Hollywood Slut / Dennis M. Hammes & George Dance
George Dance
They called the woman strumpet, harlot, slut:
Words of nuts designed to stab and cut,
Toilet language snippets spread like smut,
No chance to find out what or to rebut.
They called the woman slut, harlet, strumpet,
Blasted from the pulpits like a trumpet:
From every jealous Dick and peeping Tom, it
Gushed, the prophet-zealot-preacher vomit.
They called the woman strumpet, slut, harlot,
Branding her with words of flaming scarlet
(Never respite for the hand-made varlet):
Burn her on a faggot, make her Starlet!
They called the woman harlot, strumpet, slut,
Then left her but a tithe of their own cut.
--
- by Dennis M. Hammes and George Dance
+z+
"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:266bde3f-25bc-4da4...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> george, you really shouldn't talk about gamble that way...he really is a
> nice slut...just ask his strumpet wells...
+z+
msifg
"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:266bde3f-25bc-4da4...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
haha-
cool!
a collaboration with dennis the menace.
that's a gift for all of us to enjoy
to be sure.
thanks for sharing.
Will Dockery
"msifg" wrote:
> "George Dance" wrote:
>
> > Hollywood Slut
> >
> > They called the woman strumpet, harlot, slut:
> > Words of nuts designed to stab and cut,
> > Toilet language snippets spread like smut,
> > No chance to find out what or to rebut.
> >
> > They called the woman slut, harlet, strumpet,
> > Blasted from the pulpits like a trumpet:
> > From every jealous Dick and peeping Tom, it
> > Gushed, the prophet-zealot-preacher vomit.
> >
> > They called the woman strumpet, slut, harlot,
> > Branding her with words of flaming scarlet
> > (Never respite for the hand-made varlet):
> > Burn her on a faggot, make her Starlet!
> >
> > They called the woman harlot, strumpet, slut,
> > Then left her but a tithe of their own cut.
> >
> > --
> > - by Dennis M. Hammes and George Dance
>
> haha-
> cool!
> a collaboration with dennis the menace.
> that's a gift for all of us to enjoy
> to be sure.
> thanks for sharing.
A collector's item... with "228" perhaps his final poem?
--
"Twilight Girl" and other song-poems by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
George Dance
wrote:
HS was written much earlier, back in the first half of 2007, back when
Dennis was still teaching me; but I think it is a collectors' item.
For one thing, it's so different unconventional for him, so different
from his own sonnets - it has its own rhyme scheme, and most of the
lines are only 9 syllables, it's a 'message' poem, it has a title,
etc. Most of that was my idea, and I found it amazing that he not only
didn't try to change it, but wrote within it; it shows a side to his
talent that won't be found anywhere else.
Second, there's some amazing writing in there. I did learn a lot from
watching how he rewrote lines and added new ones, and seeing the
improvements before my eyes. He built in some great consonance -- the
p's in S2 and t's in S3 -- just read it out loud and watch them pop
out.
I could go on and on about each line he wrote, but I'll limit it to
one example that shows his talent; the rhyme in LL7-8:
From every jealous Dick and peeping Tom, it
Gushed, the prophet-zealot-preacher vomit.
The problem here was to come up with a rhyme for 'vomit'. First,
Dennis moved 'vomit' to L8, so it looks like the rhyme we came up
with, rather than the word to be rhymed. That's just standard good
writing; but look at what Dennis came up to rhyme it with! Because
"Tom" works so well there, on so many levels (from "Tom, Dick, and
Harry" to the Lady Godiva association), the reader can see that "Tom"
has to be the word used there -- that "it" has to be pulled up from
the next line, just to make it scan -- and therefore "vomit" has to be
the rhyme the poet came up with: a truly inspired rhyme, rather than
the word we were looking to fit in. And look what pulling "it" up did
for "Gushed"; it becomes the first word, and gets capitalized; the
second-most prominent word in the line after "vomit".
Dennis was a master craftsman, and one can learn a lot about the craft
by reading his poems.
George Dance
This might be a place to sneak in a lecture for the casual reader. The
most important word in a line of poetry -- the keyword -- is the end-
word; that's the first reason for breaking a line one way. The problem
is that, in a rhymed poem, keywords are severely limited. The problem
is solved by initial capitalization, which builds in a second set of
keywords, at the beginning of each line.
I'd like to draw attention to how the two keywords work in Hollywood
Slut to give the poem's message:
They slut:
Words cut.
