Re: Opal by Amy Lowell

[Hieronymous707]

On Nov 13, 12:24 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Hieronymous707" <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > respond
> > completely, honestly, and in your own words? Thanks.
>
> I did exactly that at the start of this thread:

No, you honestly didn't, and now you've removed the context of my
previous comment. Why do that? Why not just say why you like the way
she writes like I asked instead of all this round and round stuff
which has nothing to do with the poem? Why not just talk about why you
like the poem? Why is that such an apparently inappropriate question?
I still don't get it.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> No, you honestly didn't

I say I did, you say I didn't.

Now which of us do you expect me to believe, Corey?

I gave my comment, /twice/, it turns out:

>> What do you like about it?
>
> The way she writes.

--
Over You / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars
http://youtu.be/4rvCp_xzWH8

[Hieronymous707]

On Nov 13, 12:42 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> > No, you honestly didn't
>
> I say I did, you say I didn't.
>
> Now which of us do you expect me to believe, Corey?
>
> I gave my comment, /twice/, it turns out:
>
> >> What do you like about it?
>
> > The way she writes.

Why do you insist on making this sound like an argument? It's not. I
simply asked you why you like the way she writes. That's all. You
still haven't answered. Why?

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> I simply asked you why you like the way she writes. That's all. You
>
> still haven't answered. Why?

I like her style, I like the way she uses images and phrasing, and I like
the way she puts it all together into a poem.

Like I said... mighty fine.

> You are ice and fire,
> The touch of you burns my hands like snow.
> You are cold and flame.
> You are the crimson of amaryllis,
> The silver of moon-touched magnolias.
> When I am with you,
> My heart is a frozen pond
> Gleaming with agitated torches.
-Amy Lowell

[Hieronymous707]

Can you be any more generic and less specific? Why do you make asking
you what you think about a poem feel like pulling teeth? Shouldn't it
be something you like to do, especially here?

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:

> "Will Dockery" wrote:
>
> > I like her style, I like the way she uses images and phrasing, and I
> > like
>
> > the way she puts it all together into a poem.
>
> > Like I said... mighty fine.
>
> > > You are ice and fire,
>
> > > The touch of you burns my hands like snow.
>
> > > You are cold and flame.
>
> > > You are the crimson of amaryllis,
>
> > > The silver of moon-touched magnolias.
>
> > > When I am with you,
>
> > > My heart is a frozen pond
>
> > > Gleaming with agitated torches.
>
> > -Amy Lowell
>

> Can you be any more generic and less specific? Why do you make asking
>
> you what you think about a poem feel like pulling teeth? Shouldn't it
>
> be something you like to do, especially here?

I wrote earlier:

No time right now, sorry.

Did you miss that?

When I have time to go more into depth, I might... right now, no.

[Hieronymous707]

Right. That was at 9:58 this morning, and you've posted I don't know
how many times sense then. It's now early afternoon and you're still
saying you don't have time right now. I don't understand that. What
kind of time do you need to put a couple of detailed thoughts together
and into words here? Why the one liners? What not write a complete
paragraph?

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>"Will Dockery" wrote:
>
> > > > I like her style, I like the way she uses images and phrasing, and I
> > > > like
> > > > the way she puts it all together into a poem.
>
> > > > Like I said... mighty fine.
>
> > > > > You are ice and fire,
>
> >
>
> > > > > The touch of you burns my hands like snow.
>
> >
>
> > > > > You are cold and flame.
>
> >
>
> > > > > You are the crimson of amaryllis,
>
> >
>
> > > > > The silver of moon-touched magnolias.
>
> >
>
> > > > > When I am with you,
>
> >
>
> > > > > My heart is a frozen pond
>
> >
>
> > > > > Gleaming with agitated torches.
>
> >
>
> > > > -Amy Lowell

>

> > When I have time to go more into depth, I might... right now, no.
>

> Right. That was at 9:58 this morning, and you've posted I don't know
>
> how many times sense then. It's now early afternoon and you're still
>
> saying you don't have time right now. I don't understand that. What
>
> kind of time do you need to put a couple of detailed thoughts together
>
> and into words here? Why the one liners? What not write a complete
>
> paragraph?

