all the canon is is a cumulative, informal assortment of works
>>>>that have been enjoyed and recommended over the years by those who
>>>>care most about art, one which comprises remarkable and delightful
>>>>works like Hamlet or Alice in Wonderland. And I think we should be
>>>>thankful for that, given that millions of books have been written over
>>>>the years and we probably would not have found those two if it hadn't
>>>>been for that cumulative advice.
>>>
>>>This isn't entirely true - and where it is not true is where the canon's critics
>>>come in: one can enjoy or not enjoy any creative work without an official list
>>>being present. When a hierarchy was established (and a canon IS a hierarchy),
>>>certain presumptions of quality and value arise, and the canon has mainly been the
>>>creation of white, male academy fodder. So - in the respect - the entire thing is
>>>pointless: culture pronounces its artistic choices quite readily without such
>>>crutches, and when the crutches are this crooked, not much help is offered. So,
>>>now we are in that stretch of time when little volleys at the canon are being
>>>generated by this social group, or that social group, and drifting little island
>>>canonettes are being thrown up monthly by this or that volcano of culture. The
>>>entire process (whether or not one argues FOR Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," or
>>>FOR Jim Thompson's "Hell of a woman") is corrupted, and not because the times are
>>>rough, but because the entire notion of a canon is pre-diseased.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A canon is a hieararchy because the true canon-ical triple question is
>> Better than? Equal to? Less than? You can call it the principle of
>> economy, an economy is directed by Death and its great minister, Time,
>> the Destroyer.
>
> Thick tripe, but tripe nonetheless...
>
>>
>> If the process of formation of the canon is as you describe, then
>> *all* would agree it's a perfect idiocy to even discuss it. But since
>> what has put Shakespeare (and its peers) in the center of the western
>> canon was (in my opinion) mainly a matter of aesthetics or as I put it
>> above, the works that Time the Destroyer has preserved, your
>> description bears little resemblance to reality.
>
> Untrue. The canon is not merely a matter of aesthetics, since aesthetics function
> quite well without an "Academy." The canon is an organized effort by a specific set
> of individuals. After all, quite apart from any argument for or against Shakespeare
> (whose work I enjoy), hierarchy can include many examples of work which -
> aesthetically - are lacking, but which have cultural curiosity or rarity on their
> side. Thus, it is not merely aesthetics, but cultural prejudices which are at work.
>
(Greetings Dale, it seems you fell out of Alt.Surrealism and into the
land of Sour Milk and Burnt Honey...)
Of course, the Academy is just a group of individuals. Its 'authenticity',
or persuasion, is derived from its "hierarchical structure", as you say. But
there are different kinds of hierarchy, not all of them bad. The Academy
historically has its authority granted to it through the state and/or complex
economic mechanisms related to power, authority, religion, class, tradition,
status quo, etc. As for authority, there are two distinct kinds: one which is
an influence as a function of experience, proficiency and qualification, and
the other an influence as a function of power. Such institutions as the ones
produced by the above have the tendency to limit its by-product as wlel as
the opinions driven within its own framework. Without the state and its
accompanying institutions of power, which these may all be attributed to,
there are just groups of people who have different opinions based on
different prejudices. The worst kind of hierarchy is that which presumes to
make choices based upon its own set of prejudices for you.
But the last time I checked that was one poitn we happened to disagree
on (wink, wink).
-john
Chandra P. Das
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:20:47 GMT, "M.H.Benders">>>>>You forgot the "after 400 hundred" years.
>>>>
>>>>Oh yes, the strange and irrational idea that the taste of the mob gets
>>>>better as soon as the artist starts to age. Mob taste that survives the
>>>>teeth of time is still mob taste. To present it as a set of esthetic
>>>>values is ridiculous. It's popularity, and nothing else. You and P.Hill,
>>>>however, constantly try to postpone the idea that this 'popularity' is a
>>>>proof of the esthetic value of the work. This is sheer hogwash.
>>>
>>>Rubbish. The people who preserve these works are not the mob, but
>>>those who love art the most, are the most familiar with it --
>>>frequently the artists themselves.
>>
>>Sheer nonsense, and easily rebuked by someone who knows a thing or two
>>about art.
