A couple quick responces to various things
Albatross
they have an illiteracy.
I know I'm old because the thought of a "gothic"
communal living situation makes me physically ill.
If you don't think Reagan was Wonderkind,
you're a nefarious Red.
The stupidest people never know it.
--
++++++++++++++++++++
The armor of falsehood is subtly wrought... and hides a
man... from his own soul.- EM Forster
http://www.drizzle.com/~tparkin/gateway.html
Necr0angel
>People beleive poetry is boring because
> they have an illiteracy.
nah, i've never liked poetry...well unless Dr. Seuss counts.
It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy" thing:)
necroangel
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/2671/
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/1549/
"Uchuu ni wa baka ga oosugiru!" ~Wufei
ICQ # 6471503 (good luck finding me ^_~)
jealousy
Necr0angel <necr0...@aol.com.no.spam> wrote in article
<19980928153709...@ng118.aol.com>...
>
> >People beleive poetry is boring because
> > they have an illiteracy.
>
> nah, i've never liked poetry...well unless Dr. Seuss counts.
> It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy"
thing:)
You missed the last line.
Jealousy
Albatross
>
> >People beleive poetry is boring because
> > they have an illiteracy.
>
> nah, i've never liked poetry...well unless Dr. Seuss counts.
> It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy"
Nope. Its mostly an illiteracy thing. We no longer have the ability to
read most kinds of poetry. You cant really judge if you like a thing if
you dont have the skills neccesary to experience the thing. All you can
say is "I'm too lazy to learn this." Or at best, "I'm not inclined to
learn this."
Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
who are working for it.
There are many sorts of poetry, some which I like better than others.
There are many poets that I used to hate. There are still poets that I
dont like. I'm not inclined to their style, or more likely, to their
message. By and large, the poets that I didnt like a few years ago were
poets that I didnt know how to read. As I've learned to read them, I've
gained a greater appreciation, and at times they have opened up stunning
things for me.
I read and say, "Ah! this is how it is. This is fabulous." Peak
expereinces through reading. Nothing is able to do this like poetry.
People who are too lazy for it will have lives a little less than what
they might have been.
A
Pariahic
>
>>From: par...@poe.org
>
>>I *like* movies. I like them a lot. I do consider myself to be a bit of a
>>film buff.
>
>Ever watch an old, badly dubbed italian western?
Lot's of 'em.
When my dad ran the Rec Center on Schloss Kaserne In Germany, one of the
events they would hold every Thursday was Spaghetti Western Dinner.
They would show an Italian western (usually w/ Clint Eastwood.) and serve a
spaghetti dinner.
It was hugely popular.
Fist Full of Dollars was, of course, my favorite.
--
You are www.primenet.com/~bkern
What you do ICQ: 879171
When it counts. Pariah(-ic)
-The Masao
Pariahic
>_The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly_
>_Josey Wales_
>_Hang 'em High_
>and, of course, _High Plains Drifter_, which was on again this past
weekend.
>
>Woohoo! Spaghetti Westerns rule!
Josey Wales would be next on my list.
>Although, I like nearly everything Clint's done, Western or otherwise.
>Probably my fave Clint movie in recent years was _The Unforgiven_.
>Everyone else that saw it was like "Ehn." ( <-- grunt of disapproval)
>I, on ther other hand, was completely blown away -- no pun intended.
Glad I'm not the only one.
>That whole ending sequence when he reverts back to William Munny and
>fuckin' goes cold and does what he had to... <shudder> Awesome.
Agreed. He was like a force of nature. Very Pale Rider. (anyone else see
any similarities between Pale Rider and The Crow?)
Pariahic
>Pariahic wrote:
>> Fist Full of Dollars was, of course, my favorite.
>
Ah...Brent Spiner displaying why it was a good idea to cast him as someone
without emotions.
William Shatner has nothing on that man once he gets rolling.
Necr0angel
>It was a dark and stormy night, when Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com>
>wrote:
>
>Nope. Its mostly an illiteracy thing. We no longer have the ability to
>>read most kinds of poetry. You cant really judge if you like a thing if
>>you dont have the skills neccesary to experience the thing. All you can
>>say is "I'm too lazy to learn this." Or at best, "I'm not inclined to
>>learn this."
>>
>> Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
>>who are working for it
well, i'm not speaking for everyone who cant' stand poetry, but I personally
have NO trouble understanding it.
I can understand it just freakin' fine, I just don't like it.
Sort of like I can understand de Sade's 120 days of sodom, but I still don't
like it >,<
it has, in my case, nothing to do with "illiteracy" or "inability to
understand"...just "find it more useful than 5 capsules of unisom".(i.e. i
find it boring. nothing beautiful about it. b-o-r-i-n-g!:) )
Charlotte Ashley
Albatross (tpa...@drizzle.com) writes:
> People beleive poetry is boring because
> they have an illiteracy.
What of people who think poetry is ... well. You're right, the word I
would use is "boring".
I'd say that it's drivel, but some people feel they better express
themselves in raw thoughts than in simple, clear thought., That's their
preferance...
I'd say that it's pretentious, but who am I to keep people who need to
express but haven't the energy to be concise about it from writing?
I guess I'm just a snob.... I like plain words.
Maybe I would have liked poetry back in the days when to be a poet took
more than a pen and a paper. You had to think and express precisely. I
place so much value on clarity, honesty and simplicity that modern
word
mixy mixy mixy like the jumbles of eternity
don't really
grab me.
.
I like verse, because rythem and song are important.... I like stories
carefully measured out to make memorisation more efficient but I *detest*
symbols and metaphores and too much filler. I just prefer straight up,
simple words conveying complicated thoughts, rather than complicated,
flowery words conveying simple thoughts...
I don't think I'm illiterate for it....
Leanan Sidhe (I hope)
--
Mysterious are thy laws; Someday there will be a webpage...
The vision's finer then the view; Someday....
Her landscape nature never drew
So Fair as Fancy draws.
Charlotte Ashley
Albatross (tpa...@drizzle.com) writes:
> Necr0angel wrote:
>>
>> >People beleive poetry is boring because
>> > they have an illiteracy.
>>
>> It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy"
>
> read most kinds of poetry. You cant really judge if you like a thing if
> you dont have the skills neccesary to experience the thing. All you can
> say is "I'm too lazy to learn this." Or at best, "I'm not inclined to
> learn this."
>
> Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
I guess I have a number of thoughts on this...
If the purpose of the writer was to convey a message, what does he gain
by stating that message in such a way that only those who spend a lot of
time learning to read his poem get that message? Would that message not
be better put accross in a more universal way? And, if that writer did
not have a message to convey, why was he writing for the public?
Even without a message, if the beauty of the poem cannot be appreciated by
an untrained eye, haven't you lost a bit? People will miss that beauty
and be deprived of it... Is it just elitism? A way of weeding out your
readers?
Or are you *really* acheiving a higher level of accuracy in conveying that
*exact* feeling by stating it in a less colloquial way?
I'm not sure...
I have this little itch in the back of my head that's telling me you're
right, Birdman, but I'll argue with you for it's own sake just until the
itch decides to yell better.
Leanan Sidhe, who still feels there's something to be said for clarity...
oddlystrange
necr0...@aol.com.no.spam (Necr0angel) wrote:
>it has, in my case, nothing to do with "illiteracy" or "inability to
>understand"...just "find it more useful than 5 capsules of unisom".(i.e. i
>find it boring. nothing beautiful about it. b-o-r-i-n-g!:) )
Well isn't *that* the generalization that ends all generalizations.
A statement like the above reminds me very much of the whiny kids in
school who claimed reading was "boring." Mainly they claimed this because
they didn't really like putting forth the effort TO read, and therefore
wrote it off as boring.
Imagine if you hated reading. Imagine if you never bothered to get beyond
the very basics of looking at a McDonald's Menu and mouthing along to the
word "b..ig....m...ah.k"
You look at poetry much the same way.
Now I don't like a good chunk of it. I consider poetry to be the language
of the subconscious -- the language of dreams -- compact in its execution.
Most dreams aren't of interest to me. However, like how dreams have
meanings and layers beyond the actual visuals so does poetry.
Poetry is complicated -- which like learning how to read -- must for some
be quite boring.
oddlystrange
(who isn't fond of ee cummings, but lurves Norman Dubie and actually
considered going to his university just to shake his hand)
--
oddlystrange *perkygoff fairy godmother* pe...@obscure.org
__<http://www.obscure.org/~perky>___<AGSF Unit 4a>_________
"We are star-stuff... We're the universe made manifest,
trying to figure itself out." -- Delenn, Babylon 5
oddlystrange
bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) wrote:
> If the purpose of the writer was to convey a message, what does he gain
>by stating that message in such a way that only those who spend a lot of
>time learning to read his poem get that message? Would that message not
>be better put accross in a more universal way? And, if that writer did
>not have a message to convey, why was he writing for the public?
Clarity is prolly only best useful in a how to manual. Less so in
pursuasive material, less so in prose/fiction and even less so in poetry.
Writing, like all art is by degrees. You do not sculpt to represent in two
demensions, you do not write poetry to represent in a prose-level
"clarity."
I think you can be more clear in a line such as:
"she gave me
the look one reserves for a ghost"
than in: "She turned around, and looked a little pale. I suppose I
startled her."
The magical thing about poetry is the fact that it is the rubics cube of
the written word. You can turn it and turn it and always see a new
possibility. For that I find it more personally fulfilling to the reader.
In that by attempting to interpret the poem you also see aspects of your
own self.
Perhaps it is just that people approach reading a poem like they were
reading prose. Read it fast. Get it on the first shot. Poems are meant to
be rolled around in the noggin for a while. They are not meant to be read
line by line until you are done. They are not meant to be devoured as fast
food.
They are meant to be tasted delicately -- like you would savor the very
last peice of chocolate cake left on this planet.
oddlystrange
9who can't beleive she's getting involed in this)
Sheila Marie
>
> Necr0angel wrote:
> >
> > >People beleive poetry is boring because
> > > they have an illiteracy.
> >
> > nah, i've never liked poetry...well unless Dr. Seuss counts.
> > It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy"
>
> Nope. Its mostly an illiteracy thing. We no longer have the ability to
> read most kinds of poetry. You cant really judge if you like a thing if
> you dont have the skills neccesary to experience the thing. All you can
> say is "I'm too lazy to learn this." Or at best, "I'm not inclined to
> learn this."
>
about the rythm and such of poetry. I paid close attention because I
thought maybe I was just missing it. Hell, I had written some for class
that maybe I should send you, some have said it is quite good. Point is,
I do find it quite boring. It's an opinion, you are entitled to it, as I
have a right to mine.
> Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
> who are working for it.
>
Again, opinion. I bet there are things I find very "worth while" that
you would think was mundane and boring. I accept that and don't get all
snobby because (HORROR!!), I understand that some people aren't exactly
like me.
> I read and say, "Ah! this is how it is. This is fabulous." Peak
> expereinces through reading. Nothing is able to do this like poetry.
> People who are too lazy for it will have lives a little less than what
> they might have been.
>
I could say the same for you because maybe you've not allowed yourself
to "get stupid" to some country song on the radio. It is all a matter of
perspective, I'm glad you have been able to open yourself up to poetry
more, its a good thing for a person to try to understand things they
used to not understand. I don't think it gives you the right to go
around saying "your life is less because you don't like what I do."
--
****NEW E-MAIL ADDY!! shem...@tampabay.rr.com Please note it!!*****
Sheila Marie - http://www.lowlife.com/sheila_marie
C5 New Orleans "The Rougaroux's Ball"- http://slashpalace.org/NOLA/
Tampa Mailing list - http://www.lowlife.com/gothgardens
Industrial info site - http://www.lowlife.com
Xandraius
>
> People beleive poetry is boring because
> they have an illiteracy.
Ah how true. Maybe if poetry were made illegal, more people would
demonstrate an interest?
> I know I'm old because the thought of a "gothic"
> communal living situation makes me physically ill.
*ANY* sort of communal living is rough. Multi-Goth is even rougher:
Space is at a premium, everyone in everyone elses makeup, cloves
disappear quickly, and you can't find a living, breathing person in
the house during the early part of the day...
> If you don't think Reagan was Wonderkind,
> you're a nefarious Red.
I prefer being a Blue Meanie
> The stupidest people never know it.
And I'm just *waiting* for someone to make reference to that line.
Odds are they will see it but not apply it.
-=Xandraius Wormwood AGSF Unit-09 South=-
Certified Cynical Asshole #3312, license to flame
LART a bulkmailing primate near you!
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3288
Xandraius
>
> Necr0angel <necr0...@aol.com.no.spam> wrote in article
> <19980928153709...@ng118.aol.com>...
> >
> > > they have an illiteracy.
> >
> > It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy"
>
> You missed the last line.
> Jealousy
I rest my case.
--
jealousy
Charlotte Ashley <bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<6upjpl$m...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
> If the purpose of the writer was to convey a message, what does he gain
> by stating that message in such a way that only those who spend a lot of
> time learning to read his poem get that message?
Thinking.
Currently out of vogue.
But still.
Very little can make a person of native intelligence
push himself farther than having to figure something out.
> Even without a message, if the beauty of the poem cannot be appreciated
by
> an untrained eye, haven't you lost a bit?
god or some deity help all of art,
the day art has to be, hell
the day ANYTHING has to be done to the
Lowest Common Denominator.
Fuck. That.
To do something beautifully implies a certain level of difficulty in
comprehension. No artist will ever perfectly translate his vision to his
medium, ever. That's one of the bitches of art. You're never true to your
ideal goal. Never complete.
But I'd much rather someone look at a picture of mine and have to spend
some time wondering at what I was thinking or trying to say, to spend some
bloody effort on COMPREHENSION, rather than having handed to them. I want
them to earn something. And that will make it worthwhile, to them. And to
me.
> People will miss that beauty
> and be deprived of it... Is it just elitism? A way of weeding out your
> readers?
Elitism is like homicide.
A term sans good or evil.
Unless put into a particular situation.
> Or are you *really* acheiving a higher level of accuracy in conveying
that
> *exact* feeling by stating it in a less colloquial way?
No. You're pandering to the monkeys.
> Leanan Sidhe, who still feels there's something to be said for clarity...
Clarity and accuracy and elegance are just dandy,
But none of them involve spoon feeding the appreciator
with the very thing he is supposed to draw form the art itself.
It's meaning.
Not just what the artist felt.
But the peculiar, and, for me,
wonderful blend that is what I felt when I created something
and what someone feels appreciateing it.
If they can't be bothered to even try.
Then fuck'em.
--
Jealousy
"awareness of the problem does not heal the issue." R.K.
Dag Wästberg
bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) writes:
>
> Albatross (tpa...@drizzle.com) writes:
>> Necr0angel wrote:
>>>
>>> nah, i've never liked poetry...well unless Dr. Seuss counts.
>>> It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy"
>>
>> Nope. Its mostly an illiteracy thing. We no longer have the ability to
>> read most kinds of poetry. You cant really judge if you like a thing if
>> you dont have the skills neccesary to experience the thing. All you can
>> say is "I'm too lazy to learn this." Or at best, "I'm not inclined to
>> learn this."
>>
>> Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
>> who are working for it.
>
> I guess I have a number of thoughts on this...
>
> If the purpose of the writer was to convey a message, what does he gain
> by stating that message in such a way that only those who spend a lot of
> time learning to read his poem get that message? Would that message not
> be better put accross in a more universal way? And, if that writer did
> not have a message to convey, why was he writing for the public?
>
Because writing clearly gives a boring message. You would end up with things like;
"I'm lonely and depressed" or
"I like the way that bird sings" or
"I think you are really beautiful"
All of the above three 'poems' give a definite clear message, but they are all boring and in the end don't express anything. In going for ultimate clarity they have lost their original message, they end up saying nothing.
Feelings, dreams, hopes, all these things cannot be expressed in simple statements, they require something more, something well poetic. Poetry can express what simple words cannot, the whole becomes so much more than the individual parts, that is the beauty of poetry. And that is why poetry requires so much from the reader, the poet is trying to express that which cannot be expressed by simple words.
It took me two years and an absolutely amazing English teacher to realize the beauty of poetry. If it hadn't been for that teacher I probably would never have discovered my love for poetry, and I believe my life would have been poorer because of it.
I'm, of course, not saying that all poetry is great. There is a lot of crap out there, and there's a lot which might be good, but I've failed to understand. But to simply write off all poetry as boring show, to me, an ignorance and failure to understand or even try.
> Even without a message, if the beauty of the poem cannot be appreciated by
> an untrained eye, haven't you lost a bit? People will miss that beauty
> and be deprived of it... Is it just elitism? A way of weeding out your
> readers?
In many ways yes, you could say it's a form of elitism and and a way of weeding out readers. It weeds out those who don't want to see, who don't try and don't care. But it's not an exclusive club. I'm convinced that anybody who wants to can find a poem or poet whom they feel something special for.
As a quick example I'll draw experience from my own life.
