Rime Royal
Lorenzo4344
*****
The rav'nous fox about the hen house door,
The wolf at odds with hunger nigh the fold,
Will kill to to live, it's natur'l; what is more,
I here propose a notion oddsome bold:
Might not they too, in spite of nature's hold,
Abjure their ways, unnatur'l though it stood?
We needn't show they would, but that they could.
The fox, the wolf, born to the natur'l drive,
To live, might straggle off unfed to die,
And leave their natur'l victuals to survive,
Because they could, although none can deny,
In this, all reason thereby quite defy.
They might forego the meal, not that they should,
We needn't show they would, but that they could.
Thus, some provincial autodidact might,
With diligence and industry become,
As some might say, the brightest burning light
As ever shook a scene and stuck us dumb,
And 'gainst all reason prove to be the ONE.
Unlikely, yet I'm sure it's understood,
We needn't show he would, but that he could.
But so's to see the laws of logic kept
And just proportion measured of good sense
I, too, propose to think a man yclept
A poet born, of intellect immense,
Would thereby be a figure most intense,
Who in his works reveals their fatherhood,
And more than that he could, I say he would.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Bob Grumman
It isn't could and would that count, good mate,
but what the bare facts of the matter state.
(Though I should think an actor likelier
to frame great plays than some effete damned earl.)
Note, for me "earl" rhymes with "er" every bit as much as, say, "fur"
does, since it has the same amount of sounds in common with it. I
don't expect reactionaries to agree.
--Bob G.
Peter Farey
Mark the music and weep, my friends. This is
both "rime royal" *and* royal rhyme. I love it.
(But 'struck', not 'stuck', yes?)
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Peter Farey" Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk
>Date: 8/2/2003
> Mark the music and weep, my friends. This is both "rime royal" *and* royal
rhyme. I love it. (But 'struck', not 'stuck', yes?)
Ah, me, you're right. I'm wrong. Ain't't just my luck,
To flat forget that "r?" Man, tpyos suck.
Har. Thanks, Peter, for the good words. I see I also included an extraneous
"to" in the first stanza, line three. I spot several little bits this morn that
could stand a striking of the second heat upon the Muses anuile. I will try to
be more true-filed next time, for as we all know, a good Poet's made, as well
as borne.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
lowercase dave
Lorenzo's stunning verses struck me dumb
Bob, mark the music.
Only something as sublime-yes--as L's could possibly contradict.
It may turn out that the "Stratfordians" can't write their way out of
a paper bard. I love it!
Lorenzo, give us more!
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Lorenzo4344
>From: graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave)
>Date: 8/2/2003
>Lorenzo, give us more!
Thanks, Dave, but nay. I bleeve two kudos earns me a bye round. Besides, it is
axiomatic in show biz to leave 'em wanting - and you ought surely agree - More.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Bob Grumman
Marlowe, Marlowe, he's our kid!
If he didn't do it, no one did!
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
Lorenzo, yes, your rime-royal sure was
A thing of beauty, worthy of the best,
So if you don't get a rest, who does?
In fact, I'm hoping others take the test,
And gain respect (more than they would have guessed)
For Lucrece's rime, and what was meant
By ending it: "everlasting banishment."
David A. More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Lorenzo4344
>Lorenzo, yes, your rime-royal sure was
>A thing of beauty, worthy of the best,
>So if you don't get a rest, who does?
>In fact, I'm hoping others take the test,
>And gain respect (more than they would have guessed)
>For Lucrece's rime, and what was meant
>By ending it: "everlasting banishment."
**********
That is a poser, and I s'pose you mean
To promulgate anew your idee fixe
Wherein Kit Marlowe's absenting the scene
In fifteen ninety-three was rigged: that reeks!
If that old theory caulks your boat, she leaks.
Soggier still's the dampy-handed style
With which you angle now, sir, to beguile.
Debauched, amoral, irreligious cuss -
Young Kit was many things. Young Kyd, alack,
Once advertised unto the world just thus;
Of course, he did so writhing on the rack,
And if he could he might have ta'en it back,
E'en as young Kit, if he but could, might say,
"OK! I'll pay! Frize! Lay thy dirk away!"
But no. No recantation (that's for Bob,
Our English whiz, neologistic branch,
Who thinks who favors nobles be a snob.
He's quite a card. Meanwhile, back at the ranch...)
Forthcame, no word from Tom, nor else, to stanch
The bleeding reputation of the man
Who fell to earth there nigh the Deptford Strand.
The Kitster was a rowdy, rockin' chap,
As those who knew him ne'er have e'er denied,
And tragic as his themes, so too his hap,
In sooth, the legend's yet to be belied:
Ah, Davey, Davey, Davey - Marlowe died.
Was banished to the fires of Hell, I guess,
Assuming they'd accept such sorry mess.
But banished from the realm? As Tarquin was?
For what? By whom? His friends of high estate?
To spare him from himself? I see no cause,
To think this was the great playmaker's fate.
Go to. I think the guy was born too late
To write the works of Shake-speare anyway,
All mostly born before he died, I say.
There is a one, another, that we know,
Who sundry times for reasons right and wrong
Was banished from the court, flat told to go
His ways apart and separate from the throng
About the throne, and so arose a song,
Nay, sev'ral, in lament of said disgrace
You seem to hold as pert'nent to your case.
Well, it seems evident to me that you
Stand ready here to make a crafty speech,
So I will ease back in my cushy pew
To hear the sermon you must needs now preach.
And though I'm sure it's sure to be a reach,
Yet, here's a line wherewith to improvise:
"My friends, 'tis said a bad weed never dies..."
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Tom Reedy
TR
"Lorenzo4344" <loren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030804175347...@mb-m26.aol.com...
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Tom Reedy" reed...@earthlink.net
>Date: 8/4/2003
>Hear hear! This is pretty good stuff. How long did it take you?
60 years, come September.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Bob Grumman
> But no. No recantation (that's for Bob,
> Our English whiz, neologistic branch,
> Who thinks who favors nobles be a snob.
An honest mistake, I'm sure, Lorenzo, but a mistake. I've taken pains
to state that I don't count Shakespeare-rejecters, in general, social
snobs, but educational snobs. For many reasons--a main one being that
they themselves can't learn but must be taught--they can't accept that
a person of no known special formal training could have become a great
poet. Like Keats, Jonson, Hardy, Thomas and Burns, to name the first
few I can think of.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
> >
bob, if you would be so kind, to write rime royal in reply? a game's
afoot methinks, and you can play, read elsewhere in this thread, okay?
lowercase dave
You've raised the bar, i fear, beyond my reach.
I'll have to cogitate awhile, immerse
myself into the argument you teach,
I'll even do it sunning at the beach.
I'm in a rush right now, so much to do
Besides composing rhyming verse for you.
Won't others take the challenge as well? The level of discussion at
HLAS will be raised by the effort. However, writing rime royal on a
regular basis will be too taxing for most busy people (including me),
so I propose switching to blank verse after this. I know it can be
metrically tricky, but I'm up to it, and other Marlowites can do, as
well. The Stratfordians, otoh, don't seem to get it, the music that
is. Only Grumman and Reedy have offered anything in blank verse,
though JWKennedy and surely others are capable as well. The DeVereans
appear to have a strong stable of stable poets such as yourself, Dick
Kennedy, Stephanie, even Art can jingle a little. Who am I leaving
out?
I amended my previous rr stanza to you because (as one poster told me
privately) it was bad, and because i spent too much time on it (taking
time from work projects i must complete), then posted too hurriedly,
forgetting i(t) was being graded. So I posted an improved version last
night.
Also last night, while going through some old boxes, came across an
essay by Hugh Kenner, "Poetize or Bust," (1883 Harpers) which begins
"'A superior amusement,' the poet T.S. Eliot called poetry; his phrase
will do if we let the stress linger on 'superior'. It can surpass
Scrabble, 'Entertainment Tonight,' and listing the cubes of the first
thousand integers. ... Poetry can also lift the will, sharpen your
vision, help you to make distictions and resent evil, confirm you in
civic and domestic virtue, teach the names of many birds, etc.
(Confucius)."
And so the game's a foot.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
loren...@aol.com (Lorenzo4344) wrote in message news:<20030804175347...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
Peter Farey
OK where rhyme and metre is concerned. But there is no way that
it approaches being "poetry", in the way that Lorenzo seems to be
able to knock off at will, blast him! My ideas are about words, his
are about words *and* content.
Here's my go, nevertheless.
The documented record is quite clear -
A quarrel over just a 'sum of pence'.
With Skeres and Poley sitting very near,
Kit died, and Frizer claimed 'twas self-defence.
Few think this true. It lacks the evidence
Of how it came that they (and only they)
Were gathered at that place, that time, that day.
He should have been at Nonsuch, checking in.
And Poley had some messages 'in poste',
The other two a coney for to skin,
And in their mind such things were uppermost.
Why were these three in Deptford, playing host
To Marlowe, poet/playwright, atheist,
Unless they had been called on to assist?
Assist in what? Perhaps his 'sudden end'?
A murder has been mooted oftentime:
But Cecil (boss) and Walsingham, their friend,
Were hardly like to join in such a crime.
To help him flee? I have to say that I'm
Unable to buy that - the corpse denies.
So what is left? A make-believe demise.
Undoubtedly he was in deepest shtuck,
Odds on for execution, so they say,
You write an anti-Trinitarian book,
You get sent permanently on your way.
Perhaps his friends could get the Queen's OK
His skin might yet be saved, if not too late,
His talent still of value to the state.
The team's assembled: one to perpetrate,
One to keep watch and one to organize;
A man condemned to die around that date;
A safe house, far away from prying eyes.
The Queen's own coroner to supervise
The inquest, and to see the jury swore
The tale they heard was true - no less, no more.
Is there a happy ending? That I doubt.
The likely penance permanent exile,
False name, false background, from now on without
Old haunts, old friends (but newest juvenile?),
The Rose, with Alleyn putting on the style.
He still could write, of course. The play's the thing
Where reconciliation he might sing.
Did he? Who knows. But on the Avon's brim,
A monument with wording strange we find
(To Stratford's William Shakespeare, not to him,
Except for those with a more curious mind).
"Read who is here with Will, if you're not blind"
It says, and there he is, as born anew.
And odds of twenty million cry "It's true".
Peter Farey
something *really* funny. The double-meaning of the word
"curious" in the last verse was quite intentional.
OK?
Bob Grumman
> afoot methinks, and you can play, read elsewhere in this thread, okay?
Sorry, LC, but I haven't time for rhyming games--I'm yet again trying
to finish a project, this one my sci fi novel. I have just five
chapters to revise, and they seem not to need much work. So, take my
correction, and your request, and my reply to your request, as
footnotes to the ongoing jingling.
--Bob G.
Spam Scone
> P.S. And just in case Neil imagines that he has discovered
> something *really* funny. The double-meaning of the word
> "curious" in the last verse was quite intentional.
What verse, Peter? Your post doesn't quote or follow up to a post containing verse.
> OK?
It might be, if I knew what you were referring to.
Peter Farey
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > P.S. And just in case Neil imagines that he has discovered
> > something *really* funny. The double-meaning of the word
> > "curious" in the last verse was quite intentional.
>
> What verse, Peter? Your post doesn't quote or follow up to
> a post containing verse.
>
> > OK?
>
> It might be, if I knew what you were referring to.
How strange. It made it to my server alright, but I was
wondering at the lack of any response at all. Clearly
the Trust found it too seditious.
Here is is again (although, being an incurable tinkerer,
I have taken the opportunity to make a very few minor
changes to my earlier version). I said:
"My offering is (I think, but Peter G. may say otherwise!)
technically OK where rhyme and metre is concerned. But there
is no way that it approaches being "poetry", in the way that
Lorenzo seems to be able to knock off at will, blast him!
My ideas are about words, his are about words *and* content.
Here's my go, nevertheless."
The documented record is quite clear -
A quarrel over just a 'sum of pence'.
With Skeres and Poley sitting very near,
Kit died, and Frizer claimed 'twas self-defence.
Few think this true. It lacks the evidence
Of how it came that they (and only they)
Were gathered at that place, that time, that day.
He should have been at Nonsuch, checking in.
And Poley had some messages 'in poste',
The other two a coney yet to skin,
And in their mind such things were uppermost.
Why were these three in Deptford, playing host
To Marlowe, poet/spy and dramatist,
Unless they had been called on to assist?
Assist in what? Perhaps his 'sudden end'?
A murder has been mooted oftentime:
But Cecil (boss) and Walsingham, their friend,
Were hardly like to join in such a crime.
To help him flee? I have to say that I'm
A pragmatist - come on, that corpse denies!
So what is left? A make-believe demise.
