Why Your Poetry Sucks
EricR
"I was recently doing a bit of crawling around various peopleÄ…s
personal home pages and it occurred to me that some one needs to
take these fucks to task for their atrocious butcheries of the
English language.
I refer of course to the prevalence on the net of illiterate
assholes who feel obligated to inflict the world with their, and I
use the term loosely, online poetry.
Now, before you assume that this is yet another attack on
YankTheChain Canadian Demon-Whore, Susie Biro, let me just say
that sheÄ…s not the worst offender. SheÄ…s bad, but all fifteen year
old harlotÄ…s are, and in that sense she can be given a bit of
license. No, we will not discuss Susie Biro here.
What we will be discussing in great detail is the work of several
self proclaimed Å‚poetsË› who seem to have no idea whatsoever how to
construct a thought outside of the realm of prose."
Read the whole article at
http://www.yankthechain.com/poetry.html
<a
href="http://www.yankthechain.com/poetry.html">yankthechain.com/poetry.html</a>
--
Yankthechain.com - articles, reviews, interviews, comics, assorted misanthropy and the Mark Hamill Watch .
www.yankthechain.com
j r sherman
chris, i think we've found you're other long-lost brother. heh...
love and kisses,
j r sherman
In article <ericr-21059...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, er...@yankthechain.com
says...
M. Otis Beard
EricR wrote in message ...
>Excerpt from the article Why Your Poetry Sucks at YanktheChain.com:
>
>"I was recently doing a bit of crawling around various peopleÄ…s
> personal home pages and it occurred to me that some one needs
to
> take these fucks to task for their atrocious butcheries of the
> English language.
>
> I refer of course to the prevalence on the net of illiterate
> assholes who feel obligated to inflict the world with their,
and I
> use the term loosely, online poetry.
>
> Now, before you assume that this is yet another attack on
> YankTheChain Canadian Demon-Whore, Susie Biro, let me just say
> that sheÄ…s not the worst offender. SheÄ…s bad, but all fifteen
year
> old harlotÄ…s are, and in that sense she can be given a bit of
> license. No, we will not discuss Susie Biro here.
>
> What we will be discussing in great detail is the work of
several
> self proclaimed Å‚poetsË› who seem to have no idea whatsoever how
to
> construct a thought outside of the realm of prose."
>
>Read the whole article at
>http://www.yankthechain.com/poetry.html
You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to these
newsgroups is utter swill, but you're wrong to think that your own writing
is much better than that of the people whose drivel you're belittling. I
read your entire article, and you *don't* know how to write well.
As for the rest of you, let me just say that once upon a time, poetry was
a serious business. It was a High Art that could only be achieved through
years of intensely dedicated scholarship on the part of an extraordinarily
talented individual. If you think that churning out some feeble little
rhyme or badly-conceived bit of blank verse makes you a poet, then you
deserve to give all your money to the International Library of Poetry.
Remember: Jewel is not a poet, and in all likelihood, neither is anyone
reading this message.
-M. Otis Beard
j r sherman
>
> You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to these
>newsgroups is utter swill,
ya know, o, he wasn't talking about the newsgroups, he was talking about the
net, ya know, websites and shit, not usenet... and speak for your own newsgroups
sparky.
>but you're wrong to think that your own writing
>is much better than that of the people whose drivel you're belittling.
um... no. the drivel that eric displayed in his articule was bad, like biting
tinfoil with metal teeth fillings bad.
>I
>read your entire article, and you *don't* know how to write well.
better than the little girl he was beating up.
> As for the rest of you, let me just say that once upon a time, poetry was
>a serious business.
thanks god the times have changed.
>It was a High Art that could only be achieved through
>years of intensely dedicated scholarship on the part of an extraordinarily
>talented individual.
fucking liar. where do you get this crap? spare the elitist bullshit, idiot,
poetry is in everything, and everyone. okay, some write it better than others,
but spare me the "dedicated scholarship" crap, would you? you sound like some
wanna-be coffee house undergrad trying to impress his date.
>If you think that churning out some feeble little
>rhyme or badly-conceived bit of blank verse makes you a poet, then you
>deserve to give all your money to the International Library of Poetry.
or me. the email address is jr...@wenet.net. i will take payment in many
different forms. really.
>Remember: Jewel is not a poet,
no!!!!
>and in all likelihood, neither is anyone
>reading this message.
speak for your own newsgroup sparky, i gotta go, ya got me laughing at that
"serious poet" shit so hard i spit out my cigarette and started a fire.
Max King
Dear Mr. Otis Beard,
I couldn't resist responding to your most heated reply
of eric yankthechain's article.
In article <H%q13.418$eC3....@news.uswest.net>,
"M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to these
>newsgroups is utter swill,
it's that small 1% we all hang around for anyhow.
>but you're wrong to think that your own writing
>is much better than that of the people whose drivel you're belittling. I
>read your entire article, and you *don't* know how to write well.
he may not be a great writer, but he does say what he thinks,
that counts for much more than those that don't have the
balls to open their mouths. And I must say I agree with
his acute artistic criticisms. God I love Patti Smith...
> As for the rest of you, let me just say that once upon a time, poetry was
>a serious business.
poetry was NEVER a serious business. As a matter of fact, poetry is
not a business at all, as I've expounded on previously in this group.
Check the top 1000 richest people in the world. You won't find a single
writer that atributes their wealth to writing poetry.
Poetry is ignored by Madison Avenue, Wall Street, Hollywood
and just about every major corporation out there.
And even when they do use poetry in business,
it is menial and trivializes the art.
The 'academic' society of poetry is made up mostly of
English professors and the like. Few can relate to
any sizable audience because their writing is often
esoteric and steeped in language beyond the
the capabilites of most readers. Of course there are exceptions...
>It was a High Art that could only be achieved through
>years of intensely dedicated scholarship on the part of an extraordinarily
>talented individual.
how far back would you like to go. At one time poetry
was a required main topic of curriculum. But back then folks wore toga's
or those cute little stockings strapped to the knees.
Scholastic or formal education of poetry does not
a poet make. One more reality check. Dig into your poetic
library there and tell me how many of the poets of the last
200 years had no formal poetry education whatsoever. You
might be surprised. I'm not against poetry education
in any way, I feel everyone should know the basics
of rhyme, meter and all of the other various techniques.
And you should read as much poetry from others as possible.
But I sure as clouds know that you don't have to formally study
poetry to write or attempt to compose poems.
Please understand that poetry is important for much more than
what you might consider. It is not just for grammatical
or literary excellence, nor is it only for the pissy
game of publishing.
No, poetry is much more. Many people write as a release
for daily frustrations or just for a way to express themselves.
And the Internet has given them the capability to share it with others.
Whether it sucks or not, is not the issue. The important thing is that
they are attempting to write poetry, which has always been like
trying to get a kid to eat their vegetables. That is why
poetry on the internet is so important. You seemed to have done your
poetry surfing. And you probably noticed a kind of poetic rennaisance
on the net. This is great. It does not matter that 99% sucks.
The only real important issue is that folks are
writing and reading poetry, no matter how juvenile or trite.
I don't personally subscribe to the philosophy of 'if a poet
sucks make sure and tell them just that'. Because the truth
is most poets started by writing juvenile trash,
over time and sometimes with the help of other writers
they developed their own style and techniques,
and ultimately improved their poetry. And most poets
quite often write crap they don't even like on.
But every now and then
an inspired piece develops, and it makes it worth
all of the hours of writing crap. I prefer to nurture
aspiring poets. Many of the poems from young writers
just like the poems of more experienced writers,
only need a little polish. For poetry,
beauty is in the mind of the reader.
And not everyone will agree on anything.
We are all poets in a sense, but not all
can write great poetry. I personally feel before you
can write poetry, you must live as a poet. By this I do
not mean sitting in an ivory tower tearing into
student attempts at pouring out their hearts.
Poetry is the language of experience, and to experience poetry
you must live it. Back when I was young, stupid and broke
I wrote a lot of really bad poetry. But now that I am
succesful and comfy, I think back as to how much more sincere
my work was when I was experiencing the real life of bards.
Now I, like most, sometimes struggle with material
to reflect true experiences honestly, and with a
significance beyond our own minute little worlds.
>If you think that churning out some feeble little
>rhyme or badly-conceived bit of blank verse makes you a poet, then you
>deserve to give all your money to the International Library of Poetry.
Never! I'd rather give my money to the Starving Poets Society.
>Remember: Jewel is not a poet,
no argument on that one.
>and in all likelihood, neither is anyone
>reading this message.
small leap of faith. There are a few here I most enjoy the read.
You just have to be able to sort and savor.
>
>
> -M. Otis Beard
give 'em a break there OT. Would you rather have them playing with
guns or spiking their veins with cloud juice. Kids need poetry,
they need to be able to express themselves sincerely,
they need someone to listen and they need someone
to give them honest and intelligent feedback.
Is that to much to ask for if it saves a few lives.
Look at the alternatives, video games, televison,
porn sites, the streets...
Write on, live and let live.
-Max (under the influence of choclate)
e-mail to: max...@ix.netcom.com
web page http://www.netcom.com/~maxking
otariusa
-felix
in all likelihood, neither is anyone
> reading this message.
>
>
> -M. Otis Beard
>
>
>
M. Otis Beard
j r sherman wrote in message <7i5gao$1r...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>Remember: Jewel is not a poet,
>
>
>>and in all likelihood, neither is anyone
>>reading this message.
>
>speak for your own newsgroup sparky, i gotta go, ya got me laughing at that
>"serious poet" shit so hard i spit out my cigarette and started a fire.
I take it you consider yourself more of a poet than Jewel. I doubt you
are, despite the fact that she writes garbage. So go ahead -- post your
best shot at it, monkeyboy.
-M. Otis Beard
M. Otis Beard
>>
>> You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to these
>>newsgroups is utter swill,
>
the
>net, ya know, websites and shit, not usenet... and speak for your own
newsgroups
>sparky.
They're ALL my newsgroups, punk.
>>but you're wrong to think that your own writing
>>is much better than that of the people whose drivel you're belittling.
>
>um... no. the drivel that eric displayed in his articule was bad, like
biting
>tinfoil with metal teeth fillings bad.
>>
>>I read your entire article, and you *don't* know how to write well.
>
>better than the little girl he was beating up.
>
>> As for the rest of you, let me just say that once upon a time, poetry
was
>>a serious business.
>
>thanks god the times have changed.
What an astonishingly ignorant remark. You're in junior high school,
aren't you?
>>It was a High Art that could only be achieved through
>>years of intensely dedicated scholarship on the part of an extraordinarily
>>talented individual.
>
>fucking liar. where do you get this crap? spare the elitist bullshit,
idiot,
>poetry is in everything, and everyone. okay, some write it better than
others,
>but spare me the "dedicated scholarship" crap, would you? you sound like
some
>wanna-be coffee house undergrad trying to impress his date.
It's quite well documented, but you'd have to actually be literate to find
that out.
Run along, now.
-M. Otis Beard
SLL
<bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>j r sherman wrote in message <7i5gao$1r...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>>Remember: Jewel is not a poet,
>>
>>no!!!!
>>
>>>and in all likelihood, neither is anyone
>>>reading this message.
>>
>>speak for your own newsgroup sparky, i gotta go, ya got me laughing at that
>>"serious poet" shit so hard i spit out my cigarette and started a fire.
>
>
> I take it you consider yourself more of a poet than Jewel. I doubt you
>are, despite the fact that she writes garbage. So go ahead -- post your
>best shot at it, monkeyboy.
Mr. Beard,
I have an understanding as to what it is that you say regarding poetry
as high art and dedicated scholarship. I also understand the
controversy against those with elitist ideals posted in the same
manner you (and the other guy) posted yours. Here is an illustration
to show you what I see.
I see an elite marathon runner who sails past "Joe Weekend Warrior"
bobbing up and down the street. Ms. Elite laughs and says, "Give it
up fat boy; you're cracking my sidewalk!" To which Joe responds,
"Some of us are better runners than others." The difference between
running marathons and writing poetry is that the finish line in poetry
is obscure(d).
Mr. Sherman was "fighting fire with fire," and now you're burning
hence your monkeyboy comment. "All" (ha!) I hear is, "My nads are
bigger 'n yours! :P ninny, ninny poo poo" :P <I wish you could hear
me sing this like so many kids on a playground sing>
That's okay, (I guess). That's what makes us human.
SLL (human and feeling more awake today)
Rev. MissPeter
How could you be so silly? Mr. Beard is the only true poet in this
newsgroup. In fact we should change the name to rec.poet.motisbeard. Then we
should all leave him alone to write his masterpiece. We are just pawns in
the Otis poem game.
MissPeter
otariusa <otar...@netcenter.net> wrote in message
news:yst13.637$zB1....@server1.news.adelphia.net...
> you scared me with the following. i hope its not true.