I've recently started at technical University (kind of like MIT or Cal-Tech in the States), and for all the new engineering physics students (That's me, among others), someone organized a poetry evening with red wine and poetry by candle light and so forth. To my great surprise over half the class went, and almost all of them read something (or, like me, several somethings) by their favorite poet(s). I mean here we have students who are taking the hardest, most chalneging, most math laden engineering masters degree Sweden has to offer, and they all read and like poetry. If there is any one group of people who shouldn't have any understanding for literature and poetics (and anything else that can't be solved numerically) it's this crowd. Well there goes that stereotype.
> Leanan Sidhe, who still feels there's something to be said for clarity...
Dag, Who'd choose accuracy over clarity any day of the week.
Ren Kell 4
Acording to Jealousy:
>god or some deity help all of art,
>the day art has to be, hell
>the day ANYTHING has to be done to the
>Lowest Common Denominator.
>
>Fuck. That.
Thank you. Unfortunately, we're well on our way to that state. Look at
television and the movies. It's gotten to the point that I'm afraid to go see
any movie which has been too popular because every one of those I've seen
recently has pandered to the LCD.
And I refuse to even believe that televisions exist.
Ren Kell (who is trying very hard to ignore the similarities between his
moniter and the above-mentioned non-existant object.)
+ren+
The poem makes no sense and no cents
My underwear needs a changin'
Much like Johhy Claire
all the verbs and nouns spelled out of my brane
I am a broken cat toy
Tetsab is to blame
And all the coloured girls they did sing
meow, meow, meow, meow-meow-meow-meow
Albatross
>
> Albatross wrote:
>
> > Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
> > who are working for it.
> >
> you would think was mundane and boring. I accept that and don't get all
> snobby because (HORROR!!), I understand that some people aren't exactly
> like me.
I dont know that there are things you find worthwhile that I would find
mundane. I don't find many things mundane, and when I do, I know that it
is a deficiency in myself rather than in the thing. If I had the
inclination, I could find a world of beauty in mathematics, or studying
soil types, or whathaveyou. I don't have the inclination; but I dont for
a minute think that somehow I'm being true to myself for outright
rejection of anything that has an intrinsic value.
>
> > I read and say, "Ah! this is how it is. This is fabulous." Peak
> > expereinces through reading. Nothing is able to do this like poetry.
> > People who are too lazy for it will have lives a little less than what
> > they might have been.
> >
> I could say the same for you because maybe you've not allowed yourself
> to "get stupid" to some country song on the radio.
Absolutely. And you would be right. I don't listen to coutry music, but
I don't think that means there is nothing there to be enjoyed. It isnt
my inclination. However, I could, if I chose, open myself to it in a way
that would allow me to enjoy it. There are a million ways of being, and
the more of those you have within yourself, the broader your life is
going to be. Which doesnt mean that we don't have to pick and choose,
because we only live so long. However, my point still stands, the people
who dont enjoy poetry simply haven't learned, or found access to, the
place in them that enjoys poetry. However many proffessors might have
tried to explain it to them.
I think the ability to "get stupid" is a great thing.
> It is all a matter of
> perspective,
Some perspectives are more relevant than others.
To close yourself into your perspective is to guarantee yourself a
myopic worldview and a narrow expereince of life.
> I don't think it gives you the right to go
> around saying "your life is less because you don't like what I do."
Sorry, if you choose to cut out of your life anything that has the
power to enrich it like poetry, or nature, or any number of other
numinous, rich things,- then your life is going to be less than what it
might have been. And I'll go right on saying so, 'cause ite true.
A
--
++++++++++++++++
Very little of what we have believed has been true.
Only the prophecies are true. -Wallace Stevens
http://www.drizzle.com/~tparkin/gateway.html
Albatross
> well, i'm not speaking for everyone who cant' stand poetry, but I personally
> have NO trouble understanding it.
Yer full of shit.
People who dedicate their lives to it have trouble understanding it.
Dont speak about things which you know nothing about, and you'll go a
long way to avoid looking like an idiot.
Poetry is not a monolith. What is the thing in all poetry that you
don't like?
Albatross
>
> I guess I have a number of thoughts on this...
>
> If the purpose of the writer was to convey a message, what does he gain
> by stating that message in such a way that only those who spend a lot of
> time learning to read his poem get that message? Would that message not
> be better put accross in a more universal way? And, if that writer did
> not have a message to convey, why was he writing for the public?
Is the writer of poetry (we arent talking about civil defence
pamphlets) primarily to be concerned with the poem or with the reader?
What great art would have been lost if the artist was primarily
concerned with making easy? (almost all of it).
There are levels. No sooner have we mastered a thing than we discover
that there is another level to master. This keeps existence from
becoming tedious. I'm often too lazy to work through the next level, or
discover the more difficult thing,- but I don't pretend that this has
anything in it other than my own incompetance and laziness. I don't
pretend that my incapacity is only a matter of my taste.
It's cruelty to ask the artist to produce at a level less than what he
is capable of in order to be accesible.
"One cry goes out from the heart of the artist everywhere,' Give me
leave to do my utmost.'"- Isak Dinesen
>
> Even without a message, if the beauty of the poem cannot be appreciated by
> an untrained eye, haven't you lost a bit? People will miss that beauty
> and be deprived of it... Is it just elitism? A way of weeding out your
> readers?
I think there is prejudice in the word "untrained," I prefer unlearned.
The word 'trained' makes it seem as if there is some course you have to
take, or that some proffesor might be able, with only his syllabus, open
up some door to you.
There is always elitism, as I've said a thousand times. There is always
someone better, however you might choose to measure better. One problem
we have with our generation is we have been so prejudiced against the
idea of hierarchies, so prejudiced against discrimination, that we have
almost no ability to discover what is _better_.
> Or are you *really* acheiving a higher level of accuracy in conveying that
> *exact* feeling by stating it in a less colloquial way?
Lets look at something, then.
This is the dead land.
This is cactus land.
Here the stone images are raised
Here they receive the supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.
It is like this in death's other kingdom
Waking alone at the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness...
This is Eliot. I dont have the line breaks exactly right. How do you
make his meaning more clear without diminshing the poem?
Albatross
<snip>
>
> Perhaps it is just that people approach reading a poem like they were
> reading prose. Read it fast. Get it on the first shot. Poems are meant to
> be rolled around in the noggin for a while. They are not meant to be read
> line by line until you are done. They are not meant to be devoured as fast
> food.
>
Very well said.
Necr0angel
>From: pe...@obscure.org (oddlystrange)
>Well isn't *that* the generalization that ends all generalizations.
Not really, I made it pretty clear that that was just MY case:)
>A statement like the above reminds me very much of the whiny kids in
>school who claimed reading was "boring." Mainly they claimed this because
>they didn't really like putting forth the effort TO read, and therefore
>wrote it off as boring.
Again, in MY case that's untrue. I put the time in to read, and re read, and
even re read again thinking I was missing something.
I just don't like poetry.
Plain and simple.
I'm not going to throw absolute fits about having to read it, or mope about how
boring I think it is, but there are other things I'd like to read much more
than poetry.
>Imagine if you hated reading. Imagine if you never bothered to get beyond
>the very basics of looking at a McDonald's Menu and mouthing along to the
>word "b..ig....m...ah.k"
>
>You look at poetry much the same way.
I really don't think it's fair to compare my not liking poetry to some
illiterate sap who can't read at a kindergarten level.
I've never liked flowery speech, or verse. I tolerate it, understand it, and
will read it, but I STILL don't like it and STILL find it rather boring.
>
>Poetry is complicated -- which like learning how to read -- must for some
>be quite boring.
Granted, some of it is pretty complicated(I think I read one poem last year
over 10 times before I actually understood the damn thing...and now i can't
even remember the name, only that it had something to do with an abbey), but I
don't mind complicated things. I LIKE challenges, but even so, most poetry
still bores me. The only two poems(not counting kids poems, those can be
cute:)) I've ever read that I can actually say I like are Poe's "The Raven"(how
GOTH;D) and Caroll's "Jabberwocky"...in fact, since i've heard the cheshire cat
singing the first bit of it(in the Disney version of alice in wonderland of
course), i'll hum the stupid tune sometimes. :)
Necr0angel
>From: Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com>
>Yer full of shit.
Thanks, I'm not particularly fond of you either.
>Dont speak about things which you know nothing about, and you'll go a
>long way to avoid looking like an idiot.
Yeah, take your own advice before insulting my intelligence.
>What is the thing in all poetry that you
>don't like?
Are you next going to make me justify why I don't like chicken gizzards, or why
I don't like much of the science fiction genre, or why I don't like a certain
music style?
I'm sorry you think I'm "full of shit" for not liking poetry, but no matter how
many names you fling at me...I still won't like it.
oddlystrange
necr0...@aol.com.no.spam (Necr0angel) wrote:
>I'm not going to throw absolute fits about having to read it, or mope about how
>boring I think it is, but there are other things I'd like to read much more
>than poetry.
OK see this line I can deal with. This makes sense to me.
However...
>>Imagine if you hated reading. Imagine if you never bothered to get beyond
>>the very basics of looking at a McDonald's Menu and mouthing along to the
>>word "b..ig....m...ah.k"
>>
>>You look at poetry much the same way.
>
>I really don't think it's fair to compare my not liking poetry to some
>illiterate sap who can't read at a kindergarten level.
why?
I'm saying you read poetry on a kindergarten level. That you either have
not learned, or have not bothered to learn to read beyond that -- and you
are taking either your frustration or ignorance about poetry and declaring
it the winner by calling peotry "boring"
I had an *extremely* hard time learning to read. Dyslexia does that for
you. I inherited it from my father, who found reading too hard and too
complicated and not really worth his time -- he wrote it off as boring. He
can make out a few things -- he knows his own name when its written -- he
can slowly pick apart certain car names and what-not.. but otherwise the
world of words is locked to him.
He doesn't care because why would he want to read? Why would he want to
bury his nose in a book when he can instead be out playing in the garden.
How do you tell someone like that what they are missing by having never
read a book in their lives? That is what I am trying to tell you about
poetry.
I COULD have been the same. However I put forth the effort and discovered
somewhere along the line that reading was quite possibly the greatest
thing one can *ever* learn how to do.
>I've never liked flowery speech, or verse. I tolerate it, understand it, and
>will read it, but I STILL don't like it and STILL find it rather boring.
Once again this shows your ignorance about the art. Which is why I'm
saying *please* pick another word that "boring" for it. Find some poetry
that *wasn't* written by Shakespeare. Find some poetry that *wasn't* in
your high school anthology. Perhaps then you will begin to understand why
we're saying "anything other than boring."
Admit it, its not *boring* its too hard for you, and you don't want to bother.
>Granted, some of it is pretty complicated(I think I read one poem last year
>over 10 times before I actually understood the damn thing...and now i can't
>even remember the name, only that it had something to do with an abbey), but I
>don't mind complicated things. I LIKE challenges, but even so, most poetry
>still bores me. The only two poems(not counting kids poems, those can be
>cute:)) I've ever read that I can actually say I like are Poe's "The Raven"(how
>GOTH;D)
why?
> and Caroll's "Jabberwocky"...
..and you claimed you don't like flowery words<!!!!>
the whole poem is an expirament in the sound of words that have no meaning <!!>
you don't get more flowery than that!
oddlystrange
(who still can't beleive she's on this side of a poetry debate)
par...@poe.org
Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> Nope. Its mostly an illiteracy thing. We no longer have the ability to
> read most kinds of poetry. You cant really judge if you like a thing if
> you dont have the skills neccesary to experience the thing. All you can
> say is "I'm too lazy to learn this." Or at best, "I'm not inclined to
> learn this."
I can honestly go either way on this issue. On one hand there is some poetry
that I truly love. Poetry that makes me feel, and think, and hurt, and love.
On the other hand, it seams to me (granted, this is prolly based on a lack of
understanding on my part)that too much of poetry is caught up in the medium,
rather than the emotions. In a way it reminds me of movies.
I *like* movies. I like them a lot. I do consider myself to be a bit of a
film buff. I can recognize directors by their style and can usually pinpoint
their influences. However, Nothing irritates me more than sitting at a movie
with someone while they say things like "Oh, look. *Another* break away shot.
Does this director have an original bone in his body?", while failing to
notice that there is a damn fine story going on.
It reaches a point where the mechanics takes precedence over the emotion.
*That* is where I am lost as a fan.
--
You are www.primenet.com/~bkern
What you do ICQ: 879171
When it counts. Pariah (-ic)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Antonesque
while I pondered weak and weary,
over many a quaint an curious volume of alt.gothic,
suddenly f98...@dd.chalmers.se (Dag Wästberg) uttered into the
darkness:
> I mean here we have students who are
> taking the hardest, most chalneging, most math laden engineering masters degree
> Sweden has to offer, and they all read and like poetry. If there is any one
> group of people who shouldn't have any understanding for literature and poetics
> (and anything else that can't be solved numerically) it's this crowd.
> Well there goes that stereotype.
I completely fail to understand why this stereotype ever arose.
All the great mathematical minds, as well as the mathematical
physicists, and the ancient greek tradition of mathematics,
speak of mathematics as poetry. Heisenberg, for example,
refused to publish the shortened form of his wave equation -
which he could prove at that time - because it was 'ugly",
and waited until he could prove the full form, which, lets face
it, is most definitely poetry, a true music of the spheres.
My favourite by far is Maxwell's equations, so far ahead of
their time, so unchanged by all einsteinian transformations,
such an elegant embodiment of all of both vector calculus
and the fundamentals of EM. And lets face it, EM is the
seminal form of physics, both in the abstract and in the practice
(say Antonesque, as he hammers away at computer, driven by
hydro-electricity and running on semiconductors, both examples
of Maxwell's equations in the physical world)
I've had debates on the 'net about poetry being imprecise,
a philosophy I do not subscribe to. Yes, there is bad poetry
and there is also bad maths. But there is no doubt, mathematics
is poetry.
/a
--
The wall on which the prophets wrote Is cracking at the seams.
Upon the instruments if death The sunlight brightly gleams.
When every man is torn apart With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath As silence drowns the screams.
Antonesque
over many a quaint an curious volume of alt.gothic,
darkness:
>
> Albatross (tpa...@drizzle.com) writes:
> > People beleive poetry is boring because
> > they have an illiteracy.
>
> What of people who think poetry is ... well. You're right, the word I
> would use is "boring".
;-) I guess that makes me boring. Which is why no-one ever reads
or responds to my posts, reads my technical articles in the
journals, argues with me or anything. i just lead a humdrum boring
existence.
> I'd say that it's drivel, but some people feel they better express
> themselves in raw thoughts than in simple, clear thought., That's their
> preferance...
Are you saying that poetry is "raw"? That its not clear and simple?
> I'd say that it's pretentious, but who am I to keep people who need to
> express but haven't the energy to be concise about it from writing?
>
> I guess I'm just a snob.... I like plain words.
Perhaps you've been reading the wrong poets.
I would venture that a number of modern english teachers
put forward some awful poetry because so much of the classics
is deemed "out of date".
> Maybe I would have liked poetry back in the days when to be a poet took
> more than a pen and a paper. You had to think and express precisely. I
> place so much value on clarity, honesty and simplicity that modern
> word
> mixy mixy mixy like the jumbles of eternity
> don't really
> grab me.
> .
If that's an example of the modern poetry you don't like, I
concur.
> I like verse, because rythem and song are important.... I like stories
> carefully measured out to make memorisation more efficient but I *detest*
> symbols and metaphores and too much filler. I just prefer straight up,
> simple words conveying complicated thoughts, rather than complicated,
> flowery words conveying simple thoughts...
Sort of like ....
And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things. Therefore am I still
A lover of the meadows and the woods,
And mountains; and of all that we behold
From this green earth; of all the mighty world
Of eye, and ear,--both what they half create,
And what perceive; well pleased to recognise
In nature and the language of the sense,
The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,
The guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul
Of all my moral being.
I suppose I could also quote shakespeare, who, despite
his polysyllabic (and some claim Germanic) name wrote with
short pithy saxon-root words, some of the most memorable
and long lived works of the english language. His plays,
in blank verse, have a more powerful rhythm than most
poetry. After coming ut of a shakespeare play it takes me
a few hours to stop _thinking_ in blank verse. Now _that_
is something many poets would die for. And indeed, Wildly did.
> I don't think I'm illiterate for it....
Sadly, the definition of literacy in most countries is only
marginally more than being able to sign your name and make
sure that you go through the correct door in the washroom.
/a
--
Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying, Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.
Antonesque
over many a quaint an curious volume of alt.gothic,
darkness:
> In article <6upjpl$m...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) writes:
> >
> > Albatross (tpa...@drizzle.com) writes:
> >> Necr0angel wrote:
> >>>
>
> >>> nah, i've never liked poetry...well unless Dr. Seuss counts.
> >>> It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy"
> >>
> >> Nope. Its mostly an illiteracy thing. We no longer have the ability to
> >> read most kinds of poetry. You cant really judge if you like a thing if
> >> you dont have the skills neccesary to experience the thing. All you can
> >> say is "I'm too lazy to learn this." Or at best, "I'm not inclined to
> >> learn this."
> >>
> >> Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
> >> who are working for it.
I have little time or sympathy for the english-lit types who
practice the decomposition, or try reading into the work so
much more symbolism. Perhaps it is there, in the subconscious
of the writer. Or perhaps only of the reader.