Undoubtedly he was in deepest shtuck,
Odds on for execution, so they say,
You write an anti-Trinitarian book,
You get sent permanently on your way.
Perhaps his friends could get the Queen's OK?
His skin might yet be saved, if not too late,
His talents still of value to the state.
The team's assembled: one to perpetrate,
One to keep watch and one to organize;
A man condemned to die around that date;
A safe house, far away from prying eyes.
The Queen's own coroner to supervise
The inquest, and to see the jury swore
The tale they heard was true - no less, no more.
Is there a happy ending? That I doubt.
The likely penance permanent exile
False name, false background, from now on without
Old haunts, old friends (or newest juvenile?),
The Rose, with Alleyn putting on the style.
He still could write, of course. The play's the thing
Where reconciliation he might sing.
Did he? Who knows. But on the Avon's brim,
A monument with wording strange we find
(To Stratford's William Shakespeare, not to him,
Except for those of a more curious mind).
"Read who is here with Will, if you're not blind"
It says, and there he is, as born anew.
And odds of twenty million cry "It's true".
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Peter Farey" Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk
>Date: 8/5/2003
>"Spam Scone" (Neil Brennen) wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>>
>> > P.S. And just in case Neil imagines that he has discovered
>> > something *really* funny. The double-meaning of the word
>> > "curious" in the last verse was quite intentional.
>>
>> What verse, Peter? Your post doesn't quote or follow up to
>> a post containing verse.
>>
>> > OK?
>>
>> It might be, if I knew what you were referring to.
>
>How strange.
Surely you mean, "curious." Your poem made it through to here the first time,
Peter, don't know what went... curious.
Your little changes are nifty. However, the addition of a question mark at the
end of this line...
"Perhaps his friends could get the Queen's OK?"
...indicates, to me, doubt, in you, more than possibility, to the reader, the
which I must imagine to be your aim. Doubting that you doubt, maybe I was just
overwhelmed by doubts of my own, but you will probably agree that a comma,
linking it to the last couplet, would make it a statement of greater statement.
You and Dave have got me going now. I'll have to dive deeper into your site and
work out why you are wrong, as you, of course, have to be. Either that or I...
no.
If nothing else, I learned how to pronounce "shtuck," a word I've never even
seen. I grokked it my own shrewd self. Anyway, don't stop now! You could dash
off another 200 stanzas or so, and really liven things up for the Marlowe
research throng. Oh, brave new scholarship!
**********
Peter Farey
"Lorenzo4344" wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Your little changes are nifty. However, the addition of a
> question mark at the end of this line...
>
> "Perhaps his friends could get the Queen's OK?"
>
> ...indicates, to me, doubt, in you, more than possibility,
> to the reader, the which I must imagine to be your aim.
> Doubting that you doubt, maybe I was just overwhelmed by
> doubts of my own, but you will probably agree that a comma,
> linking it to the last couplet, would make it a statement
> of greater statement.
Yes, I think you are right. The doubt, however, was intended
to be in the minds of the "friends". Would they be able to get
her to agree? One card they had was his possible future value
to her.
> You and Dave have got me going now. I'll have to dive deeper
> into your site and work out why you are wrong, as you, of
> course, have to be.
Of course. I have likened this in the past to people watching
a good magician. They know that it can't be 'true' magic, but
just can't figure out right now exactly how he is doing it.
> Either that or I...
> no.
No.
> If nothing else, I learned how to pronounce "shtuck," a word
> I've never even seen.
Or heard? It's certainly a not uncommon word round our way,
although you won't find it in the Shorter OED (I haven't tried
the 'Longer'). I do see it, spelt thus, in Jonathon Green's
excellent *The Slang Thesaurus* (also probably one of the rudest
books I have ever seen!), however, which gave me the confidence
to use it here.
> I grokked it my own shrewd self.
'Grok' - Similarly absent from the SOED, but good old Green has
that one too. (Heinlein's *Stranger in a Strange Land*, I seem
to recall?)
> Anyway, don't stop now! You could dash off another 200
> stanzas or so,
I could not! Sweated blood on only seven. In fact, Dave has
been doing something along those lines for some time now, but
(as I have told him) the metre he uses is a little too free
for my taste.
> and really liven things up for the Marlowe
> research throng. Oh, brave new scholarship!
That has such people in 't?
Spam Scone
(Snip Peter's conspiracy theory about the non-appearance of his
posting)
> Here is is again (although, being an incurable tinkerer,
> I have taken the opportunity to make a very few minor
> changes to my earlier version).
The phrase "blotted a thousand" comes to mind. I, like Jonson,
consider revision a good thing.
Very nice piece of "fan fiction", Peter.
lowercase dave
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bgocni$1op$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> My offering is, I think (but Peter G. may say otherwise!) technically
> OK where rhyme and metre is concerned. But there is no way that
> it approaches being "poetry", in the way that Lorenzo seems to be
> able to knock off at will, blast him! My ideas are about words, his
> are about words *and* content.
>
> Here's my go, nevertheless.
>
1> The documented record is quite clear -
2> A quarrel over just a 'sum of pence'.
3> With Skeres and Poley sitting very near,
4> Kit died, and Frizer claimed 'twas self-defence.
5> Few think this true. It lacks the evidence
6> Of how it came that they (and only they)
7> Were gathered at that place, that time, that day.
>
8> He should have been at Nonsuch, checking in.
9> And Poley had some messages 'in poste',
10> The other two a coney for to skin,
11> And in their mind such things were uppermost.
12> Why were these three in Deptford, playing host
13> To Marlowe, poet/playwright, atheist,
14> Unless they had been called on to assist?
>
15> Assist in what? Perhaps his 'sudden end'?
16> A murder has been mooted oftentime:
17> But Cecil (boss) and Walsingham, their friend,
18> Were hardly like to join in such a crime.
19> To help him flee? I have to say that I'm
20> Unable to buy that - the corpse denies.
21> So what is left? A make-believe demise.
>
22> Undoubtedly he was in deepest shtuck,
23> Odds on for execution, so they say,
24> You write an anti-Trinitarian book,
25> You get sent permanently on your way.
26> Perhaps his friends could get the Queen's OK
27> His skin might yet be saved, if not too late,
28> His talent still of value to the state.
>
29> The team's assembled: one to perpetrate,
30> One to keep watch and one to organize;
31> A man condemned to die around that date;
32> A safe house, far away from prying eyes.
33> The Queen's own coroner to supervise
34> The inquest, and to see the jury swore
35> The tale they heard was true - no less, no more.
>
36> Is there a happy ending? That I doubt.
37> The likely penance permanent exile,
38> False name, false background, from now on without
39> Old haunts, old friends (but newest juvenile?),
40> The Rose, with Alleyn putting on the style.
41> He still could write, of course. The play's the thing
42> Where reconciliation he might sing.
>
43> Did he? Who knows. But on the Avon's brim,
44> A monument with wording strange we find
45> (To Stratford's William Shakespeare, not to him,
46> Except for those with a more curious mind).
47> "Read who is here with Will, if you're not blind"
48> It says, and there he is, as born anew.
49> And odds of twenty million cry "It's true".
>
>
> Peter F.
> pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
> http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Well done, Peter, you answer very well
The charge Lorenzo makes about Kit's death
And how he probably got hauled to hell,
For cursing God with his last stinking breath.
Your well-versed verse suggests Elizabeth,
The Queen (persuaded by her right-hand man)
Allowed Kit's friends to execute a plan:
A plan to make it look like he got killed,
To get Archb. Whitgift off Kit's t(r)ail.
To do so, they would need 3 agents skilled
To pull a hoax off smoothly, without fail,
Then lie to the poor jury with their tale.
The team assembled, Poley, Skeres, and Frizer:
Dissembling gents who understood what lies were.
*** for lorenzo ***
My friends, 'tis said 'a bad weed never dies,'
But not by those who sell new herbicides
Or naturalists, who know that saying lies.
What's good or bad behavior, who decides?
What wise men or women be our guides?
A man called "William Shakespeare" might be one:
Who reckons Kit's abuses, does his own. (sonnet 121)
The slander of Kit Marley's evil ways,
Is heard, these parts, by early morning riser:
A 'mess', a 'rowdy, rockin' chap', it says,
(The voice of Oxford's well-versed advertiser)
But here it's said by someone who is wiser:
Such words are false, and not contextual
With Marley's love for matters intellectual.
tbc
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
lowercase dave
Oh brave new scholarship, indeed. This is what I intended, and I'm
glad a poet of your ability has decided to play, to stimulate
discussion and raise the level of debate. Let the best poet (i.e.
Marley or DeVere or Bacon or, choke, William) win! I figure their
supporters ought to be able to put their hero's case into convincing
verse. I just wish i wasn't so busy with other projects, but hey, we
do want we can.
Last year, I made a proposal to the English Dept. at the local
university to expand and footnote my "rap epic" (rapic) the Marliad
for a Ph.D. dissertation. It was approved by everyone, including the
chair, but not the top Shakespeare prof, a friend of mine, who doesn't
want the controversy.
After you examine Peter's website, take a look at mine, especially the
work-in-progress draft of my poem posted there, if you're looking for
more arguments to consider. Mind you, it isn't written in rime royal,
but couplets and extended rimes, including near rimes,if the sense
fits. Rather free-flowing. But I think you're right about Peter F.
writing another 200 stanzas or so or rime royal. He and I --and YOU
(!?) could really shake things up in the field of Marlowe-Shakespeare
studies.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Lorenzo4344
>"Lorenzo4344" wrote:
>> Your little changes are nifty. However, the addition of a
>> question mark at the end of this line...
>>
>> "Perhaps his friends could get the Queen's OK?"
>>
>> ...indicates, to me, doubt, in you, more than possibility,
>> to the reader, the which I must imagine to be your aim.
>> Doubting that you doubt, maybe I was just overwhelmed by
>> doubts of my own, but you will probably agree that a comma,
>> linking it to the last couplet, would make it a statement
>> of greater statement.
>
>Yes, I think you are right. The doubt, however, was intended
>to be in the minds of the "friends". Would they be able to get
>her to agree? One card they had was his possible future value
>to her
Doubts abound. Let's help them with their speech:
"Your majesty, we beseech your approval of our arranging a fake death and
sending the scamp Christopher Marlowe, homosexual, atheist, drunken street
brawler, general mal de tete, and well-ointmented fly-of-the-realm -
notwithstanding the fact these traits are normally rewarded with one's head,
gizzards, and extremities scattered to the hogs, a fate he quite seriously
faces as we speak - to some secret place, never to be heard from again, hiding,
hiding, hiding, where he might be of service to your monarchy, either as a
timeless theatrical propagandist encouraging the royal flock to, though not his
strong suit, stay in line, or - did we mention he is as well an international
double-dealer? - as a spy ferreting out dangerous-to-you state secrets in, say,
that hotbed of anti-aristocracism, Malta? No one will know! With his complete
lack of identity, he should be able to easily infiltrate the upper echelons of
most any ruler's department of state, or at the very least, and perhaps more
plausibly, hang out with tavern tramps and get the word on the street. It won't
cost you a penny. What say?"
JUST kidding, Peter, mostly. I am maybe a little more Marlowe-aware than the
average bear, maybe, and certainly no authority, no maybes about it. My
viewpoint is, I imagine, the general one, and those implausibilites up there
are the ones that came to immediate mind. Still, I do seem to recall his being
slid through Cambridge with a little basically inexplicable help from some
top-level "friends," don't I? And the apparently inordinate interest taken in
the inquest by Danby - interesting. Don't you say he went out of his way to go
out of his way, jurisdiction-wise? Kinda foggy there. I'd like to hear the
Reader's Digest version of the future value to the queen that Marlowe stood to
offer for which he might have been spared. I mean, rilly...
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Bob Grumman
> glad a poet of your ability has decided to play, to stimulate
> discussion and raise the level of debate. Let the best poet (i.e.
> Marley or DeVere or Bacon or, choke, William) win!
Right, and the winner gets to name not only who wrote the works of
Shakespeare, but the works of every other poet in the English
Language, having proved himself the one most fit to do that.
The one big problem is deciding who should judge the HLAS works. It
would have to be one or more Important Poets, but how could we decide
who they are? We'd have to find OTHER Important Poets to do that,
and--well, that obviously leads to an infinite regress. If only true
poets can identify true poets, as must be the case, true poets can
never begin to be identified.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
Bob, we can judge ourselves using the following proposed system, which
needs further development, but let's not make it too complicated.
1. verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter (if not, then for sound
aesthetic reason, not laziness)
2. rimes must be exact.
3. points for poetic devices, such as metaphor.
4. verses must be "true" allowing for poetic license, i.e.
possibilities, but no outright historical lies (like Shakespeare in
Love premise)
5. one rewrite is allowed to get it right.