Toilet smut,
No rebut.
They strumpet,
Blasted trumpet.
From it
Gushed vomit.
They harlot,
Branding scarlet
(Never varlet):
Burn Starlet!
They slut,
Then cut.
msifg
On Jan 9, 9:11 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
This might be a place to sneak in a lecture for the casual reader. The
most important word in a line of poetry -- the keyword -- is the end-
word; that's the first reason for breaking a line one way. The problem
is that, in a rhymed poem, keywords are severely limited. The problem
is solved by initial capitalization, which builds in a second set of
keywords, at the beginning of each line.
*that's fine.
"lesson" acknowledged.
i enjoyed the poem, also.
however, the reason i enjoyed it was
because it was a good read.
in all honesty, i really don't care how
it got that way.
sharing the "secret" recipe, which i know
you're now going to claim is no "secret,"
doesn't change the fact that it's a good
poem. also, it's not necessarily going
to make me a better writer.
(i tried putting thousand island
dressing in my hamburger to make
it taste like mcdonalds. it didn't
work.)
this, in turn, points to some of the
main issues i, and some others, had
with hammes. he was intolerant
of any deviation from the "rules"
he deemed necessary to follow in
creative writing. that, to me, is
fine if one is attempting to make
a living at writing poetry. however,
for posting on a crappy forum where
shitheads and assholes come and
lay there eggs of indignation on
a regular bases, i'd rather just get
heartfelt creative writing.
if i want to read professional poetry,
i know where to go. if i want to
read fun and entertaining creative
writing mixed with banter, well,
hi- my name is matt, glad to meetchya.
Will Dockery
"msifg" wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:11 am, George Dance wrote:
>
> This might be a place to sneak in a lecture for the casual reader. The
> most important word in a line of poetry -- the keyword -- is the end-
> word; that's the first reason for breaking a line one way. The problem
> is that, in a rhymed poem, keywords are severely limited. The problem
> is solved by initial capitalization, which builds in a second set of
> keywords, at the beginning of each line.
>
> *that's fine.
> "lesson" acknowledged.
Likewise and "what he sEd.", to quote the late great Uncle.
> i enjoyed the poem, also.
> however, the reason i enjoyed it was
> because it was a good read.
Bottom line, always.
> in all honesty, i really don't care how
> it got that way.
> sharing the "secret" recipe, which i know
> you're now going to claim is no "secret,"
> doesn't change the fact that it's a good
> poem. also, it's not necessarily going
> to make me a better writer.
>
> (i tried putting thousand island
> dressing in my hamburger to make
> it taste like mcdonalds. it didn't
> work.)
And since the last time I tried to eat a McDonalds I had to toss it out into
the traffic...
> this, in turn, points to some of the
> main issues i, and some others, had
> with hammes. he was intolerant
> of any deviation from the "rules"
> he deemed necessary to follow in
> creative writing. that, to me, is
> fine if one is attempting to make
> a living at writing poetry. however,
Actually, it seems to be the opposite of what makes a "best selling" poet,
as detailed below, somewhat.
> for posting on a crappy forum where
> shitheads and assholes come and
> lay there eggs of indignation on
> a regular bases, i'd rather just get
> heartfelt creative writing.
As I've written many times (a better flamestarter than fatlighter*) poetry
without /emotion/, no matter how well crafted, is an empty shell:
"You've nailed the problem with "poets" who beat their heads against the
wall with "form" yet always fall short on "content"... which has led him
into a rut of being able to write nothing but "well crafted" pieces of
garbage [...] A "poet" with nothing to say, grandstanding on "form"... while
desperately churning out work that lacks content, perhaps reflecting his own
lack of ideas and imagination. Without these elements, the poem is only an
empty shell--- a very well made, even pretty shell, perhaps, but vacant, and
lifeless..."
Not that I have anything against learning "forms", and in fact have slowly
been doing that, but you have something to say and the guts to lay out how
you feel, even if it breaks loose from that rigid line.
> if i want to read professional poetry,
> i know where to go. if i want to
> read fun and entertaining creative
> writing mixed with banter, well,
> hi- my name is matt, glad to meetchya.
Well, if it ain't entertaining and creative, then it ain't really
"professional", really. A real pro would be able to do both, and sell it...
otherwise the poetry remains the craftwork of a hobbyist.
"Hollywood Slut" seems to nail it on both levels, though.
