Why Your Poetry Still Sucks
M. Otis Beard
>On Fri, 28 May 1999 15:10:33 -0700, "M. Otis Beard"
><bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Prembone wrote in message <374ead51...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>>On Thu, 27 May 1999 13:32:58 -0700, "M. Otis Beard"
>>><bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Prembone wrote in message <7ii8oe$p3p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>>>
>>>>>Even then, beyond the most basic level of competence, try to get
>>>>>anything resembling a consensus on what constitutes poetic greatness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but what we're talking about here IS the most basic level of
>>>>competence.
>>>
>>>Is it? It seems to me like you're setting the bar for "good poetry"
>>>at a higher level than basic competence with the English language.
>>
>> No, I'm not trying to set a bar for "good" poetry at all. Just for
>>poetry, good OR bad.
>
>I don't think linguistic competence has anything to do with
>determining whether something is a poem, any more than it has to do
>with determining whether something **is** an essay, a short story, or
>a thesis paper, but with the **quality** of the work in question. It
>may be good, acceptable, so-so, or flat-out lousy, but it's still a
>poem, essay, short story, or thesis paper.
Now you're talking about poems, which are things, and not poetry, which is
a process. Someone (was it you?) recently brought up the old saw about
monkeys and typewriters. By my way of thinking, a monkey typing out a
Shakespearian sonnet at random has indeed produced a poem, but that doesn't
make the monkey a poet. Poetry, as a process, has not taken place in this
instance.
>Whose rules? What rules? I'm getting this image of a Power On High
>handing down The Rules To Be Obeyed For The Writing Of True Poetry.
What was it you said earlier? "...we can certainly critique spelling,
usage, etc." Those comprise a large part of the rules to which I refer (as
I said, I'm talking about the most basic level of competence). Do you deny
that there are rules governing basic English composition?
> If you're trying to write in a particular, defined form, then yes.
>There are rules to follow. But these forms, and the rules which
>define them, were originally invented by someone who was simply
>playing around with the words until they arrived at something that
>pleased them, and subsequently pleased enough others to have it
>canonized as another Holy Rule.
Did they play around until they arrived at something that pleased them, or
experiment until they found something that was effective?
>If you are defending some version of Rules existing "out there"
>somewhere in Platonic Ideal, then no; I do not believe such entities
>exist, and that it is therefore meaningless to speak of "breaking"
>these rules. There is no universal poetic standard. A poem might not
>fit your idea of a poem, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is not a
>poem.
I don't believe such entities exist, either. . . but I do believe that
knowing how to spell and define the words you use is vital, and I believe
that knowing how to incorporate structure into your work is extremely
important, whether you're following someone else's rules to construct a
Pindaric ode or a sestina, or creating an internally consistent structure of
your own.
>BTW, what are the "rules" for free verse?
There's just one: having mastered the fundamentals of structure, you may
safely abandon it. Please note, however, that most *good* free verse is not
truly free in the sense of having no structure at all -- it simply does not
conform to any traditional convention of rhythym or meter.
>> Breaking the rules when you don't know what the rules are is just
>> masturbatory posturing.
>
>Or writing according to a different set of rules than the ones that
>you have accepted as binding.
How can you accept rules as binding when you don't know what they are?
Your argument is absurd.
>Besides, masturbation can be fun.
Granted, but while intercourse is a sharing of pleasure that creates new
life, masturbation merely creates a sticky mess, and gives pleasure only to
the onanist.
>>> As far as I'm concerned, in the end a poem succeeds if it uses
>>>language effectively, powerfully, aesthetically.
>>
>> I totally agree with you, but I would add the word 'deliberately' to
your
>>list. Accidental art is not art at all.
>
>If it was created by a deliberate act (artifice) then it was art.
If it was created by artifice, then it wasn't an accident. Nature, for
instance, is not an artist, despite the beauty of natural landscapes. Note
the relationship between the words 'natural' and 'artificial'.
>As for "deliberately" using language effectively, etc., haven't you
>ever had the experience of writing something, choosing words that
>"felt" right, though you couldn't necessarily explain why, only to
>return to it later and see new subtext and nuance that you did not
>consciously put into the work? Art is full of "accidents" and
>intuitive leaps; it's as much a matter of letting go and "receiving"
>as it is consciously striving and shaping.
