How relevant is this?
ggamble
Unfortunately, the people who need to read this the most don't have the
attention span to actually do so.
"I don't think pre- and post-web poetry can be compared unless the
discussion is enlightened by the difference between "popular" and
"democratized," and their effects on one another. Pre-web, poetry was
popular: it was respected, and was for the most part the province of highly
competent individuals; if it could be called democratized, the term
described poetry's readership—not its writers. Poetry's audience was
arguably better informed (if not necessarily educated), and, I think,
consisted of readers who had a higher standard, and probably, fewer
ambitions to become poets.
Post-web, democratization has switched from poetry to being a poet:
everyone, adequately literate or not, well-read or not, intrinsically
talented or not, wants the title Poet—instant poet—bypassing background
(discipline, education, exposure, or literary talent) and investment of
energy and time. Dozens or hundreds of revisions? Not likely. Years of
reading to develop self-directed critical skills? Less likely. Any other
journeyman-like paying of dues? Don't even bring it up. (Yes, there are
exceptions; they know who they are.) There's still a market for excellent
poetry; but it's jostled by the democratized market for
much-less-than-excellent-and-worse poetry dedicated less to art and more to
validating one's claim to "Poet".
In short, as with the democratization of any title, equal distribution dives
toward the most practicable common denominator—and that's too usually the
lowest CD. The outcome of that process is that "Poet" as claimed by anyone
wanting it, loses some (much) of its cachet; and the world of poetry ends up
divided (not along sharp lines) in two groups. In one will be writers who
even without the web, likely would have dedicated themselves to the art, and
would have been respected and published in credible outlets, or who'd have
dropped out or written alone. In the other are post-web writers who think
being a poet is somehow admirable or cool, and who claim or aspire to the
title. They, too, are published, albeit in outlets so numerous as to support
a wide range of often low standards; and for these poets, publication—no
matter where—is an ofttimes spurious claim to fame and dubious
"verification" of competence (no matter the size or standards of their
readership).
As I see things (and I'm not speaking as an authority), the greatest
difference between those two worlds is that the older one regarded Poet as
exclusive, and poetry as dedicated to innovation and elevation of art; and
the newer one looks to lowering standards such that Poet will be within the
reach of everyone, and poetry will be a vehicle for easy access to that.
That difference informs each world's definition of "popular": in the older
world, competence and genius were popular; in the newer one, self validation
(large or micro-scale) is popular. The former was defined by non poets; the
latter, by fellow seekers with a personal stake. As I said, the lines aren't
always straight and clear, but that's the difference I see; and that change
in priorities is spreading to offline poetry, too: university MFA programs,
always spotty, are getting more cultish and more focused on status and
personality. Grades are not art, and art is sometimes marginalized.
True, no one wishing to teach full-time at a university can avoid being a
whore for tenure, but the problem goes beyond that: students are coming in
with the same democratized sense of entitlement that many web-based writers
arrogate or assign themselves. Programs turn out MFAs of no particular
distinction who are mystified that their education did not amount to an
accreditation—that it didn't turn them into A Poet. Many find their only
salvation in publication in 'zines they and their peers start and run. And
only a very rare few are willing to do the work to attain notable
excellence, which is why so few actually do. (Though posthumous recognition
may be a possibility, few are consoled by that.)
And this circles back to the popularity of well-earned competence versus the
popularity of status. The first describes a lightly populated world of true
(and also lucky) artists; the second, the very populous world of people
whose majority want status (redemption) without doing the work—they want to
win the "poettery." Of the poetry book purchases not required by university
and school programs, I'd be very interested to know what percentage is
attributed to democratized poets (mostly online), and what to poetry
aficionados who read without writing (much) poetry. I doubt that these
figures ever will be available, but I suspect that the purchases of the non
writing readers are higher per capita than those of democratized writers.
Why? Because democratization of "Poet" suggests attainment with relatively
little or no work; and anyone wishing for a short-cut probably won't be
interested in a map of the long and hard way."
the messenjah
> Unfortunately, the people who need to read this the most don't have the
> attention span to actually do so.
And that is where I and most will stop reading. Stop your whining,
Gamble.
George Dance
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 10:50 am, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, the people who need to read this the most don't have the
> > attention span to actually do so.
>
> And that is where I and most will stop reading.
And he'll blame our "attention spans" for that, and pat himself on the
back for being right again. 8)
mat1t3
Reading dead poets is like walking though a cemetery.
Heart and soul has breathed life into modern poetry.
What was once a dead art form, is now alive and accessible
to the "populace" as you put it. This includes a vast ocean
of souls who at one time could never dream of "swimming"
in the waters. It's a good thing that the illiterate or sem-literate
can enjoy the beautiful art of creative writing or self expression.
Does that mean everything they write needs to be acknowledged
as a "brilliant" piece of work? No. Does that mean they
automatically
receive the title of "poet"? No. However, making such a
beautiful art form accessible to the bloody masses has opened
it up into undiscovered "vistas".
Is it even worth a breath to assume there are those who
don't want to come along for the ride? Of course not.
However, there are always those who resists change at
every juncture. Regardless of whether they're right or wrong,
the "change" is already upon us. Why not embrace it?
Introduce a reader whose writing shows even the slightest similarity
to a certain dead poet to said poet. Encourage them to broaden their
horizons by reading a specific type of poetry you feel, as a teacher,
they would be most receptive to in accordance with the piece
they've displayed for your comments. Use your experience
to enhance the lives of others. Try not to knock people down
because their work doesn't demonstrate the highest standards
in poetic excellence. If you're a teacher, as I assume you are,
try to act like one....help "students" develop. Them coming
to your "forum" should be enough evidence that they want
to learn. If they're here for something else, that should be
more than obvious. In which case, you would either ignore them
or give them a link to another forum...but, always looking to
educate and inform. In this respect, I wish there was the same
Hippocratic Oath applied to teachers as to doctors.
The whole pre-web/post-web argument is null and void. Pre-web
poetry does not need you to come to its defense in some five paragraph
rant. Thousands of years of writing, up to and including the
prehistoric
scribblings on cave walls speaks for itself in volumes. Has there
been charlatans along the way? Of course. Have there been
large groups of the populace that have regarded them as
poets? Yes. And, who knows: maybe on some level even they
get a pass. Anyone with just a dab of experience in poetry
can tell them from the real thing. However, even with that
understanding, I'm sure there are some things that the
charlatans have written that have been enjoyable. Not everything
is a hit out of the ball park; not everything is designed to be.