Yes, poetry requires understanding of context; which is why a lot
of greek&latin, as well as the poetry of the english romantic and
metaphysical movements requires some learning. Even the following
assumes you grew up with certain reading primers, otherwise its just
dribble. But if you did, its a great parody and quite amusing.
Courtesy of Doug Greary on the geek-talk list ...
WHAT IF DR. SEUSS DID TECHNICAL WRITING?
If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
and the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
and the address of the memory makes your floppy disk abort,
then the socket packet pocket has an error to report.
If your cursor finds a menu item followed by a dash,
and the double-clicking icon puts your window in the trash,
and your data is corrupted 'cause the index doesn't hash,
then your situation's hopeless and your system's gonna crash!
If the label on the cable on the table at your house,
says the network is connected to the button on your mouse,
but your packets want to tunnel on another protocol,
that's repeatedly rejected by the printer down the hall,
and your screen is all distorted by the side effects of gauss,
so your icons in the window are as wavy as a souse,
then you may as well reboot and go out with a bang,
'cause as sure as I'm a poet, the sucker's gonna hang!
When the copy of your floppy's getting sloppy on the disk,
and the microcode instructions cause unnecessary risk,
then you have to flash your memory and you'll want to RAM your ROM.
Quickly turn off the computer and be sure to tell your mom.
That being said, and I freely admit I could never come up with
anything like it, I do write about 2 million words a year of
professional ... well "prose". Essays, technical reviews,
proposals, analysis and the like. I'm told it is powerful
and persuasive writing, easy to read and memorable. Perhaps
I do have my english language and english lit teachers to thank
for that.
I would never call it poetry, and I couldn't write a haiku to save
my life. But neither would I call it raw. Its hard work.
And when I read the bios of poets like shelley, wordsworth, tennyson,
marlowe, and others, I see that they had to work hard at their craft
too. Not that I imagine I'm anywhere near the same class or that
my works will survive (except perhaps in dejanews) for longer than
it takes to assign them to the blue box following the managerial
meeting.
I'm sure there is a whole generation of poetry which is just
vomiting words on the page. I've been invited to readings and
releases by my more "artistically" minded acquaintances where I've
encountered this kind of .... poetry. You have my full agreement.
Its not worth the effort of giving birth to it. The poetry I mean.
Perhaps these poets have some other redeeming feature. And we live
in a tolerant society.
Such is life.
I do enjoy some of the poetry, as I said, but find no need to
microanalyse it. And I think people that do need to are a bit
obsesive-compulsive. poetry is a whole to be enjoyed as such.
I would no more dissect my favourite poem to analyse why it is
the way it is and I enjoy it, than I would dissect one of my
friends for similarly reasoned motivation.
/a
Fross
>In article <19980929160715...@ng119.aol.com>,
>necr0...@aol.com.no.spam (Necr0angel) wrote:
>>I really don't think it's fair to compare my not liking poetry to some
>>illiterate sap who can't read at a kindergarten level.
>
>why?
>
>I'm saying you read poetry on a kindergarten level. That you either have
>not learned, or have not bothered to learn to read beyond that -- and you
>are taking either your frustration or ignorance about poetry and declaring
>it the winner by calling peotry "boring"
i disagree here, strongly. looking down on someone because they don't
get the same stimulation out of a "communication medium" as one does
is, well, snobby. poetry, music, art, etc, they're all art forms,
they're all medium in which one can communicate. some people find
more stimulation in some mediums than others. for instance, i'm sure
necr0angel enjoys reading, just not prose. i could draw a parallel -
i guess everyone here enjoys music, but i can say with certainty that
most people here wouldn't draw the same depth of understanding from
something such as classical music, as opposed to someone with plenty
of musical training, who knows how to interpret it and, essentially
open up its secrets. but that doesn't mean they don't enjoy it as
much.
here's another example - modern art[1]. many people dismiss the
majority of it as nothing more than nonsense, in fact public consensus
is as such. this is simply because people are less educated in its
communication methodologies, and get less out of it. i'm sure that
people who don't know how to interpret it would call it "boring",
because it reveals little. that doesn't make them any less as people,
and certainly not stupid. one can't be expected to learn every
communication medium, and hence one must choose what one has more
natural favouritism or aptitude towards.
to illustrate, i consider myself well-read and relatively intelligent.
however, i like very little poetry. this is because i find very few
poets who use nuances of language in ways i enjoy. i prefer to read
what i enjoy, after all, what is poetry other than someone slapping
the term on some phrases?
"i may know nothing about poetry, but i know what i like."
the way i figure it, is one day i will again come across a piece of
poetry that really touches me, and i will get an interest in it again.
the pieces i have heard and read over the last few years have done
little if nothing to me. yes, i read them, i understand them, i
appreciate the ways the author played with words and phraseology
within (sometimes puching) the structured boundaries of the medium.
but it doesn't make me feel *alive* the same way some other mediums
do. not yet anyway. but that doesn't make me less of a person,
rather it does to the person who considers me less because i don't
enjoy the same things they do.
my 2 ecus.
fross
[1] and this is NOT the thread to start a "modern art is shit"
discussion.
.sig file lost, presumed dead.
zoe
Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com> wrote in article
<36101D2F...@drizzle.com>...
> Necr0angel wrote:
> > nah, i've never liked poetry...well unless Dr. Seuss counts.
> > It's more of a "different taste" thing rather than an "illiteracy"
>
> Nope. Its mostly an illiteracy thing. We no longer have the ability to
> read most kinds of poetry. You cant really judge if you like a thing if
> you dont have the skills neccesary to experience the thing. All you can
> say is "I'm too lazy to learn this." Or at best, "I'm not inclined to
> learn this."
Not really. Let's look at Shakespeare's immortal "Romeo and Juliet."
I read it - didn't like it.
Learned more about Shakespeare and the proper way to read his work - still
didn't like it.
Yes I *know* that people who dedicate their lives to Shakespeare still
don't truly understand his work, blah blah.
I *still* didn't like the story.
I like the work of Escher. It's cool. And because I understand shading,
perspective and some of the mathematical concepts behind it, I think it's
damn cool.
My friend doesn't like Escher because he's too confused, too harsh, too
cold.
While learning and understanding more of something will give you a
different perspective it's not going to change your opinion. Sure it may
but then again, it may not.
But both our opinions are valid because they are OPINIONS.
> Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
> who are working for it.
Assuming there's fullness there to begin with.
> There are many sorts of poetry, some which I like better than others.
> There are many poets that I used to hate. There are still poets that I
> dont like. I'm not inclined to their style, or more likely, to their
> message. By and large, the poets that I didnt like a few years ago were
> poets that I didnt know how to read. As I've learned to read them, I've
> gained a greater appreciation, and at times they have opened up stunning
> things for me.
Good for you.
> I read and say, "Ah! this is how it is. This is fabulous." Peak
> expereinces through reading. Nothing is able to do this like poetry.
> People who are too lazy for it will have lives a little less than what
> they might have been.
And I could call you lazy for thinking poetry is the pinnacle of possible
experiences.
I think what turns many people away from poetry is the feeling of elitism
and condescension attached with it, something you're illustrating very
well. You repeatedly state that if we weren't such lazy buggers we would
realize that we don't dislike poetry, we just don't understand it. That's
extremely irritating. SOME people really enjoy poetry, SOME people find it
can express their inner feelings and bring a feeling of beauty. SOME people
dislike poetry, they find the rythym upsetting, the wording obtuse. And
that's just FINE.
You really can't say that their lives will be less full. Sure, your life
has been enhanced and that's magnificent for you. And that means nothing to
*me*. My life has been deeply affected by Xena but I'm not going to insist
that you're an idiot for not recognizing what *I* find fantastic about her.
To each his own.
For the record - I don't like a lot of poetry as a whole and yes, I do know
how to read it. There are certain authors I enjoy but most poetry is
rubbish, as is the majority of almost everything,
literature/music/art/etc...
zoe
Ron Cecchini
"Pariahic" <par...@poe.org> wrote:
> Fist Full of Dollars was, of course, my favorite.
Oh god, how to rate...
_The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly_
_Josey Wales_
_Hang 'em High_
and, of course, _High Plains Drifter_, which was on again this past weekend.
Woohoo! Spaghetti Westerns rule!
Although, I like nearly everything Clint's done, Western or otherwise.
Probably my fave Clint movie in recent years was _The Unforgiven_.
Everyone else that saw it was like "Ehn." ( <-- grunt of disapproval)
I, on ther other hand, was completely blown away -- no pun intended.
(SPOILERS!)
That whole ending sequence when he reverts back to William Munny and
fuckin' goes cold and does what he had to... <shudder> Awesome.
...
Zoe wrote:
> My life has been deeply affected by Xena but I'm not going to insist
> that you're an idiot for not recognizing what *I* find fantastic about her.
Another long-lost sibling...
Or did we already determine that?
Oh yes, we did. Sorry.
...
And, finally, to throw my own 2 cents in -
I pretty much agree w/ Charlotte (I think -- I'm goin' on memory here)
I can see both sides of the debate, but I wouldn't call people who don't
"get" poetry necessarily "lazy" or necessarily missing something from their
lives. I admit, it seems that reading poetry requires a certain skill or
way of thinking (I say "seems" 'cause I still don't "get it"!).
However, this skill can be learned by nearly everyone, I s'pose, of reasonable
intelligence. So, if you don't have the skill, it doesn't necessarily mean
your lazy; instead, it might just mean you don't give a shit.
And while I am a person who likes plays on words & meanings (SHOCKA!),
my damn (self-diagnosed) ADD/short attention span forces me to give up,
like, right away if I don't "get" a poem that I'm reading (conversely,
I obsess over my other reading when I don't understand it), instead of
mulling over it in my head.
I'm also one of those guys who doesn't appreciate paintings unless it looks
like a photograph. Hey, that's me... We've got Monet in Boston now (we're
kickin' around his carcass!), and I'm like whoopty-whoop.
Impressionists? Thhhhhhbt! What is that damn smudgy stuff...?
This all isn't to say that I don't appreciate "artistes!" (note the 'e'),
or recognize that other people perhaps appreciate them greatly. I'm just
sayin' they (or, to be more specific, that kind of art) doesn't interest me.
To reiterate what Charlotte said, I want (and need, really) to be able
to understand what someone's trying to say right away -- unless they're
intentionally trying to give the impression that something can be taken
more than one way. <cough><cough> ...
And, as for myself, I personally would feel all pretentious (and, not to
mention, monumentally dorky) if I tried expressing myself with big, billowy
words and stuff. I think it has to do w/ drawing attention to one's self.
But I still have an interest in the poets & romantics, but perhaps solely
from an academic sense, I s'pose.
Did I have a point? I'm not even sure...
Ah, well. Carry on.
][
Lady Greycat
> There's something that is really bothering me.
>
> There is a strong undercurrent of nastiness flowing
> throughout this entire thread.
>
> What it seems like to me is that people are saying..
>
> "You're not educated enough to understand. You're not smart
> enough to understand. You're really dumb for not liking poetry
> as much as I do. You're illiterate."
>
> Perhaps this isn't how your posts are intended.
>
> But please, if that is so, & if you are going to get on Necr0's case
> for (perhaps) not using the correct term for her perceptions of
> poetry, do try a bit harder to lower the level of condescention.
>
> If it is how your posts are intended.. that's a real shame.
Thank you for saying this. It's exactly how i feel too.
Sorry for the me too post guys, but i really felt that it had to be said
that Carrie is not the only one who feels like this.
Greycat
Prince Kheldar
> they have an illiteracy.
After reading a bunch of the replies, getting sick and irritated, and coming
back to this one, I feel the need to reply.
"People in general who do not enjoy reading poetry are stupid and
illiterate."
"The reason they are stupid and illiterate for not enjoying poetry is
because I like poetry, I am smart, and everyone should have the same
opinions I do."
"Poetry is universal to intelligent people."
"If you do not read poetry [clause #1: and enjoy it], you are stupid and
illiterate."
"If you are stupid and illiterate you do not deserve to live."
Now, I have tried to derive at least some rational conclusions in descending
order [of the previous statements]. There is a logic block somewhere, can
we find it? Oh, maybe it's the line that says "anyone who is not me is a
gibbering retard". Can we guess what line that is? The second line. There
is no reason to make assumptions that broad and apply them to every human
being on the planet.
[Take note that I enjoy poetry, those who would flame.]
There is no reason for the replies to this thread. People are attacking
each other because they have different tastes, and that is a ludicrous
absurdity, and one that I would not have expected from this newsgroup as a
whole. Now, flame me if you will, but are you justified in doing that since
I have the same base opinion as you do?
> The stupidest people never know it.
indeed.
Prince Kheldar.
khe...@ioaNOSPAM.com
http://www.ioa.com/home/kheldar/
Prince Kheldar
>the written word. You can turn it and turn it and always see a new
>possibility. For that I find it more personally fulfilling to the reader.
>In that by attempting to interpret the poem you also see aspects of your
>own self.
By the same token, I could make practically the exact same argument for
mathematics and physics, only that they are the rubics cube of the universe
itself. In fact, I could argue right here and right now that people who
don't understand/hate/find math boring are fucking idiots. In fact (again),
someone could make the same argument for religion, theatre, music, or any
subject at all. You all are forgetting a major piece of the puzzle.
Relativity (not a physics pun).
>Perhaps it is just that people approach reading a poem like they were
>reading prose. Read it fast. Get it on the first shot. Poems are meant to
>be rolled around in the noggin for a while. They are not meant to be read
>line by line until you are done. They are not meant to be devoured as fast
>food.
Most people probably realize this, or I might agree about the illiteracy
point.
>They are meant to be tasted delicately -- like you would savor the very
>last peice of chocolate cake left on this planet.
They are meant to be savored like chocolate cake. Using that very same
example, what about people who are allergic to chocolate? Or just don't
like chocolate? Are you going to say that they do not know how to taste
because they do not like chocolate? Are you going to then insult their
intelligence because of their "lack of taste and understanding"? I should
hope not.
>9who can't beleive she's getting involed in this)
Prince Kheldar, who would have to agree >:P
khe...@ioaNOSPAM.com
http://www.ioa.com/home/kheldar
Prince Kheldar
>All the great mathematical minds, as well as the mathematical
>physicists, and the ancient greek tradition of mathematics,
>speak of mathematics as poetry.
I'm really, really glad that you posted it, because I've already posted to
reposte's (sp?) to posts already, and didn't want to have to do it again.
Being very "into" mathematics and physics, I would have to agree. I see
beauty in equations and theorems and abstract ideas, but I also see beauty
in a flower, or a tree, or as the case may be, the written, spoken, or sung
word.
(I at one time found a sort of beauty in the DeBroglie hypothesis [for about
a minute or two], until I realized that it didn't have symmetry, it was
grossly pieced together, and it wasn't universal.)
Kheldar, again.
oddlystrange
>Amanda clearly does not have the passion for poetry that
>you and Thom seem to. "And that's, okay."
Trust me that Albatross enjoys it far more than I do. I'm not into reading
a lot of poetry. Mainly because its like a good massage -- something to be
savored and takes time. Reading one poem can take longer than reading a
novel if you really want to gain everything out of it.
Sadly, I barely have the time to read short stories these days.
>There is a strong undercurrent of nastiness flowing
>throughout this entire thread.
>
>What it seems like to me is that people are saying..
>
>"You're not educated enough to understand. You're not smart
>enough to understand. You're really dumb for not liking poetry
>as much as I do. You're illiterate."
No. I'm not saying that. I am saying that most people who slam poetry
haven't investigated it beyond school. Most of the peotry you encounter in
school *is* shit. Well for me it is.
Imagine if all you read in school was Hardy Boys novels and you aren't too
keen on mystery novels... I think poetry in school is like that. You
pretty much only get one vareity of it.
There are as many *types* of poetry as there are types of novels. If you
investigate the art you will find the kind that appeals to you.
For instance I wonder if she finds music "boring"
Becuase music is another version of poetry.
>But please, if that is so, & if you are going to get on Necr0's case
>for (perhaps) not using the correct term for her perceptions of
>poetry, do try a bit harder to lower the level of condescention.
I hardly think I am being condescending.
>I never enjoyed poetry in high school. It was forced upon us, and
>the subject matter was never very interesting to me.
Not to mention that most teachers don't teach you how to read it properly.
Not becuase they don't know how, but either because of time constraints or
because of the *type* of poems their curriculum shoves down their throats.
Now I got lucky. I had a wonderful 12th grade English teacher who showed
us how you can write a longer paper about 10 lines of poetry than 100
lines of prose. She was a rare one. I also got lucky in college in a
poetry writing class which taught me to appreciate the craft as well as
the final product.
That doesn't mean that the sight of a couple stanzas makes me drool. Most
poetry is shit. To me. Becuase I'm fucking sick of "my love is like a
flower in pentatic rhythm" sheyut. I read poetry for MYSELF. And there is
some DARK shit out there that I love.
I'm not fond of fluffy writing, just like NecrO.
>We were told what it meant, what every word meant, what this meant,
>what that meant. And it was far too complicated for me to take any
>interest in. There was no way in hell that I would have ever realized
>what it all meant, on my own. And when I was told, it was like "Okay,
>so? Can we go back to reading _Dandelion Wine_ now?".