'Receiving', eh? So, you don't believe in the Platonic Ideal, but you do
believe that some external Muse helps you write your poetry? That's an
interesting contradiction.
Did it ever occur to you that these transmissions you receive are coming
from your own subconscious mind? That's no accident. You may not be
consciously aware of all the deliberate choices you make in writing a poem,
but those choices are still made, and made by you. I might add that while
the subconscious mind is a superlatively apt and autodidactic pupil, it
still requires adequate examples by which to train itself. . . so we're back
to rule number one for would-be poets: READ, READ, READ.
In bygone eras, poets have used substances like absinthe and laudanum to
open the channel for the god within. It's a tactic that can be highly
effective, but it isn't reliable as a shortcut, and even when it works as
advertised, it requires a reasonably trained conscious mind to act as
editor. . . but even in the most, um, *inspired* of automatic writings, your
work remains peculiarly yours. You may be a Communist, and you may be
immersed in the otherworldly trance that laudanum brings, and you may manage
to avoid the interruption of some unwelcome person from Porlock knocking at
your door, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to complete 'Kubla Khan',
because you won't be receiving your vision from the same source that
delivered the dream to Coleridge, and you won't be filtering that vision
through Coleridge's conscious mind.
>Anyway, why try to narrow the field? Why not be as inclusive as
>possible, rather than trying to be as exclusive as possible?
Because that kind of inclusiveness degrades art. Shall we start referring
to the dialogue written for sitcoms as 'free verse'? How will we be able to
seek out and study poetry when all the world's doggerel, poetastery and
thumbheaded versifying is lumped together with the real thing? Shall we
sift a mountain of turds in search of rarest gems?
If you open the door to the wilfully ignorant and validate their feeble
efforts, they will remain forever beyond any motivation to better themselves
and their work, and will eventually impose their lowbrow tyranny upon you.
>Poetry
>is a human expression, and there is value in the very act of creating,
>even if one is not especially gifted. Would you also restrict singing
>to trained professionals? I would not. All voices need to be heard;
>the best we reserve for entertainment, but to really know humanity, we
>need to hear even the passable and the plain.
I have no interest in restricting anyone from singing, but I don't call
tuneless screeching 'music' unless the tuneless screecher producing it is
screeching tunelessly by design. I also have no artistic respect for
painters who produce purely abstract works, but are incapable of realism.
That doesn't mean I would prohibit their efforts, it means that I have no
interest in looking at their work, which does not properly belong in a
museum or other public forum set aside for the work of artists.
>A final thought: Where does "folk" art (poetry, song, whatever) fit
>into your scheme of classification?
That isn't a thought, it's a question. The answer is that many of the
rules and conventions that help us write identifiable verse can be gleaned
intuitively through reading. Anyone with a decent sense of rhythm and a
strong talent for using the language can, without any formal education
whatsoever, learn more than enough by example to produce passable or even
good poetry.
-M. Otis Beard
Tony Winstead
asshole), the newsgroup is titled 'alt.TEENS.poetry.and.stuff'. Show me,
somewhere in history or in some document, where it says that you have to be
pleased with every bit of poetry you read. Poets grow with what they write,
and they learn from what they live. So are we expecting the ones who try to
free themselves of this in writing to follow the Sonnets of Shakespeare, or
the necronomical works of Poe, or the works of any other poet? I sincerely
apologize if we're not all perfect scholars of literature like yourself, but
if you don't enjoy the things written here, if it gets you so worked up that
you have to bash the poems, that you simply MUST compare it to your
sunshine-beaming ass, then either whine somewhere else or shut up and live
with the growth and maturity of literature. Again, I apologize for our
horrible imperfections. And now, despite all of the previous, I've read one
of your posts here, stating that the teens should read more, and at least
TRY to improve their vocabulary and process of writing. On that I do agree
with you, but I feel you shouldn't generalize.
-david.
(P.S. Interesting arguement [see below].)
M. Otis Beard wrote in message ...
Mike Billard
Tony Winstead <twin...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:7iq5na$ae1$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> Mr. Beard, if you haven't noticed (or simply decided to be a complete
> asshole), the newsgroup is titled 'alt.TEENS.poetry.and.stuff'.