Heart and soul has breathed life into a dead art form. If you want
your dead words and your dead art to live, I have a word for you:
necropoet. Eventually, you'll want your words to come to life.
You'll want them to pump real blood and employ a wandering
soul. Like a vampire, you think your dead words will achieve
immortality. However, the "sun light" has started hitting your
"casket" as you sleep. It's time for you to awaken and learn
to walk among the living, or turn to dust in your slumber.
: )
ggamble
On 31-Oct-2010, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> And that is where I and most will stop reading.
>
> And he'll blame our "attention spans" for that, and pat himself on the
> back for being right again. 8)
You and chuckles make a nice pair.
You have a lot in common.
Will Dockery
> On 31-Oct-2010, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > And that is where I and most will stop reading.
>
> > And he'll blame our "attention spans" for that, and pat himself on the
> > back for being right again. 8)
>
> You and chuckles make a nice pair.
> You have a lot in common.
The main thing they have in common being you seem to be obsessed with
both of them, Gary?
Poetry & Music by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
ggamble
On 31-Oct-2010, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main thing
Hey, obsesso, why do you have to sniff behind every post I make?
Don't you have some imaginary lies and misrepresentations to go lie about
somewhere?
George Dance
> "ggamble" <ggasfly @bitterburnout.net> wrote:
> > On 31-Oct-2010, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > And that is where I and most will stop reading.
>
> > > And he'll blame our "attention spans" for that, and pat himself on the
> > > back for being right again. 8)
>
> > You and chuckles make a nice pair.
> > You have a lot in common.
>
> The main thing they have in common being you seem to be obsessed with
> both of them, Gary?
>
badum-CHING
George Dance
>
> Hey, obsesso
Coming from the original Obsesso the Clown, that's pretty funny.
( I guess that's where the "clown" part comes from, eh?)
ggamble
On 31-Oct-2010, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> badum-CHING
You and dockery make a nice pair.
George Dance
> On 31-Oct-2010, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > badum-CHING
>
> You and dockery make a nice pair.
Maybe you and PJ Ross can write about me sucking his cock again,
homophobe.
ggamble
On 31-Oct-2010, George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > You and dockery make a nice pair.
>
> Maybe you and PJ Ross can write about me sucking his cock again,
> homophobe.
1) In terms of volume, I think you've written about that more than anyone,
why is that?
2) How you automatically assume that *you make a nice pair* is any sort of
gay lame is very sad.
3) Now, fuck off.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > The main thing
>
Beat you to it, burnout:
"The main thing they have in common being you seem to be obsessed
with
both of them, Gary?"
It must sting... heh.
--
Will Dockery
>George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > badum-CHING
>
> You and dockery make a nice pair.
> You have a lot in common.
The main thing we have in common being you seem to be obsessed with
both of us, Gary?
--
Will Dockery
Not bad, man... hope to have the time and attention to read all of it,
eventually, like when I return from my busy night of...
Actually /being/ a poet.
--
Poetry & Music of Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
ggamble
On 31-Oct-2010, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> when I return from my busy night of...
>
> Actually /being/ a poet.
Do you turn into a pumpkin at midnight?
ggamble
On 31-Oct-2010, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
> > when I return from my busy night of...
> >
> > Actually /being/ a poet.
It's hard to believe that you're going to a costume party on a night when so
many pizzas are ordered.
ggamble
On 31-Oct-2010, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
> > when I return from my busy night of...
> >
> > Actually /being/ a poet.
Well, at least you can pretend to be one one night a year.
There's no harm in that.
=z=
to make a long story short my ass...blowfield,
tell us somethng we do not already know?
the messenjah
> On 31-Oct-2010, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > And that is where I and most will stop reading.
>
> > And he'll blame our "attention spans" for that, and pat himself on the
> > back for being right again. 8)
>
> You and chuckles make a nice pair.
> You have a lot in common.
Peter J Ross
George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> you and PJ Ross
It's lits o' haet time again!
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
mat1t3 <amirro...@cox.net> wrote:
> Reading dead poets is like walking though a cemetery.
I think there's a film, aimed at people of moderate intelligence and
little education, that might help you to change your mind.
I wish I could remember its title.
> Heart and soul has breathed life into modern poetry.
Oh dear.
If I went a hunting
I'd hunt the bleeding HART
through websites and through diaries
to learn from it its art.
And if I went a fishing
I'd stalk the wounded SOLE
through blogs and posts and forum-links
until I made it whole.
But if I went a writing
with solemn pen and ink
I'd shut up till I'd read a lot,
then think and think and think.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<g...@youbet.net> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the people who need to read this the most don't have the
> attention span to actually do so.
Well, I read it.
I agree with it. (Surprise, surprise!)
--
PJR :-)
Gwyneth
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:47:04 -0700 (PDT),
> mat1t3<amirro...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Reading dead poets is like walking though a cemetery.
>
> I think there's a film, aimed at people of moderate intelligence and
> little education, that might help you to change your mind.
Are you suggesting that cemeteries are not some of the most beautiful
and inspiring locations in the British countryside? (In Spain, they tend
to be barren and dry, and the dead are buried in high-rise vaults, but
there's nothing like Old Brompton in the snow, Tomnahurich Hill or
Highgate.)
>
> I wish I could remember its title.
>
>> Heart and soul has breathed life into modern poetry.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> If I went a hunting
> I'd hunt the bleeding HART
> through websites and through diaries
> to learn from it its art.
>
> And if I went a fishing
> I'd stalk the wounded SOLE
> through blogs and posts and forum-links
> until I made it whole.
>
> But if I went a writing
> with solemn pen and ink
> I'd shut up till I'd read a lot,
> then think and think and think.
>
If you just wrote that in the five minutes I suspect it took you, I
think I hate you, Peter. (But, as always, 'thank you for posting'.)
Incidentally, why don't you hyphenate a-hunting etc.?
g.
mat1t3
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:47:04 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > Reading dead poets is like walking though a cemetery.
>
> I think there's a film, aimed at people of moderate intelligence and
> little education, that might help you to change your mind.
>
> I wish I could remember its title.
>
> > Heart and soul has breathed life into modern poetry.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> If I went a hunting
> I'd hunt the bleeding HART
> through websites and through diaries
> to learn from it its art.
>
> And if I went a fishing
> I'd stalk the wounded SOLE
> through blogs and posts and forum-links
> until I made it whole.