I'm setting up a last minute interview with Kirsten Dunn for either a few minutes from now, or early tomorrow.

I'm popping back here also because this is "home".

I'm also working with a dozen musicians and others to get the World AIDS Concert nailed... song lists, questions, and so on.

And on... lots of questions, lots of songs, chords, words, links to songs.

I'm also doin a couple of real life things out in the yard, mainly stepping put and telling Patrick what needs to be done out back by the shed.

I'm also discussing with Brother Dave about getting an oil change and paying the electric bill before an Atlanta trip later this week.

I'm also chatting with a lady about giving me a shot of pussy later tonight.

I'm also planning to perform a set at the SoHo open mic and discussing this with Jack Snipe and Brian Mallard who may or may not join me.

And a coiple other things.

So... if you knew what

"No time now, later."

was all about you'd have a bit of patience.

But, no... not you, am I right?

Heh...

That was fun.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> We all multi-task, Will.

I don't know about "we all", but I sure do, although I usually don't tend to post about it.

When I do get a chance, there's several things I'd like to mull and figure out for myself about "Opal", such as the obvious homage/parody of Frost's poem comparing fire & ice (which is in turn a reference to the Norse Ragnarok, Twilight of the Gods, Frost Giants, Surtur, and so on)... or is his the homage/parody? I know he and Ezra Pound were sometimes known to be up to these shenanigans.

When I get time... what I'm getting from Amy's poem will take me a few moments, and there's not eough time or energy for it right now.

What do you think of Opal?

--
Music & poetry by Will Dockery:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:08:03 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> I think Opal is a homoerotic jewel.

I'm reminded right now of a Patti Smith line from "Horses"... "Where there were eyes there were two white opals..."

--
"Way Back Home" by Sandy Madaris
http://youtu.be/1LetBCcfrb8

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:54:34 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> I don't know what that means exactly, no point of reference. It's nice to
> know that you like something, but what makes reading you interesting is
> why you like or dislike something. One liner replies are frustrating for
> me when they don't sufficiently convey the intent of the author. I know
> you. I like you. I get frustrated reading you. That's just me.

Okay, I apologize for that, and have a slight bit more time to explore this
fascinating and, I admit, difficult to /pin/ down poem... I like the poem
as-is, as a stand alone, and I like the poem for the memories of other poems
and memories of fire and ice, and similar imagery, myth and so on.

But mainly, as I wrote earlier, I like the way she writes, the way she puts
all that together, mighty fine.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:53:44 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> If Amy Lowell was a cunt, Opal would be her clit.

Good one.

My thought as I was sleeping was that Amy Lowell is Liz Phair to Robert Frost's Rolling Stones.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:35:02 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> You'll have to explain that one. I recognize the names, but don't get your association of them. Lowell was a lesbo. Liz isn't. Both make my list of Womenists. I got lost at Robert Frost.

I sure will, maybe even today.

Looks like my plans to work on the land out back by the shed might be delayed today, looks like rain is coming again, and is pretty chilly for Georgia-Alabama in November. Anywhere else it might seems like snow was possible, but not here in the Chattahoochee Valley, not here under the radar.

--
Music & poetry from Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/shadowvilleallstars

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous707", wrote:

*** Well, yes I do, when I can... but I have the feeling you know exactly
how difficult this poem is to /pin down/, judging from the completely
minimalist commentary you yourself have made on the poem, besides the fact
that it was you who posted it, and again, without comment.

--
Poetry and music of Will Dockery:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6bfa1d5-8956-4680...@googlegroups.com...

> You'll have to explain that one. I recognize the names, but don't get your
> association of them. Lowell was a lesbo. Liz isn't. Both make my list of
> Womenists. I got lost at Robert Frost.