*Fatlighter http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Fatwood
"...Fatwood and fatlighter are slang expressions which have been used in the
South for many, many years to describe the amount of pitch (resin) in the
pine wood. fatwood/fatlighter is the wood that is cut from the base of the
pine tree, which has captured the resin from the trunk of the tree. Stumps
that are left in the forest are cut by hand with a saw and ax to produce
fatwood..."
Anyway, gotta match? (photo below... heh...)
George Dance
> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:815908fe-350c-4fe8...@m22g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 9:11 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> This might be a place to sneak in a lecture for the casual reader. The
> most important word in a line of poetry -- the keyword -- is the end-
> word; that's the first reason for breaking a line one way. The problem
> is that, in a rhymed poem, keywords are severely limited. The problem
> is solved by initial capitalization, which builds in a second set of
> keywords, at the beginning of each line.
>
> *that's fine.
> "lesson" acknowledged.
> i enjoyed the poem, also.
> however, the reason i enjoyed it was
> because it was a good read.
> in all honesty, i really don't care how
> it got that way.
> sharing the "secret" recipe, which i know
> you're now going to claim is no "secret,"
> doesn't change the fact that it's a good
> poem. also, it's not necessarily going
> to make me a better writer.
>
No, not necessarily; but I'm convinced that learning it made me a
better writer, and I want to share what I've been learning.
Unfortunately, this stuff is a "secret" -- something that's never
really talked about either because (1) everybody knows it or (2) no
one's actually thought of it.
There used to be a published poet here called Lexi McHugh, who posted
as "Vera". She was the one that first drew my attention to end-words;
from that I got the idea of the poem's backbone -- the line of
keywords at the end of the lines. That single backbone works fine for
short open-form lines -- it's the only trick I used in "The
Workers ...", and you see how well it worked there. But I'm just
starting to see the importance of a second backbone, of first words,
in longer lines (whether rhymed or not).
> (i tried putting thousand island
> dressing in my hamburger to make
> it taste like mcdonalds. it didn't
> work.)
>
> this, in turn, points to some of the
> main issues i, and some others, had
> with hammes. he was intolerant
> of any deviation from the "rules"
> he deemed necessary to follow in
> creative writing. that, to me, is
> fine if one is attempting to make
> a living at writing poetry. however,
> for posting on a crappy forum where
> shitheads and assholes come and
> lay there eggs of indignation on
> a regular bases, i'd rather just get
> heartfelt creative writing.
>
Well, I don't see them as rules but as tools; they're tricks or
techniques poets worked out through the years as the best way of doing
this or that. They're there to be used, but also to be ignored when
there's a reason to ignore them.
> if i want to read professional poetry,
> i know where to go. if i want to
> read fun and entertaining creative
> writing mixed with banter, well,
> hi- my name is matt, glad to meetchya.
Likewise, and I hope there'll be much more of the second. But I'll be
talking about the writing process itself, mainly, because that what
I'm mainly interested in. (That's the same reason, BTW, that I keep
posting the multiple revisions of my poems onto aapc; another habit
that bugs the hell out of some readers. 8)
msifg
"Will Dockery" <will-dock...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:3c8b5$496a53e6$4b4c71e9$23...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> "msifg" wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 9:11 am, George Dance wrote:
>>
> As I've written many times (a better flamestarter than fatlighter*) poetry
> without /emotion/, no matter how well crafted, is an empty shell:
>
> "You've nailed the problem with "poets" who beat their heads against the
> wall with "form" yet always fall short on "content"... which has led him
> into a rut of being able to write nothing but "well crafted" pieces of
> garbage [...] A "poet" with nothing to say, grandstanding on "form"...
> while
> desperately churning out work that lacks content, perhaps reflecting his
> own
> lack of ideas and imagination. Without these elements, the poem is only an
> empty shell--- a very well made, even pretty shell, perhaps, but vacant,
> and
> lifeless..."
well put.
>
> Not that I have anything against learning "forms", and in fact have slowly
> been doing that, but you have something to say and the guts to lay out how
> you feel, even if it breaks loose from that rigid line.
>
>> if i want to read professional poetry,
>> i know where to go. if i want to
>> read fun and entertaining creative
>> writing mixed with banter, well,
>> hi- my name is matt, glad to meetchya.
>
> Well, if it ain't entertaining and creative, then it ain't really
> "professional", really. A real pro would be able to do both, and sell
> it...
> otherwise the poetry remains the craftwork of a hobbyist.