>
> But if I went a writing
> with solemn pen and ink
> I'd shut up till I'd read a lot,
> then think and think and think.
>
> --
> PJR :-)
That's pretty good!
I'm glad my drivel inspires some people to write
decent stuff.
: )
Peter J Ross
Gwyneth <gwy...@patchword.com> wrote:
More like ten. And Chesterton probably wrote quite a lot of it. And
ten minutes more would have made it much better.
> Incidentally, why don't you hyphenate a-hunting etc.?
In the hope that somebody might ask!
It's a gerund, and omitting the hyphen emphasises that it's a gerund.
Maybe our pupils will be encouraged to find out what a gerund is now.
--
PJR :-)
Will Dockery
>
> Well, I read it.
I read it, too... and somewhat agree with it.
The age of the internet is a very different place than the olden
times, indeed.
"...Those were different times. All the poets studied rules of verse
and the ladies rolled their eyes." -Lou Reed
--
"She Sleeps Tight" by Will Dockery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D9uGY157cpiU
Will Dockery
>"ggamble" <ggasfly @lyingscumbag.net> wrote:
>> On 31-Oct-2010, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > badum-CHING
>
> > You and dockery make a nice pair.
>
> Maybe you and PJ Ross can write about me sucking his cock again, homophobe.
Which they both no doubt fantasize over while looking at Michael
Cook's homoerotic photo manipulations:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ginopiper/PDWilsonAndOtherPics#5226684879005292610
"We know." -Dennis M. Hammes
--
"...Those were different times. All the poets studied rules of verse
and the ladies rolled their eyes." -Lou Reed
"She Sleeps Tight" by Will Dockery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D9uGY157cpiU
George Dance
>
> It's lits o' haet time again!
>
Oh, so that's what Gary's "You and chuckles" and "You and dockery"
bullshit was all about. Thanks for the explanation.
Will Dockery
Again, they seem to be pining away for their departed Cook:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ginopiper/PDWilsonAndOtherPics#5226684879005292610
--
ggamble
On 1-Nov-2010, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You and dockery make a nice pair.
> >
> > Maybe you and PJ Ross can write about me sucking his cock again,
> > homophobe.
>
> Which they both no doubt fantasize over while looking at Michael
> Cook's homoerotic photo manipulations:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ginopiper/PDWilsonAndOtherPics#5226684879005292610
Sometimes, you just have to shake your head at the complete silliness of you
two.
Is this what passes for humour in Georgia and Ontario?
Will Dockery
>
> > > > You and dockery make a nice pair.
>
> > > Maybe you and PJ Ross can write about me sucking his cock again,
> > > homophobe.
>
> > Which they both no doubt fantasize over while looking at Michael
> > Cook's homoerotic photo manipulations:
>
>
> Sometimes, you just have to shake your head
"We know."
Will Dockery
>
> It's hard to believe that you're going to a costume party on a night when so
> many pizzas are ordered.
Not so many pizzas are ordered on Halloween, since so many people are
out and about and not sitting at home.
Will Dockery
>
> Reading dead poets is like walking though a cemetery.
> to the "populace" as you put it.
Yes, this began with open mic poetry readings & zines, then the
freedom of the internet & the whole thing exploded.
Bravo, I'll read more later, but now sleep & the dreamtime calls me.
"What he said." -Dennis M. Hammes
--
"She Sleeps Tight", vocals by Will Dockery & Sandy Madaris, guitars by
Brian Mallard. Paintings by George Sulzbach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D9uGY157cpiU
mat1t3
The flood gates have been forced open.
And, the ninnies of formalism are constructing large dams
To stop the flow of water to the thirsty cities below.
It's our job to put a wrench in their mechanisms.
On with the task at hand!
Illiterates and semi-illiterates unite!
Grab your cyber-muskets and follow me!
There's some serious cyber-ass to kick!
Do you have what it takes to fight the good fight?
: )
mat1t3
>
> What if words were what a fool made
> once some fool had drunk the kool-aid?
> Would a drunken fool have written
> words akin to this rhyme spittin'
> nitwit seen upon your screen here
> where the air remains quite clean/clear?
> Please make crystal your conclusion
> lest word clouds allow confusion
> to intrude. Allude to feelings
> to avoid annoying dealings
> with the facts. Attack the person.
> Do dot hestitate. The first one
> to get in a dig is bigger,
> like calling a black man, "...
>
> Okay, I won't even go there because I don't think it's necessary to
> make my point. I'm not Dr. Laura for crying out loud.
At least you can speak Spinach.
mat1t3
You are what you Yeats?
ggamble
On 2-Nov-2010, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll read more later,
And you thought I was kidding about the short attention span.
ggamble
Will Dockery
Nobody here mistakes you for having a sense of humor, Gary.
<unsnip>
> > Reading dead poets is like walking though a cemetery.
> > Heart and soul has breathed life into modern poetry.
> > What was once a dead art form, is now alive and accessible
> > to the "populace" as you put it. This includes a vast ocean
> Not bad, man... hope to have the time and attention to read all of it,
> eventually, like when I return from my busy night of...
>
> Actually /being/ a poet.
Tom Hendricks
> Unfortunately, the people who need to read this the most don't have the
> attention span to actually do so.
>
> "I don't think pre- and post-web poetry can be compared unless the
> discussion is enlightened by the difference between "popular" and
> "democratized," and their effects on one another. Pre-web, poetry was
> popular: it was respected, and was for the most part the province of highly
> competent individuals; if it could be called democratized, the term
> described poetry's readership—not its writers. Poetry's audience was
> arguably better informed (if not necessarily educated), and, I think,
> consisted of readers who had a higher standard, and probably, fewer
> ambitions to become poets.
>
> Post-web, democratization has switched from poetry to being a poet:
> everyone, adequately literate or not, well-read or not, intrinsically
> talented or not, wants the title Poet—instant poet—bypassing background
> (discipline, education, exposure, or literary talent) and investment of
> energy and time. Dozens or hundreds of revisions? Not likely. Years of
> reading to develop self-directed critical skills? Less likely. Any other
> journeyman-like paying of dues? Don't even bring it up. (Yes, there are
> exceptions; they know who they are.) There's still a market for excellent
> poetry; but it's jostled by the democratized market for
> much-less-than-excellent-and-worse poetry dedicated less to art and more to
> validating one's claim to "Poet".