Getting there... I made it to the Liz Phair YouTube collection, anyhow...

http://youtu.be/t2akK4tYSwY

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:10:06 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> You have a feeling I'm asking you to do something difficult because I had difficulty myself.

No, that's not it at all.

I simply observed that you haven't really commented on "Opal" yourself... for whatever reason.

I have no problem commenting on a vast variety of interests... but I refuse to be brow beat into such a situation... as anyone who knows me, or any intellectual level.

I like the poem, the chick Amy writes good, and that's that.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> Of course I could be wrong.

Wow, you think?

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> Odd. I really, really thought I'd expressed my opinion and commented on
> both the poem and Ms. Lowell succinctly, and with remarkable specificity.
> Sorry. My bad.

You did okay, but then again I think I did okay, also.

Go figure.

> You are ice and fire,
> The touch of you burns my hands like snow.
> You are cold and flame.
> You are the crimson of amaryllis,
> The silver of moon-touched magnolias.
> When I am with you,
> My heart is a frozen pond
> Gleaming with agitated torches.

-Amy Lowell

[Will Dockery]

[Hieronymous707]

On Nov 17, 12:17 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> > Odd. I really, really thought I'd expressed my opinion and commented on
> > both the poem and Ms. Lowell succinctly, and  with remarkable specificity.
> > Sorry. My bad.
>
> You did okay, but then again I think I did okay, also.
>
> Go figure.

Okay is just okay. I figure I'm okay you're okay. Everything's okay
here. I figure my kind of okay is succinctly specific, as opposed to
your kind of okay which is more specifically general and non-specific.
That's how we know which is which so other people don't get us
confused. I hate when that happens.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> You'll have to explain that one. I recognize the names, but don't get your
> association of them. Lowell was a lesbo.
> Liz isn't. Both make my list of Womenists. I got lost at Robert Frost.

I've a hunch one poet influenced the other.

I may not have time to explain that today, but it seems pretty obvious to
me.

[Hieronymous707]

On Nov 17, 12:58 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I may not have time to explain that today

LOL. So what else is new?

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:53:47 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:

People usually mistake me for P.D. Wilson when we're both online, so I can
relate.

But, yeah... my kind of Okay is wide ranging and has depth, takes some time
to get to the heart of the matter, where your kind of Okay is more of the
one-liner, superficial toss off, and I can see how those two approaches can
get easily confused by the Casual Reader.

As the kids say "It all be good, man."

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:01:29 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:

> On Nov 17, 12:58 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
>
> > I may not have time to explain that today
>
> LOL. So what else is new?

A lot of things are new down this way!

[Hieronymous707]

You see what you want to see.
You clearly don't see clearly.

[Hieronymous707]

On Nov 17, 1:15 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:01:29 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 12:58 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
>
> > > I may not have time to explain that today
>
> > LOL. So what else is new?
>
> A lot of things are new down this way!

You don't have to explain if you don't have time. Same shit, different
day.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:

> > People usually mistake me for P.D. Wilson when we're both online, so I
> > can
>
> > relate.
>
> >
>
> > But, yeah... my kind of Okay is wide ranging and has depth, takes some
> > time
>
> > to get to the heart of the matter, where your kind of Okay is more of
> > the
>
> > one-liner, superficial toss off, and I can see how those two approaches
> > can
>
> > get easily confused by the Casual Reader.
>
> >
>
> > As the kids say "It all be good, man."
>
> >
>

> > --
>
> > Over You / Will Dockery & The Shadowville
> > All-Stars:http://youtu.be/4rvCp_xzWH8
>
>
>

> You see what you want to see.
>
> You clearly don't see clearly.

Odd that I percieve you in almost the same way, isn't it, Corey?

I'm often perplexed by all the things I point out here that you insist you
"don't understand".