> -felix
>
>
>
> in all likelihood, neither is anyone
> > reading this message.
> >
> >
> > -M. Otis Beard
> >
> >
> >
>
>
j r sherman
>>>
>>> You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to these
>>>newsgroups is utter swill,
>>
>>ya know, o, he wasn't talking about the newsgroups, he was talking about
>the
>>net, ya know, websites and shit, not usenet... and speak for your own
>newsgroups
>>sparky.
>
>
> They're ALL my newsgroups, punk.
i never see you post poetry in any of your newsgroups otie.
>>> As for the rest of you, let me just say that once upon a time, poetry
>was
>>>a serious business.
>>
>>thanks god the times have changed.
>
>
> What an astonishingly ignorant remark. You're in junior high school,
>aren't you?
i take it this is how you argue, someone disagrees with you, just accuse them of
geing in jr. high. well, to tell the truth, i am in jr. high, but only for the
girls.
as for ignorant remarks..... i need only go as far as your last remark.
>>fucking liar. where do you get this crap? spare the elitist bullshit,
>idiot,
>>poetry is in everything, and everyone. okay, some write it better than
>others,
>>but spare me the "dedicated scholarship" crap, would you? you sound like
>some
>>wanna-be coffee house undergrad trying to impress his date.
>
>
>It's quite well documented, but you'd have to actually be literate to find
>that out.
actually little dick, what is just as well documented is the fact that mere
peasants, folks without the advanced education you keep insisting is needed to
be a "good" poet(whatever that is), were instrumental in advancing the poetic
form that we know today. the court troubadors of the Duke of Aquitane, in the
12th century, were pretty much made up from the peasant class. when the Duke's
daughter, the rather obscure(perhaps to you) Eleanor of Aquitane, became queen
of France, she brought those same "peasant" troubadors with her to court. and
then when she decided to marry up, by hooking the more powerful soon-to-be-
Henry II of England, that same poetic-troubador tradition moved to that court as
well. the poetic tradition that we possess today (at least in Western culture)
came from these peasant poets. poetry as we know it today wasn't taught to the
educated aristocracy, it was given to them from the peasant classes. Chaucer was
hardly the most educated man of his time, Shakespeare was a "mere" writer of
comical little diversions, trying to make money, Dante was the son of a small
landowner, and was pretty much self taught in everything he learned. now if you
want to say these writers dedicated themselves to their craft, hey fine, i won't
argue with you. but if start implying that somehow they were the products of
some special education and class, then you really do enjoy sounding like a
pretentious fuck trying to impress his date. poetry can come from anywhere.
great poetry comes from writers who work at it. schmucks who want to define a
boundry for it's existance only want to sound like they're trying to impress
their date.
you run along now otie, daddy's busy.
j r sherman
>>
>>no!!!!
>>
>>>reading this message.
>>
>>speak for your own newsgroup sparky, i gotta go, ya got me laughing at that
>>"serious poet" shit so hard i spit out my cigarette and started a fire.
>
>
> I take it you consider yourself more of a poet than Jewel.
i went back and looked over my original post, didn't see where anywhere where i
said that, is that another form of argument for you, just sort of make up the
arguement, in your own mind, as you go along?
>I doubt you are,
since you never post any poetry, i have that same doubt about you.
>despite the fact that she writes garbage.
see? we agree on something.
>So go ahead -- post your
>best shot at it, monkeyboy.
what, and give you an orgasm? heh, no thanks, i'm waiting for a better offer.
bya otie.
Jeannekhan
Just curious.
Jeanne
>Subject: Re: Why Your Poetry Sucks
>From: "Rev. MissPeter" <MissPeter(nospam)@yahoo.com>
>Date: 5/22/99 8:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <92738572...@news.remarQ.com>
>
>otariusa,
>How could you be so silly? Mr. Beard is the only true poet in this
>newsgroup. In fact we should change the name to rec.poet.motisbeard. Then we
>should all leave him alone to write his masterpiece. We are just pawns in
>the Otis poem game.
>
>MissPeter
>
>otariusa <otar...@netcenter.net> wrote in message
>news:yst13.637$zB1....@server1.news.adelphia.net...
>> you scared me with the following. i hope its not true.
>> -felix
>>
>>
>>
>> in all likelihood, neither is anyone
>> > reading this message.
>> >
>> >
>> > -M. Otis Beard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
cr...@my-dejanews.com
Dig the pernicious horsemanure! All right they're vapid, but at
least Hallmark Cards protect the integrity of the art.
Don't you think poets suffer enough in this world without arrogant
goobers planting eyesores like this in our public domains? Oh, let's
all howl together, "THEY HAVE THE RIGHT" as though they are somehow
protecting us by abusing us.
Wise up.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Prembone
>fucking liar. where do you get this crap? spare the elitist bullshit, idiot,
>poetry is in everything, and everyone. okay, some write it better than others,
>but spare me the "dedicated scholarship" crap, would you? you sound like some
>wanna-be coffee house undergrad trying to impress his date.
"wanna-be coffee house undergrad" -- great phrase. Let's see the
poem. Try not to be too elitist when you write it. ;-)
All Homage To The Elton!!!
Prembone (remove b.s. phrase when replying)
The Elton John Worship Page
http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/elton/
j r sherman
>
>On 21 May 1999 19:44:20 -0700, j r sherman <jr...@wenet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>chris, i think we've found you're other long-lost brother. heh...
>>
>>
>>
>>j r sherman
>
>happy that we don't all share your DNA. It would be rough to find
>another long-lost son only to be forced to disown him two posts later.
i wasn't talking about legal acknoledgement son, even the bad ones are related
to us in some strange, and shall i say twisted fashion.
you're the only one i TELL people about chris...
>I'm so glad I went into the porn business instead. Your respect can be
>hard to come by, Dad, but once earned, is worth its weight in gold.
this is why i am so well loved by all. it takes a lot of work to do that.
really.
>Your loving son, etc.
who could ask for better?
love and kisses,
Danny Thomas
Prembone
>speak for your own newsgroup sparky, i gotta go, ya got me laughing at that
>"serious poet" shit so hard i spit out my cigarette and started a fire.
Mr. Sherman, I am highly offended. I, for one, am a Serious Poet.
And I know it. Here is the product of many seconds of Literary Labor:
Have you ever burned the spinach
While writing in your journal?
Have you ever seen a work of art
In the guise of urinal?
Have you ever allowed your mind to pass
Over paths infernal?
The spinach is burned,
But I am fed,
And a gentleman waits
To use the head.
[ (c) 1997 Prembone.]
Now, to **fully** appreciate the subtle symbolic syntactical
syllogistic syllabication would take hours and hours of deep analysis
over a pint or two of Guinness. But one can readily appreciate a few
obvious points, e.g., the double entendre of "guise"
(guys..urinal...you know).
And here is my latest Coffee Shop Exegesis. I have entitled it
"CyberX Bookshelf Found," on account of the entire poem being
constructed from book titles "found" on the reading shelves of the
CyberX coffee shop.
CYBERX BOOKSHELF FOUND
Small is Beautiful:
Secret formula soap opera.
Hit & Run, The HP Way.
Curious, George?
Lesbian culture flying.
Satan says symptoms
spoiled priest.
Paris trout:
Allan Ginsberg.
[ (c) 1999 Prembone.]
In closing, I hope that in offering this small sampling I have
enhanced your comprehension of the True Calling of Being a Serious
Poet. But if you insist on defending amateur drivel and doggerel, may
I recommend the following URL:
Good Doggerel, Needs Home
http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/gdnh/
Seriously Yours,
** Prembone ** (remove b.s. phrase when replying)
The Prembone Pages: Humor, Opinion, Parody, Satire
http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/
"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." - Oscar Wilde
Prembone
wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Otis Beard,
> I couldn't resist responding to your most heated reply
> of eric yankthechain's article.
>
[snip magnificent essay on being a poet]
Excellent! Elton knows I've seen some pretty bad poetry, and Elton
knows I've **written** some pretty bad poetry. But as you said, we
all have to start somewhere...and sometimes bad poetry is just plain
fun to write, even when we know better. As for inflicting it on the
world: that's what the web is FOR!
It's a conspiracy. BUHWAHAHAAAAA!!!!!
Ruswa
j r sherman wrote
>
>actually little dick, what is just as well documented is the fact that mere
>peasants, folks without the advanced education you keep insisting is needed
to
>be a "good" poet(whatever that is), were instrumental in advancing the
poetic
>form that we know today.
snip
a fact lost on many, but note how some who do dedicate themselves to their
writing are sensitive to their roots - Kazantzakis's devotion to demotic
greek, for example, getting back to the language and dialects that gave
birth to the "High Art".
R.
HoL
> It's quite well documented, but you'd have to actually be literate to find
> that out.
K E A T S
HoL
> newsgroups is utter swill,
I'd put it at 95%.
1 in 20 seems about right.
Not surprising really. How many people do you think Eliot wrote that never got
published?
> Jewel is not a poet
fuck you. Jewel can call herself whatever she god damn likes.
she writes poetry, it might be shit, but if u have even the vaguest hint of the
definition of poetry in the English Language, you'll acknowledge her as a poet.
So is that moron who posted a poem in red writting on pick background entitled
You Are My Soul.
Niether of them may be good. But good poetry is an entirely different concept.
Good poetry is defined subjectively, and we both know (thats if u have greater
intelligence than a lobotomised carrot) that arguing about what constitutes a
good poem is basically useless, given the afformentioned subjective nature of
the discussion.
You wanna argue against this, I suggest you go check www.dictionary.com for the
definition of poetry.
HoL
SLL
<bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>j r sherman wrote in message <7i5gao$1r...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>In article <H%q13.418$eC3....@news.uswest.net>, "M. says...
>>>
>>> You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to these
>>>newsgroups is utter swill,
>>
>>ya know, o, he wasn't talking about the newsgroups, he was talking about
>the
>>net, ya know, websites and shit, not usenet... and speak for your own
>newsgroups
>>sparky.
>
>
> They're ALL my newsgroups, punk.
>
>>>but you're wrong to think that your own writing
>>>is much better than that of the people whose drivel you're belittling.
>>
>>um... no. the drivel that eric displayed in his articule was bad, like
>biting
>>tinfoil with metal teeth fillings bad.
>>>
>>>I read your entire article, and you *don't* know how to write well.
>>
>>better than the little girl he was beating up.
>>
>>> As for the rest of you, let me just say that once upon a time, poetry
>was
>>>a serious business.
>>
>>thanks god the times have changed.
>
>
> What an astonishingly ignorant remark. You're in junior high school,
>aren't you?
>
>>>It was a High Art that could only be achieved through
>>>years of intensely dedicated scholarship on the part of an extraordinarily
>>>talented individual.
>>
>>fucking liar. where do you get this crap? spare the elitist bullshit,
>idiot,
>>poetry is in everything, and everyone. okay, some write it better than
>others,
>>but spare me the "dedicated scholarship" crap, would you? you sound like
>some
>>wanna-be coffee house undergrad trying to impress his date.
>
>
> It's quite well documented, but you'd have to actually be literate to find
>that out.
>
> Run along, now.
I really don't want to show you guys mine. That would mean surgery or
x-rays or some other invasive procedure in order to expose them.
I want to undercut the "monkeyboy," "sparky," "junior high school,"
"crap" type of remarks in order to examine the concept of "dedicated
scholarship," but that would require some investigative procedure in
order to expose it.
SLL (bigger 'nads; just trust her :p)
> -M. Otis Beard
>
>
>
SLL
oh, you boys, settle down. just because you can't see mine doesn't
mean mine aren't bigger. :p
SLL (a REAL woman; shall we start that thread again??)
On 22 May 1999 09:22:13 -0700, j r sherman <jr...@wenet.net> wrote:
>In article <4Ht13.475$eC3....@news.uswest.net>, "M. says...
>>
>>
>>j r sherman wrote in message <7i5gao$1r...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>>>
>>>>Remember: Jewel is not a poet,
>>>
>>>no!!!!
>>>
>>>>and in all likelihood, neither is anyone
>>>>reading this message.
>>>
>>>speak for your own newsgroup sparky, i gotta go, ya got me laughing at that
>>>"serious poet" shit so hard i spit out my cigarette and started a fire.
>>
>>
>> I take it you consider yourself more of a poet than Jewel.
>
>i went back and looked over my original post, didn't see where anywhere where i
>said that, is that another form of argument for you, just sort of make up the
>arguement, in your own mind, as you go along?
>
>>I doubt you are,
>
>since you never post any poetry, i have that same doubt about you.
>
>>despite the fact that she writes garbage.
>
>see? we agree on something.
>
>>So go ahead -- post your
>>best shot at it, monkeyboy.
>
>what, and give you an orgasm? heh, no thanks, i'm waiting for a better offer.
>
>bya otie.
>
>
SLL
wrote:
>> You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to these
>> newsgroups is utter swill,
>
>I'd put it at 95%.