>>
>>Take Dali, as an example. He is absolutely unloved by either artists or
>>critics. There are almost no contemporary artists that like him, none
>>of the contemporaries in his days liked him, the surrealists could drink
>>his blood, and serious art critics do not like his work a lot either.
>>
>>And yet, there he is: completely canonized. It is popularity that
>>canonizes people and nothing else. This extremely silly and naieve idea
>>that there's some sort of tribe of geniusses out there who promote each
>>others work into the Canon is both false and completely laughable.
>
>
> Time will decide.
>
>
>>Another good example is Nikolai Zabolotski. One of the best poets I have
>>ever read, but it's almost impossible to find any book of the guy - no
>>translationa available, out of print, the whole she-bang. Very popular
>>amongst Russian intellectuals and artists, but clearly got not canonized.
>
>
> I believe you just said "I like him, therefore." Doesn't work that
> way.
>
>
>>Another good example is the french painter Pierre Bettencourt. 20 times
>>the genius Chagall or Dali was, but hardly known. It's even hard to find
>>a decent website that mentions him.
>
>
> Again, "I like him, therefore."
>
>
>>Chagall is a good example of a painter that was easily Canonized by
>>popularity - his reprints look so well above your cosy pink couch - but
>>there's hundreds of Russian painters you'll never hear of that were much
>>better than Chagall and will never be Canonized. Take Filonov, for
>>example. There is no way Chagall could even come close to Filonov in
>>terms of greatness. Yet there he is, worshipped and canonized, while
>>Filonov is left forgotten in the dark corners of Russia.
>
>
> Again, "I like him, therefore."
This is about as close to a chuckles post as it gets. I had to check the
headers to make sure it wasn't a forgery by chuckles.
Dale
Hi, john. Well, alt.surrealism beat this newsgroup to aggravating
irrelevance. But this one is almost at total saturation now.
>
> Of course, the Academy is just a group of individuals. Its 'authenticity',
> or persuasion, is derived from its "hierarchical structure", as you say. But
> there are different kinds of hierarchy, not all of them bad. The Academy
> historically has its authority granted to it through the state and/or complex
> economic mechanisms related to power, authority, religion, class, tradition,
> status quo, etc. As for authority, there are two distinct kinds: one which is
> an influence as a function of experience, proficiency and qualification, and
> the other an influence as a function of power. Such institutions as the ones
> produced by the above have the tendency to limit its by-product as wlel as
> the opinions driven within its own framework. Without the state and its
> accompanying institutions of power, which these may all be attributed to,
> there are just groups of people who have different opinions based on
> different prejudices. The worst kind of hierarchy is that which presumes to
> make choices based upon its own set of prejudices for you.
Yes, but I insist that the idea of a "canon" presupposes that a cultural
order is being imposed from above, even if the elements of that "sacred
list" have - at one time - grown out of what passed for common
agreement. Of course, any Academy is a group of individuals, which was
the focus of my disagreement here: when someone says that an individual
is not capable of finding imaginative literature (if that isn't an
oxymoron) without a pre-set canon, I have to balk, if only to defend
what is most central to the creative sphere: that intimate relationship
between the viewer and the object. And the very fact that any cultural
"power" is a group of individuals is precisely why this idea is so
ludicrous. How then did each of them find their way to culture? If it is
always to be (as is put forth) a canon, then the process is a dead heat
on a merry go round, and who really cares. And - of course - it is not a
canon if another indiviudal shares his/her "reading list," as this
requires no special designation. It only becomes a canon when an
assumption of superior authority exists. It really makes no difference
if the canonizing group recommends - say - MacBeth, and it turns out to
be worth the attention. The very nature of such "fossilizations" of mere
opinion tends to preclude the intimacy of the imaginative act. Finally,
all that matters is an individual's response to an object. It might not
be "high" for a person to derive his/her grandest pleasure from reading
detective stories, but that pleasure is the only point of any real
value. The canonizing of works tends to make such visceral reactions
more difficult, obscuring each text under a palimpsest of critical
analysis, collegiate acceptance, cultural awe as opposed to immediate
ingestion. At any point - of course - those most engaged in an
imaginative pursuit will frustrate all this dryness and find the water
in the covering sands, and other (uncharted) sources also, BUT how many
more are frozen at the point of mere adoration by the very existence of
a "preferred list"? It may be hard to say, but college classes are some
indication of the dead vivisection that passes for poetic "love."
