Shakespeare
Greg Garrison
with a fellow poet friend of mine. I asked "Have you ever read much
Shakespeare?" He replied " Only in school, when I had to." Needless to
say I ws shocked by this. Consider the following:
LXXXVIII
When thou shalt be dispos'd to set me light,
And place my merit in the eye of scorn,
Upon thy side against myself I'll fight,
And prove the virtuous, though thou art
forsworn:
With mine own weakness being best
acquainted,
Upon thy part I can set down a story
Of faults coceal'd, wherein I am attained;
That thou in losing me, shall win much glory:
And I by this will be a gainer too;
For bending all my loving thoughts on thee,
The injuries that to myself I do,
Doing the vantage, double-vantage me.
Such is my love, to thee I so belong,
That for thy right myself will bear all wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------Notice his
freeform style. The chances he takes. Shakespeare was a great poet . His
thousands of sonnets are all wonderful works of art. They are timeless.
Every poet imho should be well read in these works.
Your opinion on this matter is much anticipated.
GSG
If you send me spam I will fill your mailbox up.
angelport
adore his work, and always have. i thought he was the measure against
which all others were judged. i know better now, but for me his work is
still so moving, so powerful, and that much more so for having been my
first love in poetry. i cant identify with those who find him too much
work or even, perish the thought, boring! but those folks are out there,
nonetheless. i agree with ur sentiment. and i find, today, that the
topics of his work are most relevant to me, personally. like this one...it
reminded me of the way i like to say to my significant other, "I love u
best" my verbal shorthand for "i will choose to love u in the manner that
is best for u." (> That for thy right myself will bear all
wrong.)
thanks for posting this work. u made my day. *smiles*
peaches
Greg Garrison <Spiri...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<12425-36...@newsd-223.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
angelport
most of us are not allowed the luxury of meeting our personal time
schedules. but my grandmother knew how to feed me...
peaches
Josh Hill <josh...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<361865c6....@news.mindspring.com>...
> Right on, Peaches!
>
> But I understand why people find him difficult. I well remember having
> had to slog through Romeo and Juliet as a 12-year-old boy far more
> intrested in, well, anything in the world! Damnable school system, to
> take something so wonderful and make it a horrible chore!
>
> How many people are turned off from poetry for life by having to read
> that horrid thing about the dying athlete for the sixth year straight?
> Or Excelsior! Oy, gevalt! Or that terrible thing about the Tyger, the
> original I mean. <g>
>
> I was lucky enough to rediscover these things when I was old enough to
> understand and appreciate and love and be awed by them, but many, even
> most people never have the chance to try.
>
> Art should be a joy and not a chore. Take that same class of
> 12-year-olds, have them _act in_ rather than read the play, and you
> will have Shakespeare addicts for life!
>
> Rant . . .
>
> Josh
>
> P.S.--On the other hand, poetry gave us the inspiration for more than
> a few wonderful things like
>
> I think that I shall never see
> A teacher lovely as a tree
> Or even a discolored stone,
> A rotten fish, a smelly bone!
>
> :-)
Ray Lanthier
drunk much deeper than most. By drinking from the well of his sonnets, we stand a better chance of
keeping that mad liqour which is poetry coursing through our veins.
Ray Lanthier
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:32:47 -0500 (CDT), Spiri...@webtv.net (Greg
> Garrison) wrote:
>
> >Many "new age" poets dismiss the works of the masters.
>
> Do they really? Scary . . . and ditto to your thought! Shakespeare was
> the bravest of poets, the most audacious, the most truly free.
>
> And am I alone in believing that the artist of today is as unfree as a
> singer who is banned from voice? That the wonderful crazy outpourings
> of early modernism have given way to a slow and rust-tinged trickle,
> passed through and constrained by innumerable sclerotic pipes and
> valves?
Ray Lanthier
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 21:47:59 -0700, Ray Lanthier
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Early modernism was motivated by a misguided populism. It opened the flood gates of mediocrity
> >
>
> It seems to me that the modernist movement embodied two seemingly
> contradictory mandates:
>
> 1. Expression in a plain or popular voice
>
> 2. Overwhelming erudition
>
> The fusion of Leopold and Stephen, as it were!
>
> These represent extremely limiting principles, and when one adds to
> them
>
> 3. Mandatory formal innovation
>
> One has, as you say, opened the floodgates of mediocrity, because it's
> very easy to drop the erudition bit and elevate untutored drivel, and
> as a corrolary to convince oneself that rejection of received form or
> adoption of a "shtick" is the same as formal innovation, which is not
> the case.
>
> Even in the best of circumstances, the first principle limits
> expression, the second intimidates the audience, and the third
> requires the skilled artist to undertake a task that is normally left
> to the great one, or to many working over a period of time.
Ray Lanthier
comments on the topic of her essay in a Theory of Knowledge course. Her comprehension of just basic
issues was at a 9th grade level, if that. She did not bother to give a clear definition of
knowledge, short of "what leads to action". She referred to Communism as a field of knowledge. The
organization of the essay was almost non-existent.