>
> "Hollywood Slut" seems to nail it on both levels, though.
>
> *Fatlighter http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Fatwood
>
> "...Fatwood and fatlighter are slang expressions which have been used in
> the
> South for many, many years to describe the amount of pitch (resin) in the
> pine wood. fatwood/fatlighter is the wood that is cut from the base of the
> pine tree, which has captured the resin from the trunk of the tree. Stumps
> that are left in the forest are cut by hand with a saw and ax to produce
> fatwood..."
>
> Anyway, gotta match? (photo below... heh...)
>
interesting insight.
thanks for sharing.
msifg
On Jan 11, 12:27 am, "msifg" <gime...@cox.net> wrote:
> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
<snipped for no particular reason>
> if i want to read professional poetry,
> i know where to go. if i want to
> read fun and entertaining creative
> writing mixed with banter, well,
> hi- my name is matt, glad to meetchya.
Likewise, and I hope there'll be much more of the second. But I'll be
talking about the writing process itself, mainly, because that what
I'm mainly interested in. (That's the same reason, BTW, that I keep
posting the multiple revisions of my poems onto aapc; another habit
that bugs the hell out of some readers. 8)
*yeah-
one of the reasons i keep posting music and lyrics is to
keep the process moving. it's all creative and it should
all be shared. hammes used to get annoyed when dockery
would share his lyrics. i'm the opposite. it's art and
that's it. please share whatever you've got. i'm interested
because it ALWAYS helps me grow as an artist, if i can
claim that title.
Will Dockery
Hey, this is some great stuff... do you mind if I excerpt and include
it in the Dennis Hammes Wikibio, or maybe add it yourself?
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Dennis_M._Hammes
BTW, there's sections for what Hammes considered his major works there
already, which need to be filled in, if anyone has a favorite they
want to cover:
==Books==
*[[The Wild Goose Goes]]
*[[By the Sword]]
*[[Love Poems for the Incompetent]]
*[[Sonnet]]s To [[Eurydice]]
*[[Haiku| Haiku I]]
*[[Haiku II]]
*[[Haiku III]]
*[[Occupation]]
==Chaps==
*[[Offices]]
*[[One Gallon (Four Quarts)]]
*[[Starch Wars]]
*[[Crazy Jinn Talks with the Bishop]]
*[[Crazy Jinn Meets the Bishop]]
==Handbooks==
*[[Prosody]]
*[[Analytical Depression]]
==Essays==
*[[The Iliad]] as [[Bible]]
*[[James Joyce]]: [[Portrait of the Artist as a Very Small Boy]]
*[[Racine]]: [[Andromache]]
*[[Shake or Bake?]]
*[[Who Wasted Which Land?]] A view of [[T.S. Eliot]]
msifg
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1de49346-ef89-4a79...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Dennis_M._Hammes
this is very very nice of you Will.
considering that if the tables were turned, it is
VERY doubtful hammes would've had the same consideration.
not that i want to bring up negative things while mr. hammes'
body is still warm. however, people should know the generousity
of Will Dockery.
esp. those so quick to judge him for whatever reason.
actually-
fuck it!
let's go there.
after all of the insults, ridicule and disrespect mr. hammes
leveled at Will Dockery live on usenet, who turned out to
be the better man?
you MUST ask yourself this question if you call yourself a man.
whoever you are!
and FUCK all of this "hammes was ten times the writer as dockery"
bullshit some of you might be thinking.
we don't judge art.
we don't compare expression.
we don't place ourselves in competition with our fellow artists
unless we're going for the big bucks and they're in the way.
usenet costs NOTHING!
there should be NO competition.
this would be a good time for all you dockery haters to
reconsider your bullshit. look at compassion and tolerance
of this man. look at the proof right here!
ask yourself-
do you even have an OUNCE of that?
one fucking ounce!
i wish i did.
thanks again Will.
you're a usenet legend.
Will Dockery
> "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:b1936f3f-646e-4d1a...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 11, 12:27 am, "msifg" <gime...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> <snipped for no particular reason>
>
> > if i want to read professional poetry,
> > i know where to go. if i want to
> > read fun and entertaining creative
> > writing mixed with banter, well,
> > hi- my name is matt, glad to meetchya.