> But the last time I checked that was one point we happened to disagree
> on (wink, wink).
Maybe, maybe not: can't recall now what exactly we did disagree on. But
I do recall you were very pleasant to disagree with, and kept up your
end of the discussion well. That's all that matters, really.
>
> -john
>
>
M.H.Benders
>>Take Dali, as an example. He is absolutely unloved by either artists or
>>critics. There are almost no contemporary artists that like him, none
>>of the contemporaries in his days liked him, the surrealists could drink
>>his blood, and serious art critics do not like his work a lot either.
>>
>>And yet, there he is: completely canonized. It is popularity that
>>canonizes people and nothing else. This extremely silly and naieve idea
>>that there's some sort of tribe of geniusses out there who promote each
>>others work into the Canon is both false and completely laughable.
>
> Time will decide.
Time will decide what? Are you now daft enough to claim Dali wasn't
canonized? That people will suddenly remove him from the list of famous
painters? Or are you just a stupid little cunt who can't face the fact
that he's wrong about the Canon being constructed by geniuses?
>>Another good example is Nikolai Zabolotski. One of the best poets I have
>>ever read, but it's almost impossible to find any book of the guy - no
>>translationa available, out of print, the whole she-bang. Very popular
>>amongst Russian intellectuals and artists, but clearly got not canonized.
>
> I believe you just said "I like him, therefore." Doesn't work that
> way.
Sure, he must be recognised by Bach to stand a chance. And as Bach's
personal crusader, you have every right to judge works you have never
seen, and names you have never heard about.
>>Another good example is the french painter Pierre Bettencourt. 20 times
>>the genius Chagall or Dali was, but hardly known. It's even hard to find
>>a decent website that mentions him.
>
> Again, "I like him, therefore."
That .P in your name, does it stand for 'Popularity' or for 'Princess'?
>>Chagall is a good example of a painter that was easily Canonized by
>>popularity - his reprints look so well above your cosy pink couch - but
>>there's hundreds of Russian painters you'll never hear of that were much
>>better than Chagall and will never be Canonized. Take Filonov, for
>>example. There is no way Chagall could even come close to Filonov in
>>terms of greatness. Yet there he is, worshipped and canonized, while
>>Filonov is left forgotten in the dark corners of Russia.
>
> Again, "I like him, therefore."
Like Chandra noted, you are not able to produce any arguments about art
because you have no knowledge of the field. Chuckles styled replies is
all you're capable of.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
Dale wrote:
> Don't bother yourself; any man who still believes in a vague fictional
> character from 2000 years ago is already dead by any reasonable standards.
>
> And I'll leave the fascist-regalia to those who most gravitate toward
> mindless brutality and torture, the ever-loving Christians themselves,
> who have amassed an almost enviable record of cruelty and pomposity
> since their (unfortunate) creation in the minds of a few disenchanted
> Hebrews. It is too late to bemoan the fact that the ancient Romans
> dropped the ball on the eradication of this terrorist pestilence, but we
> can always hope some scientific improvement in cognitive functions will
> erase such insipid "thinking" from the human race,
God. Now you're anti-Christian as well. Is there any end to your
hatred of others?
-- Josh
Josh Hill
The depth of your bigotry never fails to astound.
--
Josh
Chandra P. Das
Such consistency of stupidity and anti-artism can only be found in America.
> M.H.Benders
>
>
>
michael
"Josh Hill" <id...@donkey.com> wrote in message
news:BkTbd.44$WN5.27@trndny08...
> M.H.Benders wrote:
> > Josh Hill wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> She's gorgeous Josh, and you know it. Or maybe you don't. How could
> >>> anyone possibly be so consistent in his bad taste?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > What's their to criticize, Dopey? You either think she's gorgeous or
> > not.
>
> Real flesh doesn't interest me, Martijn, I only date plastic. Why can't
> you understand this and leave me alone? Do you get a kick out of
> watching a grown man cry like a little girl? Shame on you.