Quantity and quality of verses will be judged. Currently Lorenzo is in
"the lead." Farey second, me third. But, combined Marlowe runs a close
second. Strats are nowhere to be found.
unfortunately, i lost 3 new stanzas and a rewrite of two others due to
system crash. Still reasonably fresh in my mind. I'll get back to work
on them in my idle time. ha.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Lorenzo4344
>From: graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave)
>Date: 8/7/2003
>Bob, we can judge ourselves using the following proposed system, which
>needs further development, but let's not make it too complicated.
>1. verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter (if not, then for sound
>aesthetic reason, not laziness)
There's more than one way to skin a sonnet,
Than "A-B", "A-B" (thrice-over), envoy:
But ten syllables a line? Yes.You bet,
Quite inviolate. It must happen. Boy,
Were those ten syllables, let's say, to be, oh, twelve,
Now and then it would come as something of a shock,
Do you know what I mean? Here - let me delve,
Into ten syllable's-worth of pure awk-
Wardness to illustrate how awkwardness,
Ill-accented, falsely gallop'd, and such,
Ten-syll'bl'd's still po'try - nine, a mess;
Is too few, just as eleven is too much.
O, would, Davey, now that you're syll'ble-wise,
I could 'splain to you how "iamb" applies.
>2. rimes must be exact.
Moon, Joon.
>3. points for poetic devices, such as metaphor.
As is the sun which beats upon the sea,
Both warming and absorbing what it tends,
So are my verses - paradoxically -
A mad confusion, that me musie sends.
My metaphor seems, does it not, some dense?
But then, you don't require that it make sense.
>4. verses must be "true" allowing for poetic license, i.e.
>possibilities, but no outright historical lies (like Shakespeare in
>Love premise)
Does this exclude the story of the bard,
From Stratford? Or your ever-living Kit?
And must we scorn to play the Francis card?
Hang-hog 'em all, I care me not a whit.
I pray you mark me gravely serious,
The truth be told, "Nil Vero Verius."
>5. one rewrite is allowed to get it right.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Bob Grumman
> needs further development, but let's not make it too complicated.
>
>
> 1. verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter (if not, then for sound
> aesthetic reason, not laziness)
Different people scan verses differently. Who is the judge what a
"sound aesthetic reason" is?
> 2. rimes must be exact.
Why? And, as I've shown, whose definition of rhyme is to count? I
know, the reactionaries who believe only in traditional rhyme.
> 3. points for poetic devices, such as metaphor.
Even if they're cliched? How many points? Who judges which are good,
which bad, or doesn't that matter? What poetic devices count? Do
visiophors? Do any that you don't recognize?
> 4. verses must be "true" allowing for poetic license, i.e.
> possibilities, but no outright historical lies (like Shakespeare in
> Love premise)
So Hero and Leander wouldn't count? Who defines "poetic license?" To
me, the historical inaccuracies in Shakespeare in Love could all be
excused on the grounds of poetic license--though I, as a screenwriter,
would have found a way to tell the story without them.
> 5. one rewrite is allowed to get it right.
What in the world does rewriting have to do with it?
> Quantity and quality of verses will be judged.
Again, who is to be judged competent to judge the latter?
How about 6. Absence of inversions stupid, and poeticisms like
"'twas?"
> Currently Lorenzo is in
> "the lead." Farey second, me third. But, combined Marlowe runs a close
> second. Strats are nowhere to be found.
Wrong: I'm to be found with a one-stanza B-minus specimen in rime
royal that I rate higher than the stuff you wacks have written. And,
of course, I've composed much better poems than my rime royal stanza
that lack iambic pentameter and rhyme, and have nothing to do with
accurate writing. In my opinion, your effort is okay, Peter's is the
best of the three but seriously marred by the lunacy of its narrative.
Lorenzo's has too many poeticisms in it to my taste but prove him a
adept at the form.
Ah, but you are limiting the contest to fables about authorship
pretenders and Shakespeare.
Okay, my last waste of time at this exercise:
Will Shakespeare
His name was on a group of major plays
that have become so widely shown and known,
and given such (at times excessive) praise,
they've sent a shock wave through the looney zone
that's energized a horde of wacks to drone,
"He never wrote a line of poetry!
Forget the facts, what we dream up must be!"
> unfortunately, i lost 3 new stanzas and a rewrite of two others due to
> system crash. Still reasonably fresh in my mind. I'll get back to work
> on them in my idle time. ha.
>
> David More
Good luck. I sort of finished the major revision of my sci fi
novel--but now want to rewrite two to four chapters fairly
substantially, because they seem to drag. I hope that will do it for
that project.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
> > needs further development, but let's not make it too complicated.
> >
> >
> > 1. verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter (if not, then for sound
> > aesthetic reason, not laziness)
>
> Different people scan verses differently. Who is the judge what a
> "sound aesthetic reason" is?
>
> > 2. rimes must be exact.
>
> Why? And, as I've shown, whose definition of rhyme is to count? I
> know, the reactionaries who believe only in traditional rhyme.
Because that is how the bard did it. It's the rule for rime royal; you
can write all the near-rimes you want, but not in this game.
> > 3. points for poetic devices, such as metaphor.
>
> Even if they're cliched? How many points? Who judges which are good,
> which bad, or doesn't that matter? What poetic devices count? Do
> visiophors? Do any that you don't recognize?
As Lorenzo notes they must make sense.
> > 4. verses must be "true" allowing for poetic license, i.e.
> > possibilities, but no outright historical lies (like Shakespeare in
> > Love premise)
>
> So Hero and Leander wouldn't count? Who defines "poetic license?" To
> me, the historical inaccuracies in Shakespeare in Love could all be
> excused on the grounds of poetic license--though I, as a screenwriter,
> would have found a way to tell the story without them.
H&L count for what? The collective group of poets and scholars defines
it. We'll know when someone steps over the line of credibility.
> > 5. one rewrite is allowed to get it right.
>
> What in the world does rewriting have to do with it?
I mean, after something is posted, based on the comments, criticisms
and suggestions by readers, the rime royal entry can be revised. If it
flies, then add those lines to the column of the appropriate
candidate.
> > Quantity and quality of verses will be judged.
>
> Again, who is to be judged competent to judge the latter?
Well, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of critics around here.
> How about 6. Absence of inversions stupid, and poeticisms like
> "'twas?"
No, i don't think they should be forbidden, because they can be used
to good effect at times.
> > Currently Lorenzo is in
> > "the lead." Farey second, me third. But, combined Marlowe runs a close
> > second. Strats are nowhere to be found.
>
> Wrong: I'm to be found with a one-stanza B-minus specimen in rime
> royal that I rate higher than the stuff you wacks have written.
Luckily, you cannot judge your own work. You and WS are in the
running, true but none of us are in Lorenzo's class, but maybe be
hanging out from him we'll all improve.
And,
> of course, I've composed much better poems than my rime royal stanza
> that lack iambic pentameter and rhyme, and have nothing to do with
> accurate writing. In my opinion, your effort is okay, Peter's is the
> best of the three but seriously marred by the lunacy of its narrative.
> Lorenzo's has too many poeticisms in it to my taste but prove him a
> adept at the form.
Ha! too many "poeticisms" pray tell, what?
> Ah, but you are limiting the contest to fables about authorship
> pretenders and Shakespeare.
>
> Okay, my last waste of time at this exercise:
>
>
> Will Shakespeare
>
> His name was on a group of major plays
> that have become so widely shown and known,
> and given such (at times excessive) praise,
> they've sent a shock wave through the looney zone
> that's energized a horde of wacks to drone,
> "He never wrote a line of poetry!
> Forget the facts, what we dream up must be!"
It's a beginning, keep it up!
Bob Grumman
> > > needs further development, but let's not make it too complicated.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter (if not, then for sound
> > > aesthetic reason, not laziness)
> >
> > "sound aesthetic reason" is?
> >
> > > 2. rimes must be exact.
> >
> > Why? And, as I've shown, whose definition of rhyme is to count? I
> > know, the reactionaries who believe only in traditional rhyme.
>
> Because that is how the bard did it. It's the rule for rime royal; you
> can write all the near-rimes you want, but not in this game.
same-word rhymes--I'm not sure what they're called. I don't write
near-rhymes.
> > > 3. points for poetic devices, such as metaphor.
> >
> > Even if they're cliched? How many points? Who judges which are good,
> > which bad, or doesn't that matter? What poetic devices count? Do
> > visiophors? Do any that you don't recognize?
>
> As Lorenzo notes they must make sense.
That doesn't answer my question. Cliches just about always makes
sense.
> > > 4. verses must be "true" allowing for poetic license, i.e.
> > > possibilities, but no outright historical lies (like Shakespeare in
> > > Love premise)
> >
> > So Hero and Leander wouldn't count? Who defines "poetic license?" To
> > me, the historical inaccuracies in Shakespeare in Love could all be
> > excused on the grounds of poetic license--though I, as a screenwriter,
> > would have found a way to tell the story without them.
>
> H&L count for what?
As an entry--since it's not based on historical fact.
> The collective group of poets and scholars defines
> it. We'll know when someone steps over the line of credibility.
I won't. Three dummies in agreement against someone knowledgeable
doesn't make the dummies right.
> > > 5. one rewrite is allowed to get it right.
> >
> > What in the world does rewriting have to do with it?
>
> I mean, after something is posted, based on the comments, criticisms
> and suggestions by readers, the rime royal entry can be revised. If it
> flies, then add those lines to the column of the appropriate
> candidate.
>
> > > Quantity and quality of verses will be judged.
> >
> > Again, who is to be judged competent to judge the latter?
>
> Well, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of critics around here.
Right. Which of them should we go by?
> > How about 6. Absence of inversions stupid, and poeticisms like
> > "'twas?"
>
> No, i don't think they should be forbidden, because they can be used
> to good effect at times.
I've never seen one used to good effect except in light verse, for
laffs.
> > > Currently Lorenzo is in
> > > "the lead." Farey second, me third. But, combined Marlowe runs a close
> > > second. Strats are nowhere to be found.
> >
> > Wrong: I'm to be found with a one-stanza B-minus specimen in rime
> > royal that I rate higher than the stuff you wacks have written.
>
> Luckily, you cannot judge your own work. You and WS are in the
> running, true but none of us are in Lorenzo's class, but maybe be
> hanging out from him we'll all improve.
No comment.
> And,
> > of course, I've composed much better poems than my rime royal stanza
> > that lack iambic pentameter and rhyme, and have nothing to do with
> > accurate writing. In my opinion, your effort is okay, Peter's is the
> > best of the three but seriously marred by the lunacy of its narrative.
> > Lorenzo's has too many poeticisms in it to my taste but prove him a
> > adept at the form.
>
> Ha! too many "poeticisms" pray tell, what?
Ask him. I suspect he'll know.
> > Ah, but you are limiting the contest to fables about authorship
> > pretenders and Shakespeare.
> >
> > Okay, my last waste of time at this exercise:
> >
> > Will Shakespeare
> >
> > His name was on a group of major plays
> > that have become so widely shown and known,
> > and given such (at times excessive) praise,
> > they've sent a shock wave through the looney zone
> > that's energized a horde of wacks to drone,
> > "He never wrote a line of poetry!
> > Forget the facts, what we dream up must be!"
>
> It's a beginning, keep it up!
I have to admit, it's sort of a fun game. But I really do have better
things to do, Dave. The above is it, for me.
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:5f7d2eb3.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Bob, we can judge ourselves using the following proposed system,
which
> > > > needs further development, but let's not make it too complicated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter (if not, then for sound
> > > > aesthetic reason, not laziness)
> > >
> > > Different people scan verses differently. Who is TO judge what a
> > > "sound aesthetic reason" is?
> > >
> > > > 2. rimes must be exact.
> > >
> > > Why? And, as I've shown, whose definition of rhyme is to count? I
> > > know, the reactionaries who believe only in traditional rhyme.
> >
> > Because that is how the bard did it. It's the rule for rime royal; you
> > can write all the near-rimes you want, but not in this game.
>
> Shakespeare wrote some. He also, I'm pretty sure, wrote a few
> same-word rhymes--I'm not sure what they're called.
FWIW, they're called <rimes riches>, and they tend to be avoided by
post-medieval English potes (though the French have always admired them.
Peter G.
lowercase dave
> > > Forget the facts, what we dream up must be!"
> >
> > It's a beginning, keep it up!
>
> I have to admit, it's sort of a fun game. But I really do have better
> things to do, Dave. The above is it, for me.
>
> --Bob G.
Bob, that could be your motto! "Forget the facts, what we dream up must be!"
Peter Farey
Nice one, Yogi! I did indeed find most of what you had to
say amusing, whether intentional or unintentional!