>
> In short, as with the democratization of any title, equal distribution dives
> toward the most practicable common denominator—and that's too usually the
> lowest CD. The outcome of that process is that "Poet" as claimed by anyone
> wanting it, loses some (much) of its cachet; and the world of poetry ends up
> divided (not along sharp lines) in two groups. In one will be writers who
> even without the web, likely would have dedicated themselves to the art, and
> would have been respected and published in credible outlets, or who'd have
> dropped out or written alone. In the other are post-web writers who think
> being a poet is somehow admirable or cool, and who claim or aspire to the
> title. They, too, are published, albeit in outlets so numerous as to support
> a wide range of often low standards; and for these poets, publication—no
> matter where—is an ofttimes spurious claim to fame and dubious
> "verification" of competence (no matter the size or standards of their
> readership).
>
> As I see things (and I'm not speaking as an authority), the greatest
> difference between those two worlds is that the older one regarded Poet as
> exclusive, and poetry as dedicated to innovation and elevation of art; and
> the newer one looks to lowering standards such that Poet will be within the
> reach of everyone, and poetry will be a vehicle for easy access to that.
> That difference informs each world's definition of "popular": in the older
> world, competence and genius were popular; in the newer one, self validation
> (large or micro-scale) is popular. The former was defined by non poets; the
> latter, by fellow seekers with a personal stake. As I said, the lines aren't
> always straight and clear, but that's the difference I see; and that change
> in priorities is spreading to offline poetry, too: university MFA programs,
> always spotty, are getting more cultish and more focused on status and
> personality. Grades are not art, and art is sometimes marginalized.
>
> True, no one wishing to teach full-time at a university can avoid being a
> whore for tenure, but the problem goes beyond that: students are coming in
> with the same democratized sense of entitlement that many web-based writers
> arrogate or assign themselves. Programs turn out MFAs of no particular
> distinction who are mystified that their education did not amount to an
> accreditation—that it didn't turn them into A Poet. Many find their only
> salvation in publication in 'zines they and their peers start and run. And
> only a very rare few are willing to do the work to attain notable
> excellence, which is why so few actually do. (Though posthumous recognition
> may be a possibility, few are consoled by that.)
>
> And this circles back to the popularity of well-earned competence versus the
> popularity of status. The first describes a lightly populated world of true
> (and also lucky) artists; the second, the very populous world of people
> whose majority want status (redemption) without doing the work—they want to
> win the "poettery." Of the poetry book purchases not required by university
> and school programs, I'd be very interested to know what percentage is
> attributed to democratized poets (mostly online), and what to poetry
> aficionados who read without writing (much) poetry. I doubt that these
> figures ever will be available, but I suspect that the purchases of the non
> writing readers are higher per capita than those of democratized writers.
> Why? Because democratization of "Poet" suggests attainment with relatively
> little or no work; and anyone wishing for a short-cut probably won't be
> interested in a map of the long and hard way."
I appreciate what you are saying, but I think that the best
contemporary poets
that I've seen are not those that study, appreciate, and fill in the
past forms,
but start new ones. The poetry journals with so called celebrated
poets
are most often unreadable, pompous and convoluted.
If we learn from the past, learn from Coleridge who said something
like
'the first object of a writer is to be understood'. Poets that can't
be understood
are not good poets for me.
I'll add this - I think if there is an overall movement in all the
world at this time
it is towards a joining up or connecting up of ... well everything.
I don't know
if it's a generational thing, or just a step in growing up, but there
seems to be
a democratization of all arts for all people.
Check this Musea link. It is the Ten Best Poets list, but at the
bottom
is a list of my favorite contemporary poets and why.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030404083510/musea.digitalchainsaw.com/92poetry.html
Will Dockery
<snip for focus>
> I think that the best
> contemporary poets
> that I've seen are not those that study, appreciate, and fill in the
> past forms,
> but start new ones. The poetry journals with so called celebrated
> poets
> are most often unreadable, pompous and convoluted.
> If we learn from the past, learn from Coleridge who said something
> like
> 'the first object of a writer is to be understood'. Poets that can't
> be understood
> are not good poets for me.
> I'll add this - I think if there is an overall movement in all the
> world at this time
> it is towards a joining up or connecting up of ... well everything.
> I don't know
> if it's a generational thing, or just a step in growing up, but there
> seems to be
> a democratization of all arts for all people.
>
> Check this Musea link. It is the Ten Best Poets list, but at the
> bottom
> is a list of my favorite contemporary poets and why.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030404083510/musea.digitalchainsaw.com/9...
Well said and on target, Tom.
--
Will Dockery, Folk Rock / Blues / Experimental:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Peter J Ross
Tom Hendricks <tom-he...@att.net> wrote:
> I appreciate what you are saying,
It gets funnier and funnier.
Who do you think you're talking to?
Do you know what quotation marks are for?
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
mat1t3 <amirro...@cox.net> wrote:
> The flood gates have been forced open.
Translation: "Lots of morons are posting lots of drivel on the
Internet."
Personally, I think it's wonderful. If you shut your eyes and stick a
pin in the Internet, the chances are that you'll have stuck it in the
cyber-arse of some self-admiring poetaster whose "poems" are likely to
make you weep with laughter.
In olden times, you had to read people's obituaries for their pets and
grannies (who were both described with exactly the same clichés) in
local newspapers to get so much entertainment.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<g...@youbet.net> wrote:
Cebabhaprq:
wnlfhf
shpx
?
--
PJR :-)
ggamble
On 3-Nov-2010, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In olden times, you had to read people's obituaries for their pets and
> grannies (who were both described with exactly the same clichés) in
> local newspapers to get so much entertainment.
Oh my god, and here I thought I was the only one.
I have a bulletin board stuffed with pet obits clipped from the local rag.
I should transcribe a few, dockery could steal them, dress up like a poodle
and mumble the words into the microphone while he lurches around onstage at
the local open mike, like he did with the wooden shoes and the
zorroooooooooo mask!
Now, that's entertainment!
zorrrrrrrroooo flufffffffffffyyyyyy
Peter J Ross
<g...@youbet.net> wrote:
>
> On 3-Nov-2010, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In olden times, you had to read people's obituaries for their pets and
>> grannies (who were both described with exactly the same clichés) in
>> local newspapers to get so much entertainment.
>
> Oh my god, and here I thought I was the only one.
I was always optimistic enough to assume there were others out there
somewhere.