Too bad you're too inept to notice that this thread has been crossposted to
rec.arts.poems (which I've deleted from the newsgroups field) and
alt.arts.poetry.comments (which is where I post and from where I have read
this thread).
> Show me,
> somewhere in history or in some document, where it says that you have to
be
> pleased with every bit of poetry you read. Poets grow with what they
write,
> and they learn from what they live.
Better yet, show me somewhere in history or in some document where it says
"poets grow with what they write, and they learn from what they live."
Humans, in general, learn from what they live. This is not a unique
characteristic of poets.
> So are we expecting the ones who try to
> free themselves of this in writing
What does "free themselves in writing" mean, exactly?
> to follow the Sonnets of Shakespeare, or
> the necronomical works of Poe, or the works of any other poet?
Show me somewhere in history or in some document, or in this thread, where
it says one must follow another poet to be considered a writer of poems.
> I sincerely
> apologize
No need to apologize. Plenty of people are ignorant of the facts but choose
to pipe up anyway. Why should you be any different?
> if we're not all perfect scholars of literature like yourself,
Hmm, I'll bet if pressed for evidence, you couldn't show one statement where
Mr. beard claimed to be a perfect scholar of literature.
> but
> if you don't enjoy the things written here,
This is where that crossposting phenomenon comes into play. The "here" to
which you refer is a bit smaller than the "here" that really exists.
> if it gets you so worked up that
> you have to bash the poems,
I suppose one man's bash is another man's comments, which brings me to that
crossposting phenomenon again. One of the newsgroups to which this thread is
posted, and the one in which I particpate, exists solely for the puspose of
"bashing" poems.
> that you simply MUST compare it to your
> sunshine-beaming ass,
This doesn't make sense and strikes me as nothing more than an ad hominem
attack.
> then either whine somewhere else or shut up and live
> with the growth and maturity of literature.
I've seen the growth and maturity of literature. To what are you referring?
> Again, I apologize for our
> horrible imperfections.
Who's imperfections? Just those of the teens posting in your one newsgroup,
or do you purport to speak for everone in all the newsgroups? I can assure
you most of us posting in alt.ats.poetry.comments don't need you as
spokesidiot. We can, if we so desire, apologize for our own horrible
imperfections.
> And now, despite all of the previous, I've read one
> of your posts here, stating that the teens should read more, and at least
> TRY to improve their vocabulary and process of writing. On that I do
agree
> with you, but I feel you shouldn't generalize.
And for that you called him an asshole? There's plenty of things I think you
shouldn't do (several of which I've pointed out above), but I'll refrain
from calling you names (except spokesidiot). Now, run along and read more
and at least try to improve your vocabulary.
MikeB
> -david.
M. Otis Beard
Mike Billard wrote in message <7iq8hs$sro$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>> asshole), the newsgroup is titled 'alt.TEENS.poetry.and.stuff'.
>
>rec.arts.poems (which I've deleted from the newsgroups field) and
>alt.arts.poetry.comments (which is where I post and from where I have read
>this thread).
[SNIP!]
>> And now, despite all of the previous, I've read one
>> of your posts here, stating that the teens should read more, and at least
>> TRY to improve their vocabulary and process of writing. On that I do
>agree
>> with you, but I feel you shouldn't generalize.
>
>And for that you called him an asshole? There's plenty of things I think
you
>shouldn't do (several of which I've pointed out above), but I'll refrain
>from calling you names (except spokesidiot). Now, run along and read more
>and at least try to improve your vocabulary.
Thank you for saving me the trouble, Mike. At least he didn't e-mailbomb
me like Misdrenias (Misdr...@aol.com) did.
-M. Otis Beard
M. Otis Beard
Westermeyer wrote in message <375098B0...@home.com>...
>
>
>"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
>
>> I have no interest in restricting anyone from singing, but I don't call
>> tuneless screeching 'music' unless the tuneless screecher producing it is
>> screeching tunelessly by design.
>
>well? Why is that better than someone who screeches because their talent
>is in fact an unconventional voice (e.g. Tom Waits, Nick Cave). For a
>pedantic person, you sure are narrow.
I grew up in the same town as Tom Waits. What makes you think he can't
sing?