When I made a few comments on these subjects she and (I guess) a friend went ballistic.
They took it as a personal moral condemnation. Because I expected philosophy to be logical and
analytical, I was "the Philosophy Police". Sound familiar?
In the midst of the flame-throwing I pointed out that if she didn't want a critique of her essay ,
she should not have asked for one.
What to do about the "dumbing down" effect of over-politicization ?
Poets are the most powerful members of society - they can weild their art behind the scenes,
unobtrusively.
Perhaps the mediocrity supplies an effective camouflage.
If enought poets just continue to write excellent poetry, the power of that poetry will eventually
be irresistible. It takes effect , like a drug, almost involuntarily.
BTW, I posted a Version 3 of my new poem. Nobody is commenting. Did I do a bad thing?
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 11:42:05 -0700, Ray Lanthier
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >A high wire act without a net. The result has not been pretty.
> >
>
> And my question as always is what do we do about it? Are we ready for
> a revolution in form?
>
> Unfortunately, I supect we aren't, inasmuch as these changes seem to
> occur with/anticipate/follow great social changes, and we don't seem
> to be on the verge of one!
Ray Lanthier
dpmot wrote:
> Ray Lanthier wrote in message <360DD4EB...@earthlink.net>...
>
> >BTW, I posted a Version 3 of my new poem. Nobody is commenting. Did I do a
> bad thing?
>
> I don't think I've seen it, Ray. What is the subject line?
>
> D
Chris Mandoka
starting that argument up again. I'm not. Honestly. My grandfather,
between cigarettes and a John Wayne movie, gave me a book on poetry. It is
a rather sad looking book, all yellow, and falling apart. The point is,
when I opened it up the publish date is 1855. I browsed through the list of
authors and found I couldn't identify most of them. This will most likely
sound horribly arrogant but I've always felt I have a firm grasp on pre
1900's poetry. So, I thought I'd see if anybody out there can identify any
of these persons. Next to Eliza Acton I found a Mrs. Addy, good ol' Bobby
Burns is just before the Rev. H. Buchanan, there is a Miss Milford, and a
Mrs. C. B. Wilson. According to the title pages these poets are "The Most
Popular Writers of the Past and Present Age." So, can any of you place them
or has time claimed them for it's own?
I think I'm going to enjoy pouring through my new book (if the sneezing
doesn't get to me)
Myria
dpmot
mervin mecklenburg
Mike Billard
>
> I question even whether good poets have an influence over a group such
> as this, which is interested in and appears to be fairly knowledgeable
> about poetry. I have noticed that you laud the greatness of Shakespeare
> and Keats and others from across the ocean, and of Whitman from the last
> century. But it appears that few people in this group have much respect
> for American poets writing in this century -- at least that they are
> willing to admit.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I can think of several hundred American poets from
this century whose work I enjoy, and dozens whose work I truly admire.
I've spoken at great length, much to the chagrin of some here, about
these poets and their works. I qoute Hugo, Roethke, Pinsky, Hass and a
several others almost religiously when arguing particular points. Many
here have engaged me to varying degrees in conversation regarding these
poets. Much of the recent argument going on here has been with some
functionally illiterate people. Names like James Wright or Etheridge
Knight or Edgar Bowers probably wouldn't ring a bell with them. In order
to keep within their frame of reference you have to reduce your argument
to only the most recognizable figures like Shakespeare, Whitman, Byron,
etc.
>
> Yet the number of very good poets who have been writing in America
> during the past 50 years is astounding. Writers such as Robert Lowell,
> Sylvia Plath, Ann Sexton, Theodore Rheotke, Richard Hugo, Robert Hass,
> Mary Oliver. It is a shame to start mentioning names because a
> comprehensive list would become very long. If poets are truely powerfu,
> why haven't these very good American writers had more influence on us --
> at least enough influence so that their names come up occassionally
> during a conversation about poetry?
I don't know how much time you spend here, and I apologize if you're
here regularly and I just don't recognize your name, but there are
plenty of people in this ng that have mentioned many contemporary poets
as influences. I can name Roethke, Hass, and Hugo from the short list
you've provided above, and add Strand, Charles Wright, Levine, Eamon
Grennan, John Koethe, and Billy Collins to the list. As you said, the
list could go on for quite some time.
>
> For me the power of poetry is very personal. It takes me places I can't
> go to any other way. I have a strong love for it, but I don't see how
> it has any influence on the country as a whole. Perhaps you see
> something that I do not. If so, you are very fortunate.
This is a tough issue to tackle. There is more poetry being bought today
in America than any other period. Now, I don't wish to turn this into a
statistical discussion, comparing literacy rates versus population
versus online bookstores versus number of presses etc., because I think
it's safe to say the experts took all that into consideration when they
made the observation. What I mean is, all things being equal, there is
more poetry being bought today in America. . . Yet, if you asked the
average American who Robert Pinsky is and what title he holds, most
wouldn't have a clue. Someone fairly famous (in poetry circles that is)
whose name escapes me once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "If you were to
shout the name Rimbaud on a bus in France all the passengers would stop
to listen. If you were to shout the name Whitman on a bus in America all
the passengers would think you were nuts."