>
>1 in 20 seems about right.
I feel pretty good thinking of the probability that 1/5 to 1 in 20 of
my poems defies utter swill given either of the assessments above.
Thanks!!! :) er, um, but what does this mean?? might it be subutter
swill?
su butter swill ... su butters will ... sub utter... subu tterswill
... subut ters will, okay, 'nough w/ the fragmenting. onward!
(hey G, hope yer reading, margin was wrong and possibility was less
accurate than probability; however, might there have been a margin of
error in the test that measured your memory? if so, that'd put a
whole new twist on the probability of the accuracy of your memory ...
it took me a long time to realize this, but even the sloww... well,
you know.)
>Not surprising really. How many people do you think Eliot wrote that never got
>published?
Eliot never wrote me, and I've been published three times!! wheeee!
oh, well two of those weren't poems. guess those don't count.
>> Jewel is not a poet
>
>fuck you. Jewel can call herself whatever she god damn likes.
>she writes poetry, it might be shit, but if u have even the vaguest hint of the
>definition of poetry in the English Language, you'll acknowledge her as a poet.
or if u have even a hint of the vaguest definition of poetry,
acknowledge her as a poet. hey! here's a contest for everyone. find
the vaguest def. of poetry, post it, and post the published source.
are these rules clear? I get to judge! nya, nya. :p. here's your
motivational prize offer. if you win, I will not write a personalized
poem for you. all losers must suffer! i.e. (suffer) their very own
personalized poem dedicated to them by me!
>So is that moron who posted a poem in red writting on pick background entitled
>You Are My Soul.
>
>Niether of them may be good. But good poetry is an entirely different concept.
>Good poetry is defined subjectively, and we both know (thats if u have greater
>intelligence than a lobotomised carrot) that arguing about what constitutes a
>good poem is basically useless, given the afformentioned subjective nature of
>the discussion.
>
>You wanna argue against this, I suggest you go check www.dictionary.com for the
>definition of poetry.
yeah! do that! enter my contest!!!!
SLL
> HoL
>
Max King
prem...@usabitespam.net (Prembone) wrote:
>On Sat, 22 May 1999 07:11:02 GMT, Max King <max...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Otis Beard,
>> I couldn't resist responding to your most heated reply
>> of eric yankthechain's article.
>>
>[snip magnificent essay on being a poet]
>
>Excellent!
thanks Prembone,
i think i've maybe speeled about the same defense of so-so-may-suck poetry
now about... eh maybe 7 times in the last five years
right here on this newsgroup.
and I have fun doing it every time.
If every single piece of poetry any one person ever wrote
was Pullitzer material, we'd be offering alms
and bowing down to their almighty altar.
But it don't work that way.
Poetry is like life in that way
sometimes you have to take the good with the
not so good, or in some cases, the really, really bad.
>Elton knows I've seen some pretty bad poetry, and Elton
>knows I've **written** some pretty bad poetry. But as you said, we
>all have to start somewhere...and sometimes bad poetry is just plain
>fun to write, even when we know better. As for inflicting it on the
>world: that's what the web is FOR!
>
>It's a conspiracy. BUHWAHAHAAAAA!!!!!
yeah, it's for sure a conspiracy, that is sadly evident,
but ya' gotta admit, bad poetry is almost always
better than a lot of the other bullshit
you have to hear, read and watch every day.
>All Homage To The Elton!!!
>Prembone (remove b.s. phrase when replying)
>The Elton John Worship Page
>http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/elton/
>
ps. tell Elton I said hello, feel free to pull a few of your favorite
Max King pieces out of the deja news archive and swing them his way.
If you dig around a little bit you might find
I've written something for just about everybody, good and bad.
-Max
Born of the sun they traveled a short while towards the sun,
And left the vivid air signed with their honour.
Sir Stephen Spender - 'I Think Continually Of Those That Were Truly Great'
M. Otis Beard
SLL wrote in message <37475d3a....@news.gte.net>...
>
>I want to undercut the "monkeyboy," "sparky," "junior high school,"
>"crap" type of remarks in order to examine the concept of "dedicated
>scholarship," but that would require some investigative procedure in
>order to expose it.
Hey, I wasn't trying to start a flamewar, but if I am attacked, I tend to
respond in kind.
The reason that I feel so bitter about the vast body of awful doggerel
that passes for poetry is because that awful doggerel drags a lot of decent
writing down with it. Poetry has lost its credibility and its importance in
the world because any half-literate ape with a moon-june rhyme and no
particular knowledge of anything whatsoever can go around proclaiming itself
a poet without being challenged. By all means, WRITE your rhymes, and have
fun with it. . . but don't delude yourself into thinking that this alone
makes you a poet.
As long as you're looking up the word 'poetry' and trying to come up with
a concise definition of same, please look up the word 'poetaster' as well.
Then take a good, long look in the mirror. Or at a picture of Jewel.
If you decide that you really do aspire to the title of Poet, and you
think you have the dedication and the raw talent to make it, then hit the
books, and best of luck to you.
-M. Otis Beard
SLL
Will any of this help me look into a mirror and see the face of
Jewel??
SLL (ah, early twenties, slender, rich who cares if she writes ____)
P.s. I'm off to work. Maybe I'll be more serious later this
afternoon. :)
> -M. Otis Beard
>
>
>
M. Otis Beard
Max King wrote in message <7i5kvv$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Dear Mr. Otis Beard,
> I couldn't resist responding to your most heated reply
> of eric yankthechain's article.
>
>
>In article <H%q13.418$eC3....@news.uswest.net>,
> "M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>> As for the rest of you, let me just say that once upon a time, poetry
was
>>a serious business.
>
> poetry was NEVER a serious business. As a matter of fact, poetry is
> not a business at all, as I've expounded on previously in this group.
> Check the top 1000 richest people in the world. You won't find a single
> writer that atributes their wealth to writing poetry.
> Poetry is ignored by Madison Avenue, Wall Street, Hollywood
> and just about every major corporation out there.
> And even when they do use poetry in business,
> it is menial and trivializes the art.
> The 'academic' society of poetry is made up mostly of
> English professors and the like. Few can relate to
> any sizable audience because their writing is often
> esoteric and steeped in language beyond the
> the capabilites of most readers. Of course there are exceptions...
The phrase "serious business" frequently (as in this case) has NOTHING to
do with commerce -- It simply indicates something non-frivolous.
>>It was a High Art that could only be achieved through
>>years of intensely dedicated scholarship on the part of an extraordinarily
>>talented individual.
>
> how far back would you like to go. At one time poetry
> was a required main topic of curriculum. But back then folks wore
toga's
> or those cute little stockings strapped to the knees.
What on bog's green Earth does fashion have to do with it? You seem to be
saying that poetry shouldn't be taught in schools because students wear
pants.
> Scholastic or formal education of poetry does not
> a poet make.
That's why I said "intensely dedicated scholarship on the part of an
extraordinarily talented individual." You can teach or learn technique, but
talent is something you either have or lack. Raw talent can be an
awe-inspiring thing, but talent without training leaves much potential
unrealized.
>One more reality check. Dig into your poetic
> library there and tell me how many of the poets of the last
> 200 years had no formal poetry education whatsoever.
I didn't say anything about "formal poetry education" in my post. I said
"dedicated scholarship" and that's what I meant. Autodidactic scholarship
is still scholarship, and anyone with the capability of reading this
newsgroup has every opportunity to educate themselves in the fine art of
writing poetry. Sadly, most don't bother. Far too many of you think that
you can write poetry just because 1.) you know what a rhyme is, and 2.)
you're full of angst or in love.
> You
> might be surprised. I'm not against poetry education
> in any way, I feel everyone should know the basics
> of rhyme, meter and all of the other various techniques.
> And you should read as much poetry from others as possible.
Not everyone does know the basics, and that's precisely my point. MOST
don't know the basics. Sounds to me like we agree on this point. . . pity
that you didn't take the time to read what I actually wrote before replying
and stuffing my mouth full of things I never said.
> Many people write as a release
> for daily frustrations or just for a way to express themselves.
Yes, and many people do so without any knowledge of the fundamentals of
poetry. What they do is NOT poetry, it is therapy and nothing more. If I
picked up a saxophone and started blowing on it and diddling the keys
without any clue as to how to actually play the saxophone or any other
musical instrument, would you call the sounds I made 'music' or 'noise'?
Would it make a difference if I said that making sounds in that fashion
allowed me to release my inner tension?
The difference between me abusing a saxophone and a jazz musician playing
a saxophone is simple: the jazz musician knows the rules before he breaks
them. Similarly, James Joyce knew the rules of English composition before
he wrote Finnegan's Wake. If I had a nickel up my nose for every time I've
heard some ignorant hack's scribblings described as "Joycean" then I'd have
an awfully big nose.
> And the Internet has given them the capability to share it with others.
Thus drowning out the signal with an ocean of noise.
> Whether it sucks or not, is not the issue. The important thing is that
> they are attempting to write poetry, which has always been like
> trying to get a kid to eat their vegetables. That is why
> poetry on the internet is so important.
Have to disagree with you there. Getting kids to write poetry is easy.
Getting them to READ poetry is the difficult part.
> I prefer to nurture
> aspiring poets.
I prefer to call 'em like I see 'em, and nurture the aspiring poets with
honesty and education.
> We are all poets in a sense,
I don't agree, but I understand why you would think so. I'm assuming
you're American or Canadian. . . we New Worlders tend to allow just this
kind of populist, egalitarian thinking to color all of our attitudes, and
while it seems wholly appropriate and even noble in a lot of areas of
endeavor, it doesn't hold water when you're talking about art. It's so very
American to think that you can be an artist without learning the basics
first. Europe is laughing, and the joke's on us.
> Poetry is the language of experience, and to experience poetry
> you must live it.
It also helps an awful lot if you have some reading and writing skills.
[INSERT SOUND OF MY HAND SMACKING MY OWN FOREHEAD HERE]
Look, you don't LIVE poetry. . . you simply LIVE. If you have the
honesty, the sensitivity, the talent and the training to write about your
internal journey, then you have the capacity to create meaningful literature
no matter what your life is like.
> give 'em a break there OT. Would you rather have them playing with
> guns or spiking their veins with cloud juice.
No, I'd rather have them reading and studying poetry instead of mindlessly
wanking around with it until their lack of understanding and lack of
progress causes them to lose interest altogether.
BTW, I have some extra question marks here if you need some. Take all you
want: ?????????????????? Let me know if you run out again. ;--D
> Kids need poetry,
Then they should be taught to differentiate between poetry and
masturbatory bullshit, not encouraged to think of themselves as accomplished
poets before they've learned the fundamentals.
-M. Otis Beard
HoL
u have big warty ears Ms. SLL.
evil evil Troll.
in future, just for you, i will spend time re-reading my posts.
Hail Eris
HoL
Cliff n' Tina
Now that the discussion has raged on,(and on), has anyone here taken time off from defining poetry, good and
bad, to writing any, good or bad? I apologize if someone has already said as much, I just couldn't wade
through any more of this string as I managed to already.
--
So...you wish to escape from http://home.earthlink.net/~cliffsongs/ do you?
Cliff n' Tina
And a fine opinion it is, Ben, thanks.
Ben Hemler
and I have crossed paths again. 2 things, 1. Whats with the stupid shit talking
about junior high? when the last post i sent to you you wrote some dinky little
poem about it and said i made you cry. and number 2. IN my opinion everyone is
a poet! you are a poet if you write something with meaning, if you write to have
fun writing you are a poet, if you write to express your feelings you are a
poet. and if only poeple who were overly educated and pompous stuffed shirts who
looked down upon everyone else where poets well then by-god, poetry would be
very very boring.
Ben
"Just my own opinion"
Misdrenias
Thank you Ben. And Otis, remember, everyone must start out somewhere. I hate
it when people say "You're too young to do anything good." Your youth is when
your life begins and if you do nothing in your youth and are demotivated in
your youth, you will most likely be a failure as an adult.
Is this what happened to you Otis? Did your parents never encourage you and
now you are a failure? Do you not want this generation to have what you didn't
so you just demotivate them like your parents did you to? Is that all your
problem is?
>Subject: Re: Why Your Poetry Sucks
>From: Ben Hemler <benh...@home.com>
>Date: 5.23.99 7:51 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3748A2E9...@home.com>
~Misdrenias
Go to http://misdrenias.cjb.net
and take a stroll through the unknown.
ICQ: 9494512
"Wise man says 'Never use a bank with the initials F. U.'" -anon
SLL
wrote:
>
>u have big warty ears Ms. SLL.
>evil evil Troll.
this is the cutest thing anyone has ever said to me in a long, long
time!
I am Dali troll! :)
>in future, just for you, i will spend time re-reading my posts.
's aw right. no biggie. in fact, leave the fun in them. no need
for tight undies. ha! :) like I don't own none myself. ;)
>Hail Eris
Hail Er (who?)