> I have a bulletin board stuffed with pet obits clipped from the local rag.
<peadar...@gmail.com> is a valid email address!
> I should transcribe a few, dockery could steal them, dress up like a poodle
> and mumble the words into the microphone while he lurches around onstage at
> the local open mike, like he did with the wooden shoes and the
> zorroooooooooo mask!
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
I think this is a different version from the famous one.
In this version, he's so drunk that at 0:17 he nearly pokes his eye
out with the microphone, and I think I'd have remembered that.
> Now, that's entertainment!
>
> zorrrrrrrroooo flufffffffffffyyyyyy
Coming soon:
"Thanks for the free publicity."
--
PJR :-)
George Dance
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:06:31 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > I appreciate what you are saying,
>
> It gets funnier and funnier.
>
> Who do you think you're talking to?
>
> Do you know what quotation marks are for?
>
Try to have your trolling make sense.
> --
> PJR :-)
Will Dockery
"Autograph of Zorro" by Will Dockery, Henry Conley & MH Benders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA
> the wooden shoes and the
> zorroooooooooo mask!
>
> Now, that's entertainment!
>
> zorrrrrrrroooo
Ah, the "Autograph of Zorro" posting, I noticed that it has become a
sort of seasonal repeat, like network television and their
Thanksgiving & Christmas specials, over the years since it was first
produced.
Thanks for pulling this out of the archives, watching & commentiing,
Gary!
Will Dockery
"Autograph of Zorro" by Will Dockery, Henry Conley & MH Benders:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
>
> I think this is a different version from the famous one.
Yes, PJR, here's the original version:
http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
And, for your entertainment value, the *original* press release for the
"Autograph of Zorro" project, thanks to the Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041117085027/http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm
"In my opinion Will Dockery is easily one of the most authentic American
poets around. A real coffeehouse poet who is not scared of mingling some
real American elements such as country music into his
poetry. Whileas you just try to appear as European as possible with all your
sucking up to 80 year old European surrealists." -M.H.Benders
mat1t3
LOL!
Will Dockery
"mat1t3" <amirro...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:95b47f30-92ca-4cf8...@37g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
>"ggamble" <ggasfly @bitter.burnout.net> wrote:
>
> dockery could mumble the words into the microphone while he lurches around
> the local open mike, like he did with the wooden shoes and the
> zorroooooooooo mask!
"Autograph of Zorro" by Dockery, Conley & Benders:
http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>> Now, that's entertainment!
>
>> zorrrrrrrroooo
>LOL!
Thanks for taking the time to have a listen & comment, Matt...
mat1t3
> "mat1t3" <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
"listen"
I couldn't hear a goddamn thing you were "singing".
I spent most of the time laughing, Will.
Zorro!!!
(audience drunks responde: zorro!)
I mean, Will, give up this whole fuckin Tom Waits
impersonation thing you're doing. Like I've told
you numerous times, it's time for you to really open
up as an artist and go for "homicidal punk rock
maniac" kind of like GG Allen. Start attacking
your audience physically; take a dump on stage
and eat it; growl at little children; get back to
drinking...please! However, amp it up a little.
This is the time and the time is now!
: )
Will Dockery
No, interesting ideas, Matt, but I'm a little too old for the punk
game, these days.
Although your hometown hero Alice Cooper still wears it well.
mat1t3
He wears something well. I think it has
a little more to do with eye liner, though.
"schools out for ever!"
Will Dockery
> On Nov 4, 7:05 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 8:14 pm, mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 5:07 pm, "Will Dockery" wrote:
> > >> "mat1t3" <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > >> >"ggamble" <ggasfly @bitter.burnout.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Autograph of Zorro" by Dockery, Conley & Benders:
>
> > > >http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>
> > > > >> Now, that's entertainment!
>
> > > > >> zorrrrrrrroooo
>
> > > >LOL!
>
> > > > Thanks for taking the time to have a listen & comment, Matt...
>
>
> > > I couldn't hear a goddamn thing you were "singing".
You don't speak Southern... so sorry, so sorry...
http://www.intowncolumbus.com/photo/albums/will-dockery-shadowville
> > > I spent most of the time laughing, Will.
>
> > > Zorro!!!
> > > (audience drunks responde: zorro!)
>
> > > I mean, Will, give up this whole fuckin Tom Waits
> > > impersonation thing you're doing. Like I've told
> > > you numerous times, it's time for you to really open
> > > up as an artist and go for "homicidal punk rock
> > > maniac" kind of like GG Allen. Start attacking
> > > your audience physically; take a dump on stage
> > > and eat it; growl at little children; get back to
> > > drinking...please! However, amp it up a little.
>
> > > This is the time and the time is now!
>
> > > : )
>
> > No, interesting ideas, Matt, but I'm a little too old for the punk
> > game, these days.
>
> > Although your hometown hero Alice Cooper still wears it well.
>
> He wears something well. I think it has
> a little more to do with eye liner, though.
>
> "schools out for ever!"
That's a right-on.
Peter J Ross
Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross said:
>
> "Autograph of Zorro" by Will Dockery, Henry Conley & MH Benders:
>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
>>
>> I think this is a different version from the famous one.
>
> Yes, PJR, here's the original version:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
That's an mp3 file. It can't be as much fun without the sight of you
stumbling drunkenly around the stage in your blindfold and clogs.
I've got a copy of the original, hilariously inept performance in .flv
format, which I suppose means that it came from youtube.com. It's
still one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the Internet.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
mat1t3 <amirro...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 5:07 pm, "Will Dockery" <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "mat1t3" <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:95b47f30-92ca-4cf8...@37g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >"ggamble" <ggasfly @bitter.burnout.net> wrote:
>>
>> > dockery could mumble the words into the microphone while he lurches around
>> > onstage at
>> > the local open mike, like he did with the wooden shoes and the
>> > zorroooooooooo mask!
>>
>> "Autograph of Zorro" by Dockery, Conley & Benders:
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>>
>> >> Now, that's entertainment!
>>
>> >> zorrrrrrrroooo
>> >LOL!
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to have a listen & comment, Matt...
>>
>> --
>> Will Dockery, Folk Rock / Blues / Experimental:http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
>
> "listen"
>
> I couldn't hear a goddamn thing you were "singing".
>
> I spent most of the time laughing, Will.
>
> Zorro!!!
> (audience drunks responde: zorro!)
>
> I mean, Will, give up this whole fuckin Tom Waits
> impersonation thing you're doing.
Do you think he's also trying to sound like Mark Knopfler? I do.
> Like I've told
> you numerous times, it's time for you to really open
> up as an artist and go for "homicidal punk rock
> maniac" kind of like GG Allen. Start attacking
> your audience physically; take a dump on stage
> and eat it; growl at little children; get back to
> drinking...please! However, amp it up a little.
>
> This is the time and the time is now!
>
>: )
You probably think he wouldn't do all those things if he got two lines
in the local free newspaper as a result. You're wrong.
--
PJR :-)
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Here's the original version of "Autograph of Zorro":
>
> >http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>
> That's an mp3 file. It can't be as much fun without the sight of you
> stumbling drunkenly around the stage in your blindfold and clogs.
Okay, that's this one:
"Autograph of Zorro" by Will Dockery, Henry Conley & MH Benders:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
> I've got a copy of the original performance in .flv
> format, which I suppose means that it came from youtube.com. It's
> still one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the Internet.
Well, thanks for watching and taking the time to critique the
performance, PJR.
--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery & friends:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Will Dockery
> mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Autograph of Zorro" by Dockery, Conley & Benders:
>
> >>http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>
> > impersonation thing you're doing.
>
> Do you think he's also trying to sound like Mark Knopfler? I do.
Not trying, just my natural sound, but thanks for the compliment, PJR.
Peter J Ross
Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross says:
>> mat1t3 <amirrorcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> "Autograph of Zorro" by Dockery, Conley & Benders:
>>
>> >>http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>>
>> > I mean, Will, give up this whole fuckin Tom Waits
>> > impersonation thing you're doing.
>>
>> Do you think he's also trying to sound like Mark Knopfler? I do.
>
> Not trying, just my natural sound, but thanks for the compliment, PJR.
Where was the compliment?
--
PJR :-)
Meat Plow
I gotta agree. I can't help but laugh watching that performance. Too bad
the audience wasn't armed with tomatoes.
--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
Meat Plow
> Peter J Ross says:
>>Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> > Here's the original version of "Autograph of Zorro":
>>
>> >http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>>
>> That's an mp3 file. It can't be as much fun without the sight of you
>> stumbling drunkenly around the stage in your blindfold and clogs.
>
> Okay, that's this one:
>
> "Autograph of Zorro" by Will Dockery, Henry Conley & MH Benders:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
>
>> I've got a copy of the original performance in .flv format, which I
>> suppose means that it came from youtube.com. It's still one of the
>> funniest things I've ever seen on the Internet.
>
> Well, thanks for watching and taking the time to critique the
> performance, PJR.
Why did you edit PJR's reply? It's bad enough to omit paragraphs but to
actually edit the paragraphs shows just what a piece of shit you really
are.
PJR's post, compare to the above quote and notice the edits:
<this was omitted entirely>
"That's an mp3 file. It can't be as much fun without the sight of you
stumbling drunkenly around the stage in your blindfold and clogs.
<this was edited, notice the words hilariously inept were removed>
I've got a copy of the original, hilariously inept performance in .flv
format, which I suppose means that it came from youtube.com. It's
still one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the Internet."
If the only way you have of handling criticism is to suppress it or
change the context/content then you'll never amount to anything more than
the steaming pile of shit you are.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
> > Peter J Ross says:
> >>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> > Here's the original version of "Autograph of Zorro":
>
> >> >http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>
> >> That's an mp3 file. It can't be as much fun without the sight of you
> >> stumbling drunkenly around the stage in your blindfold and clogs.
>
> > Okay, that's this one:
>
>
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
>
> >> suppose means that it came from youtube.com. It's still one of the
> >> funniest things I've ever seen on the Internet.
>
> > Well, thanks for watching and taking the time to critique the
> > performance, PJR.
>
> Why did you edit PJR's reply?
As PJR himself has so often put it, literally hundreds of times:
<edited for truth>
But you of all people already know that, MP!
> "Autograph of Zorro" by Will Dockery, Henry Conley & MH Benders:
>
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
>
> And, for your entertainment value, the *original* press release for the
> "Autograph of Zorro" project, thanks to the Internet Archive:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041117085027/http://www.kannibaal.nl/sha...
>
> "In my opinion Will Dockery is easily one of the most authentic American
> poets around. A real coffeehouse poet who is not scared of mingling some
> real American elements such as country music into his
> poetry. Whileas you just try to appear as European as possible with all your
> sucking up to 80 year old European surrealists." -M.H.Benders
--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www,myspace.com/willdockery
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:pan.2010.11...@lmao.lol.lol:
Who put this performance up? His enemies? Never mind, I see Will is
actually proud of this. Damn, if the purpose was to convince yourself to
quit booze, it'd certainly encourage me to quit drinking.
I rilly, rilly, rilly can't see the purpose otherwise.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"I will pay it back." and "I have your address and will mail you the
money." Ed the lying deadbeat.
Barbara's Cat
> As I have so often quacked, literally thousands of times:
>
> <edited because my ego is extremely fragile>
>
> But you of all people already know that, MP!
--
Cm~
"I win."
- Goober Dockery
getting nowhere,
gaining nothing,
again.
Will Dockery
>
> > <edited because my ego is extremely fragile>
We, know, Barbie... try to pull yourself together and post a poem this
decade, 'K?
<unsnipped>
Barbara's Cat
> > Goober Dockery quacked:
> >
> > > As I have so often quacked, literally thousands of times:
> > >
> > > <edited because my ego is extremely fragile>
> > >
> > > But you of all people already know that, MP!
>
>
> Q U A C K !
Will Dockery
>
> > Q U A C K !
You accidentally snipped the content of this thread, Barbie:
<unsnipped>
> "Autograph of Zorro" by Will Dockery, Henry Conley & MH Benders:
http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
The video:
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
Karla
>
>Unfortunately, the people who need to read this the most don't have the
>attention span to actually do so.
>
Who wrote this?
>
I've read this twice. I'm still thinking about it. In the meantime, some
tentative questions/thoughts.
>
>
>"I don't think pre- and post-web poetry can be compared unless the
>discussion is enlightened by the difference between "popular" and
>"democratized," and their effects on one another. Pre-web, poetry was
>popular: it was respected, and was for the most part the province of highly
>competent individuals; if it could be called democratized, the term
>described poetry's readership—not its writers. Poetry's audience was
>arguably better informed (if not necessarily educated), and, I think,
>consisted of readers who had a higher standard, and probably, fewer
>ambitions to become poets.
Pre-web, poetry was popular? Where? I don't understand that claim. Nor do
I agree that Poetry's audience was better informed or had a higher
standard. For instance, back in the sixties and seventies, easily
accessible poetry by Rod McKuen or e.e. cummings sold, readers referred to
it, books and movies used their lines. But step it up a notch, the
audience wasn't any better informed or holding to a higher standard. This
refers, of course, to readers off campus, non-poetry students or profs.
Most people offered comments like "I like it," "it's beautiful," "I don't
understand it" or "I don't like it." One had to be taking a class or be
part of a writing group to get anything more.
>Post-web, democratization has switched from poetry to being a poet:
>everyone, adequately literate or not, well-read or not, intrinsically
>talented or not, wants the title Poet—instant poet—bypassing background
>(discipline, education, exposure, or literary talent) and investment of
>energy and time. Dozens or hundreds of revisions? Not likely. Years of
>reading to develop self-directed critical skills? Less likely. Any other
>journeyman-like paying of dues? Don't even bring it up. (Yes, there are
>exceptions; they know who they are.) There's still a market for excellent
>poetry; but it's jostled by the democratized market for
>much-less-than-excellent-and-worse poetry dedicated less to art and more to
>validating one's claim to "Poet".
I don't think this part takes into account who the online reader is. We
can see from our many years on r.a.p. or a.a.p.c. that many of the readers
are young, their poems reflect their inexperience in life as well as
writing poetry, commenting on poetry. Entitlement (pun intended) is their
stomping ground. Pre-web and post web, teens don't want to put in the
time, want the title not the work. On the web, our reader/participant, is
probably also the teen looking for the instant, not the enduring. The
writers who stick around generally are maturer. If their comments don't
reflect maturity, that's another thing. How can we even tell on Usenet
where flaming is accepted and encouraged? It wouldn't be in many pre-web
venues.
>In short, as with the democratization of any title, equal distribution dives
>toward the most practicable common denominator—and that's too usually the
>lowest CD. The outcome of that process is that "Poet" as claimed by anyone
>wanting it, loses some (much) of its cachet; and the world of poetry ends up
>divided (not along sharp lines) in two groups. In one will be writers who
>even without the web, likely would have dedicated themselves to the art, and
>would have been respected and published in credible outlets, or who'd have
>dropped out or written alone. In the other are post-web writers who think
>being a poet is somehow admirable or cool, and who claim or aspire to the
>title. They, too, are published, albeit in outlets so numerous as to support
>a wide range of often low standards; and for these poets, publication—no
>matter where—is an ofttimes spurious claim to fame and dubious
>"verification" of competence (no matter the size or standards of their
>readership).
Perhaps we need to watch over time. How long were we satisfied with white
bread? The white bread consumer today may honestly admit she's missing
something and look for whole grain wheat. Do we trust that whole grain
wheat is better than white bread? Or do we allow advertisers to dictate
that for us? The above paragraph suggests that value is dictated not
perceived.
>As I see things (and I'm not speaking as an authority), the greatest
>difference between those two worlds is that the older one regarded Poet as
>exclusive, and poetry as dedicated to innovation and elevation of art; and
>the newer one looks to lowering standards such that Poet will be within the
>reach of everyone, and poetry will be a vehicle for easy access to that.
>That difference informs each world's definition of "popular": in the older
>world, competence and genius were popular; in the newer one, self validation
>(large or micro-scale) is popular. The former was defined by non poets; the
>latter, by fellow seekers with a personal stake. As I said, the lines aren't
>always straight and clear, but that's the difference I see; and that change
>in priorities is spreading to offline poetry, too: university MFA programs,
>always spotty, are getting more cultish and more focused on status and
>personality. Grades are not art, and art is sometimes marginalized.
Same comment as above.
>True, no one wishing to teach full-time at a university can avoid being a
>whore for tenure, but the problem goes beyond that: students are coming in
>with the same democratized sense of entitlement that many web-based writers
>arrogate or assign themselves. Programs turn out MFAs of no particular
>distinction who are mystified that their education did not amount to an
>accreditation—that it didn't turn them into A Poet. Many find their only
>salvation in publication in 'zines they and their peers start and run. And
>only a very rare few are willing to do the work to attain notable
>excellence, which is why so few actually do. (Though posthumous recognition
>may be a possibility, few are consoled by that.)
>
>And this circles back to the popularity of well-earned competence versus the
>popularity of status. The first describes a lightly populated world of true
>(and also lucky) artists; the second, the very populous world of people
>whose majority want status (redemption) without doing the work—they want to
>win the "poettery." Of the poetry book purchases not required by university
>and school programs, I'd be very interested to know what percentage is
>attributed to democratized poets (mostly online), and what to poetry
>aficionados who read without writing (much) poetry. I doubt that these
>figures ever will be available, but I suspect that the purchases of the non
>writing readers are higher per capita than those of democratized writers.
>Why? Because democratization of "Poet" suggests attainment with relatively
>little or no work; and anyone wishing for a short-cut probably won't be
>interested in a map of the long and hard way."
This describes our world and our people, not just our poetry and our poets.
=z=
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well put Karla, and so true. Thank you for that nice read.
=z=
Will Dockery
>"ggamble" <gga...@youbet.net> wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, the people who need to read this the most don't have the
> >attention span to actually do so.
>
> Who wrote this?
I noticed the quotation marks at the beginning and end of the piece,
but having run a search on some of the key phrases, I didn't find it
anywhere else online so far. He uses quotation marls within the piece,
as well, which of course is incorrect usage:
> >"I don't think pre- and post-web poetry can be compared unless the
> >discussion is enlightened by the difference between
Two examples of quotation marks within a quoted piece:
"popular" and "democratized,"
[...]
And another:
"Poet" suggests attainment with relatively
> >little or no work; and anyone wishing for a short-cut probably won't be
> >interested in a map of the long and hard way."
>
> This describes our world and our people, not just our poetry and our poets.
--
Barbara's Cat
> I noticed the quotation marks at the beginning and end of the piece,
> but having run a search on some of the key phrases, I didn't find it
> anywhere else online so far.
Always reaching for mud to sling, eh, Goober?
So powerless. So needing the mud. So Dockery.
Will Dockery
>
> > I noticed the quotation marks at the beginning and end of the piece,
> > but having run a search on some of the key phrases, I didn't find it
> > anywhere else online so far.