My point is that while it may be true that poetry is having a resurgent
influence in American culture, it is nothing compared to the continuous
influence it has held in other cultures. In the introduction to one of
the Best American Poetry editions the guest editor notes that more
people are writing poetry in America than ever before. Unfortunately,
most of them aren't also reading it. He goes on to show how during
National Poetry Month, almost all the events are geared toward getting
people to write poetry, and almost none toward reading it.
So, we've got people buying books of poems and not really reading them,
and we've got people writing poems and not really knowing what they're
doing. Isn't that the essence of America? Quantity over quality? Donald
Hall, in one of the best essays on contemporary American poetry I've
ever read, calls it McPoetry. And, as he puts it, every year Ronald
McDonald wins the Pulitzer.
I could go on for quite some time regarding this problem, but will end
here before I get on a roll. I'll just end by saying that the only way
poetry can truly exercise a strong cultural influence in America is by
forcefully rejecting any attempt to reduce it to just another popular
commodity, like Big Macs or microwave popcorn.
--
Mike Billard
The Alsop Review
http://www.alsopreview.com
Greg Garrison
for mentioning Mcpoetry. This seamingly generic flow of short sentenced,
last word rhyming, or otherwize structured in some sort of ruled line,
"poetry" often shows up in the flow like the sun.
Every time I go to a poetry recital, or reading group, there is always a
portion of late twenties house-wives just picking up the sport of petry.
To put in picture frames and give as gifts, They write this downward
spiraling etch of rhythm. The rederic speaks of such things as; the love
of their child, or loss of a grandmother.
Reading of a body of work by a master of the art is just like the
aprentice studying under the journeyman. Some poets, those I truly
believe write poetry, Have studie under the masters, in some way or
another. This I believe, because some / most of those who are novice
nonread poets do not even realize that poetry is about an artisticaly
written phrase, a new way of writing that you may not see in a letter
from Aunt Dottie, or a history textbook. I think that I will go crazy If
I have to explain irony or metaphor one more time to someone who could
never understand.
I am not perfect or even great yet, but I will be. Some people cant draw
or play saxophone. Most can't write poetry. This is the way it is. In
heaven everyone can probably write poetry. Not on Earth.
Thanks for listening.
GSG
Weschi
<cman...@email.msn.com> wrote:
Hmm..i have not heard of the other names but it is possible that Rev. H.
Buchanan, is Hermes Buchana, an abolitionist that is credited in part to
helping Physliss Wheatly, the African America poet and former slave to
learn to write , and read poety. His work was quite popular during this
era. And I belive any original publised work by him is quite valuable
today among collectors.
At a recent auction Wheatlys original poems went for as much as $5000 per
page. Keep that new book in a safe place!
Weschi
Ray Lanthier
mervin mecklenburg wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 1998, 11:02pm (MDT-1) Ray Lanthier wrote:
What an optimistic and wonderful veiw of the role of poetry? I wish that I could believe it -- and I don't intend this to be taken sarcastically. It would do me a great deal of good if I was able to believe that poets are truely powerful. But I don't. Poets are not powerful, at least not in American society. At least not in my experience.
There are poets who have written in Spanish in this century who were, perhaps, powerful. Garcia Lorca, for example, had a tremendous influence over the thinking of his countrymen, which is why his enamies made him disappear. Some writers in Poland before fall of the Iron Curtain were powerful, which is why those in power feared them. But in American it seems we have too many distractions and we are in too much of a hurry for poetry to be an effective force. Poetry is too quiet, it requires too much patients. We are not a very patient people. I question even whether good poets have an influence over a group such as this, which is interested in and appears to be fairly knowledgeable about poetry. I have noticed that you laud the greatness of Shakespeare and Keats and others from across the ocean, and of Whitman from the last century. But it appears that few people in this group have much respect for American poets writing in this century -- at least that they are willing to admit. Yet the number of very good poets who have been writing in America during the past 50 years is astounding. Writers such as Robert Lowell, Sylvia Plath, Ann Sexton, Theodore Rheotke, Richard Hugo, Robert Hass, Mary Oliver. It is a shame to start mentioning names because a comprehensive list would become very long. If poets are truely powerfu, why haven't these very good American writers had more influence on us -- at least enough influence so that their names come up occassionally during a conversation about poetry?
For me the power of poetry is very personal.
It takes me places I can't go to any other way. I have a strong love for it, but I don't see how it has any influence on the country as a whole. Perhaps you see something that I do not. If so, you are very fortunate. Merv
mervin mecklenburg
Ray Lanthier
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:02:20 -0700, Ray Lanthier
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Astounding!
>
What is interesting is that my comments incited her, jump-started her to THINK for herself.This seemed to
be quite a strange and overwhelming experience. In order to rebut my comments she had to focus and
clarify her views to such an extent - that if she now re-writes her essay with that fresh perspective -
she will likely get an A.
> >In the midst of the flame-throwing I pointed out that if she didn't want a critique of her essay ,
> >she should not have asked for one.