What is the point of Chandra, whether faking i.d.'s or making any other
posting here?
Chandra P. Das
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:37:57 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>
>>>Heh, no. You're reading superficially, seeing only language and
>>>metaphors chosen intentionally for their apparent simplicity.
>>
>>Here's where the webtv 'poet' explains how great his 'poem' is.
>>
>>Yawn.
>
>
> Translation: "I was ludicrously wrong when I said Hill's poem was
> fluff, and, what's worse, readers obviously liked it,
"Makes no difference, but I think it's tepid tapwater mixed with Karo
syrup."
-- Dale Houstman, in response to Martijn's request for an objective crit
of Josh's poem.
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>Josh, that is beautiful. Someone would have to be dead where it mattered most not to appreciate such poetry. You are truly an artist. Thank you for the link.
>>
>> Thanks, Pax. And thanks to Martijn or Chandra for sharing it.
>
>In the night, when dreams have come
>And hard day's fancies flutter free,
>I wander up the meadow some,
>And there she waits for me.
>
>You can draw a million Web TV posters out of your closet, Josh.
>Doesn't change the fact that it's complete trash.
Ah.
>Ask Gary Gamble what he thinks of it. I don't like Gary, and
>he doesn't like me,
A man of excellent taste.
>so he'll be impartial.
> Or Joy Yourcenar, or
>Jim Sheard. Why don't you?
Gary, Joy, and Jim are always welcome to comment on my work.
--
Josh
Pax
"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message news:dthvm0ht3gnikomkv...@4ax.com...On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:52:54 GMT, "Pax" <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
> "Chandra P. Das" <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:sNGbd.1265$LS3.1025@trndny07...
> Ever think about getting a webtv account? It would be a perfect match
> for your literacy level and personality.
>Don't try to be witty, you need at least one wit to attempt it.
Heh -- reminds me of Dennis Hammes's classic, "As usual, Martijn
thinks he is being a wit. As usual, he is half right."
--
Josh
Gonçalo Rodrigues
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'm not sure how people actually choose to belong to some race but
>> since I've chosen to be a (fierce) Christian I know I'll sleep better
>
>A fierce Christian, are you? We have a fierce Christian operating out of
>the White House. No doubt you sleep peacefully with this thought, jesusboi.
>
>I'm astonished. Even the wackiest right-winger wouldn't publicly claim
>to be a 'fierce' Christian these days. Should I enlighten you with some
>examples of Christian ferocity or would that take away too much of your
>time from your persecutive crusades?
From the Oxford Universal Dictionary:
fierce:
2. High-spirited, valiant
3. Proud, haughty
What wacky right-winger's do these days is not my problem. The first
adjective may fit me but not the second. And don't bother enlightening
me on anything, since you are little more than an ignorant twit.
And if you want to pick up a fight please try to be wittier, will you?
Howdy-Dowdy,
G. Rodrigues
Josh Hill
<m.be...@chello.nl> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>
>>>>"Triumph, my Britaine, thou hast one to showe,
>>>>To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe.
>>>>He was not of an age, but for all time!"
>>>>
>>>>- Ben Jonson
>>>
>>>Is this supposed to be a poem?
>>
>> Oh for fuck's sake, do you ever stop embarrassing yourself?
>>
>> http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/Folio1.htm#Epistle
>
>
>"For though his line of life went soone about,
>The life yet of his lines shall never out."
>
>This sounds like something you could have written, Josh.
>
>"I, therefore will begin. Soule of the Age !
>The applause ! delight ! the wonder of our Stage"
>
>Incredible, but this also sounds like something you could have written.
>
>It's also some of the most hideous crap I've ever seen on a website.
Well, thank you: you've just said I could write something written by
one of the most famous English poets, and the lines you chose happen
to be marvelous, albeit their effect depends on their being read as
part of the whole.
A reader more astute than you (and I do not set my sights high here)
would not only have recognized some delightful wit and timeless
phrases, e.g., "small Latin and less Greek," but would have marveled
at Jonson's critical prescience and his ability to give us in a few
lines a portrait of Shakespeare and his place that would in other
hands have required a book.