You are right, of course. The 'general' view is based upon
a great deal of ignorance about Marlowe. (I would imagine
that the regulars here at HLAS, other than the professional
scholars, have learnt a lot more about Marlowe as a result
of the 'authorship' questions discussed here than they were
ever likely to have done otherwise.)
And I rather fear that this situation is likely to continue
indefinitely. I certainly have no intention of trying to
change the world's opinion of him - I will leave that to
Dolly Wraight's successors at the Marlowe Society. I am
interested only in discovering the truth for myself.
Just for you, however, let us look at what you seem to
think that he was like - "homosexual, atheist, drunken
street brawler".
Homosexual? There was, of course no such concept at that
time. But did it exist? Of course it did, presumably more
or less as much as it does today. Sodomy was a capital
crime, in fact, but is there any evidence of his having
been suspected of that? Not a whit.
Your belief has it's origins, of course, in the remarks of
an informer, determined to destroy him, who alleged that
he had said "That all they that love not tobacco and boys
were fools". We must first of all wonder whether he did in
fact say that, of course, but even if he did, would that
make him a homosexual?
I think not, since the Catch-22 for all male homosexuals
is that they fancy real *men*, and that such men tend not
to fancy them! Boys are, by definition, not men, and some
can, in suitable make up and clothing, make very desirable
pseudo-females. In an all-male theatrical company, there-
fore, the homosexuals would probably go for the male leads,
whereas everyone else would find themselves attracted to
the *boys*.
*Edward II* is given as evidence that he must have been
gay. Why? Tamburlaine certainly wasn't, nor Faustus, nor
the Guise, nor Mortimer. That *Edward II* was in any case
clearly aimed at James VI of Scotland has been convincingly
argued by Lawrence Normand ("What passions call you these?",
in Grantley & Roberts's *Christopher Marlowe and English
Renaissance Culture*)
That Jupiter and Neptune also (allegedly) found a beautiful
young man to their liking, and that Marlowe reflected this
in his works can tell us nothing about his own sexual
orientation, either.
I do nevertheless believe that he was probably, in modern
terms, bi-sexual. But this stems almost entirely from my
belief that he probably wrote the works of Shakespeare (and
that Pequigny was probably right) rather than from any
historical or literary evidence about Marlowe.
Atheist? Well, I think that may be correct, and certainly
in the terms in which that they tended to use the word.
Freethinkers would certainly have been described thus. I
suspect, however, that far more people shared his view than
anyone imagined at the time, but that he was one of few
brave (or foolhardy) enough to express his opinions openly.
Drunken? No he was a teetotaller. Or rather, there is as
much evidence for this as there is for his ever having been
the worse for drink. Hotson, who quite imaginatively
described what happened at Deptford as a "tavern brawl" and
that "in all probability the men had been drinking deep",
has a lot to answer for. The inquisition itself, of course,
gives no indication of this whatsoever.
Street brawler? What a picture that brings to mind. His
poet/dramatist colleagues Jonson and Watson actually killed
someone, whereas there is no evidence (before 30 May 1593,
which you know I dispute) of Marlowe ever having physically
injured anybody in his life! There were certainly a few
occasions when a physical confrontation occurred, but by no
means more than seems to have been fairly normal for the
times. Kyd's reference to 'privy injuries' is much more
likely to have referred to verbal attack, and perhaps this
would cause others physically to attack him in reply. The
characters most nearly approximating the way I see him are
probably Oscar Wilde and Cyrano de Bergerac (the latter for
other reasons too, of course), neither of whom are (imho)
likely to have been the first to attack anyone physically,
but who said things likely to cause others to attack them.
You ask for "Readers Digest version of the future value to
the queen that Marlowe stood to offer". I won't do that,
but as I happen to be reading Michael Wood's book at the
moment, I think a few quotations might be helpful.
"The government cottoned on early to the potential import-
ance of the theatre for the dissemination of ideas... It
had been Elizabeth's spymaster Walsingham, for example,
who had set up the Queen's Men, taking the best talent
from everywhere not because he loved the theatre - there
is no evidence that he ever went to a play - but because
he wanted to put the most influencial medium of the day
to his own use." (p.120)
[In fact this was news to me. Regrettably, Wood gives no
references, so does anyone know where this might have come
from?]
"The plays of his schooldays had been either the tradit-
ional mysteries and moralities, or academic tragedies
and comedies; in the mid-1580s the rhyming verse of the
Queen's Men had become all the rage. But the rise of a
new kind of blank verse during that decade would soon
turn the drama into an effective mass medium with appeal
across the board. And when Shakespeare hit London the
trendsetters were Thomas Kyd and above all Christopher
Marlowe." (p.120)
"Eventually his brand of history [ie the Henry VI trilogy]
would run the Queen's Men out of town and out of business."
(p.138)
"In the same month that *The Rape of Lucrece* was registered
[June 1594, after a very long closure of the theatres],
Shakespeare, with Burbage, joined a new company formed by
the Lord Chamberlain Hunsdon, the company with which he
would work for the rest of his career."
Whether Wood is accurate in all of his details or not, I
think he gives a strong argument as to why Marlowe's
undoubted mastery as a playwright would have been a very
good reason for ensuring his survival.
We should perhaps add to that the 1587 words of the Privy
Council (no less), who said that Christopher Marlowe "had
done her Majesty good service and deserved to be rewarded
for his faithful dealing", and that there were indications
that he might still be doing so. Given all this, the case
for ensuring that his atheist "mouth should be stopped",
but that he remain able to offer good service in the future
(especially if the case were pressed by the two Cecils and
others) would have been very persuasive indeed.
Whether 'Shakespeare' (whoever he was) did actually provide
such a service is a whole 'nother matter, and well worth a
thread all of its own.
Meanwhile, my present views about the 'death' are much in
evidence at the website below, and should you find either
the information or the reasoning therein to be lacking,
do please tell.
lowercase dave
work? Besides having metaphors that make sense, what else would you
change or add? I apologize for not keeping my end up better, but one
thing and another, no excuses. More below:
loren...@aol.com (Lorenzo4344) wrote in message news:<20030808051036...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: Rime Royal
> >From: graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave)
> >Date: 8/7/2003
>
> >Bob, we can judge ourselves using the following proposed system, which
> >needs further development, but let's not make it too complicated.
>
> >1. verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter (if not, then for sound
> >aesthetic reason, not laziness)
>
> There's more than one way to skin a sonnet,
> Than "A-B", "A-B" (thrice-over), envoy:
> But ten syllables a line? Yes.You bet,
> Quite inviolate. It must happen. Boy,
> Were those ten syllables, let's say, to be, oh, twelve,
> Now and then it would come as something of a shock,
> Do you know what I mean? Here - let me delve,
> Into ten syllable's-worth of pure awk-
> Wardness to illustrate how awkwardness,
> Ill-accented, falsely gallop'd, and such,
> Ten-syll'bl'd's still po'try - nine, a mess;
> Is too few, just as eleven is too much.
> O, would, Davey, now that you're syll'ble-wise,
> I could 'splain to you how "iamb" applies.
Okay, Lorenzo, you're the master, sure,
No argument from me, but what's your claim?
And can I please administer a cure?
Please patiently explain why you defame
My iamb verse and silly my name?
If your consulting makes my verses tighter,
I'll 'ply your 'dvice and be a better writer.
> >2. rimes must be exact.
>
> Moon, Joon.
You are so clever. What is your point again? Are you saying you don't
accept this criterion?
elsewhere a reader has found fault with riming "was" and "does"
It must be dialectic, because in my east-midwest u.s. dialect they
sound the same. So i spose there should be some latitude in that area.
After all, Shakespeare's sonnets also contain words that don't rhyme
by today's standards because of shifting pronunciation.
>
> >3. points for poetic devices, such as metaphor.
>
> As is the sun which beats upon the sea,
> Both warming and absorbing what it tends,
> So are my verses - paradoxically -
> A mad confusion, that me musie sends.
> My metaphor seems, does it not, some dense?
> But then, you don't require that it make sense.
Good point.
Metaphors that make sense. Thus is sound consensus built.
> >4. verses must be "true" allowing for poetic license, i.e.
> >possibilities, but no outright historical lies (like Shakespeare in
> >Love premise)
>
> Does this exclude the story of the bard, --- NO
> From Stratford? Or your ever-living Kit? --- NO
> And must we scorn to play the Francis card? -- NO
> Hang-hog 'em all, I care me not a whit.
> I pray you mark me gravely serious,
> The truth be told, "Nil Vero Verius."
Nil Vero Verius, who can deny?
But it proves next-to-nothing Shakespeare-wise.
Too bad Ned's fans believe they can rely
On Latin platitudes, and rosey lies,
Since nought in Ned's biography applies
To make it feasible that he would print
Lucrece to Henry W., no hint.
> >5. one rewrite is allowed to get it right.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho,
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho.
Of course anyone is free to revise their verses as much as they want
to, but in terms of the game, one rewrite. Why not?
In the end whichever candidate has the most rime royal verse written
about their candidate wins the prize. Sorry, Lorry, but Farey's verses
also count in Marlowe's column. But the good news is other Oxfrodians
can join in as well. Okay? So you're in the lead, but it's early in
the game.
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ho HO
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ho HO
Omarlo
"Mark the mustard"
Terry Ross
[snip]
>
> I think not, since the Catch-22 for all male homosexuals
> is that they fancy real *men*, and that such men tend not
> to fancy them! Boys are, by definition, not men, and some
> can, in suitable make up and clothing, make very desirable
> pseudo-females. In an all-male theatrical company, there-
> fore, the homosexuals would probably go for the male leads,
> whereas everyone else would find themselves attracted to
> the *boys*.
That may be a catch, but it's not a "catch-22". There are a great many
catches in the world, but catch-22 has a very specific meaning.
"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants
to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a
concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and
immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be
grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no
longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to
fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly
them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't
want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the
absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful
whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Farey
Terry Ross wrote:
>
> That may be a catch, but it's not a "catch-22". There are a great many
> catches in the world, but catch-22 has a very specific meaning.
>
> "You mean there's a catch?"
>
> "Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants
> to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."
>
> There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a
> concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and
> immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be
> grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no
> longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to
> fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly
> them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't
> want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the
> absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful
> whistle.
>
> "That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
>
> "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Thanks for reminding me, Terry. One of my top ten
favourite books, that one, to which my dilapidated
copy bears witness. I was practically singing along
with your quotation!
Sure there is only the one catch, and it's the best
there is, but won't you even allow me an analogy?
"Hello, is that the homosexuals' club?"
"It is indeed, sir. How may I assist you?"
"I would like to become a member."
"I see, and why would that be, sir?"
"Well, because I am homosexual, I suppose."
"Ah, then I am afraid that it will not be
possible."
"Why on earth not?"
"Well you see, sir, our members are interested
in having as members only real men, macho men.
And men who fancy *other* men hardly fit that
description, do they?"
"Alright then, I'm *not* a homosexual after all.
I was only pretending. Now may I join?"
"I'm afraid not, sir."
"Why not?"
"Because, as you know very well, sir, our club
membership is restricted to homosexuals. Now,
if that will be all?"
DaveMore
Okay, Lorenzo, you're the doctor, sure;
No argument from me, but what's your claim?
That my poor verse is sic without a cure?
Be patient, won't you, doc? It's but a game:
My limping lines can heal; no more be lame:
If your consulting makes my verses tighter,
I'll 'ply your 'dvice and be a better writer.
and then i wrote...
>Nil Vero Verius, who can deny?
>But it proves next-to-nothing Shakespeare-wise.
>Too bad Ned's fans believe they can rely
>On Latin platitudes, and rosey lies,
>Since nought in Ned's biography applies
>To make it feasible that he would print
>Lucrece to Henry W., no hint.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Bob Grumman
Dave, my "dream" is based on such facts as names on title-pages; what
comparable facts are yours based on?
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
The problem with your "analogy" is that you reduce all catches to number
22. Give your catch a different number, if you like, or don't number it
at all. One baleful effect of the novel is that the word useful word
"catch" has become endangered.
Peter Farey
>
> The problem with your "analogy" is that you reduce all catches
> to number 22. Give your catch a different number, if you like,
> or don't number it at all. One baleful effect of the novel is
Ah, I think I see. This was a serious protest at the way in which
the expression "Catch-22" has become a bit of a cliché, and in
the process has lost its original meaning almost entirely? If so,
I agree.
In mitigation, however, I would plead that I *do* know very well
what the original meant, and that I had that meaning in mind when
I said it. Had I not used Heller's expression, I would have used
Bateson's "double bind", which I see as being the particular
sub-set of "catch" covering both of the situations we describe.
lowercase dave
Bob, in turns of the "rules" of this thread, which i alone seem to be
concerned about, although my own reply to you was not verse (shoulda
been
This phrase, Good Bob, the motto on your crest:
"Forget the facts, what we dream up must be."