>
> Likewise, and I hope there'll be much more of the second. But I'll be
> talking about the writing process itself, mainly, because that what
> I'm mainly interested in. (That's the same reason, BTW, that I keep
> posting the multiple revisions of my poems onto aapc; another habit
> that bugs the hell out of some readers. 8)
>
> *yeah-
> one of the reasons i keep posting music and lyrics is to
> keep the process moving. it's all creative and it should
> all be shared. hammes used to get annoyed when dockery
> would share his lyrics. i'm the opposite. it's art and
> that's it. please share whatever you've got. i'm interested
> because it ALWAYS helps me grow as an artist, if i can
> claim that title.
Exactly the concept I've always used whenever /I/ hosted, rather than
other hosts, who handle it as they see fit, they take it on their
shoulders and they have the right, various poetry readings and open
mics over the years. Give people some space to create, rather than
shutting off the flow to where poets are afraid to post something that
might not pass the Gasfly Gamble test.
--
Will Dockery factsheet:
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Will_Dockery
George Dance
> On Jan 10, 9:42 pm, George Dance wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 12:33 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
> > > "msifg" wrote:
> > > > "George Dance" wrote:
>
> > > > > Hollywood Slut
Sure; you can use anything I say about him online. I won't commit to
writing anything; I haven't even written anything in my entry, though
I keep thinking about it off and on.
I read "Shake or Bake?" the other day. It's a look at the argument
about who authored Shakespeare's plays. Dennis argues that the real
author was a Catholic noble, which explains why the plays were never
copyrighted (Catholics weren't allowed to own copyrights at the time,
he tells us.) An interesting look at the evidence.
I'm in the middle of "Who Wasted Which Land?" right now.
msifg
*oh my lord-
there's a test?
i think i would like to fail it.
miserably!
Will Dockery
"msifg" <gim...@cox.net> wrote:
Wow, just saw this, and thanks for the kind words... you're gonna be really
hated around here, y'know?
Heh... as Uncle Dennis would say:
"We know."
Will Dockery
<having quoting (>>>) problems here again>
A photograph of you on the page would be interesting... since you're a
public figure and a longtime part of Canadian politics, there's most likely
one or two out there, although I haven't looked yet.
Do you mind if I snag one for the biography?
Anyway, I'll copy-n-paste your comments above with attribution to George
Dance, then, and perhaps others, if you come up with any others:
George Dance
wrote:
No, if you can find one. There's one I'd ask you to not use: the
picture that appears on some of my Bulletin columns. That was a candid
taken by a party member, and I look like shit. I haven't been able to
find any others.
I have one fairly good black and white, that I used when I was Ontario
LP leader; if I can find the original, I can ask my wife to scan it in
and send it to you for the page.
> Anyway, I'll copy-n-paste your comments above with attribution to George
> Dance, then, and perhaps others, if you come up with any others:
>
Cool. I'm gonna go have a look.
Will Dockery
Heh... I saw that one, looked pretty cool to me, but anyone who
follows the link to the newsletter from the bio will find that one,
anyhow. The one you mention below would be good -and unique to the
Wiki- so send it and I'll put it up, or you could just load it
yourself if you want to.
> I have one fairly good black and white, that I used when I was Ontario
> LP leader; if I can find the original, I can ask my wife to scan it in
> and send it to you for the page.
>
> > Anyway, I'll copy-n-paste your comments above with attribution to George
> > Dance, then, and perhaps others, if you come up with any others:
>
> Cool. I'm gonna go have a look.
>
> > >http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Dennis_M._Hammes
Haven't been there in a couple of days, but, again, the page is open
for anyone to add to.
> > I read "Shake or Bake?" the other day. It's a look at the argument
> > about who authored Shakespeare's plays. Dennis argues that the real
> > author was a Catholic noble, which explains why the plays were never
> > copyrighted (Catholics weren't allowed to own copyrights at the time,
> > he tells us.) An interesting look at the evidence.
>
> > I'm in the middle of "Who Wasted Which Land?" right now.
I'll probably add your bit on "Shake or Bake" as a sort of capsule
description there, when I get back...
Will Dockery
"msifg" wrote:
> "Will Dockery" wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 4:55 pm, "msifg" wrote:
>>> "George Dance" wrote:
>>>> On Jan 11, 12:27 am, "msifg" wrote:
Considering Gary Gasfly's entire vocabulary consists of little more than
"jeezuz fuck" & "what the fuck is wrong with you?", the fool is hardly in
any position to give any tests, anyhow...
Will Dockery
Heh, thanks... I seem to have been on a roll that day, must have been
something in the coffee...
--
"Twilight Girl" and other new poetry & music from Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery