Mind Games / Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
George Dance
“What do you get from that epiphany?”
you like to ask. When I say I don’t know:
“And if you knew, what would the answer be?”
“Why do you need a week alone to ski?”
you ask. I tell you I’m inspired by snow.
“What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
“I’m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.”
I don’t know what to say (I have to go!)
and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
Enough! You pound on me persistently –
though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
(What do I get from that epiphany?)
I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
till I surrender. But if I said so,
and if you knew, what would the answer be?
I redirect: “It isn’t you, it’s me –
I’m just not ready yet – Let’s take it slow –”
What do we get from that epiphany,
and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
–
Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
=z=
The work is very aggravating for me due to the constant question for
an answer in every line (though it does appear to be realized in verse
4)...it presents that it is simply a relationship built on a
foundation of infatuation, sex and jealousy at the start turning into
a need to question each others motives on all levels (which you really
know the answer to in the backs of your minds) turning into nasty
judgmental attacks of sarcasm and innuendos too which the answer
should have appeared quite sooner than later as goodbye....not that it
even deserves a farewell at all...just a sad fast walk down a lonely
street. It would be nice, if you had come up with an answer in the
final line. Then the reader would have the “epiphany” that some have
come out with in the past few years as “closure”. Which of course
there is no such thing as…to which in this form seems to be a double
negative. And now in a critique of my critique I don’t feel it is a
very good critique but a critique just as well…so critiques on my
critique are welcome as I am sure George wants critiques too.
(=z=)
P.S. The work is quite aggravating…
Karla
George Dance says...
What are you looking for on this? Form comments? Meter? Content? Imagery? Rhyme?
=z=
> In article <171f0be9-d29b-4447-ad9a-d28ddee5f...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
karla,...you're like the discovery channel...raising more questions
than you answer...
did you ever check out that link i sent on the jazz subject?
“discovery is judgmental”
=z=
When spake too weeping hearts
no stitch could ever bind
a victim’s cry in woe infernal
=z=
Karla
I'll take your word on that. I haven't watched that channel for years.
>did you ever check out that link i sent on the jazz subject?
It was posted after I no longer had any need of it. Did you click on it?
The Rugolo that's available I'd already previewed and determined it wasn't
any of the stuff he'd written for Where the Boys Are. Thus my post asking
for specific suggestions of jazz music like that. Thanks for trying.
>“discovery is judgmental”
George Dance
> wrote that you have a November poem. You could call this "November."
> I don't see that the lovers' observations qualify as epiphanies.
Thank you, Cythera. Those are helpful comments. I'll make sure Leisha
sees them, and discuss revising with her. I put on that title, but I
have no problem with changing it. (That's the one place we don't have
to worry about the form. 8)
Th
George Dance
That's the first critique I've seen from you, =z=; thanks for choosing
one of mine for (what I'm guessing is) your first one. Judging it as a
first effort makes me appreciate it more; I just have to compare it
with the first poem I wrote. 8)
I'm a bit more charitable to the couple -- I see them as in a first
relationship, treading unknown and uncertain ground -- but that's not
that important. The important thing is that you got into the story,
and that your mind fleshed it out to a full scenario; as did I when I
read Leisha's original. That that happened to me was what got me
impressed and then engaged with the poem, and I'm glad this version
can do the same for a reader. That tells me a lot about the poem's
merits.
One thing it tells me is that the form didn't get in the way. The
villanelle is a highly artiificial form -- my Wadsworth Anthology
calls it "strangely artificial" and "one of the oddest forms." Because
two of the lines are used 4 times each, in only 19 lines, they make or
break the poem; either they make it sound phony, or they work very
well indeed.
I liked Leisha's idea of using questions for the 2 refrains: the
effect being that questions dominate the relationship. It's something
I hadn't seen tried before.
Again, thanks for reading and commenting.
George Dance
I'll take whatever you want to say. I usually get something from your
comments, which I wouldn't have thought of asking about in the first
place.
I'm pretty happy with this, but I am rereading it (as I do for each
poem I post) with an eye to revising. One thing I have been wondering
about was the phrase "what would the answer be?" Earlier that was
"your answer" or "my answer" in a couple of stanzas: I changed them
all because I thought they were clear enough, and I wanted more
identical refrains. I'd like to know if you thought that worked, or if
you'd recommend changing some of those back.
=z=
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, I did forget to say that I liked it overall but it was a bit-
frustrating read. It's not really the first crit I have offered, but
it is the first one I really tried to explain how I felt right after I
read it...looking a little deeper than surface emotion. I just don't
feel I am qualified to critique many of the writers in this group.
Maybe I should go to alt.potery.101, start there and work my way up.
8 )
Will Dockery
> wrote that you have a November poem. You could call this "November."
> I don't see that the lovers' observations qualify as epiphanies.
Jeeze, and you criticize the way I "critique", Cythera. Drop the chip
from your shoulder and lighten up, what would that hurt?
--
"Red Lipped Stranger & other stories" by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Will Dockery
> > > > you like to ask. When I say I don�t know:
> > > > �And if you knew, what would the answer be?�
>
> > > > �Why do you need a week alone to ski?�
> > > > you ask. I tell you I�m inspired by snow.
> > > > �What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> > > > �I�m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.�
> > > > I don�t know what to say (I have to go!)
> > > > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
>
> > > > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> > > > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> > > > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> > > > till I surrender. But if I said so,
> > > > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> > > > I�m just not ready yet � Let�s take it slow ��
> > > > What do we get from that epiphany,
> > > > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> > > > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
>
> > > wrote that you have a November poem. You could call this "November."
> > > I don't see that the lovers' observations qualify as epiphanies.
>
> > Jeeze, and you criticize the way I "critique", Cythera. Drop the chip
> > from your shoulder and lighten up, what would that hurt?
>
Maybe slightly, but I see it more of the same from you, really, Cythera.
> that you're following behind me again, begging me for attention.
You flatter yourself, Cythera... and you also seem to be off your meds
again.
Karla
> On Nov 3, 7:58 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <171f0be9-d29b-4447-ad9a-d28ddee5f...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > George Dance says...
>
> > > Mind Games
>
> > > �What do you get from that epiphany?�
> > > you like to ask. When I say I don�t know:
Right off the bat, the questioning confounds. We have A asking 'what do you get
from the epiphany?' - that's okay, but then B doesn't know. And so, how can A
even progress to 'if you knew - what would your answer be?' I mean, I put myself
in the place of B. If I don't know, I sure can't imagine knowing and what my
answer would be. Am I reading this wrong?
> > > �Why do you need a week alone to ski?�
> > > you ask. I tell you I�m inspired by snow.
> > > �What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
If the first stanza was fixed, this next would be perfect. Two people often have
these kind of running fights tossing in the last argument (in this case, the
play on epiphany).
> > > �I�m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.�
> > > I don�t know what to say (I have to go!)
> > > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
The first two lines are good, and consistent with A's push to have things under
control and known, and B's ambivalence, not understanding, not knowing. The last
line though bothers me the way the first stanza did. If one does not know, how
can one imagine the answer? And why would someone do that?
> > > Enough! You pound on me persistently �
> > > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> > > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
I don't like 'crack ego'. It reads like you're forcing meter, like words are
omitted. Otherwise, the 1st and 3rd lines continue the couple's tango.
> > > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> > > till I surrender. But if I said so,
> > > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
This 'what would the answer be' is dependent on B thinking that A will shatter B
till B surrenders and therefore is easier to imagine as B most likely has some
experience with telling A the truth or feelings. The part the doesn't work for
me here is 'and if you knew'. If A knew B's feelings? Perhaps it could be fixed
by changing 'and' to something else, to make it a progression of B saying so,
then A knowing.
> > > I redirect: �It isn�t you, it�s me �
> > > I�m just not ready yet � Let�s take it slow ��
> > > What do we get from that epiphany,
> > > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
This isn't an epiphany. I think that's the wrong word for the scene. And of
course, the last line has the same problem as the first stanza. If you don't
even know, why play this game of guessing the answer?
All of it reads quite naturally except for 'just to crack ego'. Too bad the
contents perplex and epiphany isn't quite the right word, and so the last stanza
feels false.
To your question about the changes to 'the answer' from 'your answer' or 'my
answer', I don't think it matters. Either way, I don't think it's natural. If
people don't know something, they don't persist at wondering what the answer
would be if they did know. As I wrote above, the only spot where it might make
sense it when B wonders about telling what s/he feels, and then wonders what A's
reaction would be. That could be based on actual history together. But a person
wondering about himself - nope, doesn't work for me. I'd wonder why I don't
know. I suppose at the very end, both might be wondering about the answer
because it's most likely that they shouldn't be together. However, the use of
'epiphany' throws a wrench in this. Obviously, B knows. There's no epiphany for
B. A must suspect else there wouldn't be the ongoing questioning.
Hope this helps.
> > > �
Karla
Cythera says...
>
>On Nov 5, 9:43=A0am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2:24=A0pm, Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:>> > > =93What do you get from that epiphany?=94
>> > > you like to ask. When I say I don=92t know:
>> > > =93And if you knew, what would the answer be?=94
>>
>> > > =93Why do you need a week alone to ski?=94
>> > > you ask. I tell you I=92m inspired by snow.
>> > > =93What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>>
>> > > =93I=92m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.=94
>> > > I don=92t know what to say (I have to go!)
>> > > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
>>
>> > > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
>> > > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>>
>> > > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
>> > > till I surrender. But if I said so,
>> > > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>>
>> > > I=92m just not ready yet =96 Let=92s take it slow =96=94
>> > > What do we get from that epiphany,
>> > > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>>
>> > > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
>>
>> > wrote that you have a November poem. You could call this "November."
>> > I don't see that the lovers' observations qualify as epiphanies.
>>
>> Jeeze, and you criticize the way I "critique", Cythera. Drop the chip
>> from your shoulder and lighten up, what would that hurt?
>>
>So you don't see that what I wrote has merit.
I do see your comments as most helpful. "Mind Games" does direct the reader how
to think about the poem rather than have the poem suggest that. And I agree
about 'epiphany' not working in most of the stanzas (and just posted about
that). The 2nd stanza is the most promising place for 'epiphany'. I can imagine
having used the word with a lover, having him react and then dragging it up
again later. That's how the 2nd stanza reads to me. I hear the sarcasm in 'what
do you hear from that? epiphany'.
No surprise there, or
>that you're following behind me again, begging me for attention.
>No.
>See you next time Rob posts to you.
>
Will Dockery
>
> I do see your comments as most helpful. "Mind Games" does direct the
> reader how
> to think about the poem rather than have the poem suggest that.
That was intentional, though, I'd say.
Karla
>
>On Nov 5, 1:32 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I do see your comments as most helpful. "Mind Games" does direct the
>> reader how
>> to think about the poem rather than have the poem suggest that.
>
>That was intentional, though, I'd say.
Perhaps you're not understanding the criticism? The title tells, thus the poem
is weakened in that respect. The title funnels down possible other meanings that
might arise from the poem. We read 'mind games' and then, we only expect mind
games. We might dismiss a subtle knowing that one of the lovers has about their
relationship, one known but not acknowledged. We might conclude from the title
that it's just two lovers' daily spats. I can't think of a possible good reason
for having the title 'tell' and not allowing the poem to 'show'. Please suggest
one!
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery says...
>>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> I do see your comments as most helpful. "Mind Games" does direct the
> >> reader how
> >> to think about the poem rather than have the poem suggest that.
>
> >That was intentional, though, I'd say.
>
> Perhaps you're not understanding
No, I understand it, and Cythera's chip on her shoulder, just fine, thanks.
Will Dockery
>
> relationship, one known but not acknowledged. We might conclude from the
> title
> that it's just two lovers' daily spats.
Not at all, since the use of the term "Mind Games" was obviously
intentional, as reference and homage.
Karla
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>Will Dockery says...
>>>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I do see your comments as most helpful. "Mind Games" does direct the
>> >> reader how
>> >> to think about the poem rather than have the poem suggest that.
>>
>> >That was intentional, though, I'd say.
>>
>> Perhaps you're not understanding
>
>No, I understand it
I'm addressing criticism of the poem, not flaming. You wrote about the title,
"Mind Games" - "that was intentional, though, I'd say." I'm discussing your
comment with you:
The title tells, thus the poem is weakened in that respect. The title funnels
down possible other meanings that might arise from the poem. We read 'mind
games' and then, we only expect mind games. We might dismiss a subtle knowing
that one of the lovers has about their relationship, one known but not
acknowledged. We might conclude from the title that it's just two lovers' daily
Will Dockery
> >>Will Dockery says...
> >>>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> I do see your comments as most helpful. "Mind Games" does direct the
> >> >> reader how
> >> >> to think about the poem rather than have the poem suggest that.
>
> >> >That was intentional, though, I'd say.
>
> >> Perhaps you're not understanding
>
> >No, I understand it
>
> I'm addressing criticism of the poem
See my next post after this one for the key to why the title of the poem
works and takes the poem into a higher context. The poem is a work of art,
not some seady soap opera.
Karla
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> relationship, one known but not acknowledged. We might conclude from the
>> title
>> that it's just two lovers' daily spats.
>
>Not at all, since the use of the term "Mind Games" was obviously
>intentional, as reference and homage.
Perhaps I'm missing what it references? Please advise. Does the poem also
'reference'?
Same for homage. Who is receiving this homage?
Karla
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >>Will Dockery says...
>> >>>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> I do see your comments as most helpful. "Mind Games" does direct the
>> >> >> reader how
>> >> >> to think about the poem rather than have the poem suggest that.
>>
>> >> >That was intentional, though, I'd say.
>>
>> >> Perhaps you're not understanding
>>
>> >No, I understand it
>>
>> I'm addressing criticism of the poem
>
>See my next post after this one for the key to why the title of the poem
>works and takes the poem into a higher context. The poem is a work of art,
>not some seady soap opera.
The poem doesn't work for me, and I showed why it doesn't. What makes it a work
of art for you? Please explain/show. Also, where do you get 'seedy soap opera'
from what was said?
Will Dockery
>
> where do you get 'seedy soap opera' from what was said?
The title is a reference to a broader perspective, a more universal
connection, rather than just a boy and a girl exchanging in a mind game.
Not just a "she said..." thing, but she in the context of She.
Even you should be able to figure that out, Karla.
Karla
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> where do you get 'seedy soap opera' from what was said?
>
>The title is a reference to a broader perspective, a more universal
>connection, rather than just a boy and a girl exchanging in a mind game.
>
>Not just a "she said..." thing, but she in the context of She.
>
>Even you should be able to figure that out, Karla.
I don't understand why you're insulting me? I asked you a question and you've
partly explained it. If you look at my criticism of the poem, I didn't phrase it
at all in terms of "she said". Which party are you seeing as this She? For
instance, in the second stanza:
"�Why do you need a week alone to ski?�
you ask. I tell you I�m inspired by snow.
�What do you get from that? Epiphany?""
What is the broader perspective? The universal connection? Please explain, or as
you insultingly put it, help me figure it out.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery says...
> >Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> spats.
There's your answer to my statement that you've lowered the poem to the
status of a "sleazy soap opera", Karla... while the poem rises far above
that, if you take the time to "get" what is there, and see beyond the mudane
/street level/ the words may suggest to the casual reader.
Mind Games.
> >Not at all, since the use of the term "Mind Games" was obviously
> >intentional, as reference and homage.
>
> Perhaps I'm missing what it references? Please advise. Does the poem also
> 'reference'?
>
> Same for homage. Who is receiving this homage?
Have you even read the poem, or are you just riffing off the title? I have.
[Poem restored from careless snippage]:
>>> > Mind Games
>>>
>>> > “What do you get from that epiphany?”
>>> > you like to ask. When I say I don’t know:
>>> > “And if you knew, what would the answer be?”
>>>
>>> > “Why do you need a week alone to ski?”
>>> > you ask. I tell you I’m inspired by snow.
>>> > “What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>>>
>>> > “I’m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.”
>>> > I don’t know what to say (I have to go!)
>>> > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
>>> > Enough! You pound on me persistently –
>>> > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
>>> > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>>>
>>> > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
>>> > till I surrender. But if I said so,
>>> > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>>>
>>> > I redirect: “It isn’t you, it’s me –
>>> > I’m just not ready yet – Let’s take it slow –”
>>> > What do we get from that epiphany,
>>> > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>>>
>>> > –
>>> > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
--
Will Dockery
> George Dance says...
>
> > Mind Games
>
> > you like to ask. When I say I don�t know:
> > �And if you knew, what would the answer be?�
>
> > �Why do you need a week alone to ski?�
> > you ask. I tell you I�m inspired by snow.
>
> > �I�m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.�
> > I don�t know what to say (I have to go!)
> > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
> > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> > till I surrender. But if I said so,
> > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> > I�m just not ready yet � Let�s take it slow ��
> > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
>
> Rhyme?
I didn't know the new rule for Usenet poetry posting was that the poet is no
required to state what /kind/ of critique he wants from the poem in advance.
Strange questions... but noted.
Karla
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>Will Dockery says...
>> >Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> We might conclude from the title that it's just two lovers' daily
>> >> spats.
>
>There's your answer to my statement that you've lowered the poem to the
>status of a "sleazy soap opera", Karla... while the poem rises far above
>that, if you take the time to "get" what is there, and see beyond the mudane
>/street level/ the words may suggest to the casual reader.
You're not understanding my comment. I am saying that the title lowers the poem
so that we might only conclude it's about two lovers' daily spats. I'm not
saying that the poem is /only/ about that. Reread what I said.
>Mind Games.
>
>> >Not at all, since the use of the term "Mind Games" was obviously
>> >intentional, as reference and homage.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm missing what it references? Please advise. Does the poem also
>> 'reference'?
Again, what is the reference?
>> Same for homage. Who is receiving this homage?
>
>Have you even read the poem, or are you just riffing off the title? I have.
Yes, I made extensive comments on the poem. Who is receiving the homage?
Karla
>
>Karla wrote:
>> George Dance says...
>>
>> > Mind Games
>>
>> > you like to ask. When I say I don�t know:
>> > �And if you knew, what would the answer be?�
>>
>> > �Why do you need a week alone to ski?�
>> > you ask. I tell you I�m inspired by snow.
>>
>> > �I�m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.�
>> > I don�t know what to say (I have to go!)
>> > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
>> > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
>> > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>>
>> > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
>> > till I surrender. But if I said so,
>> > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>>
>> > I�m just not ready yet � Let�s take it slow ��
>> > What do we get from that epiphany,
>> > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>>
>> > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
>>
>> What are you looking for on this? Form comments? Meter? Content? Imagery?
>> Rhyme?
>
>I didn't know the new rule for Usenet poetry posting was that the poet is no
>required to state what /kind/ of critique he wants from the poem in advance.
>
>Strange questions... but noted.
Do I say it's required? I'm asking where he'd like comments. He answered. Many
of George's poems are posted over and over again. He may be trying to fix one
thing in particular, or he may want confirmation that it is done, or he may want
any comments he gets. I have no idea. So I ask. Why do you have a problem with
that? George didn't.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery says...
>>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> We might conclude from the title that it's just two lovers' daily spats.
>
> >There's your answer to my statement that you've lowered the poem to the
> >status of a "sleazy soap opera", Karla... while the poem rises far above
> >that, if you take the time to "get" what is there, and see beyond the
> >mudane
> >/street level/ the words may suggest to the casual reader.
>
> You're not understanding my comment. I am saying that the title lowers the
> poem
> so that we might only conclude it's about two lovers' daily spats.
I'm saying the title "Mind Games" conveys exactly the opposite of that, as
reference and homage, and by that excellent start, sets the tone, the code,
for the more universal truths the poem conveys.
> >>>> > Mind Games
>
> >>>> > "What do you get from that epiphany?"
> >>>> > you like to ask. When I say I don't know:
> >>>> > "And if you knew, what would the answer be?"
>
> >>>> > "Why do you need a week alone to ski?"
> >>>> > you ask. I tell you I'm inspired by snow.
> >>>> > "What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> >>>> > "I'm going to miss you. You know you'll miss me."
> >>>> > I don't know what to say (I have to go!)
> >>>> > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
> >>>> > Enough! You pound on me persistently -
> >>>> > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> >>>> > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> >>>> > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> >>>> > till I surrender. But if I said so,
> >>>> > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> >>>> > I redirect: "It isn't you, it's me -
> >>>> > I'm just not ready yet - Let's take it slow -"
> >>>> > What do we get from that epiphany,
> >>>> > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> >>>> > -
> >>>> > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
--
Will Dockery
> In article <e66d9$4af32b9b$d8baf760$5...@KNOLOGY.NET>, Will Dockery
> >Karla wrote:
> >> George Dance says...
>
>
> >> > "What do you get from that epiphany?"
> >> > you like to ask. When I say I don't know:
> >> > "And if you knew, what would the answer be?"
>
> >> > "Why do you need a week alone to ski?"
> >> > you ask. I tell you I'm inspired by snow.
> >> > "What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> >> > "I'm going to miss you. You know you'll miss me."
> >> > I don't know what to say (I have to go!)
> >> > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
> >> > Enough! You pound on me persistently -
> >> > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> >> > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> >> > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> >> > till I surrender. But if I said so,
> >> > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> >> > I redirect: "It isn't you, it's me -
> >> > I'm just not ready yet - Let's take it slow -"
> >> > What do we get from that epiphany,
> >> > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> >> > -
> >> > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
>
> >> Imagery?
> >> Rhyme?
>
> >I didn't know the new rule for Usenet poetry posting was that the poet is
> >no
> >required to state what /kind/ of critique he wants from the poem in
> >advance.
>
> >Strange questions... but noted.
>
> Do I say it's required?
Do you have to?
Karla
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>Will Dockery says...
>>>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> We might conclude from the title that it's just two lovers' daily spats.
>>
>> >There's your answer to my statement that you've lowered the poem to the
>> >status of a "sleazy soap opera", Karla... while the poem rises far above
>> >that, if you take the time to "get" what is there, and see beyond the
>> >mudane
>> >/street level/ the words may suggest to the casual reader.
>>
>> You're not understanding my comment. I am saying that the title lowers the
>> poem
>> so that we might only conclude it's about two lovers' daily spats.
>
>I'm saying the title "Mind Games" conveys exactly the opposite of that, as
>reference and homage, and by that excellent start, sets the tone, the code,
>for the more universal truths the poem conveys.
Which are? Please explain.
Please tie 'Mind Games' to your comment "as reference and homage" because I
don't have a clue.
Will Dockery
>
> I have no idea. So I ask. Why do you have a problem with that?
I don't have a problem with it, I'm just noting it for future
reference, Karla.
Karla
I feel like you're trying to pick a fight with me. Again, I don't know what
George wants unless I ask. I didn't say you or anyone else has to mimic my
approach to comments or criticism. Also, it's pretty standard in writers' groups
to support one another with those kinds of questions. It helps those reading to
understand the writer's purpose and intentions. Sometimes, there's no specific
need, and that's easily stated.
Karla
Will Dockery says...
>
>Karla wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea. So I ask. Why do you have a problem with that?
>
>I don't have a problem with it, I'm just noting it for future
>reference, Karla.
What future reference?
Will Dockery
Not at all, and I've had that same feeling with you towards me many
times, as well, as you no doubt know, Karla. As in those cases, I
assure you I'm not.
Just making an observation, that's all.
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery says...
> >Karla wrote:
>
> >> I have no idea. So I ask. Why do you have a problem with that?
>
> >I don't have a problem with it, I'm just noting it for future
> >reference, Karla.
>
> What future reference?
Mine.
Karla
>>
>> where do you get 'seedy soap opera' from what was said?
>
>The title is a reference to a broader perspective, a more universal
>connection, rather than just a boy and a girl exchanging in a mind game.
>
>Not just a "she said..." thing, but she in the context of She.
I'm still intrigued by this. What do you mean "in the context of She"? Please
explain.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery says...
> >Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> where do you get 'seedy soap opera' from what was said?
>
> >The title is a reference to a broader perspective, a more universal
> >connection, rather than just a boy and a girl exchanging in a mind game.
>
> >Not just a "she said..." thing, but she in the context of She.
I did earlier, but I mean the universal situation of man and woman, not just
some conversation in a room between two individuals... not like some sordid
little soap opera, the way you envisioned it, Karla.
>> Mind Games
>>
>> "What do you get from that epiphany?"
>> you like to ask. When I say I don't know:
>> "And if you knew, what would the answer be?"
>>
>> "Why do you need a week alone to ski?"
>> you ask. I tell you I'm inspired by snow.
>> "What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>>
>> "I'm going to miss you. You know you'll miss me."
>> I don't know what to say (I have to go!)
>> and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
>> Enough! You pound on me persistently -
>> though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
>> (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>>
>> I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
>> till I surrender. But if I said so,
>> and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>>
>> I redirect: "It isn't you, it's me -
>> I'm just not ready yet - Let's take it slow -"
>> What do we get from that epiphany,
>> and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>>
>> -
>> Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
--
Karla
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>Will Dockery says...
>> >Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> where do you get 'seedy soap opera' from what was said?
>>
>> >The title is a reference to a broader perspective, a more universal
>> >connection, rather than just a boy and a girl exchanging in a mind game.
>>
>> >Not just a "she said..." thing, but she in the context of She.
>
>I did earlier, but I mean the universal situation of man and woman, not just
>some conversation in a room between two individuals... not like some sordid
>little soap opera, the way you envisioned it, Karla.
You are putting words in my mouth as I explained earlier. The title limits the
poem, is what I said. How does the title, Mind Games" signal a universal meaning
of She? I don't see it. Also, how does the second stanza about skiing fit in
with it? And what do you see as the universal situation between a man and a
woman? Why do you limit it to just a man and a woman. This poem can be read as
conversation between any two intimates.
Will Dockery
>
> The title limits the poem, is what I said.
Not for me, since it sets the tone of reference and homage... and
elevates the reader to understand from the start that there's more
going on than just another "she said" soap opera, Karla.
> >>> "What do you get from that epiphany?"
> >>> you like to ask. When I say I don't know:
> >>> "And if you knew, what would the answer be?"
>
> >>> "Why do you need a week alone to ski?"
> >>> you ask. I tell you I'm inspired by snow.
> >>> "What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> >>> "I'm going to miss you. You know you'll miss me."
> >>> I don't know what to say (I have to go!)
> >>> and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
> >>> Enough! You pound on me persistently -
> >>> though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> >>> (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> >>> I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> >>> till I surrender. But if I said so,
> >>> and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> >>> I redirect: "It isn't you, it's me -
> >>> I'm just not ready yet - Let's take it slow -"
> >>> What do we get from that epiphany,
> >>> and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> >>> -
> >>> Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
--
Karla
Will Dockery says...
>
>Karla wrote:
>>
>> The title limits the poem, is what I said.
>
>Not for me, since it sets the tone of reference and homage... and
>elevates the reader to understand from the start that there's more
>going on than just another "she said" soap opera, Karla.
You're snipping my questions in several posts where I'm asking you to let me in
on the reference and homage. What eternal struggle does the title "Mind Games"
reference and homage? I'm willing to see what you mean if you can demonstrate
it. Until you can, your saying so doesn't make it so. For instance, your /not/
letting us in on the references to an eternal struggle of She, is a mind game.
Instead of explaining, you snip and just state your opinion again. Why not step
up to the plate and have a discussion, cease the mind games. I'm open to
understanding what you mean. For intstance, in Eliot's poem, "The Love Song of
J. Alfred Prufrock", I see a conversation besteen Prufrock and someone he
shrinks from knowing. It's an imagined conversation. I also see an elevated
level to the poem, where Prufrock is unable to hear what others heard before,
what other poets heard before. And in another layer, I see Prufrock as a
shepherd love poem of old but with a new twist. The shepherd speaks alone in a
deaf world where no one knows the ancient languages or canon. I love that kind
of thing! So show me how the title signals something more to you. Connect the
dots for me.
Will Dockery
<snipped for brevity>
> So show me how the title signals something more to you.
You're not joking that the title means absolutely nothing to you, as a
reference or homage to anything? And by reference, who the couple talking in
the poem might be? Just making sure you're not just playing stupid in order
to flame me or something?
You let these stupid statements pass without a blink:
"...The title tells the reader what to think. That's not good. I don't see
that the lovers' observations qualify as epiphanies..."
Yet when I correct Cythera's stupidity, you send me dozens of questions
asking me answers that should be obvious to such a supposedly "smart" person
such as yourself. If you're not really trying to insult me here, and you
really don't know the very obvious reference and homage, and what "Mind
Games" signifies to most civilized people of our generation, then we can
continue.
The poem is interesting, and a great work of art... and the title "Mind
Games" is an excellent choice, as well. If you still have questions about
that, and can't get it from reading the poem, by all means let me know...
I'll be downtown for a while to perform some music and poetry, but will
return sometime after midnight.
And thanks for not trying to pick a fight or put words in my mouth in
advance, Karla.
>> >>> "What do you get from that epiphany?"
> >> >>> you like to ask. When I say I don't know:
> >> >>> "And if you knew, what would the answer be?"
>
> >> >>> "Why do you need a week alone to ski?"
> >> >>> you ask. I tell you I'm inspired by snow.
> >> >>> "What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> >> >>> "I'm going to miss you. You know you'll miss me."
> >> >>> I don't know what to say (I have to go!)
> >> >>> and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
> >> >>> Enough! You pound on me persistently -
> >> >>> though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> >> >>> (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> >> >>> I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> >> >>> till I surrender. But if I said so,
> >> >>> and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> >> >>> I redirect: "It isn't you, it's me -
> >> >>> I'm just not ready yet - Let's take it slow -"
> >> >>> What do we get from that epiphany,
> >> >>> and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> >> >>> -
> >> >>> Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
--
Karla
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
><snipped for brevity>
>
>> So show me how the title signals something more to you.
>
>You're not joking that the title means absolutely nothing to you, as a
>reference or homage to anything? And by reference, who the couple talking in
>the poem might be? Just making sure you're not just playing stupid in order
>to flame me or something?
No, I'm not joking. The phrase 'mind games' has been around as long as I can
remember. I believe I first heard it invoked by brother and sister fighting,
something like: "stop the mind games."
>You let these stupid statements pass without a blink:
>"...The title tells the reader what to think. That's not good. I don't see
>that the lovers' observations qualify as epiphanies..."
>
I don't think it is stupid. I think the point is a good one. As explained above,
when I read 'mind games', I think of two people going back and forth in a
disharmonious way, holding back information, changing the subject on each other,
not working towards understanding, but away from it. So, when I read the poem, I
bring that to the poem. The title has told me what to think.
However, regarding 'ephiphanies', I don't entirely agree. My longer comments to
George illustrate that.
>Yet when I correct Cythera's stupidity, you send me dozens of questions
>asking me answers that should be obvious to such a supposedly "smart" person
>such as yourself. If you're not really trying to insult me here, and you
>really don't know the very obvious reference and homage, and what "Mind
>Games" signifies to most civilized people of our generation, then we can
>continue.
Well, like I've written a few times now, I thought Cythera's comments, quoted by
you above, addressed the poem. I don't think they were flames. I agreed with her
comment on the title, and only partially agreed with her comment about
'epiphanies'. I disagree with you that they are 'stupid' comments. Also, the
questions I sent you weren't meant as insulting. I really don't see how "mind
games" has anything to do with an eternal She or whatever you said. I don't see
it in the poem either. If I've sent too many questions, it's because I've wanted
you to explain to me what that means, and since you haven't connected the dots
for me, I renew my questions. This eternal She talks about skiing - WTF am I
missing? What IS the reference, the homage? Tell you what, if you want to
continue in not answering, and if George and Leisha consent, I will bring this
poem to my next writers' group and see if they come up with the reference and
homage you think I'm missing. They are both older and younger than I am. Two of
them didn't grow up in the U.S. One of them is fresh out of a writing program
similar to the one Leisha finished. Several are seasoned writers.
>The poem is interesting, and a great work of art...
This is your opinion. I wish I could see it that way which is why I'm asking you
to explain why it's a great work of art to you.
and the title "Mind
>Games" is an excellent choice, as well. If you still have questions about
>that, and can't get it from reading the poem, by all means let me know...
>I'll be downtown for a while to perform some music and poetry, but will
>return sometime after midnight.
See above. I'm interested in seeing what you're seeing.
>And thanks for not trying to pick a fight or put words in my mouth in
>advance, Karla.
I wish I could say the same - you've done nothing but make snide remarks about
how I should be smart enough or insinuated that I'm uncivilized because I don't
get what you think it means. As I wrote before, your refusal to explain what you
mean fits perfectly the title, mind games.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery says...
> >Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> ><snipped for brevity>
>
> >> So show me how the title signals something more to you.
>
> >You're not joking that the title means absolutely nothing to you, as a
> >reference or homage to anything? And by reference, who the couple talking in
> >the poem might be? Just making sure you're not just playing stupid in order
> >to flame me or something?
>
> No, I'm not joking. The phrase 'mind games' has been around as long as I can
> remember. I believe I first heard it invoked by brother and sister fighting,
> something like: "stop the mind games."
>
> >You let these stupid statements pass without a blink:
> >"...The title tells the reader what to think. That's not good. I don't see
> >that the lovers' observations qualify as epiphanies..."
>
> I don't think it is stupid. I think the point is a good one. As explained above,
> when I read 'mind games', I think of two people going back and forth in a
> disharmonious way
That's because you don't seem to understand the reference and the
obvious homage, as I've written before, Karla.
Karla
Will Dockery says...
>
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>Will Dockery says...
>> >Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> ><snipped for brevity>
>>
>> >> So show me how the title signals something more to you.
>>
>> >You're not joking that the title means absolutely nothing to you, as a
>> >reference or homage to anything? And by reference, who the couple talking in
>> >the poem might be? Just making sure you're not just playing stupid in order
>> >to flame me or something?
>>
>> No, I'm not joking. The phrase 'mind games' has been around as long as I can
>> remember. I believe I first heard it invoked by brother and sister fighting,
>> something like: "stop the mind games."
>>
>> >You let these stupid statements pass without a blink:
>> >"...The title tells the reader what to think. That's not good. I don't see
>> >that the lovers' observations qualify as epiphanies..."
>>
>>I don't think it is stupid. I think the point is a good one. As explained above,
>> when I read 'mind games', I think of two people going back and forth in a
>> disharmonious way
>
>That's because you don't seem to understand the reference and the
>obvious homage, as I've written before, Karla.
You stuck around to respond? No, I don't understand. Enlighten me on the great
She.
Will Dockery
Are you familiar with Carl Jung, for starters?
Karla
Will Dockery
What do you want to know about him? I'm open to any line of questioning
tonight... in fact I just started the "Will Dockery Interview" thread... so
ask away, Karla.
Karla
Does Carl Jung have something to do with the title "Mind Games", and if so,
what? Does Carl Jung have something to do with the great She you mentioned?
Connect the dots between the poem and your mention of Carl Jung, please.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery says...
>
>
> Does Carl Jung have something to do with the title "Mind Games", and if so,
> what? Does Carl Jung have something to do with the great She you mentioned?
> Connect the dots between the poem and your mention of Carl Jung, please.
Carl Jung's archtypes relates to the She the poem refers to:
http://www.helium.com/items/221986-carl-g-jung-archetypes-of-the-collective-unconscious
"...From the dawn of humanity we have lived in a world of symbolism.
Our symbols explain the world around us, our relationships with each
other and our relationship to the universe. These symbols, these
essences of pure being, are the primordial qualities of the truly
real. In Plato's cave light casts shadows on a wall. The world that we
know is merely a shadow. The reality behind the shadows is the eternal
forms, the essences, the archetypes. Freud's younger colleague, Carl
Jung took Freud's idea of the unconscious mind a step further. He
conceived of a collective unconscious which consists of the eternal
forms, and is the instinct and inheritance of all humanity. This
collective unconscious provides us with our symbolism, our hope, our
meaning, and our connection to the truly real. Some of the primary
archetypes discussed by Jung are Shadow, Trickster, Anima, Animus,
Great Mother, Wise Old Man, Child, Transformation, Mandala and
individuation of Self..."
=z=
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is the honeymoon over?...or are you two just having a spat?...nuttin'
like a double truce for the holidayz...
Will Dockery
> like a double truce for the holidayz...
I think they call it "Mind Foreplay"...
=z=
>
> - Show quoted text -
heh...doin' those "Mind (foreplay) Games Forever"...
Karla
Jung's archetypes are well known, but I am not seeing the connection that
you are seeing and that's because you're not making the connection. Perhaps
you can't express how the title "Mind Games" makes you think of Jung's
archetypes? That's okay. I accept that you think that the title works for
the villanelle. I accept that you think the poem is a work of art. I was
hoping you would connect the dots, but it's not necessary.
Will Dockery
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> heh...doin' those "Mind (foreplay) Games Forever"...- Hide quoted text -
"Absolute elsewhere in the stones of your mind..." -John Lennon
Karla
It's difficult to keep my pledge (which isn't the same thing as a truce).
I'd like to discuss the poem and Will's opinions but he's suspicious of my
questions. Do you see what he's seeing about the title? about the poem? I
don't know what reference or homage he's talking about. Do you?
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery says...
>
> >> >What do you want to know
>
> >> Does Carl Jung have something to do with the title "Mind Games", and if so,
> >> what? Does Carl Jung have something to do with the great She you mentioned?
> >> Connect the dots between the poem and your mention of Carl Jung, please.
>
> >Carl Jung's archtypes relates to the She the poem refers to:
>
>
> >"...From the dawn of humanity we have lived in a world of symbolism.
> >Our symbols explain the world around us, our relationships with each
> >other and our relationship to the universe. These symbols, these
> >essences of pure being, are the primordial qualities of the truly
> >real. In Plato's cave light casts shadows on a wall. The world that we
> >know is merely a shadow. The reality behind the shadows is the eternal
> >forms, the essences, the archetypes. Freud's younger colleague, Carl
> >Jung took Freud's idea of the unconscious mind a step further. He
> >conceived of a collective unconscious which consists of the eternal
> >forms, and is the instinct and inheritance of all humanity. This
> >collective unconscious provides us with our symbolism, our hope, our
> >meaning, and our connection to the truly real. Some of the primary
> >archetypes discussed by Jung are Shadow, Trickster, Anima, Animus,
> >Great Mother, Wise Old Man, Child, Transformation, Mandala and
> >individuation of Self..."
>
> Jung's archetypes are well known, but I am not seeing the connection that
> you are seeing and that's because you're not making the connection. Perhaps
> you can't express how the title "Mind Games" makes you think of Jung's
> archetypes? That's okay. I accept that you think that the title works for
> the villanelle. I accept that you think the poem is a work of art. I was
> hoping you would connect the dots, but it's not necessary.
i will when I get back and have more time... I accept that you're
being straight-up with me and you really don't see the relevance of
the "Mind Games" title and how it is pretty much perfect for the
content and message of the poem, Karla.
But, as you asked George, be specific about what you ask for: "What
are you looking for on this?"
--
Karla
When I mentioned that I agree with Cythra that the title tells the reader
what to think (my paraphrase), you wrote: "Not at all, since the use of the
term "Mind Games" was obviously intentional, as reference and homage."
I'm looking for an explanation of what you meant? You're saying that George
intentionally titled the poem "Mind Games" as a reference, as a homage. Is
the reference to Jung? to archetypes? I honestly don't think of that even
after you mentioned Jung. Who do you think George is intentionally paying
homage to?
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery says...
>
> >are you looking for on this?"
>
> When I mentioned that I agree with Cythra that the title tells the reader
> what to think (my paraphrase), you wrote: "Not at all, since the use of the
> term "Mind Games" was obviously intentional, as reference and homage."
> I'm looking for an explanation of what you meant? You're saying that George
> intentionally titled the poem "Mind Games" as a reference, as a homage. Is
> the reference to Jung? to archetypes? I honestly don't think of that even
> after you mentioned Jung. Who do you think George is intentionally paying
> homage to?
No, you're putting words in my mouth, Karla... at least they're rather
tasty ones...
Karla
<will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>Will Dockery says...
>>
>> >But, as you asked George, be specific about what you ask for: "What
>> >are you looking for on this?"
>>
>> When I mentioned that I agree with Cythra that the title tells the reader
>> what to think (my paraphrase), you wrote: "Not at all, since the use of the
>> term "Mind Games" was obviously intentional, as reference and homage."
>> I'm looking for an explanation of what you meant? You're saying that George
>> intentionally titled the poem "Mind Games" as a reference, as a homage. Is
>> the reference to Jung? to archetypes? I honestly don't think of that even
>> after you mentioned Jung. Who do you think George is intentionally paying
>> homage to?
>
>No, you're putting words in my mouth, Karla... at least they're rather
>tasty ones...
You wanted to know what I was looking for. You wrote that 'the use of the
term "Mind Games" was obviously intentional, as reference and homage.'
Who specifically does the title pay homage to?
=z=
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe the title "Mind Games" could reference many
things...relationship, religion, politics, chess, poker, poetry...all
the above...not always easy to really define by one who should
know...so let us ask the writer...Yo George, who do you homage in
“Mind Games”? Did you ever think of Jung in a dream? The powers need
to know...hurry. I think it is homage to two lovers who loved each
other…just never at the same time…
Will Dockery
>
> Please tie 'Mind Games' to your comment "as reference and homage" because
> I
> don't have a clue.>> >>>> > Mind Games
Oh, okay... sorry, that's probably why you didn't understand the broader
meanings of the poem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Games_(song)
"...This song, which was begun in 1969 and can be heard in the Beatles' Let
It Be sessions, was inspired by the book of the same name by Robert Masters
and Jean Houston (1972), which emphasized the power of the human brain to
induce various states of consciousness without the aid of external
substances. The book presented a series of exercises intended to maximize
one's potential for problem solving, conflict resolution, visionary
thinking, creativity, focused listening and super-communication. Each
application would start with a brief meditation cycle followed by the guided
instructions of a director. During the exercise, only the director would
speak, but each person would share their experience afterwards. Mind
alteration had long since been a point of interest to Lennon, however he was
aware of the risks involved with chemical consumption. A recommendation by
Lennon himself is included with the book..."
"Mind Games":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.lyrics/msg/b7c7876e8ccac003?hl=en
> >> >>>> > "What do you get from that epiphany?"
> >> >>>> > you like to ask. When I say I don't know:
> >> >>>> > "And if you knew, what would the answer be?"
>
> >> >>>> > "Why do you need a week alone to ski?"
> >> >>>> > you ask. I tell you I'm inspired by snow.
> >> >>>> > "What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> >> >>>> > "I'm going to miss you. You know you'll miss me."
> >> >>>> > I don't know what to say (I have to go!)
> >> >>>> > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
> >> >>>> > Enough! You pound on me persistently -
> >> >>>> > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> >> >>>> > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> >> >>>> > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> >> >>>> > till I surrender. But if I said so,
> >> >>>> > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> >> >>>> > I redirect: "It isn't you, it's me -
> >> >>>> > I'm just not ready yet - Let's take it slow -"
> >> >>>> > What do we get from that epiphany,
> >> >>>> > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> >> >>>> > -
> >> >>>> > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
--
Will Dockery
> Karla wrote in article <47f9294b-2935-496a-9fa4-8587ea3b3...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>:
> > Will Dockery says...
>
> > >The title "Mind Games" sets the tone of reference and homage... and
> > >elevates the reader to understand from the start that there's more
> > >going on than just another "she said" soap opera, Karla.
>
> > J. Alfred Prufrock", I see a conversation besteen Prufrock and someone he
> > shrinks from knowing. It's an imagined conversation. I also see an elevated
> > level to the poem, where Prufrock is unable to hear what others heard before,
> > what other poets heard before. And in another layer, I see Prufrock as a
> > shepherd love poem of old but with a new twist. The shepherd speaks alone in a
> > deaf world where no one knows the ancient languages or canon.
>
Whereas "Mind Games" has just the opposite effect.
> T. Stearns changed it before publication.
>
> A fun Prufrock quiz:http://www.gradesaver.com/the-love-song-of-j-alfred-prufrock/study-gu...
Will Dockery
>
> Wouldn't it be amazing if D. explained which two Jungian archetypes
> are represented by A and B, and gave urls and quotes relating to each
> of them?
But you wouldn't see it unless Mushmouth responded to me... right?
Karla
>
>On Nov 5, 3:22 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Please tie 'Mind Games' to your comment "as reference and homage" because
>> I
>> don't have a clue.>> >>>> > Mind Games
>
>Oh, okay... sorry, that's probably why you didn't understand the broader
>meanings of the poem:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Games_(song)
>
>"...This song, which was begun in 1969 and can be heard in the Beatles' Let
>It Be sessions, was inspired by the book of the same name by Robert Masters
>and Jean Houston (1972), which emphasized the power of the human brain to
>induce various states of consciousness without the aid of external
>substances. The book presented a series of exercises intended to maximize
>one's potential for problem solving, conflict resolution, visionary
>thinking, creativity, focused listening and super-communication. Each
>application would start with a brief meditation cycle followed by the guided
>instructions of a director. During the exercise, only the director would
>speak, but each person would share their experience afterwards. Mind
>alteration had long since been a point of interest to Lennon, however he was
>aware of the risks involved with chemical consumption. A recommendation by
>Lennon himself is included with the book..."
Are you saying that the 'broader meanings of the poem' is about inducing
"various states of consciousness without the aid of external substances" as per
the above copied portion from wiki?
If not, what did you mean by the 'broader meanings of the poem'?
I can buy that the title reminds some of pop culture references, like John
Lennon's 4th album, and the period that he was separated from Ono. Several songs
are written for her. That would fit with the poems's two people having
miscommunication and difficulty with their relationship. I don't see anything in
the poem to support that the broader meanings of the poem have to do with
Masters/Houston's book by the same name and the exercises.
Will Dockery
>
> >"...This song, which was begun in 1969 and can be heard in the Beatles'
> >Let
> >It Be sessions, was inspired by the book of the same name by Robert
> >Masters
> >and Jean Houston (1972), which emphasized the power of the human brain to
> >induce various states of consciousness without the aid of external
> >substances. The book presented a series of exercises intended to maximize
> >one's potential for problem solving, conflict resolution, visionary
> >thinking, creativity, focused listening and super-communication. Each
> >application would start with a brief meditation cycle followed by the
> >guided
> >instructions of a director. During the exercise, only the director would
> >speak, but each person would share their experience afterwards. Mind
> >alteration had long since been a point of interest to Lennon, however he
> >was
> >aware of the risks involved with chemical consumption. A recommendation
> >by
> >Lennon himself is included with the book..."
>
> Are you saying that the 'broader meanings of the poem' is about inducing
> "various states of consciousness without the aid of external substances"
> as per
> the above copied portion from wiki?
>
> If not, what did you mean by the 'broader meanings of the poem'?
You get from a poem what you're willing to take from it... I get things from
Leonard Cohen that you don't, for example. I get broader meanings from the
poem, and title "Mind Games" than you do, but that's no crime. That doesn't
make you stupid or anything, just unreceptive to what's coming through in
the poem.
> I can buy that the title reminds some of pop culture references, like John
> Lennon's 4th album, and the period that he was separated from Ono. Several
> songs
> are written for her. That would fit with the poems's two people having
> miscommunication and difficulty with their relationship. I don't see
> anything in
> the poem to support that the broader meanings of the poem have to do with
> Masters/Houston's book by the same name and the exercises.>
I see you did a blow-by-blow of Mind Games earlier in the thread, I'm gonna
meet you there and go through it with you, see where we arrive.
Yes, I'm asking you out on a Usenet date... aren't truces grand?
"Mind Games":
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.lyrics/msg/b7c7876e8ccac003?...
>
> >> >> >>>> > "What do you get from that epiphany?"
> >> >> >>>> > you like to ask. When I say I don't know:
> >> >> >>>> > "And if you knew, what would the answer be?"
>
> >> >> >>>> > "Why do you need a week alone to ski?"
> >> >> >>>> > you ask. I tell you I'm inspired by snow.
> >> >> >>>> > "What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> >> >> >>>> > "I'm going to miss you. You know you'll miss me."
> >> >> >>>> > I don't know what to say (I have to go!)
> >> >> >>>> > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
> >> >> >>>> > Enough! You pound on me persistently -
> >> >> >>>> > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> >> >> >>>> > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> >> >> >>>> > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> >> >> >>>> > till I surrender. But if I said so,
> >> >> >>>> > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> >> >> >>>> > I redirect: "It isn't you, it's me -
> >> >> >>>> > I'm just not ready yet - Let's take it slow -"
> >> >> >>>> > What do we get from that epiphany,
> >> >> >>>> > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> >> >> >>>> > -
> >> >> >>>> > Leisha Wharfield & George Dance
--
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
>> Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wouldn't it be amazing if D. explained which two Jungian archetypes
> > > are represented by A and B, and gave urls and quotes relating to each
> > > of them?
>
> > But you wouldn't see it unless Mushmouth responded to me... right?
>
Silly little Cythera... always with the questions. Stupid ones, at that.
Look it up... before you get paranoid again and try to delete it.
Mind Games
>
> �What do you get from that epiphany?�
> you like to ask. When I say I don�t know:
> �And if you knew, what would the answer be?�
>
> �Why do you need a week alone to ski?�
> you ask. I tell you I�m inspired by snow.
> �What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> �I�m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.�
> I don�t know what to say (I have to go!)
> and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
>
> Enough! You pound on me persistently �
> though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> till I surrender. But if I said so,
> and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> I redirect: �It isn�t you, it�s me �
> I�m just not ready yet � Let�s take it slow ��
> What do we get from that epiphany,
> and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> �
Peter J Ross
George Dance <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Mind Games
I used to approve of Leisha. How did she come to collaborate with a
plagiarist?
--
PJR :-)
Will Dockery
On Nov 7, 12:17 am, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Mind Games
>
> I used to approve of Leisha.
And the approval of someone like you, a liar, hypocirite, defender of
plagiarists & poetry thieves, and now a libeler, is supposed to be important
to Leisha in what way, PJR?
Peter J Ross
Cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> A fun Prufrock quiz:
> http://www.gradesaver.com/the-love-song-of-j-alfred-prufrock/study-guide/quiz1/
I'm slightly ashamed to have scored only 76%.
However:
All the suggested answers to Q6 are wrong.
Q21 is just silly, as are some others.
I "correctly" answered "Browning" to Q15, but "Frost" would have been
just as good an answer. Frost's long dramatic monologues are
underrated.
Will Dockery
>
> > A fun Prufrock quiz:
>
> I "correctly" answered "Browning" to Q15, but "Frost" would have been
> just as good an answer. Frost's long dramatic monologues are underrated.
Well, a lot of that is opinion, anyhow, not fact, of course.
G&tSP
> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:08:05 -0800 (PST),
>
> collaborate with a plagiarist
>
With the initials MC?
Will Dockery
>
> I think Stuart and the other ones might have killed this group for me.
How did Stuart have anything with "killing" the group for you?
--
"Waking Up Now" by Will Dockery (video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8_Yp-dIPCY
George Dance
> On Nov 5, 1:49 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <47f9294b-2935-496a-9fa4-8587ea3b3...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> > Will Dockery says...
>
> > >Karla wrote:
>
> > >> The title limits the poem, is what I said.
>
> > >Not for me, since it sets the tone of reference and homage... and
> > >elevates the reader to understand from the start that there's more
> > >going on than just another "she said" soap opera, Karla.
>
> > on the reference and homage. What eternal struggle does the title "Mind Games"
> > reference and homage? I'm willing to see what you mean if you can demonstrate
> > it. Until you can, your saying so doesn't make it so. For instance, your /not/
> > letting us in on the references to an eternal struggle of She, is a mind game.
> > Instead of explaining, you snip and just state your opinion again. Why not step
> > up to the plate and have a discussion, cease the mind games. I'm open to
> > understanding what you mean. For intstance, in Eliot's poem, "The Love Song of
> > J. Alfred Prufrock", I see a conversation besteen Prufrock and someone he
> > shrinks from knowing. It's an imagined conversation. I also see an elevated
> > level to the poem, where Prufrock is unable to hear what others heard before,
> > what other poets heard before. And in another layer, I see Prufrock as a
> > shepherd love poem of old but with a new twist. The shepherd speaks alone in a
> > deaf world where no one knows the ancient languages or canon.
>
> Its original title was "Prufrock and the Women," which is limiting and
Yes, it was fun. I was surprised that I recalled so much, and scored
92%. (Of course, you did give me one answer.)
Posting a link like that is a neat and welcome way to add value to the
conversation. I think links like that would be more noticed and used,
though, if they were posted as new threads under their own header,
rather than buried in an unrelated thread.
George Dance
> On Nov 4, 3:26 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 7:58 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> In article <171f0be9-d29b-4447-ad9a-d28ddee5f...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > George Dance says...
>
> > > > Mind Games
>
> > > > “What do you get from that epiphany?”
> > > > you like to ask. When I say I don’t know:
> > > > “And if you knew, what would the answer be?”
>
> Right off the bat, the questioning confounds.
Thanks for the detailed crit, Karla. I should apologize for the delay
in acknowledging it, first off, and explain why. I wasn't sure how to
respond at first. Simply thanking you without comment would have been
rude; but I didn't see how I could comment without defending the 2
questions, which are central to the whole poem. Doing the latter would
violate a rule I've been given on AAPC, Don't Defend Your Own Work. (A
rule I understand, since many critters see defence as being
confrontational.
But then I realised: hey, they're really Leisha's questions -- I just
tweaked them. So I could defend Leisha's work: I could talk about how
I read the poem and the 2 questions. I thought they made powerful
refrains, and worked as the type of 'dead ending' (thoughts going
around in a circle and terminating in the same dead ends) that I used
in "Away." The fact they were questions was a plus, though, since they
implied that questions dominate this relationship.
> We have A asking 'what do you get
> from the epiphany?' - that's okay, but then B doesn't know. And so, how can A
> even progress to 'if you knew - what would your answer be?' I mean, I put myself
> in the place of B. If I don't know, I sure can't imagine knowing and what my
> answer would be. Am I reading this wrong?
Maybe it just needs a more telling and limited title. 8) In the
original, the auditor was identified as a psychiatrist, and these 2
questions are just the type of thing he says over and over (he's "fond
of asking," in the original). (I'm calling the auditor 'he' just
because he was 'he' in the original.) Q2 struck me as the type of
probing question a psychiatrist would ask. The idea is that you can
know an answer without being aware of it. The speaker doesn't say here
that she doesn't know, note, only that's how she sometimes responds to
his Q1. (The speaker's 'she' just to not be confused with the
auditor.) He interprets that as trying to block the questioning, so he
asks it again, but phrased in a non-confrontational way. (He's not
challenging her claim to not know.)
I took the psychiatrist reference out to generalize it, since I didn't
think he needed to be a psychiatrist: he could be just someone
interested in psychiatry, or with experience of encounter groups or
self-improvement courses like Landmark Forum -- but in any case
someone interested in getting into her mind.
I'll add a comment on Q1, even though you let it pass here, because,
first, someone pointed out that 'epiphany' is too dramatic a word, and
second, because that comes up here later. Again, it's just how he
talks; he "likes to" call her every idea or insight an "epiphany".
Whether he's being ironic or overly-dramatic isn't clear; what is
clear, though, is that he likes to label her thoughts; like the other
question, a clue to his character.
> > > > “Why do you need a week alone to ski?”
> > > > you ask. I tell you I’m inspired by snow.
> > > > “What do you get from that? Epiphany?"
>
> If the first stanza was fixed, this next would be perfect. Two people often have
> these kind of running fights tossing in the last argument (in this case, the
> play on epiphany).
>
Yes, that stanza reads well. I did little with those lines; just
tinkered with the meter while trying not to lose the sense. Dennis
Hammes, who critted the original, did the most to improve L6.
> > > > “I’m going to miss you. You know you'll miss me.”
> > > > I don’t know what to say (I have to go!)
> > > > and, if I knew, what would the answer be?
>
> The first two lines are good, and consistent with A's push to have things under
> control and known, and B's ambivalence, not understanding, not knowing. The last
> line though bothers me the way the first stanza did. If one does not know, how
> can one imagine the answer? And why would someone do that?
>
I saw that as the main line of interpretation for that line, but I
liked it. Whether it is a sensible question to ask oneself, the fact
is it's his question (the one he "likes to ask" over and over again,
and now she's asking it. These two uses of the end questions (in L3
and L4) show that she's internalized him to a degree: her relationship
with him is now part of her identity. That's an important point,
because it gives the poem its tensions, and makes her dilemma a
dilemma: she can't just walk out on him (as shaun suggested) without
losing some of her own.
But I saw two other ways to interpret the line. One was "and, if I
knew, what would [your] answer be?" -- the reader being left to read
"if I knew" as "if I knew and said it". That's why I asked about
substituting pronouns for the article; to make that interpretation the
most plausible one. I'd prefer not to, since I like the ambiguity; I
think that some degree of ambiguity here helps more readers to
identify with the speaker.
The other was, "... what would your answer [do]?" Would it be an
answer that satisfies him, and ends the spat; or one that inflames
it?
> > > > Enough! You pound on me persistently –
> > > > though not to hurt me, just to crack ego.
> > > > (What do I get from that epiphany?)
>
> I don't like 'crack ego'. It reads like you're forcing meter, like words are
> omitted. Otherwise, the 1st and 3rd lines continue the couple's tango.
I saw this stanza, not as a continuation, but a dramatic switch from
external to internal conversation. It read to me like there are three
voices involved. First, id declares her fears: ego tries to reassure
id; and superego comments dismissively (in his voice!).
I'm guilty of 'crack ego'. I think it's my second favorite phrase,
sonically, of the whole poem. (My favorite is "shatter me
repeatedly".) "Ego" can't be read as anything but a spondee; situated
where it is, it can't help but snap or crack the meter.
>
> > > > I think you'll shatter me repeatedly
> > > > till I surrender. But if I said so,
> > > > and if you knew, what would the answer be?
>
> This 'what would the answer be' is dependent on B thinking that A will shatter B
> till B surrenders and therefore is easier to imagine as B most likely has some
> experience with telling A the truth or feelings.
That's the second place 'your answer' rather than 'the answer' would
make things clearer; but they sound clear enough by what you tell me.
I don't get that B has experience, though; she doesn't know how A will
answer -- what will it be? -- and to me sounds afraid to find out. Her
id is afraid he's going to 'shatter' her and make her 'surrender'; but
her ego sounds afraid of what will happen if she lets him know that.
> The part the doesn't work for
> me here is 'and if you knew'. If A knew B's feelings? Perhaps it could be fixed
> by changing 'and' to something else, to make it a progression of B saying so,
> then A knowing.
>
Well, of course there's a constraint on that line due to the form (and
to my mind the form is integral to this poem). I can see two sensible
interpretations, though. The first, most obvious one, is, "If I told
you and [then] you knew [what I was really thinking], how would you
answer? That's wordy, but not illogical: the fear isn't of giving
voice to her fears about him, but of letting him know of them.The
second, more sinister I think, would be "and if you [already] knew";
that he knows she feels that way about him, and he's fine with that.
> > > > I redirect: “It isn’t you, it’s me –
> > > > I’m just not ready yet – Let’s take it slow –”
> > > > What do we get from that epiphany,
> > > > and (if we knew) what would the answer be?
>
> This isn't an epiphany. I think that's the wrong word for the scene.
The way I read it, this is just the way he talks and the way she's
internalized him. The use was over-dramatic or ironic from the
beginning. In S4 it was clearly ironic; here I'd go more for 'over-
dramatic'.
But it is a highly dramatic moment for them. This isn't just a surface
spat any longer; they've scraped below that to uncover a fundamental
problem with the relationship, which neither of them showed any
indication of being aware of previously.
> And of
> course, the last line has the same problem as the first stanza. If you don't
> even know, why play this game of guessing the answer?
>
I read this last line as saying something completely different from
previous usage. What they should get from her revelation is that
there's a flaw -- a crack or a shatter -- in the relationship -- '(if
we knew)' is her superego again commenting that their egos don't know
what that problem is yet -- and 'the answer' does not mean 'reply'
here, but 'solution': even if we understood the problem, what do we do
about it?
> All of it reads quite naturally except for 'just to crack ego'. Too bad the
> contents perplex and epiphany isn't quite the right word, and so the last stanza
> feels false.
>
> To your question about the changes to 'the answer' from 'your answer' or 'my
> answer', I don't think it matters. Either way, I don't think it's natural. If
> people don't know something, they don't persist at wondering what the answer
> would be if they did know. As I wrote above, the only spot where it might make
> sense it when B wonders about telling what s/he feels, and then wonders what A's
> reaction would be. That could be based on actual history together. But a person
> wondering about himself - nope, doesn't work for me. I'd wonder why I don't
> know. I suppose at the very end, both might be wondering about the answer
> because it's most likely that they shouldn't be together. However, the use of
> 'epiphany' throws a wrench in this. Obviously, B knows. There's no epiphany for
> B. A must suspect else there wouldn't be the ongoing questioning.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
It was very informative. I'll make sure L. reads it, too; in case she
missed it on AAPC, I'll email her a copy of your post. Thank you for
investing the time a effort to give it to us.
Will Dockery
> On 7-Nov-2009, "G&tSP" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I used to
> > > collaborate with a plagiarist
>
> Your on-line friend, chuckles' multiple instances of plagiarism are
> well-documented.
> He even admitted to it.
I don't recall George Dance ever collaborating with Chuck, though...
can you provide a link showing a collaboration between the two?
--
"She Sleeps Tight", vocals by Will Dockery & Sandy Madaris, guitars by
Brian Mallard. Paintings by George Sulzbach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uGY157cpiU
G&tSP
> Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I think Stuart and the other ones might have killed this group for me.
>
> How did Stuart have anything with "killing" the group for you?
>
He told Karla to "be a dear" once; which was obviously hateful
misogyny. IIRC, that was right before Cythera began calling him her
worst insults (like George Dance's friend, IIRC 8) too.
George Dance
> On Nov 7, 10:36 am, "ggamble" <g...@youbet.net> wrote:
>
> > On 7-Nov-2009, "G&tSP" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > I used to
> > > > collaborate with a plagiarist
>
> > We know.
> > Your on-line friend, chuckles' multiple instances of plagiarism are
> > well-documented.
> > He even admitted to it.
>
> I don't recall George Dance ever collaborating with Chuck, though...
> can you provide a link showing a collaboration between the two?
>
At one time he seemed to be insinuating that we'd written the Gary
Gamble poem, "Regrets of the Nam," together.
George Dance
> On 7-Nov-2009, "G&tSP" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > collaborate with a plagiarist
>
> Your on-line friend, chuckles' multiple instances of plagiarism are
> well-documented.
> He even admitted to it.
>
You're quoting Peter J Ross, you know. When did he and his on-line
friend chuckles ever collaborate?
Gary's playing his 'plagiarist' game
And, as always, poor Chuck gets the blame,
Did Chuck plagiarize ~chit~?
Think: If Gary proved it,
Which of those two would have the most shame?
Will Dockery
> On Nov 7, 8:10 am, "G&tSP" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 7:15 am, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think Stuart and the other ones might have killed this group for me.
>
> > > How did Stuart have anything with "killing" the group for you?
>
> > He told Karla to "be a dear" once; which was obviously hateful
> > misogyny. IIRC, that was right before Cythera began calling him her
> > worst insults (like George Dance's friend, IIRC 8) too.
>
Yet you have no problem, it seems, with the gay slurs of PJR, gg, et
al directed at George Dance, Cythera... just as, similarly, you
giggled up a storm at Dale Houstman's (violent) urine fetish fantasies
directed at GD. Your airheaded hypocrisy is amazing, Cythera.
Good luck to you.
Karla
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 8:10�am, "G&tSP" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 7:15�am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > I think Stuart and the other ones might have killed this group for me.
>>
>> > How did Stuart have anything with "killing" the group for you?
>>
>> He told Karla to "be a dear" once; which was obviously hateful
>> misogyny. IIRC, that was right before Cythera began calling him her
>> worst insults (like George Dance's friend, IIRC 8) too.
>>
>Yes, it's all a big laugh. I'm done. You have your group; enjoy!
I don't blame you for giving up on Usenet poetry groups. Blue has urged me
to make my home elsewhere too. It's impossible to see a time when anything
will be like it was ten years ago, and there's a good chance that one will
want to give up on posting poetry and comments on poetry, will morph into
someone who hangs around to fight and flame.
I do think you misunderstood Stuart's posts to you about your published
poem. He had the best of intentions. Likewise comments about your writing.
The rest of the stuff he writes can be dense and misunderstood. My own take
on that (his excellent conversation with me on Shakespeare recently
excepted) is he'd rather write the artful, intelligent, somewhat cryptic
response rather than wallow with the flame throwers. It's his way of
screwing around with the Hatfields and McCoys.
Before you go (unless you change your mind), I wanted to recommend, highly
recommend, Haruki Murakami's KAFKA ON THE SHORE. Years ago, I'd read his
NORWEGIAN WOOD, wonderful but very sad, and had put off reading his current
novel thinking it might be more of that. It's not. It's lovely and
wonderful - I can't tell you more without spoiling it. Check it out.
Karla
Will Dockery
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:49:05 -0800 (PST), Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
<Cythera's paranoid ravings snipped>
> I do think you misunderstood Stuart's posts to you about your published
> poem. He had the best of intentions. Likewise comments about your writing.
> The rest of the stuff he writes can be dense and misunderstood. My own take
> on that (his excellent conversation with me on Shakespeare recently
> excepted) is he'd rather write the artful, intelligent, somewhat cryptic
> response rather than wallow with the flame throwers. It's his way of
> screwing around with the Hatfields and McCoys.
Thanks for speaking up against Cythera's foolish disrespect for the
honorable and super-talented Stuart Leichter, Karla.