[ggamble]

On 17-Nov-2012, "Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've
> I
> me.
>

[ggamble]

On 17-Nov-2012, "Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm often perplexed

[Chuck Lysaght]

Gamble. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Will Dockery]

"ggamble" bitter-...@regretsofnam.net wrote in message
news:--ydnWVLCNkuRjrN...@giganews.com...
>
> > I've
>
> > I
>
> > me.

Tell me, Oh Gassy One, how would /you/ refer to yourself in the first
person?

I'm waiting... heh.

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous707" <hirunny...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da04a9de-043d-44c8...@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 17, 1:15 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:01:29 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 12:58 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
>
> > > I may not have time to explain that today
>
> > LOL. So what else is new?
>
> A lot of things are new down this way!

You don't have to explain if you don't have time. Same shit, different
day.

*** I've explained a lot, and you're following me so far, right?

Does the Amy Lowell is Liz Phair to Robert Frost's Rolling Stones analogy
work for you yet?

Think early days of Liz, that might help... I became a fans as soon as
possible, and that analogy was one thing that led me to her, besides the
fact that she was white hot cool with a smouldering center, crazy sexy cool.

More later, finally... it has taken me /twenty years/ to find time to write
about Liz Phair, and I loved every second of the wait.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:26:47 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> If you don't have time, you don't have time. No need to explain. No problem. I've got other things to do too. Forget it.

I don't want to forget it, just want to come back to it as time permits.

More enjoyable that way, I feel.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:51:22 PM UTC-5, Chuck Lysaght wrote:
> Gamble. What the fuck is wrong with you?

His main problems seem to be his writer's block and OCD.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:48:56 PM UTC-5, ggamble wrote:
>
> > I'm often perplexed

Obviously.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:42:53 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> More enjoyable, you feel. Right. Go play with yourself.

No time for anything like that... gotta hit the road shortly, to promote the big show on December First.

Wish me luck?

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:46:38 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> R run yj tubyumzvnrbyn eklg. P. r pig. Oi. Gegin Eli. outg to

Wow... that's certainly over my head.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:57:46 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> Sdndiwhwrwrcwrcwconwvowjrvnerovunwrvowurarovunwrwrc wriucnwrcouweucnew

Good one!

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a8dfd79-4e99-4d3c...@googlegroups.com...
> I don't know what that means exactly, no point of reference. It's nice to
> know that you like something, but what
> makes reading you interesting is why you like or dislike something. One
> liner replies are frustrating for me when they
> don't sufficiently convey the intent of the author. I know you. I like
> you. I get frustrated reading you. That's just me.

Sorry about that... jsut my working method sometimes...

I'll nail this one yet, though, perhaps tonight.

--
Twilight Girl / Will Dockery & Henry Conley:
http://youtu.be/BYETTK16jQI

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a6bfa1d5-8956-4680...@googlegroups.com...

> You'll have to explain that one. I recognize the names, but don't get your
> association of them. Lowell was a lesbo.
> Liz isn't. Both make my list of Womenists. I got lost at Robert Frost.

Here's a quick bit on the relationship between Liz Phair and The Stones, and
then soon I'll get nack to Amy and Robert, see if yo follow me to this
point, okay:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/he-said-she-said-how-liz-phair-took-the-rolling-stones-to-guyville-20100521

"...Phair claimed that "Exile in Guyville" was designed as a song-by-song
"answer" or "response" to the Rolling Stones' decadent 1972 epic, "Exile on
Main Street."..."

I see a similar possibilty happening between Amy's "Opal" and Frost's "Fire
and Ice"... more later.

--
Music & Poetry of Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Will Dockery]

And you don't have such a "problem"... do you?

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous707" wrote:
>
> LOL. So what else is new?

Well, this is new to me, found while researching an old favorite from the
early 1990s:

http://pitchfork.com/news/39441-liz-phair-new-album-lost-me-my-management-and-my-record-deal/

"But here is the thing you need to know about these songs and the ones
coming next: These are all me. Love them, or hate them, but don't mistake
them for anything other than an entirely personal,
un-tethered-from-the-machine, free for all view of the world, refracted
through my own crazy lens. This is my journey. I'll keep sending you
postcards." -Liz Phair

I do love me some Liz.