For it describes Stratfordyun thinking best,
(Though some awake, in truth, in Canterb'ry.)
And yet the dreamers' of Freemasonry
Devised a liturgy symbolic, yes?
The Folio of plays, a hoax, my guess.
If you desire evidence, i've got
a book or two supports this far-out claim;
and even will i write verse lines a lot,
to tell you how Will Shakespeare got his name;
Like Lancelot, I'll win this little game.
Although Lorenzo has much weaponry,
More Marlowe fans, it seems, write poetry.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
lowercase dave
My friends, 'tis said 'a bad weed never dies,'
But not by those who sell new herbicides
Or naturalists, who know that saying lies.
What's good or bad behavior, who decides?
What wise botanists be our guides?
A man called "William Shakespeare" might be one:
Who reckons Kit's abuses, does his own. (sonnet 121)
The slander of Kit Marley's evil ways,
Is heard, these parts, by 'n early morning riser:
A 'mess', a 'rowdy, rockin' chap', it says,
(The voice of Oxford's well-versed advertiser)
But here it's said by someone who is wiser:
Such words are false, and not contextual
Since Marley's loves were intellectual.
But Ned Devere was venally perverse:
The shallow lowlights, Alan Nelson tells.
Alas, Oxford'yuns have a deeper purse;
A flaw-struck nobleman makes cents, it sells--
Despite the Shakespeare-Marley parallels.
So here's a claim Lorenzo can explain
"DeVere's a boar of very little brain."
Beyond this, I think Peter Farey gave you an excellent summary and
refutation of the other charges vs. Marlowe, in addition to his fine
rime royal. So as I plod along and add more rime royal verses to his
and what I've already written, DeVere may at last be surpassed, at
least in the rime royal category.
But Peter tells me that contextual and intellectual don't rime. What
do our judges say?
And Lorenzo, although your original rime royal verses were very fine,
it occurred to me that DAvey Davey Davey isn't iambic. I don't really
care, it sounded fine, but some other lines of mine were criticized
for not observing strict meter.
Omarlo
"Mark the mustard"
loren...@aol.com (Lorenzo4344) wrote in message news:<20030804175347...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: Rime Royal
> >From: graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave)
> >Date: 8/3/2003
>
> >Lorenzo, yes, your rime-royal sure was
> >A thing of beauty, worthy of the best,
> >So if you don't get a rest, who does?
> >In fact, I'm hoping others take the test,
> >And gain respect (more than they would have guessed)
> >For Lucrece's rime, and what was meant
> >By ending it: "everlasting banishment."
>
> **********
>
> That is a poser, and I s'pose you mean
> To promulgate anew your idee fixe
> Wherein Kit Marlowe's absenting the scene
> In fifteen ninety-three was rigged: that reeks!
> If that old theory caulks your boat, she leaks.
> Soggier still's the dampy-handed style
> With which you angle now, sir, to beguile.
>
> Debauched, amoral, irreligious cuss -
> Young Kit was many things. Young Kyd, alack,
> Once advertised unto the world just thus;
> Of course, he did so writhing on the rack,
> And if he could he might have ta'en it back,
> E'en as young Kit, if he but could, might say,
> "OK! I'll pay! Frize! Lay thy dirk away!"
>
> But no. No recantation (that's for Bob,
> Our English whiz, neologistic branch,
> Who thinks who favors nobles be a snob.
> He's quite a card. Meanwhile, back at the ranch...)
> Forthcame, no word from Tom, nor else, to stanch
> The bleeding reputation of the man
> Who fell to earth there nigh the Deptford Strand.
>
> The Kitster was a rowdy, rockin' chap,
> As those who knew him ne'er have e'er denied,
> And tragic as his themes, so too his hap,
> In sooth, the legend's yet to be belied:
> Ah, Davey, Davey, Davey - Marlowe died.
> Was banished to the fires of Hell, I guess,
> Assuming they'd accept such sorry mess.
>
> But banished from the realm? As Tarquin was?
> For what? By whom? His friends of high estate?
> To spare him from himself? I see no cause,
> To think this was the great playmaker's fate.
> Go to. I think the guy was born too late
> To write the works of Shake-speare anyway,
> All mostly born before he died, I say.
>
> There is a one, another, that we know,
> Who sundry times for reasons right and wrong
> Was banished from the court, flat told to go
> His ways apart and separate from the throng
> About the throne, and so arose a song,
> Nay, sev'ral, in lament of said disgrace
> You seem to hold as pert'nent to your case.
>
> Well, it seems evident to me that you
> Stand ready here to make a crafty speech,
> So I will ease back in my cushy pew
> To hear the sermon you must needs now preach.
> And though I'm sure it's sure to be a reach,
> Yet, here's a line wherewith to improvise:
> "My friends, 'tis said a bad weed never dies..."
>
> Lorenzo
> "Mark the music."
Spam Scone
> bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message
> > >
> > > > > > Forget the facts, what we dream up must be!"
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a beginning, keep it up!
> > > >
> > > > I have to admit, it's sort of a fun game. But I really do have better
> > > > things to do, Dave. The above is it, for me.
> > > > --Bob G.
> > >
> > > Bob, that could be your motto! "Forget the facts, what we dream up must be!"
> >
> > Dave, my "dream" is based on such facts as names on title-pages; what
> > comparable facts are yours based on?
> > --Bob G.
>
> Bob, in turns of the "rules" of this thread, which i alone seem to be
> concerned about, although my own reply to you was not verse (shoulda
> been
In other words, 'do as I say, not as I do'?
> This phrase, Good Bob, the motto on your crest:
> "Forget the facts, what we dream up must be."
> For it describes Stratfordyun thinking best,
> (Though some awake, in truth, in Canterb'ry.)
> And yet the dreamers' of Freemasonry
> Devised a liturgy symbolic, yes?
> The Folio of plays, a hoax, my guess.
>
> If you desire evidence, i've got
> a book or two supports this far-out claim;
> and even will i write verse lines a lot,
> to tell you how Will Shakespeare got his name;
> Like Lancelot, I'll win this little game.
> Although Lorenzo has much weaponry,
> More Marlowe fans, it seems, write poetry.
Stillborn thought fills the Marlovian rank,
posting nonsense of all hue, stripe, and shape,
Including claims from a lowercase crank
That I faked reading the whole Shakespeare's "Rape".
Apology is sought, no less or More,
We ask for response, lowercase will ignore,
Proving what all know, lowercase is a whore.
lowercase dave
There's stillborn thought, alright. Sorry to say, because I try to be
generous in my assessments, but this "rime royal" is really awful, it
doesn't deserve rime royal back, for the author proves himself a hack.
1) it doesn't have the rime scheme right
2) the metrics are horrendous
DAH dah DAH DAH dah dah DAH dah dah DAH (ouch)
DAH day DAH dah DAH dah, DAH, dah DAH
dah DAH dah DAH (there ya go) dah dah DAH dah dah DAH
I give up. (you get one rewrite Neil Brennen)
p.s. Apology for WHAT? I said I doubted you read Lucrece, you said you
did and pointed me a discussion thread in which your one sentece
contribution was that you liked it more than you thought you would.
Well, fine. Good for you. I'll take your word for it. But apologize?
C'mon man, get real. Or as they say in Philly, where i'm from, ph*que
you.
Next!?
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
richard kennedy
"2.. rimes must be exact."
Doesn't apply to Dave, I guess, as he gives us.
one/soon, and ways/says
Brennen faults also, and Lorenzo is a total outlaw, Shakespeare's sort
of guy, giving us:
fixe/reeks
man/strand
was/cause
sends/dense
No, Mister More, your rule is a goner,
Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander
Take your instructions elsewhere to other
Poets to bother, rhymes you can bugger
Makers of rules are often offenders,
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.0308...@posting.google.com>...
Lorenzo4344
>Lorenzo, are you saying that the criteria I suggested to Bob won't work?
Besides having metaphors that make sense, what else would you change or add? I
apologize for not keeping my end up better, but one thing and another, no
excuses. More below:
Dave, I am saying that the last thing in this world I want to do is participate
in a poetry contest, especially one with, barring knowledge of the rhyme
scheme, rules. I am just trying to have me some fun. More below:
loren...@aol.com (Lorenzo4344) wrote in message
news:<20030808051036...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> > >Subject: Re: Rime Royal
> > >From: graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave)
> > >Date: 8/7/2003
> >
> > >Bob, we can judge ourselves using the following proposed system, which
needs further development, but let's not make it too complicated.
>
> > >1. verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter (if not, then for sound
aesthetic reason, not laziness)
> >
> > There's MORE than ONE way TO skin A sonNET,
> > Than "A-b", "A-b" (THRICE-ovER), enVOY:
> > But TEN sylLAbles A line? YES.You BET,
> > Quite INviOlate. IT must HAPpen. BOY,
> > Were THOSE ten SYLlaBLES, let's SAY, to BE, oh, TWELVE,
> > Now AND then IT would COME as SOMEthing Of a SHOCK,
> > Do YOU know WHAT I MEAN? Here - LET me DELVE,
> > InTO ten SYLlaBLES'S-worth OF pure AWK-
> > WardNESS to ILlusTRATE how AWKwardNESS,
> > Ill-ACcentED, falseLY galLOP'D, and SUCH,
> > Ten-SYLl'bl'd's STILL po'TRY - nine, A mess;
> > IS too FEW, just AS eLEVen IS too MUCH.
> > O, WOULD, DaVEY, now THAT you're SYLl'ble-WISE,
> > I Could 'splain TO you HOW "iAMB" apPLIES.
>Okay, Lorenzo, you're the master, sure,
>No argument from me, but what's your claim?
>And can I please administer a cure?
>Please patiently explain why you defame
>My iamb verse and silly my name?
>If your consulting makes my verses tighter,
>I'll 'ply your 'dvice and be a better writer.
I am just trying to have me some fun with your rules by playing with your
rules. I am not making fun of your poetry, but, rather, having fun with mine. I
think I show that verses MUST BE strictly iambic pentameter in a sound
unaesthic manner. I originally bold faced every other syllable as a "hidden"
clue to the iambiness and have capitalized them above for your further
unaesthic pleasure; they are more visually perverse trudging along there
regardless of the stresses in the words themselves. And I mean not to silly
your name by familiarity. I was just mentally associating you, I guess, with my
good friend Davey Atkinson, a fine fellow. I apologize; perhaps I've done you
both a disservice.
> > >2. rimes must be exact.
> >
> >Moon, Joon.
You are so clever. What is your point again? Are you saying you don't accept
this criterion?
I was just trying to have me some fun.
>elsewhere a reader has found fault with riming "was" and "does" It must be
dialectic, because in my east-midwest u.s. dialect they sound the same.
The work we done was hard
At night we'd sleep, cause we were tired...
Loretta Lynn, Kentuckian
"Coal Miner's Daughter"
>So i spose there should be some latitude in that area. After all,
Shakespeare's sonnets also contain words that don't rhyme by today's standards
because of shifting pronunciation.
Well, so you say, yet I would dearly love
To know if that's a thing that you can prove?
> > >3. points for poetic devices, such as metaphor.
> >
> >As is the sun which beats upon the sea,
> >Both warming and absorbing what it tends,
> >So are my verses - paradoxically -
> >A mad confusion, that me musie sends.
> >My metaphor seems, does it not, some dense?
> >But then, you don't require that it make sense.
>Good point. Metaphors that make sense. Thus is sound consensus built.
I was just trying to have me some fun.
> > >4. verses must be "true" allowing for poetic license, i.e. possibilities,
but no outright historical lies (like Shakespeare in Love premise)
> >
> >Does this exclude the story of the bard, --- NO
> >From Stratford? Or your ever-living Kit? --- NO
> >And must we scorn to play the Francis card? -- NO
> >Hang-hog 'em all, I care me not a whit.
> >I pray you mark me gravely serious,
> >The truth be told, "Nil Vero Verius."
>Nil Vero Verius, who can deny?
>But it proves next-to-nothing Shakespeare-wise.
>Too bad Ned's fans believe they can rely
>On Latin platitudes, and rosey lies,
>Since nought in Ned's biography applies
>To make it feasible that he would print
>Lucrece to Henry W., no hint.
I was just trying to have me some gravely serious.
> > >5. one rewrite is allowed to get it right.
> >
> >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
> >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
> >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
> >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
> >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho,
> >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho.
>Of course anyone is free to revise their verses as much as they want to, but
in terms of the game, one rewrite. Why not?
Why one? Writing is rewriting. How would anyone know anyway? I wrote the sonnet
up there in 1999. Just substituted a "Davey" for the original "Charlotte," and
let 'er fly.