See that's the problem. Thats what my college class kinda cleared up for
me. Would you allow someone to interpret YOUR OWN dream for you? Poetry is
kinda like that. They can advise, but in the end the *meaning* has more to
do with how YOU picture the world than how the poet sees the world.
And a lot of people don't realise that.
>I can understand & appreciate that those who have not studied and
>absorbed a variety of poetry don't truly know what it is about.
>Like most everything else, it takes time and dedication to truly
>grasp and "master".
Indeed. You won't get an argument out of me on that one.
However...
To insult the craft is to insult the artist. To call something "boring" is
pretty fucking insulting to someone who's dedicated a good portion of
their time and energy into it.
Instead find something else to say. Something a little more descriptive.
Personally I don't like most modern art. At least the post-modern Andy
Warhol stuff. I can say I find it boring.
But that insults a lot of people who've spent a lot of time disecting
Warhol's art, who've immitated it. I'm saying their wasting their time.
Instead... I would say that I don't think Warhol's art has soul. For
instance you can look at a Renior and you can almost read out and touch
the people's faces. I think Renior was a master of paiting eyes and I have
yet to see an equal. Warhol on the other hand his art to me is like
looking at the world through smeared glasses. You do not see his
inspiration. His muse could have been a toliet bowl. You cannot see the
heart of his world -- like you can with lets say some other modern artist
like Geiger.
Now I may not LIKE the art, but at least I've put some effort into
figuring out *why* I dont' like it. And its helped me learn a little more
about myself.
And I'm not so closed minded to say all Worhol art is crap. There's a
locala rtist here in richmond who does Warhol-esque peices. But I like
them. They're tacky as hell. My personal favorite is a picture of right
when Jack Ruby was shot -- except instead of the background he's got a
picture of a crowd of people and Jack's expression makes him look like
he's singing to them.
I like this because it was a glimpse into how this person sees the world,
and its damn funny and demented. I like that.
>However, I do not feel that I am sorely lacking because I choose
>not to dress up and pretend that I am a mage, or a vampire.
>
>Or because I don't have the drive to nurture plants.
However, even looking into *why* you feel that way helps you understand a
lot more about yourself.
I didn't like gardening because I suck at it. Then I finally actually got
a few plants to grow and it brought out the maternal shit in me. I'd never
thought a couple flowers could do that.
>And I would certainly never tell anyone else that they were
>illiterate, or not smart enough, or just plain wrong for not
>parking their ass in front of a computer for >5 hours a day.
However, would you also neglect to remind them of the benefits it could
add to their lives if they weren't so afraid to figure out WHY they didn't
like it?
oddlystrange
(who's mother also never understood my addicting to the boxes until I got
a job in it. Now I think she kinda regrets when she took away the computer
in 12th grade to get me out socializing more)
Prince Kheldar
>a minute think that somehow I'm being true to myself for outright
>rejection of anything that has an intrinsic value.
Humans were not meant to study everything at once, or become specialists in
everything. People have choices, and people have opinions. If you want to
be pretentious in assuming you need to learn everything in the world and
learn to love it, go ahead, but don't call us "mortals" fools and
illiterates because of it.
>However, my point still stands, the people
>who dont enjoy poetry simply haven't learned, or found access to, the
>place in them that enjoys poetry.
My point still stands, that your point is bigoted and irrational.
> I think the ability to "get stupid" is a great thing.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Getting stupid is a horrible, horrible
thing. There is no reason to get stupid. Loving, caring, becoming
entranced... Those are much better alternatives.
> Some perspectives are more relevant than others.
> To close yourself into your perspective is to guarantee yourself a
>myopic worldview and a narrow expereince of life.
And you are the one to judge which ones are relative and which are not,
correct? I realize this is alt.gothic, but that's a wee bit too pretentious
and elitist for me.
> Sorry, if you choose to cut out of your life anything that has the
>power to enrich it like poetry, or nature, or any number of other
>numinous, rich things,- then your life is going to be less than what it
>might have been. And I'll go right on saying so, 'cause ite true.
People find meaning in different things. Just because I or anyone else does
not find intrinsic value in poetry does not mean we do not find it somewhere
else. It's not true, it's irrational prejudice.
Kheldar, yet again, getting tired of doing it.
oddlystrange
necr0...@aol.com.no.spam (Necr0angel) wrote:
>Well, it's like someone else said about shakespeare. I'll use the same play,
>since my opinion on it is the same:)
>Romeo and Juliet is generally considered one of his greatest works.
>I read it and didn't like it.
>Later on in school they had us read it again, and write critiques, reports and
>reviews on it(which kind of requires you to at least marginally understand
>what's going on;)), I STILL didn't like it.
>I read it again a couple months ago just because. Still didn't like it.
>I understand it perfectly, but I still don't like it.
>In fact, there are a lot of things I understand yet don't like.
I'm not too keen on Romeo and Juliet either. I kinda always preferred
Hamlet. I wonder who considers it his best play? It was one of his earlier
works and generally his earlier works and considered lighter, and in a lot
of circles less developed. (depends on which professor you get :) )
Hamlet is good and dark and takes a lot out of your noggin if you really
pay attention to it.
However, Shakespeare is an odd form of poetry to begin with.
>Thing is, I don't dismiss something as boring unless I've had quite a bit of
>exposure to it first, and thus have a taste of what it's like.
>Star Trek. I've seen just about every episode of the original series, and all
>the movies(my mom's a trekie), but I still find it rather boring and don't like
>it.
I guess I'm personally trying to challenge you into looking into WHY it
bores you. I know better than to think you're too stupid to appreciate it.
You've got some material upstairs. I'm also not stupid enough to think
everyone has to LIKE poetry. However, finding out why YOU don't like it
will help you.
a) you can avoid stuff like it in the future
b) you can also critique poetry more honestly.
>...try having the english teacher that was too dumb to know that. he was trying
>to look up half the words in the dictionary.
then obviously you had an English teacher who shouldn't have been let near
a book of poems.
Thankfully mine was a little better. We had to essentially try to figure
out what half the words would have been if this was a "bad" poem :)
>it's not that kind of flowery that bugs me..it's the, like the...hrm, like the
>romanticized type poetry. I also am not partial to romanticized writing(y'know,
>that stuff from the mid to late 1800s...;))
Hey I don't like that either. Too fucking sappy for my tastes. I don't
like poems about happy things as a general rule. I can appreciate the
effort in the craft to create them, but they don't speak to me.
And to be honest I thought about the same as you did.
Then I was forced to read a poem about a prostitute sleeping with her
Johns set against he death and her body being donated to science -- where
along with the sailor fucking her the surgeon was cutting her.
Then I realised there's poetry I could *really* like out there.
oddlystrange
(who says this is why Dubie just fucking rocks in my book)
oddlystrange
fross....@darkwave.org.uk wrote:
>to illustrate, i consider myself well-read and relatively intelligent.
>however, i like very little poetry. this is because i find very few
>poets who use nuances of language in ways i enjoy. i prefer to read
>what i enjoy, after all, what is poetry other than someone slapping
>the term on some phrases?
nowhere did you call poetry boring in the above.
And yes, I am playing with semantics here, for a reason. At the very least
to help clarify for NecrO what it *is* she doesn't like. Apparently she
doesn't like the romanticised stuff.
Like you don't like how most poets don't play with language in a way you like.
I agree with both of you.
>but it doesn't make me feel *alive* the same way some other mediums
>do. not yet anyway. but that doesn't make me less of a person,
>rather it does to the person who considers me less because i don't
>enjoy the same things they do.
that was NEVER my argument in this. Do not confuse me with Albatross on
this one. We are two very different people, who are on the same side of
the fence here, however we're not standing on the same patch of lawn on
this one.
>[1] and this is NOT the thread to start a "modern art is shit"
>discussion.
most of it is, right along with modern everything.
oddlystrange
(who's just not keen on the idea of stripping things down to the very
basics in art)
oddlystrange
<khe...@NOSPAMioa.com> wrote:
>By the same token, I could make practically the exact same argument for
>mathematics and physics, only that they are the rubics cube of the universe
>itself. In fact, I could argue right here and right now that people who
>don't understand/hate/find math boring are fucking idiots. In fact (again),
>someone could make the same argument for religion, theatre, music, or any
>subject at all. You all are forgetting a major piece of the puzzle.
>Relativity (not a physics pun).
Sadly, you have yet to pick something that I wouldn't agree with you on.
Now if you had mentioned football, then we might have something to discuss.
>>They are meant to be tasted delicately -- like you would savor the very
>>last peice of chocolate cake left on this planet.
>
>They are meant to be savored like chocolate cake. Using that very same
>example, what about people who are allergic to chocolate? Or just don't
>like chocolate? Are you going to say that they do not know how to taste
>because they do not like chocolate? Are you going to then insult their
>intelligence because of their "lack of taste and understanding"? I should
>hope not
How did they find out they were allergic?
oddlystrange
(who says lets beat an metaphor to death!)
oddlystrange
necr0...@aol.com.no.spam (Necr0angel) wrote:
>Conditioned response: doesn't like poetry.
>why?: forced to write it or face failing a grade.
>Although, I've always been one who prefers nonfiction writing of any kind to
>fiction, so I'm sure that has something to do with it too.
Heh!
Seriously you have a good point. I know from experience its hard to write
poetry *before* you know how to appreciate poetry.
Strangely, I consider most of my poetry (ok almost ALL) non-fiction.
It was actually a series of poems that inspired me to get off my ass my
ass and write my autobiography.
oddlystrange
(who needs to get off the puter for a lightning storm now)
zoe
> Fist Full of Dollars was, of course, my favorite.
That ain't got nothin' on Fist Full of Datas.
zoe
Albatross
>
> >People beleive poetry is boring because
> > they have an illiteracy.
>
> After reading a bunch of the replies, getting sick and irritated, and coming
> back to this one, I feel the need to reply.
>
> "People in general who do not enjoy reading poetry are stupid and
> illiterate."
> "The reason they are stupid and illiterate for not enjoying poetry is
> because I like poetry, I am smart, and everyone should have the same
> opinions I do."
> "Poetry is universal to intelligent people."
> "If you do not read poetry [clause #1: and enjoy it], you are stupid and
> illiterate."
Youre not seeing that I used illiteracy as a noun, not as an adjective.
I've never once claimed that people who are bored by poetry are
illiterate. Only that they do not have it in them to read poetry, and
that is a deficiency. Part of reading is closed to them. They have an
illiteracy.
Nor did I ever claim that such people are less than me. I said, as I
always say, that they are less than they could be.
As to it being a matter of taste: my point has never been about
anyone's taste, only their ability to appreciate a thing. An ability
that they might learn. If someone argues that this was an ability they
_couldnt_ have, I might listen to that argument. Instead we have a
couple whiny babies crying about how now one can judge them. Well... no
one likes feeling judged, so there it is. My views are not about making
people feel good about themselves.
I have a deficiency, I cant think in a straight line. I dont pretend
that I'm not less than I would be if I didnt have that hampering me. Id
be better off if I found a way to overcome it, and incorporate something
new into my person. There is a full range of human experience. Life is
wonderful, and more wonderful as we begin to apprehend that range. We
dont have to choose between thinking and feeling, floral and plain,
sound and silence, kindness and flaming, or any other duality.
> There is no reason for the replies to this thread. People are attacking
> each other because they have different tastes, and that is a ludicrous
> absurdity, and one that I would not have expected from this newsgroup as a
> whole.
People are not flaming each other, by and large. They are arguing
strenously because they have strong opinions. Strong opinions are great;
and most of us will be more than fine with each other when its over.
I flamed Necro. I will again, most likely.
The main purpose behind my line was the realization, after reading the
Netscrape thread, that a solid majority of this newsgroup "isn't into"
poetry. That is very very dicouraging to me. If ever there was a group
of people which I would have suspected to be literate about poetry, its
this one. Poetry has very little audience, and its shrinking. I ask
myself why, then I turn to my own experience.
I liked a couple poems by Byron. I saw Dead Poets Society and it helped
to trigger a romantic fantasy in me. I went out expecting to find reams
and reams of poetry that would speak to me. That would give me myself.
That I could chant to my lovers in dark forests. Instead, I discovered
that most of it was closed to me. I could read it, I could understand it
in a strictly literal way. But it failed to produce epiphanies in me the
way music or film did.
Nevertheless, I knew it was there to be appreciated. People I
respected,- mostly my grandfather,- insisted that there was this
tremendous thing in poetry . Not instantly, because I'm lazy even with
things I love, I began to delve. I read and read. I read in intellectual
moods and in feeling moods. And I began to see. Understand. Potent,
little revelations. These lines were opening up new worlds to me,
literally. This expereince is there to be had, universally[1]...
...but it's work. And unneccesary work. The romantic poet archetype is
dead except in rock music. We get our poetic diet everywhere but in
poetry. Its fed to us "fast food" in music and film. Poetry,- and I'm
always speaking of good poetry,- is subtle. It takes patience. You have
to mine it. Our culture is as patient and subtle as a lunatic bull
elephant, so that poetry is long since dead as a cultural force. And
that makes my strongest voice irrelevant.
Had I not had cause to continue to delve, my life would be so much
less. When I see someone as bright as Jack saying he "isnt in to it," I
see someone who will hopefully find himself very much into it at some
point. He has everything neccesary to know and love poetry, but the
inclination. As I said to the fiasco as we were disagreeing about this
thread tonight, its at least partially a matter of desiring a wider,
better informed audience. Byron was the most famous man in Europe; how
many people here can even name the Poet Laureate of the US? (I find his
poetry tedious, but I doubt if I always will. I even learned to like Ted
Hughes this last year.)
When there are two legitimate sides to an argument, don't be surprised
if I argue strenuously for the side that serves me better. If a person
argues they merits of one form of music or another, I might disagree but
I certainly wont dismiss. If a person argues the merits of one means of
communication over another, I might disagree strongly, but I wont
dismiss. When someone dismisses a vast and varied literature, present in
all cultures, in all times, a constant passion in the human, as
'boring', I dismiss them when they attempt to discuss poetry.
A
[1]- anyone capable of writing and reading is capable of doing so
better.
--
++++++++++++++++++++
The armor of falsehood is subtly wrought... and hides a
man... from his own soul.- EM Forster
http://www.drizzle.com/~tparkin/gateway.html
Necr0angel
>From: par...@poe.org
>I *like* movies. I like them a lot. I do consider myself to be a bit of a
>film buff.
Ever watch an old, badly dubbed italian western?
Necr0angel
>From: pe...@obscure.org (oddlystrange)
>I'm saying you read poetry on a kindergarten level. That you either have
>not learned, or have not bothered to learn to read beyond that
Well, it's like someone else said about shakespeare. I'll use the same play,
since my opinion on it is the same:)
Romeo and Juliet is generally considered one of his greatest works.
I read it and didn't like it.
Later on in school they had us read it again, and write critiques, reports and
reviews on it(which kind of requires you to at least marginally understand
what's going on;)), I STILL didn't like it.
I read it again a couple months ago just because. Still didn't like it.
I understand it perfectly, but I still don't like it.
In fact, there are a lot of things I understand yet don't like.
>Dyslexia does that for
>you.
It does that for me in math...
>too
>complicated and not really worth his time -- he wrote it off as boring.
Thing is, I don't dismiss something as boring unless I've had quite a bit of
exposure to it first, and thus have a taste of what it's like.
Star Trek. I've seen just about every episode of the original series, and all
the movies(my mom's a trekie), but I still find it rather boring and don't like
it.
>Find some poetry that *wasn't* in
>your high school anthology.
We've got quite a few poetry books laying around here. I've read all but one.
I say "boring", because the feeling I get when I'm reading poetry is akin to
boredom. Kind of like I get bored when I've got nothing else to do but sit
online and nothing's going on.:) Maybe that's lethargy though;)[1]
>Perhaps then you will begin to understand why
>we're saying "anything other than boring."
I know why you're saying it, and why you think it, but it still bores me.
>Admit it, its not *boring* its too hard for you, and you don't want to
>bother.
No, it's boring. I understand it, and still find it boring. There are a lot of
things I understand and find boring. DOS, Windows, IRC, AOL;), old games i've
played so much i can beat them in my sleep, the original mario bros. game, the
flight simulator on my 286, Churchill's "The Great Democracies", de Sade's "120
Days of Sodom"...I understand them all(although i can say i wish i DIDN'T
understand 120 days...), but they STILL bore me.
>why?
hmm, i think because when I read it, i think of homer simpson saying the
speaking parts...silly reason, no?
>..and you claimed you don't like flowery words<!!!!>
hrm, flowery wasn't very clear wasn't it?
I meant like...hrm, how to describe it....like...dammit, why is it i know what
i'm thinking but can't figure out how to word it?(rhetorical, don't bother to
answer).
>the whole poem is an expirament in the sound of words that have no meaning
><!!>
...try having the english teacher that was too dumb to know that. he was trying
to look up half the words in the dictionary.
>you don't get more flowery than that!
it's not that kind of flowery that bugs me..it's the, like the...hrm, like the
romanticized type poetry. I also am not partial to romanticized writing(y'know,
that stuff from the mid to late 1800s...;))
necroangel
Necr0angel
>From: fross....@darkwave.org.uk (Fross)
> looking down on someone because they don't
>get the same stimulation out of a "communication medium" as one does
>is, well, snobby.