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:6b0e40df-b65c-46ce...@googlegroups.com...
>
> What do you like about it?

The fire, the ice, the pure white opal glimmering with pearl jam, and in
general I just dig her style.

--
Gone Too Far / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery/song/11596860-gone-too-far--dockery-mallard-snipe

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> You are ice and fire,
>
> The touch of you burns my hands like snow.
>
> You are cold and flame.
>
> You are the crimson of amaryllis,
>
> The silver of moon-touched magnolias.
>
> When I am with you,
>
> My heart is a frozen pond
>
> Gleaming with agitated torches.

To recap:

Look for "Opal" by Amy Lowell... Seems to me to be an "answer poem" of sorts to "Fire & Ice"...

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/fire-and-ice/

Amy Lowell did it with "Opal", Patti Smith, Liz Phair, Jim Morrison, Dylan Thomas and Rimbaud (to name a few favorite poets) did it.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:54:34 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> I don't know what that means exactly, no point of reference. It's nice to know that you like something, but what makes reading you interesting is why you like or dislike something. One liner replies are frustrating for me when they don't sufficiently convey the intent of the author. I know you. I like you. I get frustrated reading you. That's just me.

Yeah, probably very similar to the effect some of the things you post here have on some perople, such as:

"The poem is good simply because I think it good, and because it made me feel good. It satisfies my aesthetic sense of good." -Corey

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:07:37 PM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> "I'll try to explain when I get more time."
>
>
>
> Bzzzzzz

As opposed to your method of no explanation at all, of course.

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 2:37:21 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> Bzzzzzz

Would it help if I ask what your problem is this time?

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 2:57:09 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> "SSDD"

"We know."

[Chuck Lysaght]

Still an asshole, Corey?

[Chuck Lysaght]

Yup. I guess you still are.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
> "Will Dockery" wrote:
>

> I've explained a lot, and you're following me so far, right?
>
> Does the Amy Lowell is Liz Phair to Robert Frost's Rolling Stones analogy work for you yet?
>
> Think early days of Liz, that might help... I became a fan as soon as
> possible, and that analogy was one thing that led me to her, besides the
> fact that she was white hot cool with a smoldering center, crazy sexy cool.
>
> More later, finally... it has taken me /twenty years/ to find time to write
> about Liz Phair, and I loved every second of the wait.

Some of my thoughts and writings on Liz Phair, if anyone is interested, or disputes my love of her work.

--
Shadowville Speedway CD / Will Dockery & Henry Conley:
http://artemisrecords.net/wp/will-dockery/

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 at 11:23:02 AM UTC-5, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> You are ice and fire,
> The touch of you burns my hands like snow.
> You are cold and flame.
> You are the crimson of amaryllis,
> The silver of moon-touched magnolias.
> When I am with you,
> My heart is a frozen pond
> Gleaming with agitated torches.

I'm unimpressed.

The "poem" is a series of short descriptive sentences that appear to be paradoxical, but that are really just various images of "whiteness." An opal is white. Her lover reminds her of an opal: fire and ice, flashing hot and cold, yaddayaddayadda.

The concept expressed by last three lines is the only worthwhile thing in the piece, and would work well in a short story, novel, or Valentine's Day card.