SLL (after a momentary pause to consult dictionary ... Oh! Eris! :)
>HoL
>
HoL
>
> Hail Er (who?)
>
> SLL (after a momentary pause to consult dictionary ... Oh! Eris! :)
dictionary won't help you now....
HoL
SLL
wrote:
this leaves an autumn's worth of scatterings, for me, which I could
rake up limited piles of the leaves of (any word might work)
and some might pounce into the heap of these leaves
where the scattering brings some joy.
or the wind may stir and blend those leaves
as though the wind were shaking drinks
without lids
****
you know what HoL?
you may be right.
SLL
HoL
Jody McGinness
> Hey, I wasn't trying to start a flamewar, but if I am attacked, I tend to
> respond in kind.
>
> The reason that I feel so bitter about the vast body of awful doggerel
> that passes for poetry is because that awful doggerel drags a lot of decent
> writing down with it. Poetry has lost its credibility and its importance in
> the world because any half-literate ape with a moon-june rhyme and no
> particular knowledge of anything whatsoever can go around proclaiming itself
> a poet without being challenged. By all means, WRITE your rhymes, and have
> fun with it. . . but don't delude yourself into thinking that this alone
> makes you a poet.
> As long as you're looking up the word 'poetry' and trying to come up with
> a concise definition of same, please look up the word 'poetaster' as well.
Hey Otis, you might be interested in my website: www.poetaster.com
I put your picture up in honor of your visit.
-Jody
> Then take a good, long look in the mirror. Or at a picture of Jewel.
> If you decide that you really do aspire to the title of Poet, and you
> think you have the dedication and the raw talent to make it, then hit the
> books, and best of luck to you.
>
>
> -M. Otis Beard
>
>
>
>
>
---http://www.poetaster.com---
giddyap.
Sam Barasch
99% of poetry written *anywhere* is utter swill. 95% of *published poetry* is utter swill.
sorry.
-Sam
: You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to these
: newsgroups is utter swill, but you're wrong to think that your own writing
: is much better than that of the people whose drivel you're belittling. I
Max King
"M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>lots of gratuitous snipping by Max<
> Far too many of you think that
>you can write poetry just because 1.) you know what a rhyme is, and 2.)
>you're full of angst or in love.
generalization Ots, never a good thing. I call them cheap shortcuts.
Sure we get our fair share of teens in love rhyming their way
to rehabilitation. But I really don't see what's wrong with it.
I still don't understand why it creates such a thorn in some folks
derriere. It may not fall under the 'academic' definition of poetry.
But by God man, leave them alone. They are only trying to
express themselves in a way that makes sense to them.
They are not looking for kudos from stuffy profs.
They're just trying to cut loose. Freedom of speech and all...
> What they do is NOT poetry, it is therapy and nothing more.
and what in melancholy karma is wrong with that. It may not be poetry
to your sophisticated ideals, but if it's poetry to them, let it be.
>> And the Internet has given them the capability to share it with others.
>
> Thus drowning out the signal with an ocean of noise.
that 'ocean of noise' you refer to, is actually the future leaders
expressing themselves. An opportunity my generation didn't have
until recently. We had to struggle with snobby academics
and their short-sighted discretions, self-serving publishers
and producers, and biased politicians who would only listen
when you stuffed their mouths full of green. Now they have
no choice but to listen because the voices have been amplified
through the wonderful communications medium we call the net.
Be nice to them OT they may just save your pension.
> Have to disagree with you there. Getting kids to write poetry is easy.
>Getting them to READ poetry is the difficult part.
Sure it's difficult to get them to read poetry, if you're
throwing Beowolfe, Shakespeare or Shelley at them. Most kids
have no concept of what it means because they can't relate to it.
But throw Cummings, Hughes, Ginsberg, Bukowski or some of the
modern lyrical poets at them and voila, it scores. Why? Because
although poetry is a universal language, not all poetry relates
to everyone. I love interpretation of poetry, especially the
master poets. But it's not for everyone. And that's why most
youngsters burn out on poetry, they are introduced to
a language that does not relate to their real lives. They jump
on this news group and read some of our more renowned writers
and they feel they can connect. I'm not degrading the importance
of classical or traditional poets, I just feel that they are not
always the ideal for introducing poetry to the younger set.
>> We are all poets in a sense,
>
> I don't agree, but I understand why you would think so. I'm assuming
>you're American or Canadian. . .
the former.
>e New Worlders tend to allow just this
>kind of populist, egalitarian thinking to color all of our attitudes, and
>while it seems wholly appropriate and even noble in a lot of areas of
>endeavor, it doesn't hold water when you're talking about art. It's so very
>American to think that you can be an artist without learning the basics
>first. Europe is laughing, and the joke's on us.
Ehhh, works both ways. Some artists have studied till they
were aquamarine and got nowhere, others didn't follow the
formalist school and they're highly recognized. I really don't
feel it's a legitimate criteria. The definition of art is as
varied as the shape of clouds in the sky. Sure Europe has
a much richer history of formal training, but I don't think
they have any more creative outlets than we do.
>If you have the
>honesty, the sensitivity, the talent and the training to write about your
>internal journey, then you have the capacity to create meaningful literature
>no matter what your life is like.
my point exactly.
>> give 'em a break there OT. Would you rather have them playing with
>> guns or spiking their veins with cloud juice.
>
> No, I'd rather have them reading and studying poetry instead of mindlessly
>wanking around with it until their lack of understanding and lack of
>progress causes them to lose interest altogether.
if they lose interest that easily, then they were never meant to be poets
to begin with. I wanted to write poetry from a very young age.
I went through all of the mandatory English classes like
everyone else. But that's not what inspired me to 'attempt'
to write poetry. It was a personal challenge and it continues
to be. You don't just all of a sudden one day start to
write great poetry. You start out writing mush and you
work at it until you get one or two just right. How much
you study it depends on how dedicated you are.
> BTW, I have some extra question marks here if you need some. Take all you
>want: ?????????????????? Let me know if you run out again. ;--D
another traditional formalist attempt at keeping the
the grammatical grass green??????? There's a few extra
so you can feel gratified.
>
>> Kids need poetry,
>
> Then they should be taught to differentiate between poetry and
>masturbatory bullshit, not encouraged to think of themselves as accomplished
>poets before they've learned the fundamentals.
I don't disagree with your basic premise of fundamental education,
what irks me is the all too common academic attitude of
dismissing young writers just because they haven't fully
developed they're talents. Correct me if I'm wrong,
you're a teacher or prof of some sort, history maybe lit?
You've had your fair share of grading pre-pubescent bullshit.
You think the young of today are spoiled, uneducated
and basically hopeless. You subscribe to the Archie Bunker
philosophy of yesterday everything was grand, today
everything is lost. You have an overwhelming
tendency to categorize everything as great poetry,
great art or just bullshit, with no in-betweens.
Whether it is art or poetry, in the end it is
only simple 'communication'. Whether it's a great poem
or great art does not matter, the important issue is
does it communicate the message? A criteria which I
feel is much more significant than does it subscribe
to the rules of language, grammar, or poetic construct.
If you really want to help, offer constructive criticism.
If you just want to preach the demise of traditionalist values,
leave them alone. They'll write on...
-Max (a writer and sometimes a poet)
Misdrenias
thing of the 20th century.
~Misdrenias
M. Otis Beard
Jody McGinness wrote in message ...
>
>Hey Otis, you might be interested in my website: www.poetaster.com
>I put your picture up in honor of your visit.
That's very nice, Jody. Now if you could just get it through your
potato-like head that the apostrophe is not a "here comes an s" symbol, you
might be able to say you've learned something today.
-M. Otis Beard
Button Presser
Is everyone who can wield a chisel a sculptor?
Is everyone who can dip a brush in paint a painter?
If I tell bad jokes, and nobody laughs, can I call myself a comedian anyway?
Dave
http://www.thepentagon.com/buttonpresser
Ben Hemler wrote in message <3748A2E9...@home.com>...
SLL
wrote:
>indeed :)
how dialectical! ;)
SLL
SLL
<bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>the apostrophe is not a "here comes an s" symbol, you
>might be able to say you've learned something today.
my fingers have minds of their own, Otis. they must get it through
their thick heads that the apostrophe is not a "here comes an s"
symbol. *** I *** know this, BUT do *** they *** know this??
**nnnoooo**! the crazy little conspiratory fiends!
now, if you can be all nice to Jody and accept that poetry is poetry
on any level of vagueness, I ** just ** MIGHT tell you that your
explanation of what an apostrophe is not is cute! :p
and Jody! you be nice! and put away those squirly magazines this
instant!!
SLL
Robert Maughan
Max King <max...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>the important issue is
> does it communicate the message? A criteria which I
> feel is much more significant than does it subscribe
> to the rules of language, grammar, or poetic construct.
A 'criterion', Max. I fucking hate it when these 'Poetry My Way
Or Else' arguments are unedited. It's as though you each occupy
the balloon of your wisdom blissfully unaware that the prick
is on the inside.
GODHEAD
The One True Poetry God
Declaimed today
Much the same
As he did yesterday
And tomorrow some more
We will hear
How no one but the One
True Poetry God
Knows from poetry
And everyone else never
Will approach
The immaculate conception
Of He who is perfect
In all ways
At all times of writing
But especially in the poem racket
And none shall know
The wonder of it
Like Him with the answers
And the poems
Don't forget the poems
The poems are like
Well just poems
Only The One True Poetry God
Will tell you
His poems are like none
Other because other
People are merely mortal
You better believe it
And he is in his own estimation
Wonderful in every way
And even has a huge penis
Which he waves
At regular intervals
When he gets lonely up there
On his cloud
Hoping someone somewhere
With half a mind
Will give him good godhead
Like he knows
He deserves.
RJM.
HoL
>
> how dialectical! ;)
i like being emperical.
[HoL]
ernesto
che guevara
SLL
wrote:
>> >indeed :)
>>
>> how dialectical! ;)
>
>i like being emperical.
at the risk of sounding sophistical, I wonder whether you leave
something out by limiting yourself like that; however, I shall read
you carefully. You *like* being emperical. I admit, I limit myself.
It's comfortable.
SLL
> [HoL]
>
>ernesto
>che guevara
>
>
Chris Keelan
>
> u have big warty ears Ms. SLL.
> evil evil Troll.
>
>
>
> HoL
All Hail Discordia!
C'mon, HoL, did you have your hot dog last Friday?
- Chris
P.S. Seen the "fnords" yet?
Max King
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Max King <max...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>>the important issue is
>> does it communicate the message? A criteria which I
>> feel is much more significant than does it subscribe
>> to the rules of language, grammar, or poetic construct.
>
> A 'criterion', Max. I fucking hate it when these 'Poetry My Way
>Or Else' arguments are unedited. It's as though you each occupy
>the balloon of your wisdom blissfully unaware that the prick
>is on the inside.
Sorry Robert, I plea (plead) ignorance on my part.
Criteria is plural
Criterion is singular
I promise to be more attentive in the future.
No guarantee I won't fuck up a little grammar here and there though.
I love the poem...
-Max
e-mail to: max...@ix.netcom.com
web page http://www.netcom.com/~maxking
I.S.G.
I fucking hate it when these 'Poetry My Way
> Or Else' arguments are unedited. It's as though you each occupy
> the balloon of your wisdom blissfully unaware that the prick
> is on the inside.
>
In saecula saeculorum, Amen!
(Loud trumpets)
Izabel
--
The Crone's Poetry Pages
<http://members.tripod.com/~magique_/index.html>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Jody McGinness
On Mon, 24 May 1999, M. Otis Beard wrote:
>
> Jody McGinness wrote in message ...
> >
> >Hey Otis, you might be interested in my website: www.poetaster.com
> >I put your picture up in honor of your visit.
>
>
> That's very nice, Jody. Now if you could just get it through your
> potato-like head that the apostrophe is not a "here comes an s" symbol, you
> might be able to say you've learned something today.
Hey Otie, thanks for the advice. I'll take it to heart. Say, were you born
an asshole, or did you have to, like, take lessons?
-Jody
>
> -M. Otis Beard
>
>
>
>
>
Jody McGinness
On Tue, 25 May 1999, SLL wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 1999 20:37:54 -0700, "M. Otis Beard"
> <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>
> >the apostrophe is not a "here comes an s" symbol, you
> >might be able to say you've learned something today.
>
> my fingers have minds of their own, Otis. they must get it through
> their thick heads that the apostrophe is not a "here comes an s"
> symbol. *** I *** know this, BUT do *** they *** know this??
> **nnnoooo**! the crazy little conspiratory fiends!
>
> now, if you can be all nice to Jody and accept that poetry is poetry
> on any level of vagueness, I ** just ** MIGHT tell you that your
> explanation of what an apostrophe is not is cute! :p
>
> and Jody! you be nice! and put away those squirly magazines this
> instant!!