> >What to do about the "dumbing down" effect of over-politicization ?
>
> I've heard so many horror stories from friends in the academic world.
> A professor who doesn't dare to use the word "primitive" in her class
> on primitive art. A tenured teacher at a prestigious prep school who
> is fired because he make a perfectly obvious statement about the
> preferences of immigrant families for a certain type of education.
>
> The sad thing to me is that this dumbing-down is hardest on those it
> ostensibly helps. The elite _always_ finds a way to learn what it must
> for its immediate purposes. There are still private schools and superb
> universities, and if one ignores what student friends refer to as the
> political correctness requirements, one can still become a doctor or a
> lawyer or successful businessman.
>
Barney is the Dean.
> But the young person who graduates from "college" without even a
> traditional high school education is in for a sorry surprise.
>
> >Poets are the most powerful members of society - they can weild their art behind the scenes,
> >unobtrusively.
> >Perhaps the mediocrity supplies an effective camouflage.
> >If enought poets just continue to write excellent poetry, the power of that poetry will eventually
> >be irresistible. It takes effect , like a drug, almost involuntarily.
> >
> But if creator is cut off from audience by a cultural chasm--if one is
> given a choice between preaching to the converted, or selling beer to
> the rest?
You know what? When I read my "difficult" poems, the casual drop-ins not self-styled poets, loved them.
They had no idea why the words exerted the power that they did, but they acknowledged it.
They had no artistic axe to grind. They were honest and open. The Common Man (oops) Person.
I am sure that was the case with Shakespeare's plays which were watched by every class of person.
Once I had a job as a teacher's aid for the mentally handicapped ( I forgot the PC word).
I played Mozart sonatas for them. They were all giggles and delight.
I felt him smile broadly. These little ones got it, whereas some bloated archbishops in Mozart's time
probably feigned appreciation.
Dale Houstman
Weschi wrote:
At a recent auction Wheatlys original poems went for as much as $5000 per
page. Keep that new book in a safe place!
*
God Weschi! You're a hack with a knack. Why don't you
just post a photo of yourself with your nose up some corporate exec's ass
and get it all over with! "Better hang on to them old books, they're worth
a mint!" Hell, better tell him not to read it either, he might screw up
the binding. What a materialist fraud you are. I thought you were just
putting on the mantle of density as a prod to the group, but it seems you're
dressing up every night in your little camisole of chintz and parading
your naked blunders all over the place. Don't read poetry, invest in it.
Art as a commodity: there's the poet I knew Weschi had in him. Well done, Daddy Whorebucks...
Dale H
dpmot
Greg Garrison wrote in message
<19959-36...@newsd-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Mr Mike Billard; Here here my good man, bravo. I would like to thank you
>for mentioning Mcpoetry. This seamingly generic flow of short sentenced,
>last word rhyming, or otherwize structured in some sort of ruled line,
>"poetry" often shows up in the flow like the sun.
I DO hope I'm misunderstanding this paragraph, Greg. Because MY poetry is
often "short sentenced, last word rhyming, or otherwise structured in some
sort of ruled line"...
>Every time I go to a poetry recital, or reading group, there is always a
>portion of late twenties house-wives just picking up the sport of petry.
>To put in picture frames and give as gifts, They write this downward
>spiraling etch of rhythm. The rederic speaks of such things as; the love
>of their child, or loss of a grandmother.
Ummm... I happen to be a late twenties house-wife... althought I've been
writing since I was 13 or less... were I able to afford frames, I daresay
I'd put some in them to give as gifts. I have written about loving my child
(see several I posted recently).
AM I misunderstanding? Or do you actually look down on poetry like mine?
Just curious, here, Greg. I don't want to start a flame war or anything, and
I have nothing against you; you've commented on my poetry before and I
appreciated the comments. I'm always willing to learn new things, so if I am
understanding you correctly, then I hope you'll take a moment out of your
certainly busy schedule to give me a bit of help. :)
Thanks
D
Ray Lanthier
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:59:08 -0700, Ray Lanthier
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Barney is the Dean.
> >
> <g>
>
> >
> > You know what? When I read my "difficult" poems, the casual drop-ins not self-styled poets, loved them.
> >They had no idea why the words exerted the power that they did, but they acknowledged it.
> >They had no artistic axe to grind.
>
> & didn't feel they had a duty to understand everything!
>
> >They were honest and open. The Common Man (oops) Person.
>
> I had a fascinating experience when I was in my early 20's--I was
> hanging out with some friends of mine, a young couple who had no
> higher education. As a goof I grabbed a copy of The Waste-Land off the
> shelf and began reading it in a corny, stentorian voice. As I read,
> the young woman's eyes grew wide as saucers, and within a couple of
> lines she was absolutely rapt! So much so that her boyfriend said,
> "Hey! Stop that! You're stealing my girlfriend!" <g>
>
> And yet, that same girl, assigned the same poem as a schoolgirl, would
> as likely as not have ended up hating it . . .
>
> >I am sure that was the case with Shakespeare's plays which were watched by every class of person.
>
> "Dumbshow for the groundlings!"
>
> I read a wonderful story recently, about someone whose WWII batallion
> hissed and booed when they learned that the evening's film was
> Olivier's Henry V (?). By the time the movie was half way through, the
> grunts were on their feet cheering!
>
> >Once I had a job as a teacher's aid for the mentally handicapped ( I forgot the PC word).
> >I played Mozart sonatas for them. They were all giggles and delight.
> >I felt him smile broadly. These little ones got it, whereas some bloated archbishops in Mozart's time
> >probably feigned appreciation.
>
> I had a similar experience a few years ago at work. By unusual chance,
> somebody turned the radio to a classical station, and they were
> playing something by Mozart. It was as if a soothing calm descended
> over everybody in the room--working-class guys who had probably never
> heard more than 10 notes of classical music looked like they'd been
> transported to a tropic isle . . .
>
> BTW, do you remember the name of that fellow who kicked Mozart? He
> would make a fine subject for a verse, heh heh heh <g>
>
> Always wanted too to write a poem about the to me magical moment when
> Mozart visited Leipzig. As he improvised on the organ, Bach's
> successor exclaimed with astonishment "It is the old man come alive
> again!" Then he had his students perform one of Bach's motets. Mozart
> insisted immediately upon being shown more of Bach's work, and sat
> there with the manuscripts scattered about him, reading avidly from
> one and then another, and exlaiming, "At last, one from whom one can
> learn!"
And you're just the man to do it.
CasualTee
Sorry, I had to try my hand at McPoetry.
~Cas :) <I think I'm rather good at it>
McExperience
Ronald makes shakes
while the crew bakes
hot apple pies.
If you want something new
go to the drive-thru,
but don't ask for fries.
>Mine, of course, never is. <g> Here, for example, my latest effort:
>
> McPoem
>
>ronald
>fries shakes
>tables
>
>wrappers
>
>and the
>heavy
>scent
>of
>
>styro
>foam
>
>--Josh
Greg Garrison
Forgive me if I touched on something that landed close to home. Your
poetry is neither generic nor is it four pages of driven boredom. I was
speaking of a couple of long term experiences I have had wth people
fitting that profile, whose poetry fit that profile.
I did not intend to take any thing away from young women writing poetry.
My intent was to point out this phenomenon that I have experienced. Even
the writers directly fitting my bias profile, often write an excelent
piece or two.
Something I neglected to mention in my coment on McPoetry, is that I
often have that flow of mediocrety show up in my own work. We all have
works we are not proud of. I usually post those first, thinking that I
will get more coments. Posting to this NG is realy an exercise, for me
at least, in vanity. If I post a poem I know is good, and recieve no
response I feal almost a little offended. I admit it. I myself will
coment on the neglected works insted of the ones with long threads. I do
not trust the length of a string to fortell the validity of the work
behind the subject line.
You certainly were not who I waas refering to, Dpmot. I like your work
and apreciate your coments. I meant no ofense to any person. Only that
some must except that they are not for poetry.
GSG
dpmot
nearly ALWAYS includes the playground :)
D
Josh Hill wrote in message <3653f8e5....@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:01:44 -0500, "dpmot"
><REMOVETHISTOE...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>I DO hope I'm misunderstanding this paragraph, Greg. Because MY poetry is
>>often "short sentenced, last word rhyming, or otherwise structured in some
>>sort of ruled line"...
>
dpmot
We buy a "Jam Pack"
and we sit in the back
in order to let the kids play
They slide down the slides
and climb up the sides --
They want to come back every day!
Josh Hill wrote in message <3658197c....@news.mindspring.com>...
>LOL!
>
>On 28 Sep 1998 03:16:12 GMT, casu...@aol.com (CasualTee) wrote:
>
>>
>>Sorry, I had to try my hand at McPoetry.
>>~Cas :) <I think I'm rather good at it>
>>
>>McExperience
>>
>>Ronald makes shakes
>>while the crew bakes
>>hot apple pies.
>>
>>If you want something new
>>go to the drive-thru,
>>but don't ask for fries.
>>
dpmot
>Dpmot---->
>Forgive me if I touched on something that landed close to home. Your
>poetry is neither generic nor is it four pages of driven boredom. I was
>speaking of a couple of long term experiences I have had wth people
>fitting that profile, whose poetry fit that profile.
Forgiven, certainly :)
>I did not intend to take any thing away from young women writing poetry.
>My intent was to point out this phenomenon that I have experienced. Even
>the writers directly fitting my bias profile, often write an excelent
>piece or two.
I do hope I have an excellent piece or two! I know most of mine is not
particularly good, as it is trite and vastly overused themes. And also, much
of it is of no interest to anyone but me :)
>Something I neglected to mention in my coment on McPoetry, is that I
>often have that flow of mediocrety show up in my own work. We all have
>works we are not proud of. I usually post those first, thinking that I
>will get more coments. Posting to this NG is realy an exercise, for me
>at least, in vanity. If I post a poem I know is good, and recieve no
>response I feal almost a little offended. I admit it. I myself will
>coment on the neglected works insted of the ones with long threads. I do
>not trust the length of a string to fortell the validity of the work
>behind the subject line.
Yes, I often comment on ones that haven't been, rather than the ones with
long replies, for the same reason. And if I do comment on ones with replies,
I comment BEFORE I read others' comments, so that my perspective is not
changed by theirs (I'm pretty impressionable :) )
>You certainly were not who I waas refering to, Dpmot. I like your work
>and apreciate your coments. I meant no ofense to any person. Only that
>some must except that they are not for poetry.
Thank you :)
Dawn
CasualTee
Ok, now I've just *got* to try that slide thing. The things I miss out on
because my kids are teens! <sigh> I hope they have those colorful balls that
you can play in too, I love those!
~Cas :)
Ray Lanthier
Greg Garrison wrote:
> Dpmot---->
> Forgive me if I touched on something that landed close to home. Your
> poetry is neither generic nor is it four pages of driven boredom. I was
> speaking of a couple of long term experiences I have had wth people
> fitting that profile, whose poetry fit that profile.
>
> I did not intend to take any thing away from young women writing poetry.
> My intent was to point out this phenomenon that I have experienced. Even
> the writers directly fitting my bias profile, often write an excelent
> piece or two.
>
> Something I neglected to mention in my coment on McPoetry, is that I
> often have that flow of mediocrety show up in my own work. We all have
> works we are not proud of. I usually post those first, thinking that I
> will get more coments. Posting to this NG is realy an exercise, for me
> at least, in vanity. If I post a poem I know is good, and recieve no
> response I feal almost a little offended. I admit it. I myself will
> coment on the neglected works insted of the ones with long threads. I do
> not trust the length of a string to fortell the validity of the work
> behind the subject line.
>
> You certainly were not who I waas refering to, Dpmot. I like your work
> and apreciate your coments. I meant no ofense to any person. Only that
> some must except that they are not for poetry.
>
> GSG
dpmot
Ray Lanthier wrote in message <36103F2E...@earthlink.net>...
>You have just uttered populist heresy.
What on earth is "populist heresy"?
D
dpmot
though :) :)
D
CasualTee wrote in message <19980928140151...@ng92.aol.com>...
Ray Lanthier
a "right' to be a poet or any other accomplishment, regardless of ability. The idea that there could
be standards that
could measure quality is regarded as elitist and snobbish.
Ray Lanthier
are those
that don't "try" to improve, but want to pass off everything they do as the "trendy" best and attack
anybody who try to excel according to traditional standard as "out of it". If you are not "one of
the deeply cool" you need to bow your head in submission.
CasualTee wrote:
> I believe that everybody has the right to *try*. What kind of heresy is that?
> lol
>
> ~Cas :)
Greg Garrison
Thanks Ray for those encouraging words. :)
GSG
Ray Lanthier
Josh Hill wrote:
> I don't really think you're disagreeing.
>
> However, I take strong issue with Ray's assertion that I don't have an
> inalieanable right to merit. It seems to me I have the right to be
> Shakespeare, Bach, and Einstein all rolled up in one, and that the
> universe is mighty unfair insofar as it has chosen to overlook the
> Universal Bill of Josh-Rights. In fact, I would petition the High
> Court of the Galaxy right this very moment if it weren't already
> swamped with my wealth petition, my handsomeness petition, my better
> ballplayer than McGwire and Sosa put together petition, and my why the
> hell do socks always disappear in the laundry petition. . . .
>
> Josh
CasualTee
Greg Garrison
Dale Houstman
Josh Hill,
Once I had a job as a teacher's aid for the mentally handicapped ( I forgot the PC word).
A trifle off topic here, but just to reveal how
ridiculous this PC shackle can be. The PC
term (or one of them) is "mentally challenged"; the other day I read
a long article in which someone who works in the health arena harangued
those who use the term "mentally challenged" because (she said) "They are
not challenged, they are ill." Now it's too much to use the word "challenged"!
You can't win. Once you start down this euphemisim trail you have to go
all the way to the bunkhouse. Eventually everyone will just be called "FRXKL"
and we'll be happy (oop!) I meant "FRXKL"...
You're exactly right about how a little education and a few mis-applied lessons can ruin the simple responses to even the most complex work: I worked in a parking ramp and I used to hand out some of my "difficult" poems to customers. It is amazing how many kinds of comments one could receive, once the layers of expectation were dissolved by simple presentation. People may have connected to only one line, or to some mood they felt hanging over the piece, or to some rhythm or just to the fact that they liked the way the words floated across the page. But that's it isn't it? All this intellectual brouhaha (though valued) and (worse) the quasi-intellectual and philistine brouhaha isn't worth much compared to the realization that poetry (even "difficult" poetry) can make a connection that is often (and this is the wonderful part for this old surrealist) quite beyond language itself.
Dale H
Theresa Kim
>
> Populism is the belief (or attitude) that everybody has an inalienable >right to merit.
"Merit is not clamored for. It is Seized."