>In the end whichever candidate has the most rime royal verse written about
their candidate wins the prize. Sorry, Lorry, but Farey's verses also count in
Marlowe's column. But the good news is other Oxfrodians can join in as well.
Okay? So you're in the lead, but it's early in the game.
If sheer volume poetry be, you might as well, even if you gang up on me, send
the laurel this way. I can do this stuff, for better or worse, all day. It's me
briar patch. I enjoy versifying. I do not, BTW, have any complaints at all
about any of the poems that have gone through this thread. Some fun.
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ho HO
Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ho HO
Omarlo
"Mark the mustard"
Good beat, Omarlorry, marchable. Still, I think my V&A stanza is more to the
unaesthetic point.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Lorenzo4344
>From: dave...@aol.com (DaveMore)
>Date: 8/9/2003
>i hate when that happens--words left out inadvertently, but here's my rewrite
>
>Okay, Lorenzo, you're the doctor, sure;
>No argument from me, but what's your claim?
>That my poor verse is sic without a cure?
>Be patient, won't you, doc? It's but a game:
>My limping lines can heal; no more be lame:
>If your consulting makes my verses tighter,
>I'll 'ply your 'dvice and be a better writer.
Good post-op, Dave. Well-mended. Yet, I think everyone knows that "claim/game"
and "tighter/writer" are diseased. Ooooh. Unclean! Too, while I love
apostrophes and the leeway contractions provide, I would suggest, "d'vice."
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Lorenzo4344
giving us:
>
>fixe/reeks
>man/strand
>was/cause
>sends/dense
Good eye, Richard. I thought fixe/reeks was especially cool. Neil merely muffed
the rhyme scheme. David Webb, in reply to one of your patented rabble-rouser
saddle-burrs, elsewhere demonstrates excellence in this area:
"That tiresome, senile dead-horse-flogger'll
Spew forth some slop of scanless rhyme
(And post it for the fifteenth time),
Oxfordian, demented doggerel."
Dee-lishous. And some folks pooh-pooh Ogden Nash!
>No, Mister More, your rule is a goner,
>Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander
>Take your instructions elsewhere to other
>Poets to bother, rhymes you can bugger
>Makers of rules are often offenders,
>Sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders
I see in your over-exemplification of false-rhyme, you've reverted to blank
verse. Well, as Dave said in the first place, it is easier.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross wrote:
> >
> > The problem with your "analogy" is that you reduce all catches
> > to number 22. Give your catch a different number, if you like,
> > or don't number it at all. One baleful effect of the novel is
> > that the useful word "catch" has become endangered.
>
> Ah, I think I see. This was a serious protest at the way in which the
> expression "Catch-22" has become a bit of a cliché, and in the process
> has lost its original meaning almost entirely? If so, I agree.
I would be willing to lose the expression "Catch-22" if we could get the
word "catch" back." I would be willing to distract you with the word
"catch" if it would put you off expressing your view of homosexuals.
>
> In mitigation, however, I would plead that I *do* know very well what
> the original meant, and that I had that meaning in mind when I said it.
You're only making things worse on both counts, I'm afraid. Most catches
are not "Catch-22"; your view of the bind you believe "all male
homosexuals" are in is even more unfortunate than your misuse of Heller.
> Had I not used Heller's expression, I would have used Bateson's "double
> bind", which I see as being the particular sub-set of "catch" covering
> both of the situations we describe.
>
I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. If I allow inadvertent bigotry
free play, then I am implicated by my silence in the tone that affects
this group when the discussion gets near the topic of homosexuality; if I
get on my high horse then I make more prominent an issue that many people
had not noticed was on the table. I thought I could spin the
discussion into another direction by a pedantic distraction, but I
failed, so now I have to saddle up ol' Fleabiscuit.
I'm sure most of us know what it is like to have been attracted to someone
who wants nothing to do with us; those for whom this experience is unknown
can read *No Exit* or listen to sad songs of unrequited love -- by no
endeavour can magnet ever attract a silver churn. Why must discussions of
homosexuality be based on implausible generalizations (this is what
they're all like, you know) from which the observer implicitly distances
himself (I hope you don't think I'm one of THEM)? Some of the readers of
this newsgroup are probably straight, and some are probably gay, and some
may wish to resist either classification. Most of us have some experience
with love and sex, and while each of us has a unique emotional history,
that history is probably compounded of elements that most of the rest of
us can recognize in our own histories. Wouldn't you agree?
Be careful, there may be a catch.
lowercase dave
> I see, Dave More wrote the rule:
>
> "2.. rimes must be exact."
>
> Doesn't apply to Dave, I guess, as he gives us.
>
> one/soon, and ways/says
help me out there, richard, i don't remember these, but i don't deny
it.
was it in one of my rime royal poems? If so, they must be change.
> Brennen faults also,
Does he ever!
and Lorenzo is a total outlaw, Shakespeare's sort
> of guy, giving us:
>
> fixe/reeks ---------- I think this is brilliant perfect rhyme, isn't it? what say the French'ers.
> man/strand
> was/cause
> sends/dense
>
> No, Mister More, your rule is a goner, --- TETRAMETER
> Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander -- TETRAM
> Take your instructions elsewhere to other - TETR
> Poets to bother, rhymes you can bugger -- TET
> Makers of rules are often offenders, -- TET
> Sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders -- TE
ALL HEADLESS LINES, not iambic pentameter either.
Not trying to be a prick, Dick.
Your verses have their folksy style
It's just the rules of "rime royal,"
I didn't make them up. Quick
Try again, get upon the horse,
You'll much improve, not get much worse.
Note: this is not an attempt to be rime royal, just hurried lines, so
I don't expect to be "judged" by those who have attempted the form.
When I violated the rules before, Groves and JWK pointed it out, so I
tried again. So far, only Farey, Lorry, Grummy, and I have made
serious attempts, but that doesn't mean that you and others can not
try as well.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Spam Scone
> tartak...@hotmail.com (Spam Scone) wrote in message news:<76ba5964.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > posting nonsense of all hue, stripe, and shape,
> > Including claims from a lowercase crank
> > That I faked reading the whole Shakespeare's "Rape".
> > Apology is sought, no less or More,
> > We ask for response, lowercase will ignore,
> > Proving what all know, lowercase is a whore.
>
> There's stillborn thought, alright. Sorry to say, because I try to be
> generous in my assessments, but this "rime royal" is really awful, it
> doesn't deserve rime royal back, for the author proves himself a hack.
Why should I waste good rime royal, or even good doggerel, on the likes of you?
> 1) it doesn't have the rime scheme right
> 2) the metrics are horrendous
>
> DAH dah DAH DAH dah dah DAH dah dah DAH (ouch)
> DAH day DAH dah DAH dah, DAH, dah DAH
> dah DAH dah DAH (there ya go) dah dah DAH dah dah DAH
> I give up. (you get one rewrite Neil Brennen)
In the words of Reginald Bunthorne, "I shall not publish it."
> p.s. Apology for WHAT? I said I doubted you read Lucrece, you said you
> did and pointed me a discussion thread in which your one sentece
> contribution was that you liked it more than you thought you would.
> Well, fine. Good for you. I'll take your word for it. But apologize?
You just admitted your error. Apology accepted.
> C'mon man, get real. Or as they say in Philly, where i'm from, ph*que
> you.
That should be "Yo! Ph*que you!" Any REAL Philadelphian would know that. :-)
Spam Scone
> >Brennen faults also, and Lorenzo is a total outlaw, Shakespeare's sort of guy,
> giving us:
> >
> >fixe/reeks
> >man/strand
> >was/cause
> >sends/dense
>
> Good eye, Richard. I thought fixe/reeks was especially cool. Neil merely muffed
> the rhyme scheme.
I agree. I was caught in a sort of poetic frenzy, working on the
More/ignore/whore triplet.
David Webb, in reply to one of your patented rabble-rouser
> saddle-burrs, elsewhere demonstrates excellence in this area:
>
> "That tiresome, senile dead-horse-flogger'll
> Spew forth some slop of scanless rhyme
> (And post it for the fifteenth time),
> Oxfordian, demented doggerel."
>
> Dee-lishous. And some folks pooh-pooh Ogden Nash!
And light verse in general.
> >No, Mister More, your rule is a goner,
> >Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander
> >Take your instructions elsewhere to other
> >Poets to bother, rhymes you can bugger
> >Makers of rules are often offenders,
> >Sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders
>
> I see in your over-exemplification of false-rhyme, you've reverted to blank
> verse. Well, as Dave said in the first place, it is easier.
> Lorenzo
> "Mark the music."
Lorenzo, any idea why Dave More is so obsessive about this rime royal
rap? He seems to think his online doggerel is in some way important.
Lorenzo4344
>From: tartak...@hotmail.com (Spam Scone)
>Date: 8/10/2003
>Lorenzo, any idea why Dave More is so obsessive about this rime royal
>rap? He seems to think his online doggerel is in some way important.
His original idea, that some folks here, in trying their hand at verse, might
gain further insight into, if not authorship, then certainly the poet's craft,
and the pastimes of the age upon which we all here dwell, is probably right. I
think that was the idea. Maybe it was something about Marlowe, Rime Royal, and
Lucrece. I will sometimes forget this and that.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
richard kennedy
"Not trying to be a prick, Dick.
(it doesn't scan)
Your verses have their folksy style
(this passes)
It's just the rules of "rime royal,"
(only if we say "rime roYAL", not good)
I didn't make them up. Quick
(lacks one beat, ends badly)
Try again, get upon the horse,
(very bad, & "upon" doesn't fit)
You'll much improve, not get much worse.
(nor will your effort with this poem)
Altogether, a somewhat scattered effort. A single metaphor, and that
was borrowed. Low marks. Yet you could help us by showing how you wish
the thing stressed. Does it go....:
not TRY ing to BE a PRICK, DICK ? or is it...
NOT try ING to BE a PRICK, DICK ?
your VER ses HAVE their FOLK sy STYLE which is okay
See if you can correct the others, and where in the world did you get
that rule about only ONE re-writing?!! What's that, no more than two
grunts you say?
an UG ly RULE, be GOT by DAVE
a MOST re TEN ive ARCH i TRAVE
Peter Farey
Yes, I would agree. And there certainly is a catch, since it
is not really clear to me just what you took exception to.
You are presumably not saying that homosexuality is a subject
that should not be raised here. Or are you? Clearly such a
subject can bring out bigoted comments, but it's pretty hard
to avoid it when the subject is Marlowe's character, or what
the Sonnets tell us about Shakespeare.
If you are complaining that my saying that "all homosexuals"
face this dilemma was an unwarranted generalization, then of
course you are right, and I should have been much more careful
in my choice of words. It sounds like a stereotype, and it was
certainly never intended to be that. In any case, it would
have made little difference to my argument whether I had said
"all", "most", "many" or "some".
Or do you claim that what I said displayed bigotry, whether
"inadvertent" or not? If so, then I must heartily disagree.
My own elder son is gay, and I love him not one iota less for
that. And it was he who explained this paradox to me, which
came as quite a surprise, but which made perfect sense to me
once I thought about it.
Whether correct or not, however, my point remains - for
a man working with an all-male theatrical troupe, saying
that "all they that love not tobacco and boys were fools"
does not necessarily mean that he is homosexual.
lowercase dave
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Perhaps because I've never been on the receiving end of a personal
attack by Richard "Dick" Kennedy before, I'm a bit nonplussed. I
thought was a smart and decent guy, with *at least* B talent as a
poet. (Note the 'at least', Richard will have a chance to be an *A*
poet later in this post.) But first i must say i'm disappointed in him
because he ignored my very clear statement that the lines he comments
on below were not being offered up to criticism (since they were
hurriedly written on a very busy day that including family visitors
and a friend's funeral service). You can read my "second draft" below.
Neither Richard (nor Neil Brennen) seem to understand my purpose in
issuing the challenge, or invitation, if you will, to write a stanza
or two or rime royal, in solidarity with "the bard" who wrote 265 of
them, 1,855 high quality lines in his spare time one year. I maintain
that neither William nor Ned DeVere, nor for that matter, Bacon. I'm
asking those who disagree to do so in rime royal. I've gone further
(to make it interesting) and issued a challenge to hlas poets. So far,
only Peter F. and Lorenzo (his real name?) have risen to the occasion,
oh and Bob G.
Perhaps if Richard had the start of this thread, he'd know that my own
verses were cricized and I amended them. He'd also know that currently
Edward DeVere has more quality and quantity verses than either Marlowe
or Shak(e)spere or Bacon believers. But Marlovians are gaining fast.
Shakespeareans wisely refrain.
If Richard isn't up to the challenge, I understand. After writing 7 or
8 stanzas of this form myself, I know how much more difficult it is to
write than the more natural(?) tetrameter line which Richard uses
pretty well, or blank verse, as Tom Reedy now knows.