Well, this IS alt.gothic;)
>for instance, i'm sure
>necr0angel enjoys reading, just not prose.
Yep! I LOVE to read! Usually non fiction or fantasy, but i looooove to read.
Most of my books are so beat up from reading them all the time and carting them
everywhere that they're almost unrecognizable as books sometimes:)
Necr0angel
>From: "Pariahic" <par...@poe.org>
>Fist Full of Dollars was, of course, my favorite.
YES!! that's one of THE most hilarious movies i've ever seen! The fact that
it's unintentionally funny makes it even better:)
Elocutus, Borg Certified
alt.gothic:
>
>
>Thank you. Unfortunately, we're well on our way to that state. Look at
>television and the movies. It's gotten to the point that I'm afraid to go see
>any movie which has been too popular because every one of those I've seen
>recently has pandered to the LCD.
>
>And I refuse to even believe that televisions exist.
I don't know. I think television may well be the salvation for taste.
Most movies are given over to middle-class moralizing and things
blowing up. I haven't turned on a radio for anything other than news
in three years. TV is the last refuge. Wedged in between the shit
and the foriegn-language shit are four or five channels that can
always catch my attention.
Of course, I have the blessing of New York City cable: The
Independent Film Channel, The History Channel, CNN Headline News, A&E,
TMC--good stuff if you haven't dedicated some part of your self-image
to hating it.
--Elocutus
===
"Petty laws breed great crimes." --Ouida, 1880
Skerry Carrie, Quite Contrary!
fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
>Admit it, its not *boring* its too hard for you, and you don't want to bother.
At this point I sorta have to interject.
Amanda clearly does not have the passion for poetry that
you and Thom seem to. "And that's, okay."
Perhaps she is using the wrong word to explain her feelings
on (most) poetry. Perhaps she isn't. Only she knows, and
I'm sure she'll clarify for you.
But anyhoo, I digress.
There's something that is really bothering me.
There is a strong undercurrent of nastiness flowing
throughout this entire thread.
What it seems like to me is that people are saying..
"You're not educated enough to understand. You're not smart
enough to understand. You're really dumb for not liking poetry
as much as I do. You're illiterate."
Perhaps this isn't how your posts are intended.
But please, if that is so, & if you are going to get on Necr0's case
for (perhaps) not using the correct term for her perceptions of
poetry, do try a bit harder to lower the level of condescention.
If it is how your posts are intended.. that's a real shame.
And it's not what I expected of any of the people who are behaving
in this manner. I'm not trying to single anyone out, but the two
folks that I have in mind are two people I hold in a HELL of a high
regard.
If you are trying to be nasty, I'm really quite disappointed.
I, personally, have not come across much poetry that I've connected
with. But, then again, I don't actively seek poetry as reading
material. I'm too wrapped up in myself at the moment, and trying to
figure myself out.
Altho'..<hmm>.. I could probably benefit from it at this point in
time. We'll see. Right now I'm absorbed in studies on
antidepressants (and looking at my Zoloft bottle rather warily
at this point..).
In my netscrape entry, I mentioned my favorite poem being the one that
I have on my site, as a precursor to my tribute to my late friend
James.
I enjoy it because it is something I need to hear right now,
whether or not it is true, or even feasible. I don't know if it
is a good poem or not. But it tugs at my heart strings.
I never enjoyed poetry in high school. It was forced upon us, and
the subject matter was never very interesting to me.
We were told what it meant, what every word meant, what this meant,
what that meant. And it was far too complicated for me to take any
interest in. There was no way in hell that I would have ever realized
what it all meant, on my own. And when I was told, it was like "Okay,
so? Can we go back to reading _Dandelion Wine_ now?".
I can understand & appreciate that those who have not studied and
absorbed a variety of poetry don't truly know what it is about.
Like most everything else, it takes time and dedication to truly
grasp and "master".
It's the same with computers. Or gardening. Or painting
miniatures. Or RP/LARPing. Or fitness training. Etc. Etc.
These can all enrich lives.
My mother ADORES gardening. In spring, summer, and early fall,
it is her life, her obsession. But I have no interest in it
whatsoever. If I tried to plant & maintain a garden, I would
get bored REAL quick and the plot would wind up full of weeds.
I will most likely never be interested in painting miniatures.
Painting anything besides my room just isn't My Thing.
I do not role play in any form, except for computerized games.
However, I do not feel that I am sorely lacking because I choose
not to dress up and pretend that I am a mage, or a vampire.
Or because I don't have the drive to nurture plants.
And I would certainly never tell anyone else that they were
illiterate, or not smart enough, or just plain wrong for not
parking their ass in front of a computer for >5 hours a day.
To my mother, there can be nothing MORE boring than doing what
I do on this "damnable box". It's all up to preferences and
taste. She has other interests going for her. She isn't lacking.
Granted, I don't understand how anyone can't NOT be so very
interested in computers & other onliney things.
But I DO understand & appreciate that everyone has their own
cup of tea, and that insulting them for not enjoying what you
do isn't going to accomplish a damned thing.
-Skerry Carrie, Quite Contrary, how does your garden grow?
With spammers' heads and blackened threads, driven like the snow..
.-.
\ / "#000000, #000000, #000000 like my soul."
-+- Postal Notes: http://www.execpc.com/~skerry
| Wisconsin Gothic: http://www.velvet.net/~skerry/gothmilk.html
Necr0angel
>From: Lady Greycat <ladyg...@infoback.net>
> i really felt that it had to be said
>that Carrie is not the only one who feels like this.
Hating to do another "me too" post, but I agree too.
I mentioned I dont' like poetry and said i felt it was boring. that's an
opinion. What do i get? I get things like "you're uneducated, you couldn't
POSSIBLY understand" and "yer full of shit".
I can safely say I am neither of the two.
Necr0angel
>From: pe...@obscure.org (oddlystrange)
>Not to mention that most teachers don't teach you how to read it properly.
my english teacher for 11th and 12th grade( i had the same teacher, NO i didn't
flunk, she does junior and senior english). she was great when it came to
reading/presenting/teaching poetry. She practically breathed poetry, and she
tried her damnedest to get me to like it too...
anyway, she used to take old things like "the seafarer" and parts of the
canterbury tales and read them back to us in the old english(i've never met
anyone that could speak old english...she sings it too.) and sometimes she'd
bring in this odd instrument and sing the poems too.
That's what I get for having an ex ren faire singer for an english teacher;)
it was fun though....but i STILL don't like poetry:P
Necr0angel
>From: pe...@obscure.org (oddlystrange)
> I'm personally trying to challenge you into looking into WHY it
>bores you.
I'm actually not really sure why it does, although it MAY stem from being
forced all through middle school to have to try to WRITE it(don't even get me
started on THAT...)...wow, maybe this would be a good subject for a psych.
paper?
Conditioned response: doesn't like poetry.
why?: forced to write it or face failing a grade.
Although, I've always been one who prefers nonfiction writing of any kind to
fiction, so I'm sure that has something to do with it too.
>hen obviously you had an English teacher who shouldn't have been let near
>a book of poems.
he was 23 and just out of school. and not the brightest light in the marquee
either...he'd always show up hungover on mondays.
although it WAS always a blast to see him coming in and out of the bars on
water street and yell "HI" to him...and watch him turn bright red.
Ron Cecchini
necr0...@aol.com.no.spam (Necr0angel) wrote:
> What do i get? I get things like "you're uneducated,
> you couldn't POSSIBLY understand" and "yer full of shit".
> I can safely say I am neither of the two.
I'm not going to speak for Thom, but if I had to bet, I would say
that he was partially influenced by your a.g. persona, which can be
quite, uh, (how to say so as not to offend too much...) "abrasive"
and juvenile at times.
Granted, you've got Oddly leading the Anti-Twit Brigade which, to
be honest, does seem to be (be diplomatic... be diplomatic...) a
large waste of time, but it's her time, not mine.
Plus, most of us have known Jen alot longer and, since most people
forgive my behavior, we/I in turn forgive her Violent Mood Swings,
said swings being characterized by something like the following:
"Hi. I'm new to a.g."
"DIE, TWIT, DIE! IN MY KILLFILE WITH YE!"
-- and when the ego gets a little too big, we all bend her over and
line up to give her the smack on the ass that she loves so much.
...
But, then again, I could be talkin' out of my ass.
(hey, Ace Ventura is a role model of mine...)
][
Ron Cecchini
pe...@obscure.org (oddlystrange) wrote:
> My personal favorite is a picture of right when Jack Ruby was shot
...
> I like this because it was a glimpse into how this person sees the world,
> and its damn funny and demented. I like that.
My favorite picture in the entire Universe:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/jpeg/M16Full.jpg
][
Leonora the Lonely KittenLady
pe...@obscure.org (oddlystrange) dared to write:
>Find some poetry
>that *wasn't* written by Shakespeare. Find some poetry that *wasn't* in
>your high school anthology. Perhaps then you will begin to understand why
>we're saying "anything other than boring."
there's a poet for everyone out there, i think. but they won't come to
you [it's kinda hard for someone who's dead to do so, among other
things]...it involves personal effort and happy junk like that. it's
worth it, too.
-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)
[who gets a headache from trying to read shakespeare without help,
but does just fine with other stuff]
--
| Rejection is one thing, but rejection from a fool is cruel! |
| http://www.kittenlady.com - we...@kittenlady.com |
| officialpigcarryingkittenladywenchgothofthenyrangers |
Sheila Marie
>
> Sheila Marie wrote:
> >
> > Albatross wrote:
> >
> > > Like anything truly worth while, it only gives its fullness to people
> > > who are working for it.
> > >
> > Again, opinion. I bet there are things I find very "worth while" that
> > you would think was mundane and boring. I accept that and don't get all
> > snobby because (HORROR!!), I understand that some people aren't exactly
> > like me.
>
>
> I dont know that there are things you find worthwhile that I would find
> mundane. I don't find many things mundane, and when I do, I know that it
> is a deficiency in myself rather than in the thing. If I had the
> inclination, I could find a world of beauty in mathematics, or studying
> soil types, or whathaveyou. I don't have the inclination; but I dont for
> a minute think that somehow I'm being true to myself for outright
> rejection of anything that has an intrinsic value.
>
My point is that it is NOT a deficiency, its a matter of taste, so long
as you try it at some point. Another example, I've listened to every
Skinny Puppy CD, and still do not see where there is anything good about
anything they've put out. I kept thinking I was missing something, so I
kept listening, and asking what people liked about them. I've come to
the solid conclusion that I simply do not like them. You can try
something and not like it, it doesn't mean you are dificient, just that
you are an individual with your own taste.
> >
> > > I read and say, "Ah! this is how it is. This is fabulous." Peak
> > > expereinces through reading. Nothing is able to do this like poetry.
> > > People who are too lazy for it will have lives a little less than what
> > > they might have been.
> > >
> > I could say the same for you because maybe you've not allowed yourself
> > to "get stupid" to some country song on the radio.
>
> Absolutely. And you would be right. I don't listen to coutry music, but
> I don't think that means there is nothing there to be enjoyed. It isnt
> my inclination. However, I could, if I chose, open myself to it in a way
> that would allow me to enjoy it. There are a million ways of being, and
> the more of those you have within yourself, the broader your life is
> going to be. Which doesnt mean that we don't have to pick and choose,
> because we only live so long. However, my point still stands, the people
> who dont enjoy poetry simply haven't learned, or found access to, the
> place in them that enjoys poetry. However many proffessors might have
> tried to explain it to them.
>
Bullshit, I did learn, I have access, I still do not like poetry. Poetry
is a form of art no? Art is subjective no? Every human is different no?
If every human is different, then how could all of them have that place
that enjoys poetry? Explain that to me.
> > It is all a matter of
> > perspective,
>
> Some perspectives are more relevant than others.
> To close yourself into your perspective is to guarantee yourself a
> myopic worldview and a narrow expereince of life.
>
Your closed off to the idea that you could possibly be somewhat wrong. I
admit that I could be wrong, this is why I'm discussing this further and
asking more questions. I try to not say anything negative about anything
that can be subjective. If asked my opinion, I try to state it as my
opinion and not a fact, and I try not to form an opinion until I've
investgated whatever to the fullest extent. Things I don't like I tend
to check back on time and time again to make sure I don't like it. Am I
typical? Probably not, but the fact that one person is different from
the norm means that you can not make generalised statements and expect
them to be taken as law.
> > I don't think it gives you the right to go
> > around saying "your life is less because you don't like what I do."
>
> Sorry, if you choose to cut out of your life anything that has the
> power to enrich it like poetry, or nature, or any number of other
> numinous, rich things,- then your life is going to be less than what it
> might have been. And I'll go right on saying so, 'cause ite true.
>
I haven't cut myself from it, I've tried reading poetry, and continue to
do so, I just do not like it. I am allowed to have my own personal
opinions. I do not feel that makes me any less then you, and my life is
not any less. I have other things that fill the "void" that you claim
poetry leaves, my life is no less enriched then yours. Fact of the
matter is that you are more closed off to things then me because you've
decided that if anyone disagrees with you, they aren'tas
mature/intelligent/enriched as you, and looked down upon. I've learned
some very important things from people that, if I had written them off
because they weren't "up to my level", I never would have gotten taught
those lessons.
--
****NEW E-MAIL ADDY!! shem...@tampabay.rr.com Please note it!!*****
Sheila Marie - http://www.lowlife.com/sheila_marie
C5 New Orleans "The Rougaroux's Ball"- http://slashpalace.org/NOLA/
Tampa Mailing list - http://www.lowlife.com/gothgardens
Industrial info site - http://www.lowlife.com
Sheila Marie
>
> > I think the ability to "get stupid" is a great thing.
>
> I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Getting stupid is a horrible, horrible
> thing. There is no reason to get stupid. Loving, caring, becoming
> entranced... Those are much better alternatives.
>
When I say "get stupid" I mean acting like an idiot just for the shear
fun of not having to think for 2 minuets. If you are trying to solve a
problem, doing this can help a hell of a lot. It allows you to relax
your mind and come back to the problem from a different angle and maybe
solving it quicker. I think that too many thinking people don't relax
their brain enough, and eventually they release that stress by yelling
and screaming at some one who shows their humanity by making an error in
front of the thinking person. This is just a theory because I've always
relaxed my brain, some would say too much ;)
Leonora the Lonely KittenLady
<z...@azstarnet.com> dared to write:
>While learning and understanding more of something will give you a
>different perspective it's not going to change your opinion. Sure it may
>but then again, it may not.
>
>But both our opinions are valid because they are OPINIONS.
I think what Albatross was trying to say is that there is *some*
poetry that you will like...and not to dismiss it all...(I am prolly
reading it all wrong anywho *shrug*)
poetry is *very* complicated...I have trouble reading longer poems
because it takes so long. sometimes you get stuck on the first stanza
and have to re-read it several times before you can move
on...sometimes you get stuck on the tenth. but you have to appreciate
what went into it...
i don't like walt whitman's poetry. there is only one poem by him that
i like that i have come across...but when i look at it, i can see that
he was writing from his heart...i just don't necessariliy like how it
came out. i appreciate the time and effort he put into it...and that
he could present it to us in such a manner (not at all easy to do...)
I am just not a fan of how he did so. I didn't dismiss all poetry
because I don't care for his. not all poetry is the same.
you don't have to like the work of every poet to like poetry.
-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)
--
Ron Cecchini
we...@kittenlady.com wrote:
> -Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)
> [who gets a headache from trying to read shakespeare without help,
> but does just fine with other stuff]
Imagine, if you will, a student struggling with his English assigned
reading: Shakespeare in one hand, the Cliff's Notes in the other, and
the video (which he had to run out and rent in desperation) on the tube.
That was me junior or senior year...
Sure, still ended up w/ high-90's, but it wasn't a walk in the park
like everything else was in HS...
][
Leonora the Lonely KittenLady
Elocutu...@hotmail.com (Elocutus, Borg Certified) dared to write:
>Of course, I have the blessing of New York City cable: The
>Independent Film Channel, The History Channel, CNN Headline News, A&E,
>TMC
i have the blessing of NYC Cable and don't get TMC or IFC
A&E has too many commercials to be very good very long
-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess MAterial :)
[yay for amc]
Albatross
<snip>
Answer me this: what is it in ALL poetry that you dislike?
When you can answer this question I will have a reason to give some
respect to your otherwise untenable position. You're the one saying that
you dont like the entirity of an extremely varied art form, as a simple
matter of taste.
What would you say to a person that didnt like music? Well, you might
well say thats his business, and of course it is. But you might see that
his life would be less for not having some sort of music in it. Poetry
is less essential than music. Poetry, viewed as a whole, is more
difficult than music. Unlike music, which has the power to reach us
directly, we have to absorb it through a filter of symbols.[1] All the
same, the loss of poetic language, in our lives as well as in the
broader culutre, is an overwhelming loss. Similar to the loss of dreams,
and appraoching the loss of music. I beleive that anyone who can speak
or read can gain an appreciation for poetry; if you are in fact in touch
with poetry, the time will come, and you'll be thankful.