>>I also have no artistic respect for
>> painters who produce purely abstract works, but are incapable of realism.
>> That doesn't mean I would prohibit their efforts, it means that I have
>no
>> interest in looking at their work, which does not properly belong in a
>> museum or other public forum set aside for the work of artists.
>
>Sounds like a great little project for you. Band together with
>like-narrowminded people to send all them Kandinskys and Jackson
>Pollacks back where the came from.
What makes you think Kandinsky and Jackson Pollack couldn't paint?
-M. Otis Beard
M. Otis Beard
Westermeyer wrote in message <3750BE69...@home.com>...
>> >Otis Beard wrote:
>> >>I also have no artistic respect for
>> >> painters who produce purely abstract works, but are incapable of
realism.
>> >> That doesn't mean I would prohibit their efforts, it means that I have
no
>> >> interest in looking at their work, which does not properly belong in a
>> >> museum or other public forum set aside for the work of artists.
>> >
>> >like-narrowminded people to send all them Kandinskys and Jackson
>> >Pollacks back where the came from.
>>
>> What makes you think Kandinsky and Jackson Pollack couldn't paint?
>>
>> -M. Otis Beard
>
>
My argument is that painters who are incapable of realism are just wanking
around when they do abstract stuff.
Your argument seems to have something to do with me being the Devil.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Did you think I was saying that all abstract painting is wankery?
>Tell you what, big thinker, help me understand your point here by
>drawing a line between this unmelodic screech music you claim to dislike
>and what you prefer; Abstract painting that doesn't belong in museums
>and what you prefer.
Oh, my. . . he called me a "big thinker" just now.
How many times do I have to draw the line, little fogbrain? If you
haven't learned the fundamentals, then your attempts at advanced forms are
nothing but semi-random wankery. Get it? It's SIMPLE.
Hit the books.
-M. Otis Beard, Famous Mean Pedantic Guy
j r sherman
>You're so pretentious, you can't even follow your own argument.
THANK YOU!!! i was wondering when someone was gonna say this.
>Tell you what, big thinker, help me understand your point here by
>drawing a line between this unmelodic screech music you claim to dislike
>and what you prefer; Abstract painting that doesn't belong in museums
>and what you prefer.
great, thanks robert, now we're gonna get 189 lines of something even he doesn't
understand.. ;)
love and kisses,
j r sherman
Westermeyer
"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
> I have no interest in restricting anyone from singing, but I don't call
> tuneless screeching 'music' unless the tuneless screecher producing it is
> screeching tunelessly by design.
You mean someone who chooses to "screech" when they really can sing
well? Why is that better than someone who screeches because their talent
is in fact an unconventional voice (e.g. Tom Waits, Nick Cave). For a
pedantic person, you sure are narrow.
>I also have no artistic respect for
> painters who produce purely abstract works, but are incapable of realism.
> That doesn't mean I would prohibit their efforts, it means that I have >no
> interest in looking at their work, which does not properly belong in a
> museum or other public forum set aside for the work of artists.
>
Sounds like a great little project for you. Band together with
like-narrowminded people to send all them Kandinskys and Jackson
Pollacks back where the came from.
--Robert
>
> -M. Otis Beard
Westermeyer
"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
>
> Westermeyer wrote in message <375098B0...@home.com>...
> >
> >
> >"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
> >
> >> I have no interest in restricting anyone from singing, but I don't call
> >> tuneless screeching 'music' unless the tuneless screecher producing it is
> >> screeching tunelessly by design.
> >
> >You mean someone who chooses to "screech" when they really can sing
> >well? Why is that better than someone who screeches because their talent
> >is in fact an unconventional voice (e.g. Tom Waits, Nick Cave). For a
> >pedantic person, you sure are narrow.
>
> I grew up in the same town as Tom Waits.
What makes you think he can't
> sing?
>
> >>I also have no artistic respect for
> >> painters who produce purely abstract works, but are incapable of realism.
> >> That doesn't mean I would prohibit their efforts, it means that I have
> >no
> >> interest in looking at their work, which does not properly belong in a
> >> museum or other public forum set aside for the work of artists.
> >
> >Sounds like a great little project for you. Band together with
> >like-narrowminded people to send all them Kandinskys and Jackson
> >Pollacks back where the came from.