I forget who the author of above quote is, but he/she had the right
idea.
Theresa Kim
>
> That's neither populism nor heresy. But I have found the most vicious >(and petty) of the literati are those
> that don't "try" to improve, but want to pass off everything they do >as the "trendy" best and attack anybody who try to excel according to >traditional standard as "out of it".
Well, they might just be the people who belong to the cult of "If it's
been seen and done before, I ain't touchin' it!" The self-proclaimed
"revolutionaries", if you will.
>If you are not "one of the deeply cool" you need to bow your head in >submission.
Well, here's a relevant and consoling quote for those who've rejected
membership to that circle:
" Great! Let [them] "revel" in [their] vainglorious ignorance! [They]
should have to and [they] will! That is the beauty of life! The fact
is: most "people" are easily fooled. There is no harm in that. It is
their very nature to gloat in the limelight... The limelight fades and
flickers after a time, and -- still -- you are left with a perspicacity
[they] could *ONLY* aspire to. "
A bit didactic, but inspiring nonetheless.
--TK
Theresa Kim
>
> However, I take strong issue with Ray's assertion that I don't have an
> inalieanable right to merit. It seems to me I have the right to be
> Shakespeare, Bach, and Einstein all rolled up in one, and that the
> universe is mighty unfair insofar as it has chosen to overlook the
> Universal Bill of Josh-Rights. In fact, I would petition the High
> Court of the Galaxy right this very moment if it weren't already
> swamped with my wealth petition, my handsomeness petition, my better
> ballplayer than McGwire and Sosa put together petition, and my why the
> hell do socks always disappear in the laundry petition. . . .
Haha... <audible laughter> I'm sure we can all relate to that at some
point. I know I can, but I've made a conscious effort to continuously
realize my status (Human), and thus, realize that I'm subject to
unfairness, sneers and jeers, criticism, and disappointment of the worst
kind(s). Of course, I strive to steer myself clear of the
aforementioned, but they are, at times, unavoidable.
Greg Garrison
Garrison
Ray Lanthier
Ray Lanthier
Ray Lanthier
CasualTee wrote:
> Ahhh, thank you for clarifying that Ray. *I* think you're pretty cool, just so
> you know :) I'm not sure I know any "deeply cool" people though.
>
> ~Cas :)
>
> >That's neither populism nor heresy. But I have found the most vicious (and
> >petty) of the literati
> >are those
> >that don't "try" to improve, but want to pass off everything they do as the
> >"trendy" best and attack
> >anybody who try to excel according to traditional standard as "out of it". If
> >you are not "one of
> >the deeply cool" you need to bow your head in submission.
> >
> >CasualTee wrote:
> >
> >> I believe that everybody has the right to *try*. What kind of heresy is
> >that?
> >> lol
> >>
> >> ~Cas :)
> >>
> >> >Populism is the belief (or attitude) that everybody has an inalienable
> >right
Greg Garrison
Garrison
CasualTee
Theresa Kim
>
> Thanks for the conversation theresa.
You're welcome.
>It seems like I've been ignored lately.
Nonsense.
--TK
CasualTee
<whew> Thanks! I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I'm sorry, I didn't realize
it could be taken that way.
~Cas :)
Dale Houstman
Greg wrote:
This seamingly generic flow of short sentenced, last word rhyming,
or otherwize structured in some sort of ruled line,
you wrote:
I DO hope I'm misunderstanding this paragraph, Greg. Because MY
poetry is often "short sentenced, last word rhyming, or otherwise structured
in some sort of ruled line"...
Greg wrote:
Every time I go to a poetry recital, or reading group, there is
always a portion of late twenties house-wives just picking up the sport
of poetry. To put in picture frames and give as gifts, They write this
downward spiraling etch of rhythm. The rederic speaks of such things as;
the love of their child, or loss of a grandmother.
you wrote:
Ummm... I happen to be a late twenties house-wife... althought I've
been writing since I was 13 or less... were I able to afford frames, I
daresay I'd put some in them to give as gifts. I have written about loving
my child (see several I posted recently). AM I misunderstanding? Or do
you actually look down on poetry like mine?
***
Uh, I must admit I know what Greg is getting at. And all that could specifically apply I suppose. But I've discovered that there really isn't any limit on content and form, but it's more a meeting of the two (and several more elements) in an "appropriate" system, where each element is the correct partner of the other. Christopher Smart (for Lord's sake!) wrote a poem about his cat! It happens to be brilliant. Hans Arp wrote poems about horses on trains and elephants made out of vegetable matter. In each case an eccentric language or vaulted tone made it work. Greg's probably seen and heard a lot of the same drool I have, where the sentimental "nearness" of the subject matter rather overwhelms the other considerations. It happens more often than not. Long after a writer has forgotten every element of a poem some sticky mess of "love balm" will persist. But to dismiss any of this out of hand seems an error. There are too many examples of greatness in every genre. John Clare wrote wonderful poems about flowers. Others have written horrible poems about huge notions and over-constructed language theories. It's a ratio of a multitude; the poet is a juggler of sorts here.