Please, to contradict my points, quote my points. I never said that the
lack of poetry in your life would create an unfillable void. Only that
your life would be less than what it could be.
As to my being arrogant: how long have you been reading this group? ;)
When I speak for certain things, I'm bombastic, single-minded, vigorous
and full o hot breath and condemnations.
A
[1]- Please no one say I said that music isnt difficult or poetry cant
be plain.
David Gerard
: I know I'm old because the thought of a "gothic"
: communal living situation makes me physically ill.
But I still think an Old Goths Home would be pretty cool.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"My patience is extremely limited when it comes to cultivated dumbness.
I feel like a serial killer trying to reform but surrounded by perfect victims
begging me to slaughter them." (Jennie Kermode)
Jack
oddlystrange wrote in message ...
>In article <6us4cl$r...@newsops.execpc.com>, ske...@execpc.com wrote:
<snip>
>>But please, if that is so, & if you are going to get on Necr0's case
>>for (perhaps) not using the correct term for her perceptions of
>>poetry, do try a bit harder to lower the level of condescention.
>
Much as I hate to say it, that's the way your post came across to me. And
Thom's have come across, (IMO) as being both rather condecending *and*
bordering on nasty. ::shrug::
Being bored by poetry doesn't make someone illiterate, it simply means that
poetry bores them. And implying that someone is illiterate just because
they've happened to state that that's the case, strikes me as being rude out
of all proportion to the actual "offense" committed.
YMMV. ::shrug:::
<Snip>
>>I can understand & appreciate that those who have not studied and
>>absorbed a variety of poetry don't truly know what it is about.
>>Like most everything else, it takes time and dedication to truly
>>grasp and "master".
>
>Indeed. You won't get an argument out of me on that one.
>
>However...
>
>To insult the craft is to insult the artist. To call something "boring" is
>pretty fucking insulting to someone who's dedicated a good portion of
>their time and energy into it.
>
>Instead find something else to say. Something a little more descriptive.
If something bores me, then I find it boring, and will *say* it's boring.
The very term "boring" to me is *not* something that can be applied
universally IMO. It's purely subjective, and I think that Necro made it
fairly clear that that's how *she* was using the term as well.
To be perfectly honest, most poetry bores the crap out of me too. Some of
it doesn't though, some I quite like, even to the point of having memorized
the poem in question, because I was struck by something about it.
However, I too put down in my Netscrape reply that I didn't have much
interest in poetry, because that is actually in fact the case. And I
honestly *don't* believe that that makes me illiterate.
--
-Jack-
"Death, it's not just for breakfast anymore."
Sleepycat
wrote:
> I've never once claimed that people who are bored by poetry are
> illiterate. Only that they do not have it in them to read poetry, and
> that is a deficiency. Part of reading is closed to them. They have an
> illiteracy.
Or perhaps that they just have better things to do with their time?
While I'm quite capable of enjoying and maybe "appreciating" poetry on
something near its own terms, I find so many other things more interesting.
The idea of spending a few hours reading poetry generally doesn't appeal to
me becuase I have more (to me) appealing alternatives.
Naturally, if I were locked in a cell with poetry of any standard and a
tolerable outlook, I'd lap it up.
I feel quite safe saying though that I find poetry comparatively dull.
> Poetry has very little audience, and its shrinking. I ask
> myself why, then I turn to my own experience.
To me, poetry as a form is up against a wall.
Its disappearance to the fringes is as natural as the overtaking of radio
drama and silent films by television and movies.
It is natural that by-and-large, art forms which have more going on at once
will attract more interest.
Poetry on the page is being superceded by performed rock lyrics.
It's a different form, but I think a similar level of talent is there in at
least a few performers.
--
+ Kevin J. Bonham (Sleepycat) + CaffinGothCode98:AUiKba5baWaaaaaaHbaa87NwA
WYLPj_fobyhjsi11deaGa2e7fab5aaeaNtnemgqDaaGcbjAbb4GObrNbSbYLzFaaaaablauTAS
"And the moral of this story is never lean on the weird. Or they will chop
your head off. And perverts will eat your brains." - Hunter S. Thompson +
olivia
> What would you say to a person that didnt like music? Well, you might
> well say thats his business, and of course it is. But you might see that
> his life would be less for not having some sort of music in it.
only if you think that every human life should be filled
with every single thing.
then it's 'less' for not having certain things.
i like the idea of filling my life with everything, good and
bad.
but if everyone were filled with everything, we would become
like 'gods' or 'angels' or some sort of 'superbeing'. maybe
you could look at it like, 'fully human', but i have some
sort of romanticism with 'humanity', with flawed people,
with different people missing different parts of the whole,
so that they fit together like puzzle pieces.
so, i can see how you can see someone being less for not
having a certain element in their lives, like poetry (though
poetry to me does not exist merely in words on pages, so i
can't see my life without poetry, even though i hardly ever
read any) or music or wombats, but i don't see it as a 'bad'
thing.
_____________________
~a girl mad as birds
http://members.xoom.com/ivy___
Sheila Marie
>
> Sheila Marie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Answer me this: what is it in ALL poetry that you dislike?
I feel its pretentious, and not in a good way. Pretentious things tend
to bore me to death because on the outside it's pretty and frilly, but
there is no true depth, its all fake to me. Now, be sure to note that
this is my opinion, and while not pretty, it is right FOR ME.
I know your going to say that if I think this then it means I don't
really understand poetry, and if I did, I'd see all the depth and
emotions and feelings some poems have, lalala... Maybe I'm just too put
off by having to pretend to be something I'm not just to "enjoy" it,
maybe its because I don't like the "state of mind" one has to be in to
get into it, maybe I just don't like it. I really wish you could get
into my head right now, I'm not describing this too well...
> When you can answer this question I will have a reason to give some
> respect to your otherwise untenable position. You're the one saying that
> you dont like the entirity of an extremely varied art form, as a simple
> matter of taste.
>
I also do not like abstract art or extra flowery sentences and stories,
same reasons.
> What would you say to a person that didnt like music? Well, you might
> well say thats his business, and of course it is. But you might see that
> his life would be less for not having some sort of music in it.
Nope, I have a sister who views music as simply background noise, I can
see that her life is full. She gets her joy from other things. I may
play something for her every so often, the nicest comment was "its not
annoying, so I wouldn't have to turn it off." Fact of the matter is that
its just not her thing, and I don't love her any less, or view her as
being less of a person for it.
Poetry
> is less essential than music. Poetry, viewed as a whole, is more
> difficult than music. Unlike music, which has the power to reach us
> directly, we have to absorb it through a filter of symbols.[1] All the
> same, the loss of poetic language, in our lives as well as in the
> broader culutre, is an overwhelming loss. Similar to the loss of dreams,
> and appraoching the loss of music. I beleive that anyone who can speak
> or read can gain an appreciation for poetry; if you are in fact in touch
> with poetry, the time will come, and you'll be thankful.
>
I don't see it that way. There are different ways for people to express
themselves. Some do it with music, some with paint, some with the pen,
and some do it in seemingly non-artistic ways. You are making poetry out
to be some sort of foreign language that everyone "should" master, its
not. It is an art form, some will naturally understand it, some won't;
just like some can draw amazing pictures, and some can't draw a straight
line. You can gain an appreciation of different art forms by learning
their processes, but if you still don't like it, it is not a deficiency.
> Please, to contradict my points, quote my points. I never said that the
> lack of poetry in your life would create an unfillable void. Only that
> your life would be less than what it could be.
>
How do you know that for a fact? How do you know that my life would be
more if I liked poetry, how do you know whether or not my life is full
or not? Isn't that something for me to decide? This is what I'm not
getting. I tried it, tried again, it did nothing for me, now its time
for me to move on to the next thing and see if I like that instead.
Wouldn't it be a bad thing for me waste time trying to get myself to
like something I don't on the notion that some one else says I should
and possibly miss out on something else that would actually add
something to my life?
> As to my being arrogant: how long have you been reading this group? ;)
> When I speak for certain things, I'm bombastic, single-minded, vigorous
> and full o hot breath and condemnations.
>
Honestly, I delete about 95-98% of the posts here, and I don't go
searching for specific authors, so I wouldn't know. There was a time
about, ohhhh, February making 2 years ago, that I would read almost
every post, but I've gotten over that ;)
Fenhrir Masquereth
> >that *wasn't* written by Shakespeare. Find some poetry that *wasn't* in
> >your high school anthology. Perhaps then you will begin to understand why
> >we're saying "anything other than boring."
An excellent point. I had a thorough detestation of poetry ("I
know exactly what this poet means by this couplet, I want to know what YOU
think it means!" "You asked Shakespeare what it meant? Didn't know you
were THAT old, Mr[s]. *insert annoying teacher's name here*), until I read
some poetry that was external to the syllabus. A name which springs to
mind is Russell Edson, a modern poet who is the Christopher Durang of
poetry (or at least Edward Albee), with poems dealing with a boy marrying
his automobiles "miles dropping behind them like puppies", and farmers who
use cows as wheelbarrows because they thought they should have one.
Once people are allowed to experience poetry on their own without
someone harping "What does this mean, what does this mean?" (like the old
couple behind you in the movie theatre), it becomes ever so much more
pleasant and personal since you can derive your own meanings and the poem,
like Archibald MacLeish says: "...should not mean/ But be."
Plus you can reject the ones your teacher or peers say are "the
greatest" but you may think them revoltingly boring. I held, and still
maintain, that William Carlos Williams is the most _ridiculously boring_
poets to ever come out of the woodwork, whose poems make the least amount
of sense, but that's the beauty of doing it on my own. I have my own
opinions, but don't have to write a paper on it which will be rejected
because the professor is held to the same dogma as my high school idiot--
er... teachers.
Poetry is much like clothing. What one may consider haute couture,
another may consider castoffs, and another may find warmth and shelter in.
But then, no one is forced to wear another's clothes, and that is the joy
of individuality.
Fenhrir Masquereth
=================================================================
"Kill the individual, the rest will follow automatically"
"What happens to you here is forever"
=================================================================
olivia
> If something bores me, then I find it boring, and will *say* it's boring.
> The very term "boring" to me is *not* something that can be applied
> universally IMO. It's purely subjective, and I think that Necro made it
> fairly clear that that's how *she* was using the term as well.
aha! as i was discussing with the Man just today, about the
nature of reality and other such things, to assume that when
someone says something is boring, they actually mean 'i am
bored by this.' because nothing is intrinsically or
universally boring.. it is Entirely Subjective. just as a
leaf, in the middle of nowhere, with no one to appreciate
it, is not 'beautiful' or 'ugly' or 'interesting' or
'silly'. it is just a leaf. and maybe not even that.
perhaps it's makeup stays the same, but there is no such
thing as Universal Beauty (Keats be damned).
to assume that when someone says 'x is boring', they mean,
'x is universally boring', is just being difficult and a bit
silly.
> However, I too put down in my Netscrape reply that I didn't have much
> interest in poetry,
i wouldn't say i don't have interest in poetry**, only that
i don't read much of it. i am hardly ever in the state of
mind to want to. usually because i have no patience. i
could savor it slowly, feel it's rhythms, let it speak to
some emptyswirly place inside of me, but the truth is, i
usually don't *want* to. my attention span is yeah big, and
when i savor something, it's usually after the fact.. when
i can let the imagery and ideas go, and let them wander
about. i could do this with poetry as well, i suppose.
poetry is not some great mighty difficult esoteric
mysterious special bow down the idol and sing it's praises
Thing. it's just words. your brain has to shift gears, be
ready to hear different things, and experience the words in
a different way, but poetry is still words. i can read
schlock fantasy, i can read 'ooh special Literary' stuff, i
can read the dictionary, and i can certainly read poetry.
it's not any more difficult than anything else is, and it's
not any more Special.
just different.
**for the purposes of this paragraph, poetry as written
words on paper
Dag Wästberg
a...@si.on.ca.NOSPAM (Antonesque) writes:
> Once upon a midnight (29 Sep 1998 07:12:43 GMT ) dreary,
> while I pondered weak and weary,
> over many a quaint an curious volume of alt.gothic,
> suddenly f98...@dd.chalmers.se (Dag Wästberg) uttered into the
> darkness:
>
>> I mean here we have students who are
>> taking the hardest, most chalneging, most math laden engineering masters degree
>> Sweden has to offer, and they all read and like poetry. If there is any one
>> group of people who shouldn't have any understanding for literature and poetics
>> (and anything else that can't be solved numerically) it's this crowd.
>> Well there goes that stereotype.
>
> I completely fail to understand why this stereotype ever arose.
My guess would be that it comes from the idea that everybody speciallizes, and most people see no conection between math and litterature. Perhaps it's a secondary conclution from the sterotype that students of litterature and other humanities wouldn't know what an integral was if they tripped over one. I don't know how true this stereotype is, but I don't know any lit students who have any great competance or interest for mathematics (then again I know very few lit students).
<large and very good section on how math and phyiscs is poetic snipped>
I totaly agree with you here. A beautiful formula as a lot in common with a beautiful poem.
Dag
olivia
> when i savor something, it's usually after the fact..
no, that came out entirely wrong.
i do deeply feel things when i am experiencing them,
but when i 'savor' those things, roll them around on my
tongue, remember their tastes and the way they felt, i do it
after the fact.
there are some poems that i savor, now and then, but for me,
the imagery is not as intense as that from other mediums,
like books or television. probably because most of my
attachment to stories, or images, comes from an empathy for
characters.
i have not read very many (i'm not sure if i can remember
*any*, but given time, perhaps) poems where a character was
developed, to whom i could gain emotional attachment.
there is also the intensity of imagery which sparks
something essential within me, so that it is experienced,
and remembered. poetry is a lot stronger in this, for me.
still, not as strong as other things..
which probably displays some sort of 'lack' within me,
probably that wee attention span i mentioned..
i dunno.
i'm trying so hard to reconcile the two parts within me that
say 'i'm right', and 'i'm stupid and always wrong'. i think
one side of me is trying to apologize to the other.
i like sorting out my ideas like this..
i only wish other people liked my babble as much. :/
Antonesque
over many a quaint an curious volume of alt.gothic,
> oddlystrange wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Perhaps it is just that people approach reading a poem like they were
> > reading prose. Read it fast. Get it on the first shot. Poems are meant to
> > be rolled around in the noggin for a while. They are not meant to be read
> > line by line until you are done. They are not meant to be devoured as fast
> > food.
> >
>
> Very well said.
Indeed.
We're living in the age of soudn-bites.
Writing manuals tell you to use short sentences.
And short words.
And active verbs.
And avoid sub-clauses.
Because people have.
Short attention spans.
Made that way by TV.
And 30-second adverts.
And billboards.
And things like that.
And don't you even dream of calling that poetry or I'll come over
and cram the complete works of Dryden up you without a lubricant
then reach down your throat and extract it before making you read
it out loud repeatedly until you have memorized every single word
and can recite any passage forwards or backwards with a minimal cue
for the benefit of all who may pass by and take pity your poor
illiterate carcass.
Seventy six words, no commas, no subjunctive clauses, no passive
verbs. I wonder what the Fogg index is?
/a
Antonesque
over many a quaint an curious volume of alt.gothic,
darkness:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:37:17 -0700, Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> : I know I'm old because the thought of a "gothic"
> : communal living situation makes me physically ill.
>
>
> But I still think an Old Goths Home would be pretty cool.
Is "old" the modifier to "Goth" or to "home" ?
/a
oddlystrange
>And don't you even dream of calling that poetry or I'll come over
>and cram the complete works of Dryden up you without a lubricant
>then reach down your throat and extract it before making you read
>it out loud repeatedly until you have memorized every single word
>and can recite any passage forwards or backwards with a minimal cue
>for the benefit of all who may pass by and take pity your poor
>illiterate carcass.
See *this* is why I think so many people hate poetry. What you've
described is only a slight exaderration of what happens in most schools to
people when it comes time to read poetry.
For example, in 8th grade my English teacher forced us to memorize the
*entire* Raven. The whole schebang. I spent so much time trying ot
remember whether the line was once upon a midnight dreary and what the
line was after that that I *never* got a chance to appreciate the poem.
As a matter of fact we despised the *poem* so much because we had to
memorize it that me and a bunch of my 13 year old friends got together
after the last day we had to deal with it and *burned* every copy of the
poem we could find.
We didn't hate the poem. We hated the fact it was shoved down our throats
and we were *forced* to memorize it. Which in hindisght made it more like
getting it shoved up our asses without lubricant than having it taught to
us.
It took me another 3 years before I could even look at that poem again
without going ballistic.
oddlystrange
(who says I am NOT an actor, I do not memorize lines)
--
oddlystrange *perkygoff fairy godmother* pe...@obscure.org
__<http://www.obscure.org/~perky>___<AGSF Unit 4a>_________
"We are star-stuff... We're the universe made manifest,
trying to figure itself out." -- Delenn, Babylon 5
oddlystrange
>My point is that it is NOT a deficiency, its a matter of taste, so long
>as you try it at some point. Another example, I've listened to every
>Skinny Puppy CD, and still do not see where there is anything good about
>anything they've put out. I kept thinking I was missing something, so I
>kept listening, and asking what people liked about them. I've come to
>the solid conclusion that I simply do not like them. You can try
>something and not like it, it doesn't mean you are dificient, just that
>you are an individual with your own taste.