Oops. Sorry. Didn't know you'd be lookin. Guess I should just stick to
porn on the website. Heh. Well.
-Jody
>
> SLL
>
>
M. Otis Beard
Max King wrote in message <7ick92$d...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
>In article <EIS13.1310$eC3.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> "M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >lots of gratuitous snipping by Max<
>
>> Far too many of you think that
>>you can write poetry just because 1.) you know what a rhyme is, and 2.)
>>you're full of angst or in love.
>
> generalization Ots, never a good thing. I call them cheap shortcuts.
"Far too many of you" is the phrase I used. That does NOT indicate a
generalization, because "too many" is a relative term that could refer to a
subset of any size. If my house is full of people, and even one or two of
those people are deranged killers, then there are (in my opinion) too many
deranged killers in my house. If I were making a generalization, I'd be
painting everyone with the same brush.
> Sure we get our fair share of teens in love rhyming their way
> to rehabilitation.
Therefore you have no grounds to contest my statement that there are "far
too many" of them, unless you do so purely as a matter of opinion.
>> What they do is NOT poetry, it is therapy and nothing more.
>
> and what in melancholy karma is wrong with that. It may not be poetry
> to your sophisticated ideals, but if it's poetry to them, let it be.
>
>>> And the Internet has given them the capability to share it with others.
>>
>> Thus drowning out the signal with an ocean of noise.
>
> that 'ocean of noise' you refer to, is actually the future leaders
> expressing themselves.
I hope the "future leaders" improve their reading and writing skills
before they take over the world. Maybe if we challenge them once in a while
instead of mollycoddling them and praising their lamest, tiniest efforts,
they'll learn to take some pride in what they do.
> An opportunity my generation didn't have
> until recently. We had to struggle with snobby academics
> and their short-sighted discretions, self-serving publishers
> and producers, and biased politicians who would only listen
> when you stuffed their mouths full of green. Now they have
> no choice but to listen because the voices have been amplified
> through the wonderful communications medium we call the net.
> Be nice to them OT they may just save your pension.
When did it become mandatory for snobby academics, self-serving publishers
and producers, and biased politicians to read Usenet? Do you live on some
other planet, or have there been some strange changes here on Earth while I
wasn't looking?
>> Have to disagree with you there. Getting kids to write poetry is easy.
>>Getting them to READ poetry is the difficult part.
>
> Sure it's difficult to get them to read poetry, if you're
> throwing Beowolfe, Shakespeare or Shelley at them. Most kids
> have no concept of what it means because they can't relate to it.
> But throw Cummings, Hughes, Ginsberg, Bukowski or some of the
> modern lyrical poets at them and voila, it scores.
Then why don't you? While you're at it, you might point out to them that
cummings, Hughes, Ginsberk, Bukowski et al took the time to learn the rules
before they broke them, and that's part of what makes the difference between
their work and crap.
> Why?
Who cares why? As long as they're reading, they're learning.
> Because
> although poetry is a universal language, not all poetry relates
> to everyone. I love interpretation of poetry, especially the
> master poets. But it's not for everyone. And that's why most
> youngsters burn out on poetry, they are introduced to
> a language that does not relate to their real lives. They jump
> on this news group and read some of our more renowned writers
> and they feel they can connect. I'm not degrading the importance
> of classical or traditional poets, I just feel that they are not
> always the ideal for introducing poetry to the younger set.
I'm not insisting that they study the interpretation of poetry, I'm
insisting that they learn the fundamentals of English composition before
they start calling their efforts poetry. I'm insisting that they learn how
to walk instead of calling their crawlings flight and being satisfied with
that. I'm exerting a little upward pressure on them.
>>> We are all poets in a sense,
>>
>> I don't agree, but I understand why you would think so. I'm assuming
>>you're American or Canadian. . .
>
> the former.
>
>>e New Worlders tend to allow just this
>>kind of populist, egalitarian thinking to color all of our attitudes, and
>>while it seems wholly appropriate and even noble in a lot of areas of
>>endeavor, it doesn't hold water when you're talking about art. It's so
very
>>American to think that you can be an artist without learning the basics
>>first. Europe is laughing, and the joke's on us.
>
> Ehhh, works both ways. Some artists have studied till they
> were aquamarine and got nowhere, others didn't follow the
> formalist school and they're highly recognized. I really don't
> feel it's a legitimate criteria. The definition of art is as
> varied as the shape of clouds in the sky. Sure Europe has
> a much richer history of formal training, but I don't think
> they have any more creative outlets than we do.
You're just rabid about this formal training thing, aren't you? I never
mentioned any sort of formal training, because what we're talking about here
is LEARNING THE BASICS before you call yourself an artist. Such learning is
in no way dependent on formal training.
> >If you have the
>>honesty, the sensitivity, the talent and the training to write about your
>>internal journey, then you have the capacity to create meaningful
literature
>>no matter what your life is like.
>
> my point exactly.
Funny, that wasn't your point before. You don't think very clearly
sometimes, do you?
>> BTW, I have some extra question marks here if you need some. Take all
you
>>want: ?????????????????? Let me know if you run out again. ;--D
>
> another traditional formalist attempt at keeping the
> the grammatical grass green??????? There's a few extra
> so you can feel gratified.
It's called a joke. I even put a little winking, smiling face at the end
so humor-impaired people would get it, too. Unfortunately, I didn't realize
that the lack of proper punctuation in your writing indicated a case of
punctuation blindness so severe that it prevents you from seeing semicolons
and dashes as well as interrogatives.
>>> Kids need poetry,
>>
>> Then they should be taught to differentiate between poetry and
>>masturbatory bullshit, not encouraged to think of themselves as
accomplished
>>poets before they've learned the fundamentals.
>
> I don't disagree with your basic premise of fundamental education,
> what irks me is the all too common academic attitude of
> dismissing young writers just because they haven't fully
> developed they're talents.
Then why don't you harangue someone who has expressed that attitude? I'm
not telling anyone to quit writing poetry, I'm just trying to get them to
learn the basics before they start calling themselves poets. How can they
take pride in writing poetry when the acceptance and praise of people who
ought to know better (hint, hint) is doled out freely and evenly instead of
won through study and hard work? How can they take pride in being poets
when everyone who can scribble a few trite lines is honored with the title
of poet?
> Correct me if I'm wrong,
You're wrong.
-M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards
one way or another have had occasion to be exposed to M. Otis Beard, som
skrev i meldingen ...
>> >lots of gratuitous snipping by Max<
>>
<and me>
>
> "Far too many of you" is the phrase I used. That does NOT indicate a
>generalization, because "too many" is a relative term that could refer to a
>subset of any size. If my house is full of people, and even one or two of
>those people are deranged killers, then there are (in my opinion) too many
>deranged killers in my house. If I were making a generalization, I'd be
>painting everyone with the same brush.
>
Otis Beard has a house full of people covered in paint
<snip>
> Therefore you have no grounds to contest my statement that there are "far
>too many" of them, unless you do so purely as a matter of opinion.
>
The addressee has not retained the residue of coffee.
<snip>
> I hope the "future leaders" improve their reading and writing skills
>before they take over the world. Maybe if we challenge them once in a
while
>instead of mollycoddling them and praising their lamest, tiniest efforts,
>they'll learn to take some pride in what they do.
>
Otis Beard, and others with whom he associates, are in direct contact
with the future rulers of planet earth.
<snip>
>
>
> When did it become mandatory for snobby academics, self-serving
publishers
>and producers, and biased politicians to read Usenet? Do you live on some
>other planet, or have there been some strange changes here on Earth while I
>wasn't looking?
>
Otis Beard has apparently spent some time observing another planet.
<snip>
>
> Then why don't you? While you're at it, you might point out to them that
>cummings, Hughes, Ginsberk, Bukowski et al took the time to learn the rules
>before they broke them, and that's part of what makes the difference
between
>their work and crap.
>
It is important to differentiate between work, crap, rules and the
spelling of names.
<snip>
>
> Who cares why? As long as they're reading, they're learning.
>
It is written.
<snip>
>
> I'm not insisting that they study the interpretation of poetry, I'm
>insisting that they learn the fundamentals of English composition before
>they start calling their efforts poetry. I'm insisting that they learn how
>to walk instead of calling their crawlings flight and being satisfied with
>that. I'm exerting a little upward pressure on them.
>
a) Poetry in a foreign language may safely be ignored.
b) There is an error in the second law of thermodynamics: for work, read:
poetry.
c) Something about squashing insects on the ceiling.
<snip>
>
>
> You're just rabid about this formal training thing, aren't you? I never
>mentioned any sort of formal training, because what we're talking about
here
>is LEARNING THE BASICS before you call yourself an artist. Such learning
is
>in no way dependent on formal training.
>
You don't have to stand on your head to read this paragraph, you can
turn the screen upside down.
<snip>
>
> Funny, that wasn't your point before. You don't think very clearly
>sometimes, do you?
>
Analysis suggests the above not to be a sentence per se; possibly a
device to sabotage voice recognition machinery.
<snip>
>
> It's called a joke. I even put a little winking, smiling face at the end
>so humor-impaired people would get it, too. Unfortunately, I didn't
realize
>that the lack of proper punctuation in your writing indicated a case of
>punctuation blindness so severe that it prevents you from seeing semicolons
>and dashes as well as interrogatives.
>
Dashed colons are hell for the humourously impaired.
<snip>
>
> Then why don't you harangue someone who has expressed that attitude? I'm
>not telling anyone to quit writing poetry, I'm just trying to get them to
>learn the basics before they start calling themselves poets. How can they
>take pride in writing poetry when the acceptance and praise of people who
>ought to know better (hint, hint) is doled out freely and evenly instead of
>won through study and hard work? How can they take pride in being poets
>when everyone who can scribble a few trite lines is honored with the title
>of poet?
>
Otis Beard bravely and succinctly defends his right to dismiss writers
who can't write.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong,
>
> You're wrong.
>
He stops at nothing.
> -M. Otis Beard
>
Remember the name.
p
Brookee
> might be able to say you've learned something today.
>
Otis~
~Dear, I know you are a famous poet and all and you are probably quite
intelligent too. However, you are still in middle school. You still have *SO*
much more to learn, *SO* much experience yet to gain, and *SO* much more
personal growth to achieve. This is not a personal attack or a generalized
stereotype, rather it's a fact of your age and of life. Even retirees have
more to learn, and experience to gain, and more to grow. You can not treat
people (no matter how old you are) like you believe you are smarter, more
worthy, and just better than they are. People do not respond to that; people
do not respect that; people do not appreciate that. You will gain no respect,
only enemies. Realize, that it is possible that there is someone who knows
more about something (even poetry) than you do; perhaps, someone else could be
right (too or in opposition to) even if their opinions differ from yours.
Rudeness will get you no where. Rudeness is one of the biggest downfalls of
our society today. Learn to treat people with respect, or don't expect to be
respected by anyone. You don't gain respect, you earn it. No one will totally
respect you, unless you respect everyone. That's life. Respect yourself
enough to realize that you're not perfect either.
~Brooke~ who really was trying to stay out of
these arguments.
Max King
"M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>librerally edited<
> Therefore you have no grounds to contest my statement that there are "far
>too many" of them, unless you do so purely as a matter of opinion.
Beard, I personally don't care if they have learned the basics or not.
If what they post does not meet the standards of the readers, either:
a) they will not receive a response, or
b) a few kindly folk like Lee Tracy and a few others
will politely point out their inadequacies.
c) or they write great poetry even though
they've never had formal, whoops, oh, I'm sorry
I meant 'basic', poetic education.
But even though they may not know the 'basics', and even
though they may not write decent poetry, does not mean that:
a) they do not have a right to post anything they want
because they feel it may classify as poetry.
b) or that anyone has the right to prevent them from
throwing their rhetoric into the public forum.
> I hope the "future leaders" improve their reading and writing skills
>before they take over the world.
I doubt it, look around, I honestly feel we're just gonna have to deal with it.
>Maybe if we challenge them once in a while
>instead of mollycoddling them and praising their lamest, tiniest efforts,
>they'll learn to take some pride in what they do.
As if they don't already have enough challenges, handed down
by 'you know who'. No one here praises 'lame' efforts. They simply express
their own personal opinions. If they are into trite childish attempts at
verse, hey, all the power to ya'.
> When did it become mandatory for snobby academics, self-serving publishers
>and producers, and biased politicians to read Usenet?
It's not, but they do, and it should be.
>Do you live on some
>other planet, or have there been some strange changes here on Earth while I
>wasn't looking?
both
> Then why don't you? While you're at it, you might point out to them that
>cummings, Hughes, Ginsberk, Bukowski et al took the time to learn the rules
>before they broke them, and that's part of what makes the difference between
>their work and crap.
Some of their work was 'crap', some even more so than some of the
pre-teen verse you have got your undies in such a tiffy about.