Karla
George, I didn't look at the original poem posted by Leisha before making
my comments, and I didn't remember it. I've read it now, and I much prefer
both the original title and poem to the revised. The revised loses a lot of
the vibrancy and natural conversational sound. The revised is stiff and
does come off as mind games. Leisha, if you're reading, may I paste the
original here? I would like to compare where yours works and the revised
does not. For the rest who many not have read the original post, here's the
link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/7bfe85631af24fcc?hl=en
Karla
Also, did you make changes to try to achieve a certain meter? It should be
noted that the villanelle has no meter requirements. Just number of lines,
repeated end words and rhyme scheme.
Will Dockery
>
> George, I didn't look at the original poem posted by Leisha before making
> my comments, and I didn't remember it. I've read it now, and I much prefer
> both the original title and poem to the revised. The revised loses a lot of
> the vibrancy and natural conversational sound. The revised is stiff and
> does come off as mind games. Leisha, if you're reading, may I paste the
> original here? I would like to compare where yours works and the revised
> does not. For the rest who many not have read the original post, here's the
> link:
>
Thanks, Karla, I'm not sure if I've seen Leisha's original version of
"Mind Games" or not, yet, but I'm a fan of her work and look forward
to checking it out. I gather from what you wrote this original poem is
significantly different from the version we see here, now.
--
"Red Lipped Stranger & other stories" by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
alt.arts.poetry.comments
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments?hl=en
Will Dockery
"Karla" wrote:
>
> George, I didn't look at the original poem posted by Leisha before making
> my comments, and I didn't remember it. I've read it now, and I much prefer
> both the original title and poem to the revised. The revised loses a lot
> of
> the vibrancy and natural conversational sound. The revised is stiff and
> does come off as mind games. Leisha, if you're reading, may I paste the
> original here? I would like to compare where yours works and the revised
> does not. For the rest who many not have read the original post, here's
> the
> link:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/7bfe85631af24fcc?hl=en
Yes, now I remember this one... Leisha's dynamite, isn't she?
Will Dockery
> On Nov 7, 12:33 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:49:05 -0800 (PST), Cythera wrote:
> > >On Nov 7, 8:10 am, "G&tSP" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 7, 7:15 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > I think Stuart and the other ones might have killed this group for me.
>
> > >> > How did Stuart have anything with "killing" the group for you?
>
> > >> He told Karla to "be a dear" once; which was obviously hateful
> > >> misogyny. IIRC, that was right before Cythera began calling him her
> > >> worst insults (like George Dance's friend, IIRC 8) too.
>
> > poem. He had the best of intentions.
>
> comments on my writing, I guess you would have to be me, and get the
> unpleasant surprise of what he wrote on my ekphrastic poem to
> understand why I might have taken his other (first few) responses the
> wrong way. There is no way to misunderstand "I don't care what you
> think about that," "You look like an idiot when you do that. Go back
> to school,"
So now we know why you dislike Stuart, you can't take some critique,
and relatively mild for this area, at that, Cythera? Yes, you're
obviously too sensitive for the Usenet zone, not to mention the fact
that you constantly want to try and dish it out, but can never take
it... suddenly you're a crumbling victim.
So Stuart told it like it is, and you blinked.
and the implication that someone (I soon understood he
> meant me) who wrote "in regards to," unless the "s" was a typo, "can't
> write worth spit." Didn't you know he meant me? George had no trouble
> with that.
>
> > Likewise comments about your writing.
>
> He has given me almost no comments on any of my poems that he's seen.
>
> > The rest of the stuff he writes can be dense and misunderstood. My own take
> > on that (his excellent conversation with me on Shakespeare recently
> > excepted) is he'd rather write the artful, intelligent, somewhat cryptic
> > response rather than wallow with the flame throwers.
>
> His friendly posts to them suggest something, though I wouldn't call it "wallowing."
She meant PJR, gg and their ilk, Cythera... you're so blinded by your
need to slurp them that you can't even seem to see what they're really
writing.
> > It's his way of screwing around with the Hatfields and McCoys.
>
> I never considered myself either, though MSIFG and his associates, and
> by extension, Stuart, painted me as one.
Stuart called it as he saw it, as he always does, and you couldn't
take it, Cythera... 'nuff said.
probleMATTick!
news:72408b0c-6fa2-4536...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 12:33 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 7, 8:10 am, "G&tSP" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> On Nov 7, 7:15 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > I think Stuart and the other ones might have killed this group for
> >> > > me.
>
> >> > How did Stuart have anything with "killing" the group for you?
>
> >> He told Karla to "be a dear" once; which was obviously hateful
> >> misogyny. IIRC, that was right before Cythera began calling him her
> >> worst insults (like George Dance's friend, IIRC 8) too.
>
> >Yes, it's all a big laugh. I'm done. You have your group; enjoy!
>
> I don't blame you for giving up on Usenet poetry groups. Blue has urged me
> to make my home elsewhere too. It's impossible to see a time when anything
> will be like it was ten years ago, and there's a good chance that one will
> want to give up on posting poetry and comments on poetry, will morph into
> someone who hangs around to fight and flame.
>
> I do think you misunderstood Stuart's posts to you about your published
> poem. He had the best of intentions.
>
comments on my writing, I guess you would have to be me, and get the
unpleasant surprise of what he wrote on my ekphrastic poem to
understand why I might have taken his other (first few) responses the
wrong way. There is no way to misunderstand "I don't care what you
think about that," "You look like an idiot when you do that. Go back
meant me) who wrote "in regards to," unless the "s" was a typo, "can't
write worth spit." Didn't you know he meant me? George had no trouble
with that.
>
>
>
> take
> on that (his excellent conversation with me on Shakespeare recently
> excepted) is he'd rather write the artful, intelligent, somewhat cryptic
> response rather than wallow with the flame throwers.
>
it "wallowing."
>
>
defending your friend; I think it's admirable.
I have three poems I couldn't post here and will try one on rap. I
hope it won't get crossposted here. Thanks for the recommendation
below. Hope to see you on another group.
>
> Before you go (unless you change your mind), I wanted to recommend, highly
> recommend, Haruki Murakami's KAFKA ON THE SHORE. Years ago, I'd read his
> NORWEGIAN WOOD, wonderful but very sad, and had put off reading his
> current
> novel thinking it might be more of that. It's not. It's lovely and
> wonderful - I can't tell you more without spoiling it. Check it out.
>
> Karla
>
yeah...goodbye...and, go fuck yerself, asshole.
probleMATTick
Karla
Losing the Edge
At one time my return to words
resembled a khaki figure surveying
munitions, fingering copper or
hollow points, savoring flint.
I marshalled aggression; cold wars
saved for armchair appreciation.
My terrain seemd vast, impersonal
why not scourge or torch or maime.
Now I find a barn where barracks stood,
cubbies housing yellow squirming fuzz.
As I hold one my hand warms.
I cannot send them among you.
Karla
George Dance
> On Nov 7, 12:33 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Nov 7, 8:10 am, "G&tSP" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 7, 7:15 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > I think Stuart and the other ones might have killed this group for me.
>
> > >> > How did Stuart have anything with "killing" the group for you?
>
> > >> He told Karla to "be a dear" once; which was obviously hateful
> > >> misogyny. IIRC, that was right before Cythera began calling him her
> > >> worst insults (like George Dance's friend, IIRC 8) too.
>
> > >Yes, it's all a big laugh. I'm done. You have your group; enjoy!
>
> > I don't blame you for giving up on Usenet poetry groups. Blue has urged me
> > to make my home elsewhere too. It's impossible to see a time when anything
> > will be like it was ten years ago, and there's a good chance that one will
> > want to give up on posting poetry and comments on poetry, will morph into
> > someone who hangs around to fight and flame.
>
> > I do think you misunderstood Stuart's posts to you about your published
> > poem. He had the best of intentions.
>
> comments on my writing, I guess you would have to be me, and get the
> unpleasant surprise of what he wrote on my ekphrastic poem to
> understand why I might have taken his other (first few) responses the
> wrong way. There is no way to misunderstand "I don't care what you
> think about that," "You look like an idiot when you do that. Go back
> to school," and the implication that someone (I soon understood he
> meant me) who wrote "in regards to," unless the "s" was a typo, "can't
> write worth spit." Didn't you know he meant me? George had no trouble
> with that.
Now, that is not true. The person he meant was the reviewer who
criticized the 'mechanics' of your writing:
The poem I enjoyed most was EPITHALAMION FOR THE BOTANIST'S MAID,
which, though lacking somewhat in clarity and in parts asking for a
closer look in regards to its mechanics, possesses a luminous,
enigmatic voice
http://www.geraldengland.co.uk/revs/mg004.htm
His point, in paraphrase, was: The reviewer took an undeserved swipe
at your opinion of your 'mechanics,' since his own indicate he's no
judge of them. when he uses a 'substandard' phrase like that himself.
He seemed genuinely bewildered when you attempted to fight with him
over that.
When I pointed out that you used the same 'substandard' phrase, he
called that 'mean-spirited' and asked me to remove my post, which I
did.
>
> > Likewise comments about your writing.
>
> He has given me almost no comments on any of my poems that he's seen.
>
> > The rest of the stuff he writes can be dense and misunderstood. My own take
> > on that (his excellent conversation with me on Shakespeare recently
> > excepted) is he'd rather write the artful, intelligent, somewhat cryptic
> > response rather than wallow with the flame throwers.
>
> His friendly posts to them suggest something, though I wouldn't call
> it "wallowing."
>
> > It's his way of screwing around with the Hatfields and McCoys.
>
> I never considered myself either, though MSIFG and his associates, and
> by extension, Stuart, painted me as one. But I don't blame you for
> defending your friend; I think it's admirable.
> I have three poems I couldn't post here and will try one on rap. I
> hope it won't get crossposted here. Thanks for the recommendation
> below. Hope to see you on another group.
>
>
>