>
> What makes you think Kandinsky and Jackson Pollack couldn't paint?
>
> -M. Otis Beard
You're so pretentious, you can't even follow your own argument.
Tell you what, big thinker, help me understand your point here by
drawing a line between this unmelodic screech music you claim to dislike
and what you prefer; Abstract painting that doesn't belong in museums
and what you prefer.
--Robert
Kora McKeno
as 100 cents VS a dollar, because all parties obviously enjoy poetry, it
is a case of pupil rebellion. The argument of said pupil is valid. Valid
to the extent that the pupil's knowledge will allow it to be.
Mr. Beard is obviously an intelligent man. As intellectually sound as I
know I am, he is more so. The suggestive nature of his comments are that
way because he is a good teacher. It would be beneficial to anyone to
listen well. I know I am.
I went to college at Texas A&M. When I first arrived, the professors
hated me. My chemistry teacher actually told me " your always trying to
prove someone wrong." Well, I was. Soon I learned that to learn you
have to accept. We aren't all born with indelible knowledge of
everything. Look at the thread with outsider's eyes. You will see that M
Otis Beard is not an ass hole. He is a teacher. A generous and cordial
one at that.
~K M~
Kevin Taylor <nosp@m.ca.ca>
<bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> How many times do I have to draw the line, little fogbrain? If you
>haven't learned the fundamentals, then your attempts at advanced forms are
>nothing but semi-random wankery. Get it? It's SIMPLE.
>
> Hit the books.
>
OK O.B. ... all I want to know from you is this... What is an advanced
form of poetry?
Had you said that without the fundamentals any atempts at poetry would
be semi-random (and what is semi-random for that matter?) wankery, I
wouldn't have said anything... but you qualified your statement.
Saying that poetry is advanced suggests that "naive poetry" "poetry
sauvage" "popular poetry" etc all might exist and... well, you know...
avanced hallmark.
So I want to know HOW you know if poetry is advanced or not. I mean...
you look at a poem and something there says "advanced!"?
Explain.
Kevin Taylor kevin...@cheerful.com
Canada po...@intergate.bc.ca
My poetry
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Bistro/8066
___________________________________________________
We are in the age of Great Delusions - when black
appears white, and white appears black - when the
sane are made to appear insane and the insane act
as the world's psychiatrists." Senator Jack Tenney
___________________________________________________
M. Otis Beard
"Kevin Taylor" wrote in message <3750e155....@news.intergate.bc.ca>...
>
>OK O.B. ... all I want to know from you is this... What is an advanced
>form of poetry?
I could simply dismiss your question by pointing out the fact that we
weren't talking about poetry, we were talking about painting. However, that
would be intellectually dishonest, so I'll try to answer your question as
best I can.
What is an advanced form of poetry? An advanced form of poetry is one
that reaches beyond the bounds of convention and sets its own structure, but
is informed by the conventions and traditions of the past. I would consider
a great deal of what is called 'free verse' to be advanced poetry, because I
feel that it is more difficult to play on the emotions of the reader when
you eschew powerful devices like rhyme and strictly regular, obvious meter.
As you sensed when you posted your question, we're getting into deeper
waters at this point. I'm not a perfect person and I don't know everything,
so forgive me if I begin to stumble in my responses to your highly
aggressive interrogations.
-M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards
M. Otis Beard skrev i meldingen ...
>
> My argument is that painters who are incapable of realism are just
wanking
>around when they do abstract stuff.
Visual arts analogy. Deftly pulling the rug out from under yourself.
Learning how to mix paint, clean brushes and even such arcane things as
perceiving the internal structure of form in a two dimensional surface,
these are good for artists. Realistic depiction of external forms is
probably good, but not a necessary skill. Likewise imitation of old masters.
If the poetry/art analogy works, as it appears to, then it serves to refute
the above argument.
I'm forever blowing bubbles too.
> Hit the books.
>
But don't expect them to lie down and take it.
>
> -M. Otis Beard, Famous Mean Pedantic Guy
Not famous; actually generous, albeit with stuff nobody asked for, pedantic
yes, guy?
p
M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards wrote in message <3750f...@news.jancomulti.com>...