I think Richard thinks that I'm a rulerian, i'm not. I would argue for
NOT having a strictly iambic line. (as Lorenzo has) and headless lines
okay, too, for rhetorical effect.
How flexible we are on the rime scheme is should be UP TO THOSE WHO
HAVE ACTUALLY WRITTEN RIME ROYAL IN THIS THREAD. It's like we're on
the court, playing a little ball and Richard is on the sidelines
calling fouls instead of joining the game.
GET THIS RICHARD: Neither of us had a problem with those rimes,
either, so relax.
I DIDN'T MAKE UP THE RULES for rime royal. IT WAS CHAUCER who
introduced rime royal to English.
My purpose for issuing the challenge was to teach those who glibly say
that Rape of Lucrece (read it Richard?) was an inferior production.
Or, like Crowley, juvenile, rather than a masterpiece on an important
topic: abuses of tyrants and the need for a republican (old style)
form of gov.),written in a form appropriate to the subject to an
influential young nobleman.
Once you get the hang of it, it's fun. Richard Kennedy should try it
his own self, instead of complaining about the rules, or attempting to
shift the burden back to me.
Don't mean to be a prick, old Dick,
Your verses have a flowing folksy style.
I've got to hand it to you, take a lick
At Will's rime-royal. It may take awhile
To get the meter right with no denial,
So, smile Dicky, do, and take a shot:
Rime royally for Ned DeVere, why not?
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
lowercase dave
> giving us:
> >
> >fixe/reeks
> >man/strand
> >was/cause
> >sends/dense
>
> Good eye, Richard. I thought fixe/reeks was especially cool. Neil merely muffed
> the rhyme scheme.
Merely muffed the rime scheme? ARE YOU SERIOUS?!! C'mon Lorenzo, how
can you say (only) that? His verses offended rules of metrics, rhyme
and good taste. They were too bad to bother with because the subject
matter was not about Shakespeare, but about me, nothing to say on teh
topic of Shakespeare authorship. What's the point? Riming my last name
with "whore"? Gee, that's a good one. Like Lorenzo rimes with "men's
ho". ;-)
more below
David Webb, in reply to one of your patented rabble-rouser
> saddle-burrs, elsewhere demonstrates excellence in this area:
>
> "That tiresome, senile dead-horse-flogger'll
> Spew forth some slop of scanless rhyme
> (And post it for the fifteenth time),
> Oxfordian, demented doggerel."
>
> Dee-lishous. And some folks pooh-pooh Ogden Nash!
>
> >No, Mister More, your rule is a goner,
> >Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander
> >Take your instructions elsewhere to other
> >Poets to bother, rhymes you can bugger
> >Makers of rules are often offenders,
> >Sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders
>
> I see in your over-exemplification of false-rhyme, you've reverted to blank
> verse. Well, as Dave said in the first place, it is easier.
>
> Lorenzo
> "Mark the music."
Isn't blank verse iambic pentameter? Kennedy appears to be stuck in
four beats (tetrameter), he should try to squeeze out another plunk
per line before getting up from his toiling seat.
Will you be favoring us with more examples of your own delicious
verses? Is Lorenzo your real name? If not, then in this thread, call
me "Omarlo" (it has a nice iambic ring.) You can call me Ray, too, if
you want. But you doesn't have to call me Jonson.
omarlo
"mark the mustard"
---
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
lowercase dave
>
> >Lorenzo, are you saying that the criteria I suggested to Bob won't work?
> Besides having metaphors that make sense, what else would you change or add? I
> apologize for not keeping my end up better, but one thing and another, no
> excuses. More below:
>
> Dave, I am saying that the last thing in this world I want to do is participate
> in a poetry contest, especially one with, barring knowledge of the rhyme
> scheme, rules. I am just trying to have me some fun. More below:
Me too. It's no easy task writing in rime royal. I also prefer a less
rigid rime scheme, such as blank verse, which I imagine you can write
very well also. More below:
those verses weren't meant for posting, so don't worry, i didn't
really take offense. I liked your verses a lot, as I told you. And my
"post-op" was more reflective of how I feel and think. I'm not sure
how fine a fellow I am, but I do my best to be.
> > > >2. rimes must be exact.
> > >
> > >Moon, Joon.
>
> You are so clever. What is your point again? Are you saying you don't accept
> this criterion?
>
> I was just trying to have me some fun.
Very well, carry on then
> >elsewhere a reader has found fault with riming "was" and "does" It must be
> dialectic, because in my east-midwest u.s. dialect they sound the same.
>
> The work we done was hard
> At night we'd sleep, cause we were tired...
>
> Loretta Lynn, Kentuckian
> "Coal Miner's Daughter"
Do you think it sound better "cause we WAS tired (tarred)"?
> >So i spose there should be some latitude in that area. After all,
> Shakespeare's sonnets also contain words that don't rhyme by today's standards
> because of shifting pronunciation.
>
> Well, so you say, yet I would dearly love
> To know if that's a thing that you can prove?
> > > >3. points for poetic devices, such as metaphor.
> > >
> > >As is the sun which beats upon the sea,
> > >Both warming and absorbing what it tends,
> > >So are my verses - paradoxically -
> > >A mad confusion, that me musie sends.
> > >My metaphor seems, does it not, some dense?
> > >But then, you don't require that it make sense.
>
> >Good point. Metaphors that make sense. Thus is sound consensus built.
>
> I was just trying to have me some fun.
Nothing wrong with that. Still a good point.
> > > >4. verses must be "true" allowing for poetic license, i.e. possibilities,
> but no outright historical lies (like Shakespeare in Love premise)
> > >
> > >Does this exclude the story of the bard, --- NO
> > >From Stratford? Or your ever-living Kit? --- NO
> > >And must we scorn to play the Francis card? -- NO
> > >Hang-hog 'em all, I care me not a whit.
> > >I pray you mark me gravely serious,
> > >The truth be told, "Nil Vero Verius."
>
> >Nil Vero Verius, who can deny?
> >But it proves next-to-nothing Shakespeare-wise.
> >Too bad Ned's fans believe they can rely
> >On Latin platitudes, and rosey lies,
> >Since nought in Ned's biography applies
> >To make it feasible that he would print
> >Lucrece to Henry W., no hint.
>
> I was just trying to have me some gravely serious.
Ha. How 'bout it? Didn't I just post a verse poser for you?
> > > >5. one rewrite is allowed to get it right.
> > >
> > >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
> > >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
> > >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
> > >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
> > >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho,
> > >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho.
>
> >Of course anyone is free to revise their verses as much as they want to, but
> in terms of the game, one rewrite. Why not?
>
> Why one? Writing is rewriting. How would anyone know anyway?
Well, it's just in terms of this thread. OF COURSE poets can revise
their verses as often as they like, but in terms of being acceptable
in the RIME ROYAL SWEEPSTAKES, only one rewrite after receiving
(hopefully helpful) comments from fellow rime royal versifiers. My
goal is to amass 1,855 lines in one year. Kinda like putting a room
full of monkeys at typewriters and coming up with the works of
Shakespeare, except we'll have "The Rap of Luke Reese" or some such
result. The HLAS Rime Royallers. An elite corps.
I wrote the sonnet
> up there in 1999. Just substituted a "Davey" for the original "Charlotte," and
> let 'er fly.
Yo, no harm no foul.
> >In the end whichever candidate has the most rime royal verse written about
> their candidate wins the prize. Sorry, Lorry, but Farey's verses also count in
> Marlowe's column. But the good news is other Oxfrodians can join in as well.
> Okay? So you're in the lead, but it's early in the game.
>
> If sheer volume poetry be, you might as well, even if you gang up on me, send
> the laurel this way. I can do this stuff, for better or worse, all day. It's me
> briar patch. I enjoy versifying.
I do not, BTW, have any complaints at all
> about any of the poems that have gone through this thread. Some fun.
You didn't find Brennen's poem offensive on grounds of metrics, rhyme
and taste? Hmmmm. Why not?
>
> Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA
> Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
> Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA
> Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
> Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA he HE
> Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ho HO
> Ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ho HO
>
> Good beat, Omarlorry, marchable.
> Still, I think my V&A stanza is more to the
> unaesthetic point.
What V&A stanza? (sorry, Lorry, i'm also just trying to have me some
fun, well-done, my sister's a nun)
omarlo
"mark the mustard"
lowercase dave
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > tartak...@hotmail.com (Spam Scone) wrote in message news:<76ba5964.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Stillborn thought fills the Marlovian rank,
> > > posting nonsense of all hue, stripe, and shape,
> > > Including claims from a lowercase crank
> > > That I faked reading the whole Shakespeare's "Rape".
> > > Apology is sought, no less or More,
> > > We ask for response, lowercase will ignore,
> > > Proving what all know, lowercase is a whore.
> >
> > There's stillborn thought, alright. Sorry to say, because I try to be
> > generous in my assessments, but this "rime royal" is really awful, it
> > doesn't deserve rime royal back, for the author proves himself a hack.
Brennen is lying. I never said he faked reading Rape of Lucrece
(althouth I'm beginning to suspect you have.) and I challenge him to
show me where I did so.
I DID say that I doubted he read it, but he said he did, so I took his
word for it.
I'm rather surprised that Lorenzo or Grumman or Reynolds or anyone
else didn't find these verses offensive in many ways. Maybe, like me,
that don't wish to engage in dialogue with Neil. I wish he'd go away.
But it looks like I'm stuck with him for awhile.
> Why should I waste good rime royal, or even good doggerel, on the likes of you?
because I've written several decent stanzas of the form. Ask others
(the same ones who find your own verses acceptable apparently)
> > 1) it doesn't have the rime scheme right
> > 2) the metrics are horrendous
> >
> > DAH dah DAH DAH dah dah DAH dah dah DAH (ouch)
> > DAH day DAH dah DAH dah, DAH, dah DAH
> > dah DAH dah DAH (there ya go) dah dah DAH dah dah DAH
> > I give up. (you get one rewrite Neil Brennen)
>
> In the words of Reginald Bunthorne, "I shall not publish it."
>
> > p.s. Apology for WHAT? I said I doubted you read Lucrece, you said you
> > did and pointed me a discussion thread in which your one sentece
> > contribution was that you liked it more than you thought you would.
> > Well, fine. Good for you. I'll take your word for it. But apologize?
>
> You just admitted your error. Apology accepted.
>
> > C'mon man, get real. Or as they say in Philly, where i'm from, ph*que
> > you.
>
> That should be "Yo! Ph*que you!" Any REAL Philadelphian would know that. :-)
Neil, why don't you read *Hero and Leander*? If you "kinda liked"
Lucrece, you'll LOVE Leander. Seriously. For fun.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
richard kennedy
You brought it on yourself. Here's a rime royal flush for you.
The shit that goes around comes back,
To haunt the shitter, have you heard?
The toilet seat is down, so smack
Your bums to rest and grunt a turd,
Another time and mind your words.
My "Stratford Man" was shit you said,
‘Twas mere "limp crap" – it's on your head.
But forgive and forget, I say. It's just that the Stratfordian squat
of Knave, Kathman, Reedy, etc. doesn't forward the debate, and I hope
you give it up.
As for the Oxfordians, they must fend for themselves, I'm a Gumbonian.
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Bob Grumman
> else didn't find these verses offensive in many ways.
ME?! Find something OFFENSIVE!?? HLAS isn't offensive enough for me,
Dave--you know that! I think Neil's calling you a whore didn't make
much sense, but I'm sure he just used that word to make his rhyme.
Hey, what I DO find offensive if that you found Neil's poem more
offensive than my rime royal.
--Bob G.
Spam Scone
> tartak...@hotmail.com (Spam Scone) wrote in message news:<76ba5964.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > tartak...@hotmail.com (Spam Scone) wrote in message news:<76ba5964.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Stillborn thought fills the Marlovian rank,
> > > > posting nonsense of all hue, stripe, and shape,
> > > > Including claims from a lowercase crank
> > > > That I faked reading the whole Shakespeare's "Rape".
> > > > Apology is sought, no less or More,
> > > > We ask for response, lowercase will ignore,
> > > > Proving what all know, lowercase is a whore.
> > >
> > > There's stillborn thought, alright. Sorry to say, because I try to be
> > > generous in my assessments, but this "rime royal" is really awful, it
> > > doesn't deserve rime royal back, for the author proves himself a hack.
>
> Brennen is lying. I never said he faked reading Rape of Lucrece
> (althouth I'm beginning to suspect you have.) and I challenge him to
> show me where I did so.
Nonsense. You repeated claims I did not read it (see above, your old
whine in a new bottle). As I pointed out, this is a typical Internet
gambit, in which I am required to increadingly post on a subject to
disprove your negative claims.