Not liking Skinny Puppy is not liking a specific. Its like saying in this
argument "I do not like the poems by Emily Dickinson"
However, those who say they do not like poetry are saying they dislike
someone on the same level as you saying "I do not like music."
Surely there is some music that touches your heart. The same goes for
poetry. There may be poems and poets you do not like, but you dismissing
the whole genre is dimissing the entirety of an artform.
oddlystrange
(who just wanted to point that our)
oddlystrange
<tpa...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> What would you say to a person that didnt like music?
damn you. That was *my* argument!
oddlystrange
(who didn't think another person wouldn't have brought it up)
Fross
>In article <361266a8...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
>fross....@darkwave.org.uk wrote:
>
>>to illustrate, i consider myself well-read and relatively intelligent.
>>however, i like very little poetry. this is because i find very few
>>poets who use nuances of language in ways i enjoy. i prefer to read
>>what i enjoy, after all, what is poetry other than someone slapping
>>the term on some phrases?
>
>nowhere did you call poetry boring in the above.
i would prefer to not use generalisations, that's why :)
>And yes, I am playing with semantics here, for a reason. At the very least
>to help clarify for NecrO what it *is* she doesn't like. Apparently she
>doesn't like the romanticised stuff.
the way i see it, what necr0 doesn't like is the medium. i will
illustrate this further along...
>Like you don't like how most poets don't play with language in a way you like.
>
>I agree with both of you.
>
>>but it doesn't make me feel *alive* the same way some other mediums
>>do. not yet anyway. but that doesn't make me less of a person,
>>rather it does to the person who considers me less because i don't
>>enjoy the same things they do.
>
>that was NEVER my argument in this. Do not confuse me with Albatross on
>this one. We are two very different people, who are on the same side of
>the fence here, however we're not standing on the same patch of lawn on
>this one.
err, oddly, i never even read albatross' post.. oops i think i got a
bit playful with that killfile one evening, lalala.
i was just explaining why i don't like it, and that it doesn't put me
on a "b-ig.. m-aah-k" mentality. :p ;)
>>[1] and this is NOT the thread to start a "modern art is shit"
>>discussion.
>most of it is, right along with modern everything.
***illustration in progress***
just because you don't understand a medium doesn't mean the majority
of it is boring/stupid/shit etc. that comment is doing exactly the
same thing as saying "poetry is boring" *grin*. i have to say, i used
to think so too. however, one particular piece of modern art just
really worked for me once. and it really hit home what "language" the
artist was using. it was amazing, and i've never been able to just
gloss over abstract art since.
fross
.sig file lost, presumed dead.
Fross
>In article <3611CA...@tampabay.rr.com>, shem...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
>
>>My point is that it is NOT a deficiency, its a matter of taste, so long
>>as you try it at some point. Another example, I've listened to every
>>Skinny Puppy CD, and still do not see where there is anything good about
>>anything they've put out. I kept thinking I was missing something, so I
>>kept listening, and asking what people liked about them. I've come to
>>the solid conclusion that I simply do not like them. You can try
>>something and not like it, it doesn't mean you are dificient, just that
>>you are an individual with your own taste.
>
>Not liking Skinny Puppy is not liking a specific. Its like saying in this
>argument "I do not like the poems by Emily Dickinson"
>
>However, those who say they do not like poetry are saying they dislike
>someone on the same level as you saying "I do not like music."
>
>Surely there is some music that touches your heart. The same goes for
>poetry. There may be poems and poets you do not like, but you dismissing
>the whole genre is dimissing the entirety of an artform.
[apologies for large quote, want to keep everything in context]
surely yes it is wrong to say "all poetry is [boring|crap|etc]",
however i think what people who say this mean is "all poetry i've read
is [...]". this is definitely due to the exposure music gets in
society, and the image poetry has of being something kept for dusty
old english classes - people in this mindset sit themselves down and
almost set it like a chore to read through the poem. which of course
is not condusive to enjoyment. i think the comment several people
made about actually enjoying poetry once they read something off their
school syllabus is very valid here - it was in a relaxed environment,
they could pick up something they chose themselves, then enjoy it.
oddlystrange
>I know your going to say that if I think this then it means I don't
>really understand poetry, and if I did, I'd see all the depth and
>emotions and feelings some poems have, lalala...
No. Just that you should stop reading poems written by post-modern poets,
angsty teens and lord byron.
If you don't like pretentious poems, find a poet who isn't pretentious.
They are out there.
>I don't see it that way. There are different ways for people to express
>themselves. Some do it with music, some with paint, some with the pen,
>and some do it in seemingly non-artistic ways. You are making poetry out
>to be some sort of foreign language that everyone "should" master, its
>not. It is an art form, some will naturally understand it, some won't;
>just like some can draw amazing pictures, and some can't draw a straight
>line. You can gain an appreciation of different art forms by learning
>their processes, but if you still don't like it, it is not a deficiency.
I still hold that there is at least some art that even a person who
doesn't like looking at pictures can appreciate. There are television
shows that people who don't like television as a medium still like. I am
saying that in *all* art there is something that every human being on the
planet can like -- even if they are not fond of a particular genre or even
cannot appriciate the art form itself.
There is art that doesn't strike my fancy, however I still have certain
peices of it that I like.
To shut off the entire form of art for one reason or another as something
not your tastes robs you a little of life's fullness. This does not mean
you are required to *like* the entire artform... but trying to find
something or one peice to like about it benefits you.
>How do you know that for a fact? How do you know that my life would be
>more if I liked poetry, how do you know whether or not my life is full
>or not? Isn't that something for me to decide? This is what I'm not
>getting. I tried it, tried again, it did nothing for me, now its time
>for me to move on to the next thing and see if I like that instead.
>Wouldn't it be a bad thing for me waste time trying to get myself to
>like something I don't on the notion that some one else says I should
>and possibly miss out on something else that would actually add
>something to my life?
However, from my perspective. When you say you don't like poetry you use a
myriad of cliches to describe *why* you don't like it. It's like saying I
don't like modern art because I shit better stuff that has more artistic
merit.
But you know... I don't like modern art in truth because I really don't
like seeing paintings decontructed to the lowest element. I guess that's
also why I like photography. That doesn't mean that there isn't some
modren art that I do like -- for instance there's a sculpture in the
Virginia Museam of Fine Arts that I totally love. It's a woman sitting in
a bed. There's a man in the bed -- the man and the bed are a dark grey and
the woman is blue.
I like that. Its got soul.
I've also stated several times in this thread that I don't like flowery
poetry either. I'm not big on a lot of the poetry out there. Mainly for
the same reason I don't like modern art. I don't like seeing life
decontructed to its barest elemant. I prefer a total picture.
Mind you -- I do not prefer a total picture with a lot of fluff. I prefer
a total picture in honest turth -- like a camera lense.
And I found a few poets that fill that requirement -- and since a newworld
of expression *has* been opened up for me. A world I would have never seen
if I had written off most of the poetry you come across in the world as
"floofy, romanticized" and other thing.
The most popular poetry is taht way. Like television, music and movies --
most popular rarely means the most personally appealing to many of us on
this newsgorup.
>Honestly, I delete about 95-98% of the posts here, and I don't go
>searching for specific authors, so I wouldn't know. There was a time
>about, ohhhh, February making 2 years ago, that I would read almost
>every post, but I've gotten over that ;)
I don't think I've ever read every post *
oddlystrange
(who says unless of course there were only two or something)
oddlystrange
Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com (Ron Cecchini) wrote:
>Granted, you've got Oddly leading the Anti-Twit Brigade which, to
>be honest, does seem to be (be diplomatic... be diplomatic...) a
>large waste of time, but it's her time, not mine.
ahh its like trying to make water flow uphill...
That and its genuine stress relief for me :)
>Plus, most of us have known Jen alot longer and, since most people
>forgive my behavior, we/I in turn forgive her Violent Mood Swings,
>said swings being characterized by something like the following:
>
> "Hi. I'm new to a.g."
> "DIE, TWIT, DIE! IN MY KILLFILE WITH YE!"
Typically can be translated into: "You now represent that asshole who cut
me off on the interstate today... muahahahahaha!"
>-- and when the ego gets a little too big, we all bend her over and
>line up to give her the smack on the ass that she loves so much.
Which more often than not is highly appreciated by me.
You'd be suprised at how even keel I am in person.
Well unless I haven't had lunch that is.
oddlystrange
(who tends to be nice when she's sad and most of the other time -- well my
teen angst had to go *somewhere*)
oddlystrange
fross....@darkwave.org.uk wrote:
>>>[1] and this is NOT the thread to start a "modern art is shit"
>>>discussion.
>>most of it is, right along with modern everything.
>
>***illustration in progress***
>
>just because you don't understand a medium doesn't mean the majority
>of it is boring/stupid/shit etc. that comment is doing exactly the
>same thing as saying "poetry is boring" *grin*. i have to say, i used
>to think so too. however, one particular piece of modern art just
>really worked for me once. and it really hit home what "language" the
>artist was using. it was amazing, and i've never been able to just
>gloss over abstract art since.
you took the bait :)
That's all I have to say about.
oddlystrange
(who well is often a troll of sorts)
oddlystrange
>so, i can see how you can see someone being less for not
>having a certain element in their lives, like poetry (though
>poetry to me does not exist merely in words on pages, so i
>can't see my life without poetry, even though i hardly ever
>read any) or music or wombats, but i don't see it as a 'bad'
>thing.
I don't think he intended it to be that way.
I;m just talking from my perspective, but the greatest part of being human
is the ability to explore and understand. A part of having a fulfilling
life is to look at and appreciate something in everything. Now this
doesn't mean you have to like EVERYTHING, this doesn't mean you have to
become an expert in EVERYTHING. However if for one moment you can see why
it holds appeal to other human beings you begin to understand a little bit
about who and what you are, and who and what society is around you.
I am coming from the perspective that although you may not have found a
certain artform interesting to you in its whole entirity -- surely there
is something -- some smidgen of art -- some art student project that was
tossed in the trash even that you *do* like. And knowing *why* you liked
it and why you don't like others like it helps you understand yourself and
the people who this artform appeals to.
oddlystrange
(who will now get off her hippy soapbox)
elsworth
Sheila Marie wrote in message <361208...@tampabay.rr.com>...
>Albatross wrote:
>>
>> Sheila Marie wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Answer me this: what is it in ALL poetry that you dislike?
>
>I feel its pretentious, and not in a good way. Pretentious things tend
>to bore me to death because on the outside it's pretty and frilly, but
>there is no true depth, its all fake to me. Now, be sure to note that
>this is my opinion, and while not pretty, it is right FOR ME.
>
Without Armor'.
Most poetry *is* pretentious and frilly. Most 'artistic' things end up that way
because the creator is trying to do something they think is 'artistic', instead
of telling the truth.
>I know your going to say that if I think this then it means I don't
>really understand poetry, and if I did, I'd see all the depth and
>emotions and feelings some poems have, lalala... Maybe I'm just too put
>off by having to pretend to be something I'm not just to "enjoy" it,
>maybe its because I don't like the "state of mind" one has to be in to
>get into it, maybe I just don't like it. I really wish you could get
>into my head right now, I'm not describing this too well...
You don't have to like something to acknowledge its value.
>>
>I also do not like abstract art or extra flowery sentences and stories,
>same reasons.
Hmmm... I wouldn't equate the two; abstract art is like a foreign language that
you can choose to learn, 'extra flowery' stories are often simply bad work done
by dim authors (generalization alert: I didn't say ALL).
>
>Nope, I have a sister who views music as simply background noise, I can
>see that her life is full. She gets her joy from other things. I may
>play something for her every so often, the nicest comment was "its not
>annoying, so I wouldn't have to turn it off." Fact of the matter is that
>its just not her thing, and I don't love her any less, or view her as
>being less of a person for it.
I wouldn't view you as less of a person for not liking poetry - or abstract
art - I would just worry that you might be missing out on something that could
change your perspective on an idea or concept.
>
>Poetry
>> is less essential than music. Poetry, viewed as a whole, is more
>> difficult than music. Unlike music, which has the power to reach us
>> directly, we have to absorb it through a filter of symbols.[1] All the
>> same, the loss of poetic language, in our lives as well as in the
>> broader culutre, is an overwhelming loss. Similar to the loss of dreams,
>> and appraoching the loss of music. I beleive that anyone who can speak
>> or read can gain an appreciation for poetry; if you are in fact in touch
>> with poetry, the time will come, and you'll be thankful.
>>
>I don't see it that way. There are different ways for people to express
>themselves. Some do it with music, some with paint, some with the pen,
>and some do it in seemingly non-artistic ways. You are making poetry out
>to be some sort of foreign language that everyone "should" master, its
>not. It is an art form, some will naturally understand it, some won't;
>just like some can draw amazing pictures, and some can't draw a straight
>line. You can gain an appreciation of different art forms by learning
>their processes, but if you still don't like it, it is not a deficiency.
You seem to be equating reading poetry with the creation of poetry - the two are
very different things. Not being able to draw a straight line does not preclude
an appreciation of modern (or ancient) art; not being able to write poetry (as I
cannot - I can only parody bad poetry when the mood takes me) has nothing to do
with enjoying the art form.
I'm torn - I agree with you on some things, but I agree with Albatross on
others. I don't think everyone has to like everything - that way lies madness
(or at the very least, no discriminating taste), but I think the people writing
about how they don't like poetry (ANY poetry) on this thread are missing out.
The field of poetry is as wide as the field of art - there is room for
everything from prehistoric cave drawings to the insane universe of Salvador
Dali and beyond. Poetry is EXACTLY the same. From "Roses are red/Violets are
blue" to "The Wasteland" and everything in between. Poetry can be funny, it can
cause tears to come to your eyes, it can stab you in the heart so hard you lose
your breath.
It's all different. You can dislike it if you want - I certainly won't think
any less of you for doing so. For myself, I tend never to pronounce dislike of
an entire category of things, because someone can *always* find me an exception.
That's just my perspective on it.
>
>> Please, to contradict my points, quote my points. I never said that
the
>> lack of poetry in your life would create an unfillable void. Only that
>> your life would be less than what it could be.
>>
>How do you know that for a fact? How do you know that my life would be
>more if I liked poetry, how do you know whether or not my life is full
>or not? Isn't that something for me to decide? This is what I'm not
>getting. I tried it, tried again, it did nothing for me, now its time
>for me to move on to the next thing and see if I like that instead.
>Wouldn't it be a bad thing for me waste time trying to get myself to
>like something I don't on the notion that some one else says I should
>and possibly miss out on something else that would actually add
>something to my life?
It's not for any of us to say what you consider meaningful. It's been laid out
here fairly crudely, (but with good intentions, I think), that some people here
would like other people here to experience the joy they get from a particular
thing. It's the same thing as encouraging your friends to listen to a new band
(to bring up the music simile again), but on a slightly wider scale. It's
interesting how something so out of the mainstream can polarize opinions so
strongly - to the point where it's a life-or-death struggle to prove opinions as
correct. Both are valid. If you have sampled written poetry, and not liked it,
then so what? It's not the end of the world. I know many people who would not
care for the artists I consider great, but that doesn't make them any less
educated. I just feel like poetry gets a blanket dislike more often than any
other art form. Almost nobody doesn't care for all kinds of visual art, or
prose, or music, though they might not care for significant chunks of it. I
think all that albatross is asking for is that people not pronoounce *all*
poetry to be boring. All the poetry you have ever read might be boring to you,
but that doesn't mean that all the poetry in the world is boring.
But, if you don't want to read poetry, then no-one should make you. Nor should
you be made to feel inferior for not liking the poems you have read.
elsworth
elsworth
Sleepycat wrote in message ...
>In article <3611D080...@drizzle.com>, Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I've never once claimed that people who are bored by poetry are
>> illiterate. Only that they do not have it in them to read poetry, and
>> that is a deficiency. Part of reading is closed to them. They have an
>> illiteracy.
>
>Or perhaps that they just have better things to do with their time?
>While I'm quite capable of enjoying and maybe "appreciating" poetry on
>something near its own terms, I find so many other things more interesting.
>The idea of spending a few hours reading poetry generally doesn't appeal to
>me becuase I have more (to me) appealing alternatives.
>Naturally, if I were locked in a cell with poetry of any standard and a
>tolerable outlook, I'd lap it up.
>I feel quite safe saying though that I find poetry comparatively dull.
...and some people will read a book of poetry like they read a book of short
stories or a novel, and get as much out of it as another person would who
prefers mystery novels and has just settled down with the latest P.D. James.
>
>> Poetry has very little audience, and its shrinking. I ask
>> myself why, then I turn to my own experience.
Why would you say that? My experience is that it is undergoing a renascence,
fueled by interest in an art form that expresses an abstract concept in a
beautiful and truthful manner ("A Night Without Armor" notwithstanding).
>
>To me, poetry as a form is up against a wall.
>Its disappearance to the fringes is as natural as the overtaking of radio
>drama and silent films by television and movies.