>I'm exerting a little upward pressure on them.
You and a few others, maybe that's why they think they're still
in the wild, wild west.
> You're just rabid about this formal training thing, aren't you? I never
>mentioned any sort of formal training, because what we're talking about here
>is LEARNING THE BASICS before you call yourself an artist. Such learning is
>in no way dependent on formal training.
still disagree with you, there is no mandatory pre-requisite to
call yourself an artist. You can call yourself whatever you want.
If you believe enough, sometimes, it just materializes.
>You don't think very clearly sometimes, do you?
Saturday nights and parties.
> Then why don't you harangue someone who has expressed that attitude? I'm
>not telling anyone to quit writing poetry, I'm just trying to get them to
>learn the basics before they start calling themselves poets. How can they
>take pride in writing poetry when the acceptance and praise of people who
>ought to know better (hint, hint) is doled out freely and evenly instead of
>won through study and hard work? How can they take pride in being poets
>when everyone who can scribble a few trite lines is honored with the title
>of poet?
(hint, hint) does that mean me specifically? Most of the kids posting don't consider
themselves poets. As a matter of fact, if you read this newsgroup enough,
you'd notice that a lot of them will post their work with a little intro like:
'hey I'm new, this is my first attempt at poetry, please tell me what
you think?' What is wrong with that? My opinion---not a damn thing.
I'm bored.
-Max (having more fun than a college grammar test)
Lee Tracy
too - to
dont - don't
haikou - haiku
arent -aren't
definately - definitely
grammer - grammar
It is true. One need not follow any rules, grammar or spelling or
punctuation. However, when you do post comments full of such errors, people
like me get to point them out and wonder, "Should I laugh, or suggest Ben
get tested for a learning disability?"
Cheers,
lRt
M. Otis Beard
Max King wrote in message <7if9ru$h...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Beard, I personally don't care if they have learned the basics or not.
What makes you think that *I* care what you don't care about? Are you the
king of Usenet or something?
Just out of curiousity, where does your tolerance for people with
undeserved credentials end? I mean, if I want to be an architect, but I
don't want to go to school or study or do anything HARD like that, can I
still design the house you're going to live in? I don't know anything about
structural engineering, so the place might collapse on you while you're
sleeping, but that's OK, right? I say my sketches are architectural
blueprints, and I say I'm an architect, so if anybody laughs at me or tells
me that I'm NOT an architect, I expect you to leap to my defense. . . or is
it just that poetry isn't particularly important to you, and therefore it
doesn't matter if a million billion wannabe poets drag an entire literary
tradition down into disrepute, as long as nobody gets their feelings hurt?
> But even though they may not know the 'basics', and even
> though they may not write decent poetry, does not mean that:
> a) they do not have a right to post anything they want
> because they feel it may classify as poetry.
> b) or that anyone has the right to prevent them from
> throwing their rhetoric into the public forum.
I never said they didn't have the "right" to post, you idiot, and I'm
certainly not preventing anyone from speaking their mind. Did it ever occur
to you that *I* have a right to *my* opinion as well, even if you don't
agree with it, King Max?
Your thinking is horribly muddled. You post counterarguments to arguments
that have not been made, and seem to insist that, although everyone has a
right to express themselves, some people have the right to be free of other
people's opinions. Duh, you can't have it both ways, duh.
Do you think I'm elitist? Very well, I'm elitist. I'm prejudiced against
stupid people, especially when they go around loudly declaring that
stupidity is perfectly OK and should be tolerated and/or actively
encouraged.
>> I hope the "future leaders" improve their reading and writing skills
>>before they take over the world.
>
> I doubt it, look around, I honestly feel we're just gonna have to
deal with it.
Odd how the phrase "deal with it" has come to mean precisely the opposite
of what it originally meant. Once upon a time, dealing with a situation
meant working to improve or eliminate it, and now "deal with it" means shut
up, put your hands in your pockets, whistle a happy tune and pretend you
live in Candyland.
>>Maybe if we challenge them once in a while
>>instead of mollycoddling them and praising their lamest, tiniest efforts,
>>they'll learn to take some pride in what they do.
>
> As if they don't already have enough challenges, handed down
> by 'you know who'.
What challenges are you talking about? The challenges involved in being
too ignorant and lazy to earn the respect you crave as an "artist"?
>No one here praises 'lame' efforts.
That's quite a generalization for someone who goes around accusing other
people of making generalizations. In any case, it's bullshit. I've seen
plenty of praise being offered for so-called 'poetry' that deserved nothing
more than a recommendation to turn off the computer and actually do some
reading. . . and that praise for the unworthy BEGINS with your "everyone is
a poet" philosophy. Not everyone with a mechanical pencil is an architect,
and not everyone with a rhyme is a poet.
>> When did it become mandatory for snobby academics, self-serving
publishers
>>and producers, and biased politicians to read Usenet?
>
> It's not, but they do, and it should be.
Duh. I'm not even going to bother asking. Duh.
>>Do you live on some
>>other planet, or have there been some strange changes here on Earth while
I
>>wasn't looking?
>
> both
Duh. My mistake. I guess I'll start catering to the lowest common
denominator now, just like everyone else in America. Duh.
>> Then why don't you? While you're at it, you might point out to them
that
>>cummings, Hughes, Ginsberk, Bukowski et al took the time to learn the
rules
>>before they broke them, and that's part of what makes the difference
between
>>their work and crap.
>
> Some of their work was 'crap', some even more so than some of the
> pre-teen verse you have got your undies in such a tiffy about.
Duh. As if a duffer like you would know. Duh.
> still disagree with you, there is no mandatory pre-requisite to
> call yourself an artist. You can call yourself whatever you want.
> If you believe enough, sometimes, it just materializes.
I'M AN ARCHITECT! I'M AN ARCHITECT! WHEEEE!
Gee, thanks. I'm going to design a building and name it after you.
>>You don't think very clearly sometimes, do you?
>
> Saturday nights and parties.
Oh, GOOD excuse!
>> Then why don't you harangue someone who has expressed that attitude?
I'm
>>not telling anyone to quit writing poetry, I'm just trying to get them to
>>learn the basics before they start calling themselves poets. How can they
>>take pride in writing poetry when the acceptance and praise of people who
>>ought to know better (hint, hint) is doled out freely and evenly instead
of
>>won through study and hard work? How can they take pride in being poets
>>when everyone who can scribble a few trite lines is honored with the title
>>of poet?
>
> (hint, hint) does that mean me specifically? Most of the kids posting
don't consider
> themselves poets.
Once again, you contradict yourself. You aren't worth my time. NEXT!
> As a matter of fact, if you read this newsgroup enough,
> you'd notice that a lot of them will post their work with a little intro
like:
> 'hey I'm new, this is my first attempt at poetry, please tell me what
> you think?' What is wrong with that? My opinion---not a damn thing.
>
> I'm bored.
Boredom is indicative of a lack of creativity.
-M. Otis Beard
HoL
che guevara
HoL
HoL
[HoL]
ernesto
che guevara
Ben Hemler
to follow some specific set of guidelines, but as far as i can tell you dont.
Unless you are writing a specific type of poetry or haikou or something then
there arent really many rules to follow. I mean lord knows poetry most
definately doesnot have to follow the rules of grammer. There is also no
specific format you have to follow, or detailed guidelines on spacing. So I
really would like to know your idea of the "Rules" of poetry.
SLL
wrote:
>ernesto
>che guevara
I don't know much about him. Thank you. He's on my mind now. I'll
look into him.
SLL
SLL
<bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, where does your tolerance for people with
>undeserved credentials end? I mean, if I want to be an architect, but I
>don't want to go to school or study or do anything HARD like that, can I
>still design the house you're going to live in? I don't know anything about
>structural engineering, so the place might collapse on you while you're
>sleeping, but that's OK, right?
right. and a place is built by someone who knows about structural
engineering, so the place might collapse while its occupant is
sleeping. but that's OK, right?
To me, your statement/question is faulty. It has collapsed.
also, to what degree of "do anything HARD like that" must a poet
perform? there is something in your statement. it makes me wonder if
a person with a supposed easy life can write acceptable poetry... and
then on to what's acceptable by whom, where, when, why? etc...
SLL
Max King
"M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> What makes you think that *I* care what you don't care about? Are you the
>king of Usenet or something?
...mostly or something.
> Just out of curiousity, where does your tolerance for people with
>undeserved credentials end?
>snip weak architectural metaphor<
>. . . or is
>it just that poetry isn't particularly important to you, and therefore it
>doesn't matter if a million billion wannabe poets drag an entire literary
>tradition down into disrepute, as long as nobody gets their feelings hurt?
M, can I call you M? I knew an Otis once, brings back bad memories
what a dumbf..., oh I'm sorry, I was wandering there wasn't I?
'drag an entire literary tradition down into disrepute', this is
such a straw draw I won't even bother.
> I never said they didn't have the "right" to post, you idiot,
please M, I thought we were having a discussion, there is no need to
resort to juvenile tactics, we have quite enough of that as it is.
>and I'm certainly not preventing anyone from speaking their mind. Did it ever occur
>to you that *I* have a right to *my* opinion as well, even if you don't
>agree with it, King Max?
Ya' do M, I'm not taking that away from ya'. I even agree with
the basic premise of your opinion. I just don't agree with some
of your very narrow arguments.
>snip, read the original post, you're not missing much<
>> Some of their work was 'crap', some even more so than some of the
>> pre-teen verse you have got your undies in such a tiffy about.
>
> Duh. As if a duffer like you would know. Duh.
Quite a few Duh's here. Speech impediment? Pick that up from
a valley girl? Personal slams are uneccessary here M.
We're just having a discussion here M. I haven't called you any names
now have I? I haven't insulted you with duh, or duffer or idiot
or any other name calling have I? What makes you think this
is going to give you anymore credence against my argument here?
It's not. It just makes you look childish and temperamental.
>> still disagree with you, there is no mandatory pre-requisite to
>> call yourself an artist. You can call yourself whatever you want.
>> If you believe enough, sometimes, it just materializes.
>
> I'M AN ARCHITECT! I'M AN ARCHITECT! WHEEEE!
> Gee, thanks. I'm going to design a building and name it after you.
thanks M. I appreciate the thought, but I don't really need a building
named after me. Sell the opportunity and donate it to a basic
poetry education charity for me, would ya'?
>>>You don't think very clearly sometimes, do you?
>>
>> Saturday nights and parties.
>
> Oh, GOOD excuse!
no excuse, just personal leisure. Socializing, intellectual
chit chat and all, ya' know?
>>> Then why don't you harangue someone who has expressed that attitude?
>>>I'm not telling anyone to quit writing poetry, I'm just trying to get them to
>>>learn the basics before they start calling themselves poets. How can they
>>>take pride in writing poetry when the acceptance and praise of people who
>>>ought to know better (hint, hint) is doled out freely and evenly instead
>>>of won through study and hard work? How can they take pride in being poets
>>>when everyone who can scribble a few trite lines is honored with the title
>>>of poet?
>>
>> (hint, hint) does that mean me specifically? Most of the kids posting
>> don't consider themselves poets.
>
> Once again, you contradict yourself. You aren't worth my time. NEXT!
ditto
>> As a matter of fact, if you read this newsgroup enough,
>> you'd notice that a lot of them will post their work with a little intro
>> like: 'hey I'm new, this is my first attempt at poetry, please tell me what
>> you think?' What is wrong with that? My opinion---not a damn thing.
>>
>> I'm bored.
>
> Boredom is indicative of a lack of creativity.
maybe so, I just got a little bored with the warped logic of your arguments.
my advice: next time you see a post you feel is misguided angst and not really
poetry, drop them a little note. Next time you see someone responding to
a poem you feel is just dribble, tell them that they're both full of shit.
That way you can be true to your cause. And instead of just trying to solve
the worlds poetic deficiencies by grade school name calling, you can actually
provide a firm basic education to those that might need it the most.
my persoanl opinion: I'm sure you're a respectable chap, but I won't debate
with someone who is yelling in a heated fury. I honestly feel your stuffy
opinion is more of a restriction to creative expression, than it being a true concern
for the development of aspiring poets. The traditionalist attitude of
course is poetry is for the 'elitist' few (your word). I tend to disagree.
I think poetry is for everybody. And that everybody should 'attempt'
(notice I used the word attempt here) to write poetry at some time, whether
they've had 'basic' education or not (sure the more you know, the
more you read, the more it helps, duh). I also feel that they should share it
with others for honest feedback. Maybe not neccesarily on this newsgroup,
but there are several other forums that might be more appropriate. This does not mean
that they will pursue poetry or attempt to become a great poet. If that was the case
than they would certainly have to widen their horizons.
But I most certainly don't agree with your definition of poetry as:
either your a 'basically' educated poet or not a poet at all. This
is bullshit and most explicitly elitist (you said I could
call you elitist, right?). This is the same elitist
publishing, wall street, madison avenue, hollywood
point of view that restricts so many talented artists, hence we
are forced and subjected to commercialized bullshit that does
not in reality reflect the consensus of most ordinary folk.