With a little metrical modification, it would work well in a poem, too.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> > "I'm sure that George found the use of the word "Maeve", and you explaining it, interesting... the rest of PJR's poem I have no idea yet, but another word for an "intoxicating" chick is always good to have... if it makes any sense to modern readers/audiences. "
> >
> > Peter likes people to think he's smart. That's because he's spent a lot of time getting smart, and is very proud of how smart he is, so a lot of his poetry reflects how studious he's been by requiring his readers to go look up his obscure references indicating how smart he is. Personally, I don't care how smart he is. I find it distracting.
>
> Peter doesn't get the idea that a good poem is more than just dropping some "good words" in.
>
> The poet has to take those good words, such as Maeve, and make them work, the poem should give the reader, or attempt to give the reader, some reason or rhyme or idea or feeling as to why she "intoxicates".
>
> I venture to say I've come close, as I've tried a few hundred times, with "Red Lipped Stranger", but that's beside the point, I reckon:
>
> http://www.freag.net/en/t/27qxb/blogging_decemb/36
>
> Many other poets, our betters, have nailed it, or rather her.
>
> Amy Lowell did it with "Opal", Patti Smith, Liz Phair, Jim Morrison, Dylan Thomas and Rimbaud (to name a few favorite poets) did it... PJR never quite manages it, in my opinion.

And more on Liz Phair... and so it goes.

[H H]

For once I agree with you. This poem is trash. "Ice and Fire" - how original!
When it does manage some originality it is overtly trying to hard (silver of
moon-touched magnolias)

I disagree that any of it is salvageable in its current form though.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 10:50:15 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Hieronymous707 wrote:
> >
> > > "I'm sure that George found the use of the word "Maeve", and you explaining it, interesting... the rest of PJR's poem I have no idea yet, but another word for an "intoxicating" chick is always good to have... if it makes any sense to modern readers/audiences. "
> > >
> > > Peter likes people to think he's smart. That's because he's spent a lot of time getting smart, and is very proud of how smart he is, so a lot of his poetry reflects how studious he's been by requiring his readers to go look up his obscure references indicating how smart he is. Personally, I don't care how smart he is. I find it distracting.
> >

Not to mention self-obsessed and pretentious (and a textbook example of the overcompensation/self-delusion of a pitiably weak ego).

> > Peter doesn't get the idea that a good poem is more than just dropping some "good words" in.
> >

To borrow one of your favorite expressions, you nailed him.

> > The poet has to take those good words, such as Maeve, and make them work, the poem should give the reader, or attempt to give the reader, some reason or rhyme or idea or feeling as to why she "intoxicates".
> >

Twice.

[Will Dockery]

It has a bit of an endearing erotic quality to me, in my reading of it.

"Opal" by Amy Lowell... Seems to me to be an "answer poem" of sorts to "Fire & Ice"...

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/fire-and-ice/

Amy Lowell did it with "Opal", Patti Smith, Liz Phair, Jim Morrison, Dylan Thomas and Rimbaud (to name a few favorite poets) did it.

--
Check out "Twilight Girl Will Dockery & Henry Conley)" - http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery/song/17680972-twilight-girl-w-dockery--h-conley

[Will Dockery]

And then there comes Peter J. Ross again... still dropping his crap, all wrapped with a few fancy words.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> > You are ice and fire,
> > The touch of you burns my hands like snow.
> > You are cold and flame.
> > You are the crimson of amaryllis,
> > The silver of moon-touched magnolias.
> > When I am with you,
> > My heart is a frozen pond
> > Gleaming with agitated torches.

-Amy Lowell

Here's an interesting critique of "Opal", from Melissa Bradshaw:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/g_l/amylowell/opal.htm

"...The white Lowell uses to describe the beloved is an eroticized, kinetic, flashing white. Here is a reminder that white is not the absence of color, but the conjoining of all the visible rays of the spectrum; white is color in extremis, the color of ice, but also the color of molten heat."

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:50:14 -0800 (PST),

> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Hieronymous707 wrote:
> >>
> >>

> >> Amy Lowell did it with "Opal", Patti Smith, Liz Phair, Jim
> >> Morrison, Dylan Thomas and Rimbaud (to name a few favorite poets)
> >> did it... PJR never quite manages it, in my opinion.
> >
> > And more on Liz Phair... and so it goes.
>

> The whining criminal thinks Jim Morrison was a poet.

Beats Bukowski, Ginsberg, et al.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 1:31:31 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:31:11 -0800 (PST),
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Some of my thoughts and writings on Liz Phair after googling her
> > name

To find out what she's up to more recently I would need to Google Liz Phair, since the last thing I remember by her is the "Whip Smart" record, her second album, somewhere around 1994 or so.