But, of course, you've done what you always do, peeped through a
keyhole into the chamber of love and gone away sour because you
glimpsed only a pinky or a foot. Those who are more open-minded may be
interested in reading T S Eliot's marvelously perceptive essay, "Ben
Jonson," at
http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw10.html
--
Josh
Chandra P. Das
>
>
> Chandra P. Das wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Anti-Dutchite!
>
>
> Isn't his blatant anti-dutchism repulsive? I can't understand why anyone
> would still talk to a anti-dutchist creep like that. Not a single post
> goes by where he doesn't make some repulsive anti-dutchite slur. He
> hates dutch people. He hates our freedoms, that's what it is.
He's jealous because middle school kids in the Netherlands can think
more independently than him. And probably write better poetry too. And
of course you don't have too many guys who wear wigs and who kill their
girlfriends with hairbrushs and then write a fluffy poems about it.
> M.H.Benders
>
Dale
What's the point of ANY of us posting here? It's just an obsession with
some, an amusing habit with others, and the only way to get any
attention at all for too many. But that's life...
dmh
Josh Hill
<op7...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:06:28 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
><vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>You disclose your true nazi nature with this statement. All people, all
>>views, all ideas ought to be given equal consideration. Think, consider,
>>and then reject or accept as your mind dictates. One of the reasons I
>>despise you so much is because you don't take any criticism of Israeli
>>or American violence. You remain blind against their gross atrocities
>>and yet you continuously scream out about children being blown up by
>>Arab terrorists. You are the most anti-Semitic asshole I've ever met.
>>Can you tell me -- do you even know what's going with the
>>Israeli-Palestinian conflicts these days? What kind of a soldier puts
>>two bullets into a little girl on her way to school, killing her, but
>>not only that -- he comes closer and drills another twenty bullets into
>>her already dead body. And then another similar incident like this
>>follows within days. What's going on? 'Who cares?', says the typical
>>American, 'Israel has a right to defend herself against Muslim
>>schoolgirls'. The same-old, same-old, soundbite: Israel and America can
>>do whatever the fuck they like because Muslims are evil -- *they're* the
>>terrorists, *they're* the source of all problems. Right. Fuck you, I'm
>>sick of this nonsense. I'm totally sick of you war-mongering christian
>>and jewish fundamentalists. If you'd all just fuck off and die right
>>now, this world might have some hope of recovery.
>>
>>
>>> "You couldn't possibly pronounce it in a correct way with that
>>> hooknose of yours." - Martijn Benders
>>>
>>> "You worship cash more than any fuckheaded Hindu fundamentalist
>>> worships his cow-dung patties." - Chandra Das
>>
>>To make it more clear: all of you people who attach yourselves to races,
>>religions and ethnicities can go and fuck yourselves into a burning,
>>feverish hell of a death. I have no respect or sympathy for anyone who
>>chooses to belong to any particular race or religion.
>>
>
>At the start:
>
>"All people, all views, all ideas ought to be given equal
>consideration"
>
>and at the end:
>
>"I have no respect or sympathy for anyone who chooses to belong to any
>particular race or religion."
>
>Does that lack of respect include the Muslims?
>
>I'm not sure how people actually choose to belong to some race but
>since I've chosen to be a (fierce) Christian I know I'll sleep better
>tonight not having your respect and sympathy.
A striking contrast, isn't it? But not surprising, really: I've
noticed that those who are most apt to accuse others of intolerance
are frequently those who are most intolerant themselves . . .
--
Josh
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> No. The invasion of Iraq eliminated a predatory monster who was taking
>> far more lives than the invasion did.
>
>The monster you helped to power by aiding him in killing all his
>political opponents?
>
>
>> but you cannot explain why your support of Saddam Hussein is
>> a good thing, because it is not. And until you can explain that --
>> explain how it is wrong to support the overthrow of a dictator who
>> according to Human Rights Watch was killing something like 100,000 of
>> his countrymen a year
>
>They estimate he killed 300.000 people in 30 years. That's about 10.000
>a year. You killed about 30.000 people in one year, in a foreign country.
>
>If you'd stay thirty years that would amount to 900.000 people.