Hence they live in the imaginary world of soap operas and talk shows.
And would prefer poetry to continue to be that brass ring
that is exclusive to academics and paper credential intellectuals.
I'm sure you would never agree with me that folks like Bob Dylan,
Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Jim Morrison, Patti Smith,
Tom Waits, and a host of other musical composers are also 'poets'.
So the hell with it. What is left to argue??????
-Max (defending the art for the regular person)
HoL
> >che guevara
>
> I don't know much about him. Thank you. He's on my mind now. I'll
> look into him.
i'd look at him.
more impressive.
termite
"M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> confessed:
>
> Max King wrote in message <7if9ru$h...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>> Beard, I personally don't care if they have learned the basics or not.
>
> What makes you think that *I* care what you don't care about? Are you the
> king of Usenet or something?
> Just out of curiousity, where does your tolerance for people with
> undeserved credentials end?
Credentials? What is the accreditation agency for getting "credentials" as
a poet?
> I mean, if I want to be an architect, but I
> don't want to go to school or study or do anything HARD like that, can I
> still design the house you're going to live in? I don't know anything about
> structural engineering, so the place might collapse on you while you're
> sleeping, but that's OK, right? I say my sketches are architectural
> blueprints, and I say I'm an architect, so if anybody laughs at me or tells
> me that I'm NOT an architect, I expect you to leap to my defense. . . or is
> it just that poetry isn't particularly important to you, and therefore it
> doesn't matter if a million billion wannabe poets drag an entire literary
> tradition down into disrepute, as long as nobody gets their feelings hurt?
Poetry is not a literary tradition, it is an oral tradition. And it cannot
be dragged into disrepute by those who practice it poorly; poor poets and
their poems are mercifully forgotten by time, while the tradition moves
on.
(...)
--
"If ten billion rednecks shot at ten billion road
signs with ten billion shotguns for ten billion years, they would
eventually produce all the world's great literary works in Braille."
-Arsenic
http://www.net-link.net/~termite
SLL
wrote:
I have given up idolatry and appreciate your statements.
M. Otis Beard
Max King wrote in message <7ig4g4$1...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> please M, I thought we were having a discussion, there is no need to
> resort to juvenile tactics, we have quite enough of that as it is.
Well, hey! I'm only twelve years old, you know.
> maybe so, I just got a little bored with the warped logic of your
arguments.
You should try getting a little bored with being willfully ignorant
instead.
-M. Otis Beard
Jim Futrell
ernesto
che guevara
are not much to look at. A man of action, inside and out he was.
SLL wrote in message <374c00dc...@news.gte.net>...
SLL
<j...@totaltech.win.net> wrote:
>The statements of :
>ernesto
>che guevara
>are not much to look at. A man of action, inside and out he was.
"In orations of praise, and in invectives, the fancy is predominant;
because the design is not truth, but to honour or dishonour; which is
done by noble or vile comparisons. The judgement does but suggest
what circumstances make an action laudable or culpable."
-- Hobbes
don't know if it fits, but it struck me.
SLL
Jim Futrell
Are you planning on turning the other cheek?
SLL wrote in message <374c2bd1...@news.gte.net>...
Max King
"M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>Max King wrote in message <7ig4g4$1...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>> please M, I thought we were having a discussion, there is no need to
>> resort to juvenile tactics, we have quite enough of that as it is.
>
>
> Well, hey! I'm only twelve years old, you know.
allright Beard, have it your way.
you do have the mentality of a twelve year old sometimes,
but you know damn well you have the body and outdated
thinking of a stuffy 60 year old.
>
>> maybe so, I just got a little bored with the warped logic of your
>arguments.
>
>
> You should try getting a little bored with being willfully ignorant
>instead.
You should try just getting bored!
bore-to make a hole in.
SLL
<j...@totaltech.win.net> wrote:
>> ...it struck me.
>
>Are you planning on turning the other cheek?
cute. I've never been very good at being submissive. The way I see
it, that cheek can get it either way. :)
perhaps prepared is a better word?
M. Otis Beard
Max King wrote in message <7ihar4$6...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>In article <JeT23.246$6w1....@news.uswest.net>,>>Max King wrote in message <7ig4g4$1...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>
>>> please M, I thought we were having a discussion, there is no need
to
>>> resort to juvenile tactics, we have quite enough of that as it is.
>>
>>
>
> allright Beard, have it your way.
> you do have the mentality of a twelve year old sometimes,
> but you know damn well you have the body and outdated
> thinking of a stuffy 60 year old.
When did you ever see my body, you pervert? I have a nice body for my
age, and my mind continues to work properly even when I'm being pressured to
play nicey-nice so morons like you won't feel bad about being so incredibly
lame.
>>> maybe so, I just got a little bored with the warped logic of your
>>arguments.
>>
>>
>> You should try getting a little bored with being willfully ignorant
>>instead.
>
> You should try just getting bored!
> bore-to make a hole in.
HAW HAW HAW, that's a real knee-slapper! YUK YUK YUK! You're as funny as
Bob Hope!
My mom read your poetry, and she says it's even stupider than your
insults.
-M. Otis Beard
Max King
"M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> When did you ever see my body, you pervert? I have a nice body for my
>age, and my mind continues to work properly even when I'm being pressured to
>play nicey-nice so morons like you won't feel bad about being so incredibly
>lame.
I'm not gonna justify this Ots, although you did set yourself up there, wide open.
And I'm not even gonna' call you names. I'm not into that game.
I was discussing poetry and now you've meandered into personal insults.
It's cool, dude. Life goes on. If that's what you enjoy there are
numerous locations on the newsserver to practice.
> HAW HAW HAW, that's a real knee-slapper! YUK YUK YUK! You're as funny as
>Bob Hope!
>
> My mom read your poetry, and she says it's even stupider than your
>insults.
Thanks for the plug. I don't mind criticism, keeps me humble.
She's not the first person to hate my poetry and
she won't be the last. I don't write to be exalted,
I write because I enjoy it. Tell mom I appreciate her
taking the time to give me a read. I'll make sure
to post some more stupid poetry to keep everybody happy.
Oh, and do me one more kind favor, if you don't mind...
if you have any more insults please route them to me via e-mail,
it's not that I mind being insulted in public
(I have a special party every few weeks for that),
but I was hoping we could spare the rest of the ng
from the agony.
Thanks M, been a pleasure rappin' wit ya'.
-Max (perv? nah...sexually vivacious? you bet))
pne...@jupiternetworks.com
Whatever comes from someones heart and soul and reflects on his/her
words should be deemed as poetry. Whether or not it is good or bad,
should not be judged by anybody, but the writer themselves.-Peter
In article <7icfii$g22$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
bar...@athena.ddns.org wrote:
>
>
> 99% of poetry written *anywhere* is utter swill. 95% of *published
poetry* is utter swill.
>
> sorry.
>
> -Sam
>
> : You're absolutely right that 99% of the "poetry" that is posted to
these
> : newsgroups is utter swill, but you're wrong to think that your own
writing
> : is much better than that of the people whose drivel you're
belittling. I
> : read your entire article, and you *don't* know how to write well.
Who is to judge what good writing is? Scholars? Give me a break.
Whatever comes from someones heart and soul and reflects on his/her
words should be deemed as poetry. Whether or not it is good or bad,
should not be judged by anybody, but the writer themselves.
>
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Scream
Truth: Good/great poetry is intellectual.
~Scream
M. Otis Beard
pne...@jupiternetworks.com wrote in message
<7ihml2$btl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Who is to judge what good writing is? Scholars? Give me a break.
Well, of course not! Scholars obviously don't know anything, because they
*study* and follow -- gasp! -- traditions and stuff, which makes them THE
MAN and therefore worse than Hitler and Stalin combined! Career
prizefighters, rap "musicians" and garbage collectors should be the judges
of what good writing is, 'cause they have so much soul and they don't care
about all the goofy stuff THE MAN tries to teach you in school, which makes
them, like, alternative and shit. Unfortunately, career prizefighters and
rap "musicians" can be difficult to get in touch with on short notice, and
garbage collectors are only around at ungodly hours of the early pre-dawn
morning, so in a pinch you might consider asking the crew of your local
McDonald's or Taco Bell to critique your poetry instead (don't go to the
drive-thru window, though -- those people are nothing but PHILISTINES). If
you don't have any fast food franchises in your area, I know a guy who
washes dishes at Dartmouth. He'd be glad to read and critique your
poieertyrtry, 'cause he's got leukemia and his dying wish is to have a
million people send him their poams for review.
>Whatever comes from someones heart and soul and reflects on his/her
>words should be deemed as poetry. Whether or not it is good or bad,
>should not be judged by anybody, but the writer themselves.-Peter
It shouldn't even be judged by the writer! Nobody anywhere has the right
to judge anything for any reason whatsoever at any time, and anybody who
disagrees with me is an oppressive, elitist, dick-wielding NAZI!!!!! You
should write your poetry while you're asleep or thinking about something
else, and then crumple it up and throw it into a blast furnace before you
accidentally read it and form some kind of (*shudder*) opinion. I mean, it
just ISN'T COOL to be all judgmental and shit, which is why you should eat
anything that gets close to your mouth instead of acting all picky.
-M. Otis Beard, Famous Poet
Cliff n' Tina
Because it got boring two days ago? No, no, that CAN'T be it.
--
So...you wish to escape from http://home.earthlink.net/~cliffsongs/ do you?
Scream
~Scream
Prembone wrote:
> > Myth: Poetry is "heart and soul."
> >
> > Truth: Good/great poetry is intellectual.
>
> Purely "intellectual" poetry isn't poetry at all. It's a bloodless,
> soulless academic exercise.
>
> Good poetry has heart and soul and adequate crafting. **Great** poetry
> is heart and soul masterfully shaped and crafted by the practiced
> intellect. Intellect is the refining tool, but heart and soul is the
> substance upon which the intellect works.
HoL
i agree,
i didn't say look at his statements. i said look at him.
think before u leap
HoL
> >
> >Are you planning on turning the other cheek?
>
> cute. I've never been very good at being submissive. The way I see
> it, that cheek can get it either way. :)
>
> perhaps prepared is a better word?
good boy scouts.
SLL
wrote:
Is this word association time? Okay, I'll play.
good boy scouts.
good girl scouts.
Prembone
wrote:
[snippage]
> I think poetry is for everybody. And that everybody should 'attempt'
> (notice I used the word attempt here) to write poetry at some time,
whether
> they've had 'basic' education or not (sure the more you know, the
> more you read, the more it helps, duh). I also feel that they should
share it
> with others for honest feedback. Maybe not neccesarily on this
newsgroup,
> but there are several other forums that might be more appropriate.
This does not mean
> that they will pursue poetry or attempt to become a great poet. If
that was the case
> than they would certainly have to widen their horizons.
Even then, beyond the most basic level of competence, try to get
anything resembling a consensus on what constitutes poetic greatness.
Not even poets themselves agree! One likes rhyme and meter; one loathes
it. One likes political/social commentary; another thinks these
subjects have no place in "good" poetry. Even Shakespeare is not immune
to the division of opinion.
(Mini-sermon ahead. You have been warned.)
Essentially, the problem is that aesthetic appeal is not quantifiable.
To resurrect the not-very-applicable-but-presently-useful architectural
analogy, we can divide the good architects from the bad by how well
their buildings measure up. We have objective, external, empirical
criteria by which we can determine the soundness of the building's
structure.
Now, as far as the AESTHETIC aspect, of either architecture or poetry,
is concerned, the success or failure of a given work is purely a
subjective judgment. Get enough subjective judgments in agreement, and
the people holding those judgments will call their judgments "a
standard," or even "THE standard." Others with different tastes will
create different, often conflicting "standards." And it's not merely a
matter of becoming more educated: If there's a more
internally-contentious lot on this planet than academics, I've yet to
find it.
(That was hyperbole. No need to offer counter-examples.)
Finally, I think it's necessary to judge a work's quality (insofar as
it's possible in an environment such as Usenet) on the basis of how
advanced the individual artist is. We don't judge Mozart on the basis
of "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star," but if Mozart had been shot down by a
dozen critics when he was just beginning to practice his craft, he
wouldn't have walked all the intermediate steps it took to reach, say,
the Jupiter symphony or the clarinet concerto.
I'm not suggesting we praise a poetic "Twinkle" as if it were "Jupiter."
But I agree, Max, that poetry (or art of any kind) doesn't have to be
in the ranks of greatness before it deserves a hearing.
Hell, if it has a heart and moves my own, sometimes that's all I need in
that given moment. ;-)
My own philosophy: The artistic community should be supportive and
cooperative. We're all in this together. Constructive criticism helps;
playing in-group-out-group does not.