> when a literate person mentioned her today
>
> Edited for factual accuracy.

What makes you think having known about the music of Liz Phair in 1993 or so is that unique?

Pretty much anyone who had an interest in alternative rock-n-roll and/or watched MTV would be at least familiar with Liz Phair and her earlier music. Really, PJR, Liz Phair was fairly well known around America during the early 1990s, even down here in the hinterlands, again, thanks to "music television".

Glad to clear up your confusion on that.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:50:14 -0800 (PST),
> Will Dockery wrote:

>> Hieronymous707 wrote:
>
> >> Amy Lowell did it with "Opal", Patti Smith, Liz Phair, Jim
> >> Morrison, Dylan Thomas and Rimbaud (to name a few favorite poets)
> >> did it... PJR never quite manages it, in my opinion.
> >
> > And more on Liz Phair... and so it goes.
>

> The whining criminal

Oh, Michael Cook, the copyright abusing poetry thief is posting again?

I hadn't noticed.

> thinks Jim Morrison was a poet.
>

> LOL!

Jim Morrison sure was a more entertaining, and thus "better" poet than you'll ever seem to be, PJR.

But your jealousy of poets better than you is almost legendary by now, PJR.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 4:05:24 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:21:40 -0800 (PST),
> Will Dockery wrote:

<snipped for focus>

> > Pretty much anyone who had an interest in alternative rock-n-roll
> > and/or watched MTV would be at least familiar with Liz Phair and her
> > earlier music.
>

> You watch MTV.

I did watch MTV back in the 1980s and 1990s, which is how many of us in the hinterlands found out about obscure artists such as Liz Phair.

--
Check out "Gone Too Far" / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars - http://www.reverbnation.com/open_graph/song/11596860

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 5:20:25 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:12:38 -0800 (PST),
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > I did watch MTV
>
> "We knew."
>
> And the Disney channel, no doubt.

No, but I did collect some Disney comics, such as the Carl Barks version of Donald Duck.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 1:40:40 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:26:16 -0800 (PST),

> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 5:20:25 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross
> > wrote:
> >> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:12:38 -0800
> >> (PST), Will Dockery wrote:
> >>
> >> > I did watch MTV
> >>
> >> "We knew."
> >>
> >> And the Disney channel, no doubt.
> >
> > No, but I did collect some Disney comics, such as the Carl Barks
> > version of Donald Duck.
>

> That explains the constant quacking.

Don't blame the voices in your head with what you read on Usenet, PJR.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 2:14:36 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:10:59 -0800 (PST),

> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 1:40:40 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> >> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:26:16 -0800 (PST),
> >> Will Dockery wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 5:20:25 PM UTC-5, Peter J Ross
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:12:38 -0800
> >> >> (PST), Will Dockery wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I did watch MTV
> >> >>
> >> >> "We knew."
> >> >>
> >> >> And the Disney channel, no doubt.
> >> >
> >> > No, but I did collect some Disney comics, such as the Carl Barks
> >> > version of Donald Duck.
> >>
> >> That explains the constant quacking.
> >

> > Don't quack the quacks in your quack with what you read on Quack, PJR.
>
> Oink?

Looks like we got ourselves a barnyard.

[Will Dockery]

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > Don't quack the quacks in your quack with what you read on Quack, PJR.

PJR's post-editing noted.

Message I.D. enclosed... heh.

[Will Dockery]

Better a duck anytime over pork, in my opinion.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 2:37:39 AM UTC-5, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:18:44 -0800 (PST),

> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Peter J Ross wrote:
> >>
> >> > Don't quack the quacks in your quack with what you read on Quack, PJR.
> >

> > PJR's post-quacking quacked.
> >
> > Quackage I.D. quacked... heh.
>
> Squeeeeeeeeeeeal?

Like a pig.