>
>So you are much worse than Hussein, even if we would forget the fact
>that it was you who were responsible for his rise to power.
Benders, you are so dumb it defies belief.
--
Josh
Josh Hill
<op7...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:04:46 GMT, "M.H.Benders"
><m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>
>>Oh, and one other thing:
>>
>>>
>>> This is not the mob. There are always works aplenty to content the mob
>>> -- Prince, Spielberg, Christo -- and so they have little reason to
>>> look beyond their own time.
>>
>>Prince is universally admired amongst musicians. He's often regarded as
>>one of the greatest musical geniuses of the late 20th century. I agree
>>with this observation - his compositions are superb. The guy plays at
>>least 20 different instruments himself (Beethoven? Bach? Plain paper
>>geniuses)- his first records was just that: him playing about 7
>>different instruments, singing, and he wrote the lyrics too. He's one of
>>the most universally accepted musical geniuses in modern day pop music.
>>
>
>I can't comment on classical music since I'm deaf-tone to it (contrary
>to Mr. Benders I don't turn my ignorant prejudices into aesthetic
>statements), but that Prince is a great (pop) musician and composer
>there is very little doubt. His albums in the 80's are among the best
>popular music has produced; Unfortunately his last great album has
>already a few years (If my memory serves me right "Diamonds and
>Pearls").
I've always heard good things about Prince, and I've no reason to
disbelieve them. And I've certainly never been a snob about popular
music. The problem here is that Benders insists that he's a "better
composer" than Bach, a proposition that would probably be ridiculous
if made by someone who was familiar with their music and is certainly
ridiculous when made by someone who doesn't know Bach.
--
Josh
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'm not sure how people actually choose to belong to some race but
>> since I've chosen to be a (fierce) Christian I know I'll sleep better
>
>A fierce Christian, are you? We have a fierce Christian operating out of
>the White House. No doubt you sleep peacefully with this thought, jesusboi.
>
>I'm astonished. Even the wackiest right-winger wouldn't publicly claim
>to be a 'fierce' Christian these days. Should I enlighten you with some
>examples of Christian ferocity or would that take away too much of your
>time from your persecutive crusades?
God. Now you're anti-Christian as well. Is there any end to your
Satan
> Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:30:23 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
>> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how people actually choose to belong to some race but
>>>> since I've chosen to be a (fierce) Christian I know I'll sleep better
>>>
>>>
>>> A fierce Christian, are you? We have a fierce Christian operating out
>>> of the White House. No doubt you sleep peacefully with this thought,
>>> jesusboi.
>>>
>>> I'm astonished. Even the wackiest right-winger wouldn't publicly
>>> claim to be a 'fierce' Christian these days. Should I enlighten you
>>> with some examples of Christian ferocity or would that take away too
>>> much of your time from your persecutive crusades?
>>
>>
>>
>> From the Oxford Universal Dictionary:
>>
>> fierce:
>> 2. High-spirited, valiant
>> 3. Proud, haughty
>
>
> pleased, very pleased.
Don't listen to this Jesus clown, Rodrigues, he's full of shit. He's no
god, or son of god -- he's merely one of the little barmaids in the
Afterlife Party. Follow me, son, I'm the real deal. Well, shit, I gotta
go now -- a fresh arrival of porn starlets. Busy busy . . ..
Yer pal,
Satan.
Gonçalo Rodrigues
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:30:23 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
>> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>Bring on the Inquisition, churchboy.
Now don't be embarassed, Mr. Das (*), I'm sure that besides these
cavemen grunts -- I mean, *you just* have to admit it, they are rather
primitive even for a lobotomized crab such as you -- you can extort
from your gasbag stomach and from your throat of bone and from your
disgruntled mouth some more variagated sounds and even -- dare I say
it -- perhaps *words*. Now, don't be embarassed, show us the words you
know, spell them now. Be a good boy, hein. Behave yourself. Put that
club down.
Regards,
G. Rodrigues
(*) This must be my christian personality at work. See how magnanimous
I am in conceding him some humanity. I'm feeling good about myself.
Chandra P. Das
Ah, the stalking is in full swing now. How predictable you are.