(End of mini-sermon.)
> But I most certainly don't agree with your definition of poetry
as:
> either your a 'basically' educated poet or not a poet at all.
False dichotomy, as they say in logic-land. You may be a good poet, or
a mediocre poet, or a downright shitty poet, but if you write poetry
(good, bad, or indifferent), you are a poet. And you're not going to
get any better by sitting around waiting for worthiness to descend on
you: WRITE, for Elton's sake, WRITE! And read. And think,
occasionally, if it doesn't make your brain hurt.
> This [poet/not-poet dichotomy]
> is bullshit and most explicitly elitist (you said I could
> call you elitist, right?). This is the same elitist
> publishing, wall street, madison avenue, hollywood
> point of view that restricts so many talented artists, hence we
> are forced and subjected to commercialized bullshit that does
> not in reality reflect the consensus of most ordinary folk.
And has about as much vitality and variety as the offerings of
nationwide retail and fast-food chains. Blah.
> Hence they live in the imaginary world of soap operas and talk
shows.
> And would prefer poetry to continue to be that brass ring
> that is exclusive to academics and paper credential intellectuals.
> I'm sure you would never agree with me that folks like Bob Dylan,
> Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Jim Morrison, Patti Smith,
> Tom Waits, and a host of other musical composers are also 'poets'.
Pink Floyd. Don't forget Pink Floyd. ;-)
> -Max (defending the art for the regular person)
Bravo. Hope you don't mind the mini-sermon I added as a coda to your
own. ;-)
--
Prembone
**************************************************
The Prembone Pages: Humor, Opinion, Parody, Satire
http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/
Prembone
"Scream" <runw...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Myth: Poetry is "heart and soul."
>
> Truth: Good/great poetry is intellectual.
Purely "intellectual" poetry isn't poetry at all. It's a bloodless,
soulless academic exercise.
Good poetry has heart and soul and adequate crafting. **Great** poetry
is heart and soul masterfully shaped and crafted by the practiced
intellect. Intellect is the refining tool, but heart and soul is the
substance upon which the intellect works.
--
Max King
Prembone <prem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> But I agree, Max, that poetry (or art of any kind) doesn't have to be
>in the ranks of greatness before it deserves a hearing.
thanks for the supporting argument Prem, but...
you can put teats on a cow, but you won't ever get
them to homogenize and bottle their own milk!
>> I'm sure you would never agree with me that folks like Bob Dylan,
>> Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Jim Morrison, Patti Smith,
>> Tom Waits, and a host of other musical composers are also 'poets'.
>
>Pink Floyd. Don't forget Pink Floyd. ;-)
love Pink, most poetic lyrics, but I was ranting on individual artists.
Pink is a group of folk, although I think most of the early
lyrics were written by Roger Waters.
'the bleeding hearts and the artists
make their stand
and when they've given you their all
some stagger and fall
after all it's not easy
banging your head
against some mad buggers wall.'
Pink Floyd, Outside the Wall from 'The Wall'
Peter Stewart Richards
Max King skrev i meldingen <7ijtg2$k...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
>>Pink Floyd. Don't forget Pink Floyd. ;-)
>
> love Pink, most poetic lyrics, but I was ranting on individual artists.
> Pink is a group of folk, although I think most of the early
> lyrics were written by Roger Waters.
Syd Barret. Depending on what you mean by 'early'.
You only have to read the lines
of squiggly black and everything
shi-ines.
Matilda Mother
p
Max King
thanks Peter,
pulled that off The Wall sleeve, it notes 'lyrics by Roger Waters'.
guess I'll have to jump to a Floyd site to check on details.
-Max (got a little black book with my poems in)
Sim Sim
SLL
hey, I visited your site which seemed to be the opposite of poetry to
me; like, I mean, um, so think about this. poetry can compact a
day's, week's, month's, lifetime's worth of experience into short,
dense and powerfully charged word particles that transcend experience.
your's takes the rage of maybe a minute or two and expands it
mercilessly into word fixations like sort of a _Groundhog Day_ for
rapists. Most powerful line in your piece for me went something like,
"I want your will to live". Like whoa. You be trippin' baby. It
sure beats the beasty one of that famous last chapter.
SLL
On Thu, 27 May 1999 10:57:32 -0700 (MST), Damne...@webtv.net (Sim
Sim) wrote:
>
>--WebTV-Mail-1180159614-1919
>Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
>ass discharges such as yourself the holier than thou critic deserve no
>less than a 10 foot baked ham slowly inserted sideways into your bowel
>regions till the intense pain and loss of blood render you paralysed
>from the face down no longer able to talk type or breed
>
>
>--WebTV-Mail-1180159614-1919
>Content-Description: signature
>Content-Disposition: Inline
>Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
><html><body bgcolor="black"text="green">
></html><html><img
>src="http://members.tripod.com/~onemill/hemp.gif"></html><html><bgsound
>src="http://members.tripod.com/~webtv21/superman.mid"loop="infinite"></html><a
>href="http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/wilson/687/index.html"><b><i>PROZAC
>HANGOVER</i></b></a>
>
>
>--WebTV-Mail-1180159614-1919--
M. Otis Beard
Prembone wrote in message <7ii8oe$p3p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Even then, beyond the most basic level of competence, try to get
>anything resembling a consensus on what constitutes poetic greatness.
Sure, but what we're talking about here IS the most basic level of
competence.
-M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards
at the Gates of Dawn' and played on a couple of tracks on the second. He
basically munched up too much acid and lost some real world response
functions. 'Shine on you Crazy Diamond' is about Syd.
Matilda Mother by Syd Barrett
There was a king
Who ruled the land
His majesty was in command
The silver eyes
The scarlet people
Showered silver on the people
O o mother
Tell me more
Why d'you have to leave me there
Hanging in my infant air
Waiting.
You only have to read the lines of
Squiggley black and everything
Shi-i-ines
Across the stream
With wooden shoes
Bells to tell
The king the news
A thousand misty riders climb
Up higher once upon a time
Wondering and dreaming
The words had different meaning
Yes they did
Oh all the time spent
In that room
The doll’s house darkness
Old perfume
And fairy stories held me high
On clouds of sunlight
Floating by
Oh o mother
Tell me more
Tell me more
p
Prembone
Is it? It seems to me like you're setting the bar for "good poetry"
at a higher level than basic competence with the English language.
My own point is that we can certainly critique spelling, usage, etc.,
but when it comes to artistic and aesthetic judgment, beyond the
mechanics, opinions vary widely. For that matter, what of those who
deliberately use nonstandard spelling, usage, etc. as a stylistic
device? Or those whose everyday speech is "nonstandard" usage?
As far as I'm concerned, in the end a poem succeeds if it uses
language effectively, powerfully, aesthetically. Those are all
subjective criteria. We can experiment, play around, revise,
reorganize, rhyme, unrhyme, try form, try free, till we think we've
made a more effective beast, but in the end, it's each individual's
call (author's or reader's) whether a poem is "good." If it moves me
well enough, I could even overlook a spelling error. ;-) And for me,
that's saying a lot.
"Fish to fish, chips to chips, fish to chips and
chips to fish; each to its own, as each desires,
and may all be well fed! Jolly good."
The Prembone Pages http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/
M. Otis Beard
Prembone wrote in message <374ead51...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Thu, 27 May 1999 13:32:58 -0700, "M. Otis Beard"
><bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Prembone wrote in message <7ii8oe$p3p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>>>Even then, beyond the most basic level of competence, try to get
>>>anything resembling a consensus on what constitutes poetic greatness.
>>
>>
>> Sure, but what we're talking about here IS the most basic level of
>>competence.
>
>Is it? It seems to me like you're setting the bar for "good poetry"
>at a higher level than basic competence with the English language.
No, I'm not trying to set a bar for "good" poetry at all. Just for
poetry, good OR bad.
>My own point is that we can certainly critique spelling, usage, etc.,
>but when it comes to artistic and aesthetic judgment, beyond the
>mechanics, opinions vary widely. For that matter, what of those who
>deliberately use nonstandard spelling, usage, etc. as a stylistic
>device? Or those whose everyday speech is "nonstandard" usage?
Breaking the rules when you know how NOT to break the rules is art. It's
deliberate, and there's a reason for it, and there's nothing wrong with
that. You don't have to adhere to a rigid structure when you're writing
poetry, but you should know how to adhere to a rigid structure, and be
familiar with the various conventions of poetic structure. Breaking the
rules when you don't know what the rules are is just masturbatory posturing.
> As far as I'm concerned, in the end a poem succeeds if it uses
>language effectively, powerfully, aesthetically.
I totally agree with you, but I would add the word 'deliberately' to your
list. Accidental art is not art at all.
>Those are all
>subjective criteria. We can experiment, play around, revise,
>reorganize, rhyme, unrhyme, try form, try free, till we think we've
>made a more effective beast, but in the end, it's each individual's
>call (author's or reader's) whether a poem is "good." If it moves me
>well enough, I could even overlook a spelling error. ;-) And for me,
>that's saying a lot.
Same here.
-M. Otis Beard
Dan Eble
MOB> > As far as I'm concerned, in the end a poem succeeds if it uses
MOB> >language effectively, powerfully, aesthetically.
MOB>
MOB> I totally agree with you, but I would add the word 'deliberately' to your
MOB> list. Accidental art is not art at all.
So if "Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer's Day?" were banged out by
an infinite number of monkeys, it wouldn't be art? Believing that
is discounting the intelligence and emotion of the reader, which
is very offensive.
--
Dan Eble <eb...@ticalc.org> [My other .sig's a four-liner.]
M. Otis Beard
Dan Eble wrote in message ...
>On 28 May, M. Otis Beard wrote in rec.arts.poems:
>
>MOB> > As far as I'm concerned, in the end a poem succeeds if it uses
>MOB> >language effectively, powerfully, aesthetically.
>MOB>
>MOB> I totally agree with you, but I would add the word 'deliberately' to
your
>MOB> list. Accidental art is not art at all.
>
>So if "Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer's Day?" were banged out by
>an infinite number of monkeys, it wouldn't be art? Believing that
>is discounting the intelligence and emotion of the reader, which
>is very offensive.
Only if you insist on being offended instead of logical.
-M. Otis Beard
Georgiana Cohen
for a very long time) and started to catch up by reading the entirety of this
thread. I notice the groups listed in the crossposting, but I feel obliged to
lend my perspective.
I'm a 19-year-old journalism student. Beginning when I was 15, I wrote
copious amounts of really bad poetry. The source? Nothing other than the
usual teenage malaise. Writing the poems (take my usage of the term with a
grain of salt here, Otis.. I'd rather say 'poems' than 'lyrics' or something
just for the sake of convenience) *was* therapy. I mean, they sucked, of
course. No form, no structure, nothing cohesive (or coherent, in some
cases). I'm a good writer; it's just that these pain-driven works were my
first experiments with the form of poetry. They were raw with unbridled
emotion and completely lacked the binding force that a critical, trained hand
could have applied. I have a pile of notebooks and papers stacked high with
crap from which can only be salvaged maybe a handful of glimpses of real
poetry. You know what, though? As I got older and that teenage malaise
gradually cured itself, I gained that critical eye and trained hand with which
I could say "That sucks" and see why. The poems I've written in the past two
years are of a vastly superior quality to those written in mid-adolescence.
Am I really a poet? I'm going to say that, to me (please, note the
disclaimer 'to me'. I'm not saying my judgment is the end-all, here.), poetry
is the ultimate conveyance of emotion or insight through a carefully crafted
form...the ultimate meeting place of those eternally opposed and united
entities: reason and emotion. A good poem comes close to striking a perfect
balance between the two. So, back to the questions at hand. Am I really a
poet? Yes. Was I one four years ago? I'll say I was an aspiring poet. The
stuff I wrote, though devoid of true poetic merit, still means something to
me. It's a record of emotional development. Each of those pages is like a
shred of a molted exoskeleton. It was part of a painful evolution from
tortured, angsty girl into wiser, experienced woman, and it was wholly
necessary. What I write now, however, is forged from that wisdom and that
experience. As I get older, I get wiser and gain more experience, and the
poems will get better. (I'll share some soon).
Your insight is much appreciated, but remember: what I've said here is just my
insight, not my declaration of immutable truths. Treat them as such. Thanks
for your time.
--
________________________________________________________________________
| Georgiana Cohen Happiness makes up in height|
| Boston University, COM '01 for what it lacks in length.|
| gvc...@bu.edu -- Robert Frost|
| |
| http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/7852 |
|_____________________________ ICQ = 7297847 ____________________________|
Misdrenias
that in one year that I have grown greatly in the quality of my poems, but I
still believe there is a lot more room to grow. But I guess its that way for
everyone.
~Misdrenias
Go to http://misdrenias.cjb.net
and take a stroll through the unknown.
ICQ: 9494512
"Wise man says 'Never use a bank with the initials F. U.'" -anon