>
> I DID say that I doubted he read it, but he said he did, so I took his
> word for it.
>
> I'm rather surprised that Lorenzo or Grumman or Reynolds or anyone
> else didn't find these verses offensive in many ways.
Reynolds will no doubt be along shortly. He's fond of
Shakespeare-deniers like you.
Maybe, like me,
> that don't wish to engage in dialogue with Neil.
Surprise! I've engaged in dialogue with both.
I wish he'd go away.
> But it looks like I'm stuck with him for awhile.
>
> > Why should I waste good rime royal, or even good doggerel, on the likes of you?
>
> because I've written several decent stanzas of the form. Ask others
> (the same ones who find your own verses acceptable apparently)
>
> > > 1) it doesn't have the rime scheme right
> > > 2) the metrics are horrendous
> > >
> > > DAH dah DAH DAH dah dah DAH dah dah DAH (ouch)
> > > DAH day DAH dah DAH dah, DAH, dah DAH
> > > dah DAH dah DAH (there ya go) dah dah DAH dah dah DAH
> > > I give up. (you get one rewrite Neil Brennen)
> >
> > In the words of Reginald Bunthorne, "I shall not publish it."
> >
> > > p.s. Apology for WHAT? I said I doubted you read Lucrece, you said you
> > > did and pointed me a discussion thread in which your one sentece
> > > contribution was that you liked it more than you thought you would.
> > > Well, fine. Good for you. I'll take your word for it. But apologize?
> >
> > You just admitted your error. Apology accepted.
> >
> > > C'mon man, get real. Or as they say in Philly, where i'm from, ph*que
> > > you.
> >
> > That should be "Yo! Ph*que you!" Any REAL Philadelphian would know that. :-)
>
> Neil, why don't you read *Hero and Leander*? If you "kinda liked"
> Lucrece, you'll LOVE Leander. Seriously. For fun.
I probably would. I've enjoyed the brief passages I've read of it.
lowercase dave
observed (in sprightly verses of his own) that it wasn't rime royal,
is all. In good fun, I think. And not to be picky, Dicky, but the
verses below are *still* not rime royal, because they're not
pentameter. But hey, who's counting? Oh yeah, I am....Along with the
other Kennedy and Webb (possibly), and Farey and Lorenzo (probably).
I think Richard was offended by a wisecrack i made to Lorenzo:
"Richard appears to be stuck in tetrameter, he should try to squeeze
out another plunk per line before getting up from his toiling seat."
The HEARTFELT shit that goes around comes back
To haunt the shitter, OLD DICK K. HAS heard
UPON HIS THRONEY toilet seat, IN BLACK
AND WHITE, HIS bums SQUEEZE OUT ANOTHER turd:
Another time and mind HIS CHOSEN WORD.
HIS "Stratford Man" was shit THE PAPER said,
'Twas mere "limp crap" UPON HIS HOARY head.
Doesn't that work better? I like throney cause it suggests thorney.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
i write this because RK wrote:
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> Sorry I can't please you, Mr. More. Do you say you are under attack?
> You brought it on yourself. Here's a rime royal flush for you.
>
> The shit that goes around comes back,
> To haunt the shitter, have you heard?
> The toilet seat is down, so smack
> Your bums to rest and grunt a turd,
> Another time and mind your words.
> My "Stratford Man" was shit you said,
> ?Twas mere "limp crap" ? it's on your head.
lowercase dave
>
> My friends, 'tis said 'a bad weed never dies,'
> But not by those who sell new herbicides
> Or naturalists, who know that saying lies.
> What's good or bad behavior, who decides?
> What wise botanists be our guides?
> A man called "William Shakespeare" might be one:
> Who reckons Kit's abuses, does his own. (sonnet 121)
Just noticed "What wise botanists be" should have read "WILL be"
But now "And what wise minds will be our moral guides?" seems better.
that's my final answer. . . . i think.
i also like "and what dirt-digger be our moral guide?"
but that implies the author WS was a dirt-digger, which i don't think
is true.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
> The slander of Kit Marley's evil ways,
> Is heard, these parts, by 'n early morning riser:
> A 'mess', a 'rowdy, rockin' chap', it says,
> (The voice of Oxford's well-versed advertiser)
> But here it's said by someone who is wiser:
> Such words are false, and not contextual
> Since Marley's loves were intellectual.
>
> But Ned Devere was venally perverse:
> The shallow lowlights, Alan Nelson tells.
> Alas, Oxford'yuns have a deeper purse;
> A flaw-struck nobleman makes cents, it sells--
> Despite the Shakespeare-Marley parallels.
> So here's a claim Lorenzo can explain
> "DeVere's a boar of very little brain."
Is this unfair, Lorenzo? It's meant to address the fact documented by
Alan Nelson that Ned's degree's were honorary, unlike Marley, who
earned his degree(s).
lowercase dave
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > Neil, why don't you read *Hero and Leander*? If you "kinda liked"
> > Lucrece, you'll LOVE Leander. Seriously. For fun.
>
> I probably would. I've enjoyed the brief passages I've read of it.
Great let's end this exchange on a positive note.
<snippety do dah>
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
richard kennedy
I wrote a poem to my love as sweet
As clear spring mountain water to the taste.
She said the verse was rude and indiscreet,
And so to paper once again in haste
I praised her tiny feet, and lithesome waist.
The former poem was better, in my mind,
I thought to rhyme her cunt with font was fine.
richard kennedy
I wrote a poem to my love as sweet
As clear spring mountain water to the taste.
She said the rhyme was rude and indiscreet,
And so to paper once again in haste
To praise her tiny feet and lithesome waist.
Regarding my first draft, advice to suitors:
You can't rhyme 'font' with 'cunt', nor tits with hooters.
-----------------------------------------
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03081...@posting.google.com>...
David L. Webb
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote:
> Sorry I can't please you, Mr. More. Do you say you are under attack?
> You brought it on yourself. Here's a rime royal flush for you.
>
> The shit that goes around comes back,
> To haunt the shitter, have you heard?
> The toilet seat is down, so smack
> Your bums to rest and grunt a turd,
> Another time and mind your words.
So far, this is vintage Kennedy coprophilia.
> My "Stratford Man" was shit you said,
> ‘Twas mere "limp crap" – it's on your head.
I don't recall Dave having said that. In fact, the quoted phrase
"limp crap" is from the poem by Mr. Zensearch. Evidently Kennedy's
amnesia is causing him to engage in yet another of his habitual
misattributions.
[...]
richard kennedy
A lowercase is made by Mister More,
That Royal Rime was such a sweat to paint
The rape of poor Lucrece, that Tarquin's chore,
If first he had to versify his plaint,
She'd be a virgin still, without a taint.
The form takes time, which really is no worry,
Unlike to Tarquin, who was in a hurry.
--------------------------------------------
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Greg Reynolds
> Here's another:
>
> A lowercase is made by Mister More,
> That Royal Rime was such a sweat to paint
> The rape of poor Lucrece, that Tarquin's chore,
> If first he had to versify his plaint,
> She'd be a virgin still, without a taint.
> The form takes time, which really is no worry,
> Unlike to Tarquin, who was in a hurry.
Tarquin took his time, awaited his chance, weighed the
situation, determined his fate-to-be if he were to proceed,
and walked not ran into it. He hurried nothing. That's a
strong part of the piece, to live in the rapist's mind as
he s l o w l y acts on the temptation. So, you can change
that last line to "Just like Tarquin who was in no hurry" but
your poem sucks anyway.
lowercase dave
>
> I wrote a poem to my love as sweet
> As clear spring mountain water to the taste.
> She said the rhyme was rude and indiscreet,
> And so to paper once again in haste
> To praise her tiny feet and lithesome waist.
> Regarding my first draft, advice to suitors:
> You can't rhyme 'font' with 'cunt', nor tits with hooters.
Richard, this is much better! (if that's the word :) )
but you got cocky in the next one and fell short.
Be that as it may, the above submission qualifies you for entry into
the Rime Royal Club, imo. My judgment need only be seconded, but I
think I've scared everyone away.
Keep em coming,
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
David L. Webb
> rewrite:
>
> I wrote a poem to my love as sweet
> As clear spring mountain water to the taste.
> She said the rhyme was rude and indiscreet,
> And so to paper once again in haste
> To praise her tiny feet and lithesome waist.
> Regarding my first draft, advice to suitors:
> You can't rhyme 'font' with 'cunt', nor tits with hooters.
[...]
One of the more amusing Richard Kennedy quotations I can recall is
the following, from
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=61insm%24804%40ednet2.orednet.org&o
utput=gplain>:
"I wish someone would find a smoking gun for the man [William
Shakespeare of Stratford], something that prooves [sic] he wrote
the things, and then I'd sell my Shakespeare library and get on
to some other mystery, like what a woman wants or something."
While it is rather odd that Richard Kennedy has made no headway in
figuring out who wrote the Shakespeare canon, ample hints in his poem
permit the reader to guess why Kennedy has made little headway in
solving his alternative mystery.
John W. Kennedy
> Why must discussions of
> homosexuality be based on implausible generalizations (this is what
> they're all like, you know) from which the observer implicitly distances
> himself (I hope you don't think I'm one of THEM)?
Indeed, though straight, myself, many years of association with both
professional opera and the International Wizard of Oz Club has left me
not even certain that there is a single psychological phenomenon that
can be called "homosexuality" in males. (Note 1: Of lesbianism I know
no more than I do of the loves of the triangles, and so will not speak.
Note 2: One may, of course, have a single _functional_ definition of
homosexuality, but that is not the same thing.) In particular, I am
thinking of the chasm between gays who love women, though not as
romantic partners, and gays who fear and loathe women, both of which
sorts I have known aplenty.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like
That. ...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not
because it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because
it is violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
John W. Kennedy
> Isn't blank verse iambic pentameter?
I'm not sure. It is _usually_ so, but I don't know of any other name
for rhymeless, metrical English verse. Iambic pentameter is, on the
whole, the best line for serious verse in MnE, as it best fits the
natural rhythms of English.
> Kennedy appears to be stuck in
> four beats (tetrameter),
That simply isn't so. "Rhyme royal's nothing much" is trimeter. My
ballade re: Shakespeare and Marlowe is tetrameter of necessity, due to
the chosen texte. (There is no fixed line, or even foot, for the
ballade in English.) Over the years, I've even posted verse here in the
horrid poulters measure (a bit of intentionally naïve Gebrauchdichtung).
Prologue to "Framing Isabella"
And now "King Lear" is done
We beg you not to go,
But rather sit you down to watch
Our Pantalone show.
Old Lear's distractions change
For Arlecchino's chaff;
As for Cordelia you did weep,
For Isabella laugh.
And though "King Lear" ran long,
Fear not the schedule's power,
For "Isabella" shall be done
In less than half an hour.
So though the clock advance,
Good gentles, do not flout us;
They cannot start the closing cer-
Emonials without us.
lowercase dave
> lowercase dave wrote:
> > Isn't blank verse iambic pentameter?
>
> I'm not sure. It is _usually_ so, but I don't know of any other name
> for rhymeless, metrical English verse. Iambic pentameter is, on the
> whole, the best line for serious verse in MnE, as it best fits the
> natural rhythms of English.
>
> > Kennedy appears to be stuck in
> > four beats (tetrameter),
>
> That simply isn't so. "Rhyme royal's nothing much" is trimeter. My
> ballade re: Shakespeare and Marlowe is tetrameter of necessity, due to
> the chosen texte. (There is no fixed line, or even foot, for the
> ballade in English.) Over the years, I've even posted verse here in the
> horrid poulters measure (a bit of intentionally naïve Gebrauchdichtung).
No, John. I didn't mean YOU were stuck in tetra, but Richard K., who
has since redeemed himself by submitting some acceptable (to me, i'm
easy) verses with a comic final couplet. -- (but not as funny as
Webb's rejoinder)
I like this:
> Prologue to "Framing Isabella"
>
> And now "King Lear" is done
> We beg you not to go,
> But rather sit you down to watch
> Our Pantalone show.
>
> Old Lear's distractions change
> For Arlecchino's chaff;
> As for Cordelia you did weep,
> For Isabella laugh.
>
> And though "King Lear" ran long,
> Fear not the schedule's power,
> For "Isabella" shall be done
> In less than half an hour.
>
> So though the clock advance,
> Good gentles, do not flout us;
> They cannot start the closing cer-
> Emonials without us.
Now how about some rime royal verses in William's honor? The other
Kennedy took the challenge (but not really on a Shakespeare topic).
Only Lorenzo, Farey and I have done that, so far, and those guys
really cranked 'em out -- of the park, that is. Two home runs (while I
had to resort to bunting, singles and sacrifice flies to score). How
about it, Big John? Will you step up to the plate? It will be most
entertaining and edifying, I am sure.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>