>
No, in fact it was Karla who pointed the detail out, Barbara:
Karla says:
Will Dockery
>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
>
>
>>http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
>
>
> I can't help but laugh watching that performance. Too bad
> the audience wasn't armed with tomatoes.
Well, there are times when fights break out and bottles and mugs start
flying at some of the rougher establishments...
--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www,myspace.com/willdockery
Tom Hendricks / Musea
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041117085027/http://www.kannibaal.nl/sha...
>
> "In my opinion Will Dockery is easily one of the most authentic American
> poets around. A real coffeehouse poet who is not scared of mingling some
> real American elements such as country music into his
> poetry. Whileas you just try to appear as European as possible with all your
> sucking up to 80 year old European surrealists." -M.H.Benders
>
> --
I agree with that assessment.
mat1t3
wrote:
Strange how he couldn't compliment Dockery without
cutting down Houstman. It makes me wonder how
authentic it was. IOW, was it a genuine compliment,
or a way of "getting at" Houstman? It makes me wonder
because Benders has no love for Houstman and visa
versa.
Curious...
Barbara's Cat
> > "In my opinion Will Dockery is easily one of the most authentic American
> > poets around. A real coffeehouse poet who is not scared of mingling some
> > real American elements such as country music into his
> > poetry. Whileas you just try to appear as European as possible with all your
> > sucking up to 80 year old European surrealists." -M.H.Benders
>
>
> I agree with that assessment.
Tragic. You just obliterated all chances of you
ever being considered a valid judge of anything.
--
Cm~
Will Dockery
wrote:
>
I appreciate the endorsement, Tom.
--
We're number 3 on the ReverbNation Rock charts for Columbus, GA.
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery
Will Dockery
> Tom Hendricks wrote:
>
> > > "In my opinion Will Dockery is easily one of the most authentic American
> > > poets around. A real coffeehouse poet who is not scared of mingling some
> > > real American elements such as country music into his
> > > poetry. Whileas you just try to appear as European as possible with all your
> > > sucking up to 80 year old European surrealists." -M.H.Benders
>
> > I agree with that assessment.
>
> Tragic.
Speaking of tragedy, where's that sestina you promised to write and
post here over a year ago, Barbara?
Peter J Ross
mat1t3 <amirro...@cox.net> wrote:
Of course it wasn't a genuine compliment. Martijn was (and presumably
still is) a talented and intelligent poet, but on Usenet his chief
pleasure was to annoy the "establishment". His praise for Dreckery's
dreck should be seen in the context of the outrageous opinions he
liked to express in general.
If Martijn never said Dreckery was a better poet than Shakespeare, I'd
be surprised.
--
PJR :-)
Will Dockery
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Mon, 8 Nov 2010 08:48:21 -0800 (PST),
>
> still is) a talented and intelligent poet
No, this came up several times and MHB was for real... unlike you,
PJR, the kid has insight... and honesty.
--
Black Crow's Brother (Gini Woolfolk-Will Dockery):
http://www.reverbnation.com/artist/song_details/4926102
Will Dockery
>
> A person is only a poet if other people call him that. Ever thought about that?
Well, see below:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041117085027/http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm
ggamble
On 11-Nov-2010, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course it wasn't a genuine compliment. Martijn was (and presumably
> > still is) a talented and intelligent poet
>
> No, this came up several times and MHB was for real... unlike you,
> PJR, the kid has insight... and honesty.
In your predictable rush to validate yourself, you've inadvertently damaged
the already damaged credibility of your supposed admirer.
Benders only complimented you to poke at the rest of us.
He picked the most anti-intellectual of all the participants that were
active at that time.
It was a brazenly transparent ploy, that was easily recognized by everyone
except you.
It reminds me of how easy it is to turn you around just by throwing a
meaningless compliment at you.
Remember how M. Cook had you drooling and fawning when he offered to make a
recording of your drivel?
No, you'll pretend that that never happened, because it doesn't fit in with
your agenda.
One would suspect that's why you go on your elaborate six year obsession of
posting your lies, misrepresentations and revisionist history.
But then, what else do you really have to do?
ggamble
On 11-Nov-2010, Hi Corey <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Attn Dockery"
>
> A person is only a poet if other people call him that. Ever thought
> about that? Why do you think nobody in poetry groups think you're a
> poet? Because they're all scum and you're not? And what does this
> have
> to do with massively crossposting everything you write?
>
> Dockery, everyone knows that you haven't published a single poem in
> your
> life except on your own website. Everyone knows no one will remember
> you
> for your 'poems'. The only thing people will remember you by is the
> irritating spamming behavior you expose online which gives Americans
> an
> even worse name than they already have. All spammers I have seen so
> far
> were all without a single exception Americans. Why do you think that
> is?
> I'll tell you why: because they get the idea spoonfed in their
> education that it's their godgiven right to pollute the world with
> their
> 'opinions' - bolstered under the flag of 'freedom of speech' without
> any
> sort of comprehension or reflection what 'freedom' or what 'speech'
> would be.
>
> Continuously flashing your small weener in public will not make it
> grow,
> Dockery. You're just hungry for attention and there's only one reason
> why: you're an empty windbag whose only talent in life consists of
> irritating other people. A masochist who just keeps coming back
> because
> he's addicted to getting hit. Your a sad old fuck, and I hope someone
> will shoot you soon. The world will be a better place if that happens.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2uu5rvg
Oops
So much for your validation, dockery.
This should be fun to see him try to ignore this.
ggamble
On 11-Nov-2010, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, see below:
> "Attn Dockery"
>
> A person is only a poet if other people call him that. Ever thought
Will Dockery
>
> Benders only complimented you to poke at the rest of us.
> He picked the most anti-intellectual of all the participants that were
> active at that time.
>
> It was a brazenly transparent ploy
<snip for focus>
And it brought out some transcendent results:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041117085027/http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm
"In my opinion Will Dockery is easily one of the most authentic
American poets around. A real coffeehouse poet who is not scared of
mingling some real American elements such as country music into his
poetry. Whileas you just try to appear as European as possible with
all your sucking up to 80 year old European surrealists." -M.H.Benders
"Autograph of Zorro" by Will Dockery, Henry Conley & MH Benders:
>
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64jUD1tRRA>
>
> > I think this is a different version from the famous one.
>
> Here's the original version:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/AutographOfZorro
Thanks for reading and commenting, Gary.