The age disparagement is not understandable: I've been writing for more than 30 years and could easily (even justifiably?) be dismissed as an "old fart", but the history of poetry doesn't have so much to say on this point. One can write great poetry at all ages of the creative process: Rimbaud was precocious, Goethe less so. Etc.
As for writing poems about the love of a child, the potential for the marvelous seems obvious to me. Greg's seen so many fail, as most do, and the problem with such personal subjects is that it is difficult (for the writer and the audience) to be truly critical in the best sense of the word. You are either disarmed, or expected to be disarmed, by the sheer "realness" of it all. And that is the beginning of the end.
ta,
Dale H
dpmot
Dale Houstman wrote in message <6uup6q$1gj$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>But I've discovered that there really isn't any
>limit on content and form, but it's more a meeting of the two (and several
more
>elements) in an "appropriate" system, where each element is the correct
partner
>of the other.
>great poetry at all ages of the creative process: Rimbaud was precocious,
Goethe
>less so. Etc.
>As for writing poems about the love of a child, the potential for the
marvelous
>seems obvious to me. Greg's seen so many fail, as most do, and the problem
with
>such personal subjects is that it is difficult (for the writer and the
audience)
>to be truly critical in the best sense of the word. You are either
disarmed, or
>expected to be disarmed, by the sheer "realness" of it all. And that is the
>beginning of the end.
Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on this, Dale. You make sense.
I've never really studied poetry, as such (the history and all that), though
I think I should certainly make an effort to do so.
Thanks again,
D
Phil m Smith
just saw this post and thought u might like to know: the reason socks
disappear in the dryer is that there are gremlins living in them. they have
a symbiotic relationship with the machines. (i know, go figure!) anyway,
their primary diet is wet socks. once in a while they also eat small bites
of underwear. that is why underwear sometimes comes out of the dryer with
holes in them. i havent yet figured out where they sleep...perhaps they
crawl out of the back of the dryer, and sleep between the cushions on the
sofa. that might explain the way things disappear into those cracks and
never show up again. i befriended one of these common household gremlins,
once. they are very shy and are almost never seen, so i feel very
privileged. since it was pink baby socks that this particular gremlin
liked most, i used to look for them at yard sales so i could toss extra
tidbits into the laundry for it. heheh kinda fun, actually.
peaches
Josh Hill wrote in message <36705d7d....@news.mindspring.com>...
>I don't really think you're disagreeing.
>
>However, I take strong issue with Ray's assertion that I don't have an
>inalieanable right to merit. It seems to me I have the right to be
>Shakespeare, Bach, and Einstein all rolled up in one, and that the
>universe is mighty unfair insofar as it has chosen to overlook the
>Universal Bill of Josh-Rights. In fact, I would petition the High
>Court of the Galaxy right this very moment if it weren't already
>swamped with my wealth petition, my handsomeness petition, my better
>ballplayer than McGwire and Sosa put together petition, and my why the
>hell do socks always disappear in the laundry petition. . . .
>
>Josh
Phil m Smith
larger appetites...and much less discriminating taste. they are not at all
shy, and will pull shameless pranks without hesitation, like taking huge
bites out of the latest posts on the ng as you download. oh yes, goblins
love computers. they also have smaller cousins who reside in vcr's and
audio tapeplayers. we have all seen what a goblin can do with one toenail
to and entire reel of tape in an audio cassette. very ugly, goblins are.
mean. nasty. aggressive. no fun. i much prefer gremlins.
peaches
Josh Hill wrote in message <361c9ab3....@news.mindspring.com>...
>Sho' 'nuff!
>
>Have those gremlins in my computer, too, where they routinely eat up
>every multimillion dollar movie contract that comes my way . . . <g>
>
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 03:43:19 GMT, "Phil m Smith" <SMI...@nfx.net>
>wrote:
General Zod
>
> Many "new age" poets dismiss the works of the masters. I was talking
> with a fellow poet friend of mine. I asked "Have you ever read much
> Shakespeare?" He replied " Only in school, when I had to." Needless to
> say I ws shocked by this. Consider the following:
>
> LXXXVIII
> When thou shalt be dispos'd to set me light,
> And place my merit in the eye of scorn,
> Upon thy side against myself I'll fight,
> And prove the virtuous, though thou art
> forsworn:
> With mine own weakness being best
> acquainted,
> Upon thy part I can set down a story
> Of faults coceal'd, wherein I am attained;
> That thou in losing me, shall win much glory:
> And I by this will be a gainer too;
> For bending all my loving thoughts on thee,
> The injuries that to myself I do,
> Doing the vantage, double-vantage me.
> Such is my love, to thee I so belong,
> That for thy right myself will bear all wrong.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------Notice his
> freeform style. The chances he takes. Shakespeare was a great poet . His
> thousands of sonnets are all wonderful works of art. They are timeless.
> Every poet imho should be well read in these works.
> Your opinion on this matter is much anticipated.
>
> GSG
>
> If you send me spam I will fill your mailbox up.
Another look into the Usenet Time Machine.....