>It is natural that by-and-large, art forms which have more going on at once
>will attract more interest.
Popular interest is always focused on the new and exciting. Doesn't mean the
older art forms die out.
>Poetry on the page is being superceded by performed rock lyrics.
>It's a different form, but I think a similar level of talent is there in at
>least a few performers.
Poetry is a constantly evolving art form, just like art and music. Just because
it is not popular in the mainstram (just like modern art) does not mean that it
is dying out. There will always be artists in any form pushing the boundaries.
Poetry has been around a long time - it will continue to express ideas and
concepts in a unique way for a long time to come.
elsworth
Albatross
>
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:37:17 -0700, Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> : I know I'm old because the thought of a "gothic"
> : communal living situation makes me physically ill.
>
> But I still think an Old Goths Home would be pretty cool.
Could we have mandatory evening poetry readings?
*snort*
A
Albatross
>
> aha! as i was discussing with the Man just today, about the
> nature of reality and other such things, to assume that when
> someone says something is boring, they actually mean 'i am
> bored by this.' because nothing is intrinsically or
> universally boring.. it is Entirely Subjective. just as a
> leaf, in the middle of nowhere, with no one to appreciate
> it, is not 'beautiful' or 'ugly' or 'interesting' or
> 'silly'. it is just a leaf. and maybe not even that.
> perhaps it's makeup stays the same, but there is no such
> thing as Universal Beauty (Keats be damned).
A poem doesnt change because we don't like it. All its components
remain intact. Its potential to be beautiful, or dynamic, or moving is
still there when it isnt seen. If we do not apprehend those aspects,
then the _deficiency_ is not in poetry, which is what it is, its in
those who fail to see it.
I use inflammatory language to inspire passion in the dispassionate.
When it comes to beautiful things, better hot or cold than lukewarm.
oooo baby. deja vu. :)
jealousy
Jack <thri...@rocketmail.com> wrote in article
<6uskse$k...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> Much as I hate to say it, that's the way your post came across to me.
And
> Thom's have come across, (IMO) as being both rather condecending *and*
> bordering on nasty. ::shrug::
It's ENTIRELY to fucking rude of him.
Asshole.
Goddamn him to hell for tryingto get anyone
tomove past theirselves. Evolve.
Or so much as re-examine a postion of thiers held
through ignorance and obstiancy.
LET US KILL ALL THE ALBATROSSI!
> Being bored by poetry doesn't make someone illiterate, it simply means
that
> poetry bores them.
"Being bored by all music doesn't mean someone is missing someone, it
simply means that ALL music bores them."
"Being bored by ALL art doesn't mean someone is missing someone is
lessening themselves, it JUST means that all art bores them."
"Being bored by reading doesn't means someone has a defiecnincy, it just
means that reading bores them."
Listen to your self.
Cause Jack, you know better.
And the mos of the other folks.
If you would for one crystal clear minute,
get your head out of your ass
and just LISTEN to Thom, instead of protecting
your internal status quo's, then you just might,
just might LEARN something.
But then I suppose that could be boring too.
Jealousy
"The stupidest people are the last to notice it" A.
Albatross
> > I completely fail to understand why this stereotype ever arose.
> My guess would be that it comes from the idea that everybody > > speciallizes, and most people see no conection between math and > litterature.
I've heard it argued that the sheer mass of knowledge neccesary in many
fields makes specialization unavoidable. Maybe true, still awfully sad.
I prefer the Goethe model: know about many things. Though he was a great
poet and an awful scientist, even for his time, and that might say
something about poetry and science and specialization.
A
--
++++++++++++++++
Very little of what we have believed has been true.
Only the prophecies are true. -Wallace Stevens
http://www.drizzle.com/~tparkin/gateway.html
Skerry Carrie, Quite Contrary!
fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
>There are as many *types* of poetry as there are types of novels. If you
>investigate the art you will find the kind that appeals to you.
>
>For instance I wonder if she finds music "boring"
>
>Becuase music is another version of poetry.
It's poetry put to music, yes.
Poetry + music is (IMO) far better than just words.
Sometimes (ok, often) the words to a song don't do much
for me, but the MUSIC does. The MUSIC paints a picture/scenario/
feeling in my head, without words. I can hate lyrics, but adore the
music that goes with it.
So it's not *quite* the same.. but not dissimilar by any means.
>>But please, if that is so, & if you are going to get on Necr0's case
>>for (perhaps) not using the correct term for her perceptions of
>>poetry, do try a bit harder to lower the level of condescention.
>
>I hardly think I am being condescending.
I'd have to disagree, to a point.
However, it was Thom that that was mainly directed to (and perhaps
I should have addressed separate people separately.. woops.).
Indeed, a lot of what I see (from him) is still, basically, that there
is absolutely nothing wrong with poetry, only the people who don't
enjoy it. That if they only put their whole heart and soul into it,
they would GET IT, and grasp the fullness and truth of the poetry.
That EVERYONE will get something out of it, if they only try hard
enough, and if they don't, there is something direly wrong with them,
and they will never know how happy they could have been.
I'm sorry, but that smacks just a BIT too much of a certain religion
that I am all too familiar with, and I'll never buy into that line of
crap again.
[snippeth]
>That doesn't mean that the sight of a couple stanzas makes me drool. Most
>poetry is shit. To me. Becuase I'm fucking sick of "my love is like a
>flower in pentatic rhythm" sheyut. I read poetry for MYSELF. And there is
>some DARK shit out there that I love.
>
>I'm not fond of fluffy writing, just like NecrO.
Same here.
>However...
>
>To insult the craft is to insult the artist. To call something "boring" is
>pretty fucking insulting to someone who's dedicated a good portion of
>their time and energy into it.
>
>Instead find something else to say. Something a little more descriptive.
Well.. as someone else pointed out, nothing is intrinsically boring.
I am pretty darn sure that when people say "poetry is boring", that
they are really saying "I find poetry boring, poetry bores ME".
[snip stuff about Warhol and Renoir and other things
I know absolutely nothing about]
>>However, I do not feel that I am sorely lacking because I choose
>>not to dress up and pretend that I am a mage, or a vampire.
>>
>>Or because I don't have the drive to nurture plants.
>
>However, even looking into *why* you feel that way helps you understand a
>lot more about yourself.
Mostly because I hate getting dirty. Hate sun. Hate heat. Hate
bugs. Hate sweat. Now, I'm thinking of transplanting some of my
black pansies to an indoor window box so I can enjoy them all year
long. In a 'sterilised environment', I can maintain my pretty little
flowers without the blazing sun, heat, icky bugs and dirt, etc.
But that's just a little thing. It certainly isn't a love for
gardening, not by any means.
>>And I would certainly never tell anyone else that they were
>>illiterate, or not smart enough, or just plain wrong for not
>>parking their ass in front of a computer for >5 hours a day.
>
>However, would you also neglect to remind them of the benefits it could
>add to their lives if they weren't so afraid to figure out WHY they didn't
>like it?
Oh, no, not at all. I've explained how bloody interesting & useful
they are to more than a few folks, and they simply aren't..
interested.
<shrug>
Damn hippies would rather play their guitars. ;)
>(who's mother also never understood my addicting to the boxes until I got
>a job in it. Now I think she kinda regrets when she took away the computer
>in 12th grade to get me out socializing more)
But I thought yer mom helped to write Unix..
.-.
\ / "#000000, #000000, #000000 like my soul."
-+- Postal Notes: http://www.execpc.com/~skerry
| Wisconsin Gothic: http://www.velvet.net/~skerry/gothmilk.html
Albatross
> OK so the initial comment was quite sweeping and provoking
Of course it was. The entire post was meant to provoke. I'm glad that
the poetry sentence got the responce... because any passionate
discussion of peotry serves. Helps keep the thing I love alive.
Albatross
>
> necr0...@aol.com.no.spam (Necr0angel) wrote:
>
> > What do i get? I get things like "you're uneducated,
> > you couldn't POSSIBLY understand" and "yer full of shit".
> > I can safely say I am neither of the two.
>
> I'm not going to speak for Thom, but if I had to bet, I would say
> that he was partially influenced by your a.g. persona, which can be
> quite, uh, (how to say so as not to offend too much...) "abrasive"
> and juvenile at times.
Ah yes. But then, abrasive and juvenile... well, thats all just a
matter of taste. If someone likes juvenile than no one should say
anything derogatory about that. Cause its all subjective and we have to
torpedo strong aethtic responces or someone wont feel good.
</sarcasm>
Albatross
>
> >From: Lady Greycat <ladyg...@infoback.net>
>
> > i really felt that it had to be said
> >that Carrie is not the only one who feels like this.
>
> Hating to do another "me too" post, but I agree too.
The hypocracy of young women who routinely deal out insults, crying
when some of the same is directed their way is remarkable.
Get over it, ya big babies.
oddlystrange
>Mostly because I hate getting dirty. Hate sun. Hate heat. Hate
>bugs. Hate sweat. Now, I'm thinking of transplanting some of my
>black pansies to an indoor window box so I can enjoy them all year
>long. In a 'sterilised environment', I can maintain my pretty little
>flowers without the blazing sun, heat, icky bugs and dirt, etc.
See. Then for you gardening isn't really boring. Its not pleasant for you.
Different than boring.
>>(who's mother also never understood my addicting to the boxes until I got
>>a job in it. Now I think she kinda regrets when she took away the computer
>>in 12th grade to get me out socializing more)
>
>But I thought yer mom helped to write Unix..
Just because you worked at something doesn't mean you loved it. which is
why she is an CPA and not a CTO.
That and she can't navigate a GUI to save her life. [1]
oddlystrange
(who's mother sees computers kinda the same way we all look at cubicles)
[1] Which kinda explains unix right there.
Albatross
>
> Albatross wrote:
> >
> > Sheila Marie wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Answer me this: what is it in ALL poetry that you dislike?
>
> I feel its pretentious, and not in a good way.
All poetry is pretentious?
Maybe all creativity is pretentious?
> Pretentious things tend
> to bore me to death because on the outside it's pretty and frilly, but
> there is no true depth, its all fake to me.
All poetry is pretty and frilly?
Sorry, all you are doing is demonstrating my intial point: that you
dont know what you're talking about. I'm not saying that to be mean, in
your case. I'm saying it because it is plainly true.
> I also do not like abstract art or extra flowery sentences and stories,
> same reasons.
All poetry isnt abstract. Much of it is quite straightforward.
Not much, I admit.
> Fact of the matter is that
> its just not her thing, and I don't love her any less, or view her as
> being less of a person for it.
And to reiterate: I have never said I consider you an inferior person.
that impression is givne by inflammatory language I used to compel
discussion. I do say that there is a thing of beauty that will not be in
your life, and that your life will be less than it might have been. this
is based on the opinion that the absense of exemplary language in ones
psyche cannot be replaced by another thing. It cant be filled by music
or gardening or politics, because those things are essentially
different. It might not be so great as to compel a great spiritual
quest. Not everyone is a poet, or meant to be a great reader of poetry.
All the same, its there to had, and you will not have it. That loss
isn't going to be as great to you as it would be to me. But, I dont
think you are truly in a position to dismiss that loss as
inconsequntial. A person might eschew love, and find their life better
without it... but, it isnt a matter of taste to say that would be great
loss?
Why?! And here me and my lover will not agree, here is the crux of the
argument, unseen: things have value inhernet in themselves. It isnt
subject to our taste or opinions. It exists in spite of them. Love has
value, poetry has value, in and of themselves. People will argue this,
and they should. It isnt an obvious opinion, but its an old one. Our
intellects have been weened on the idea that we must not discriminate
because all value is subjective. We must not say that one creation is
better than another, heaven forfend that one person is better than
another.
It is true that it is impossible to establish ultimate, universal
values. Our own subjective views make it impossible to finally fix on
what is best. However, giving up the fight of establishing _what is
best_ has opened the way for a tidal wave of mediocrity in our culture.
Poetry has value independent of what you or I think of it. The value
lies in its potential to to inspire, in its ability to expand
consciouness, in its ability to inform the mind in ways otherwise
closed, and in every other thing poetry is and can be. I've seen that
value, but that value would exist even if I hadnt seen it.
Ian Sturrock
<necr0...@aol.com.no.spam> writes
>Well, it's like someone else said about shakespeare. I'll use the same play,
>since my opinion on it is the same:)
>Romeo and Juliet is generally considered one of his greatest works.
>I read it and didn't like it.
>Later on in school they had us read it again, and write critiques, reports and
>reviews on it(which kind of requires you to at least marginally understand
>what's going on;)), I STILL didn't like it.
>I read it again a couple months ago just because. Still didn't like it.
>I understand it perfectly, but I still don't like it.
I'm afraid that this is symptomatic not only of the failure of the
education system WRT to Shakespeare, but of what Albatross was saying
about needing to learn to appreciate each art form.
_Romeo and Juliet_ is not poetry. It is not prose. It *cannot* be
appreciated by any amount of reading. It can be appreciated by going to
see a good production of it, if you can comprehend the language. IMO
Jonson is easier to appreciate than Shakespeare anyway- _The Alchemist_
is still hilarious, even to a modern audience.
And Thom asn't talking just about understanding said different art
forms. Beginning to understand the language is a first step towards
appreciating them *as* art, but to say "I understand it perfectly" of
_Romeo & Juliet_ is utterly ridiculous, considering that generations of
scholars have been increasing their levels of understanding of the play
since Shakespeare's time, and I doubt that any of them would be so
arrogant as to suggest that they understand it *perfectly*.
--
"I am a free prince, and I have as much authority to make war on the whole world
as he who has a hundred sail of ships at sea, and an army of 100,000 men in the
field, and thus my conscience tells me." (Capt. Bellamy. A Pirate. From Defoe)
Albatross
>
> In article <361266a8...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> fross....@darkwave.org.uk wrote:
> >but it doesn't make me feel *alive* the same way some other mediums
> >do. not yet anyway. but that doesn't make me less of a person,
> >rather it does to the person who considers me less because i don't
> >enjoy the same things they do.
>
> that was NEVER my argument in this. Do not confuse me with Albatross on
> this one. We are two very different people, who are on the same side of
> the fence here, however we're not standing on the same patch of lawn on
> this one.
I'm going to repeat this again and again. I used some language that was
harsh to get peoples motors revving. However, I havent been read well or
accurately, which will happen when peopls motors are revving. I never
once claimed that people are less valueable because they dont read
poetry. Their range of expereince will be less. I judge that loss to be
great, other people dont. I think they are mistaken, profoundly so, and
it doesnt make me a snob to say so.
Fross
>In article <36152b05...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
>fross....@darkwave.org.uk wrote:
>
>>>>[1] and this is NOT the thread to start a "modern art is shit"
>>>>discussion.
>>>most of it is, right along with modern everything.
>>
>>***illustration in progress***
[etc]
>you took the bait :)
>
>That's all I have to say about.
*grin* no, this time it was i who dropped the bait. muahaha.
anyhoo. i'm going to go throw some paint at a piece of wood and make
some money. or something ;)
frossi.
(how can you work artistically for a boss who emails you saying:
DAVID LOOKS VERY GOOD WILL SPEAK TO YOU IN MORE DETIAL AT LATER STAGE
KEEP UP THE GOOD IDEAS)
(and yes, that was straight from an email i got from him today.)
Albatross
> >In article <3611D080...@drizzle.com>, Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Poetry has very little audience, and its shrinking. I ask
> >> myself why, then I turn to my own experience.
>
> Why would you say that? My experience is that it is undergoing a renascence,
> fueled by interest in an art form that expresses an abstract concept in a
> beautiful and truthful manner ("A Night Without Armor" notwithstanding).
If you mean open mikes, and the like.. well some more snobbery, but I
dont think it qualifies. Poetry is no longer a major cultural force, and
I have my doubts that it will ever be able to compete with louder,
brighter more forcefully stimulating means of communication.
"Night Without Armor" is not good poetry. But, truthfully, I expected
her to embarass herself, and I dont think she did.
God, I've got to actually get some work done today. :(
Fross
>But you know... I don't like modern art in truth because I really don't
>like seeing paintings decontructed to the lowest element. I guess that's
>also why I like photography. That doesn't mean that there isn't some
>modren art that I do like -- for instance there's a sculpture in the
>Virginia Museam of Fine Arts that I totally love. It's a woman sitting in
>a bed. There's a man in the bed -- the man and the bed are a dark grey and
>the woman is blue.
not to rattle on the subject even longer, but there are a few
minimalism/abstraction/cubism and other forms of "modern art"
exponents who do some *very* good work. the message is really in
there, it just does take a lot of effort to find it. considering
yourself back at "kindergarten level" and knowing you have to work
ahead to understand that medium helps. personally, when i saw one
particular picasso painting, it just hit home and i understood
*exactly* the methodology and the message within it, and i would
suggest that as a good artist to start with. a lot of modern art
takes it a meta-level higher than conventional art; context and the
way the piece were created are as important as the result itself -
this is just an example of the things one has to take into account.
i'm not going to take this much further on here as it isn't really
relevant, but i just wanted to point out as i get as irritated
sometimes with people totally dismissing an art form as some other
people obviously get when people say poetry is boring. *grin* but
there again, there's probably as much bad modern art as there is bad
poetry.
fross