>
>M. Otis Beard skrev i meldingen ...
>>
>
>> My argument is that painters who are incapable of realism are just
>wanking
>>around when they do abstract stuff.
>
>
> Visual arts analogy. Deftly pulling the rug out from under yourself.
>Learning how to mix paint, clean brushes and even such arcane things as
>perceiving the internal structure of form in a two dimensional surface,
>these are good for artists. Realistic depiction of external forms is
>probably good, but not a necessary skill. Likewise imitation of old
masters.
>If the poetry/art analogy works, as it appears to, then it serves to refute
>the above argument.
> I'm forever blowing bubbles too.
Perhaps it was a clumsy and imperfect analogy. I don't know everything,
I'm not perfect, and I'm not a painter. Allow me to substitue 'realism' for
'mixing paint, cleaning brushes and perceiving the internal structure of
form in a two-dimensional surface' and I think you'll see my meaning.
>> Hit the books.
>>
> But don't expect them to lie down and take it.
Good books always hit back, but unlike literal fisticuffs, the blows you
receive make you eager for more.
>> -M. Otis Beard, Famous Mean Pedantic Guy
>
>
>Not famous; actually generous, albeit with stuff nobody asked for, pedantic
>yes, guy?
Yes, I assure you that I am indeed male despite the intense femininity of
the name Otis. I'll give you another revelation, since I've been branded an
elitist ivory tower academic fuddy-duddy more than once in this thread: I'm
young, and I'm almost entirely self-educated. Having left home at the
tender age of fourteen, I never even finished High School. I misspent my
teenage years hanging out in extremely noisy nightclubs, taking all the
drugs I could get my hands on, and indulging in highly deviant sexual
escapades. Having survived all my best attempts to render myself extinct, I
find that I no longer wish to blot out my consciousness, and so I am living
a simpler life and doing my best to use my powers for good instead of evil.
;--D
-M. Otis Beard
If you'd like to see and/or deface a picture of me, go to
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4236/otis2.jpg and Ecce Barbus.
Kevin Taylor <nosp@m.ca.ca>
<bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>"Kevin Taylor" wrote in message <3750e155....@news.intergate.bc.ca>...
>>
>>OK O.B. ... all I want to know from you is this... What is an advanced
>>form of poetry?
>
>
> I could simply dismiss your question by pointing out the fact that we
>weren't talking about poetry, we were talking about painting. However, that
>would be intellectually dishonest, so I'll try to answer your question as
>best I can.
Large of you considering that the string is titled "Why your poetry
still sucks."
> What is an advanced form of poetry? An advanced form of poetry is one
>that reaches beyond the bounds of convention and sets its own structure, but
>is informed by the conventions and traditions of the past.
You have FORM as the deciding criterion. And that is probably where
all the fuss and furor is centered. Form is only one (the most
evident) facet of poetry.
I am poorly informed of the conventions and traditions you speak of
and yet I would challange you on the point that my poetry is poor
because of it. Or that some of it is not "advanced".
Others here might have the same objection.
At any rate, the description you give is a generality when applied to
a single poem or poet.
> I would consider
>a great deal of what is called 'free verse' to be advanced poetry, because I
>feel that it is more difficult to play on the emotions of the reader when
>you eschew powerful devices like rhyme and strictly regular, obvious meter.
Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 notwithstanding, I suppose. It's the only one
I know.
> As you sensed when you posted your question, we're getting into deeper
>waters at this point. I'm not a perfect person and I don't know everything,
>so forgive me if I begin to stumble in my responses to your highly
>aggressive interrogations.
Whoa! Ain't that a case of the pot calling the kettle "black"?
Seems to me that the quote from you I began with was:
> How many times do I have to draw the line, little fogbrain? If you
>haven't learned the fundamentals, then your attempts at advanced forms are
>nothing but semi-random wankery. Get it? It's SIMPLE.
How do you characterize that statement?
Anyway, I haven't followed all of this string .. so I'd rather read
your poetry than argue semantics (to begin with) so can you point me
to a poem or two that you have written... preferably advanced stuff
but in lieu of such ... just about anything?
M. Otis Beard
"Kevin Taylor" wrote in message <37510192....@news.intergate.bc.ca>...
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 00:52:51 -0700, "M. Otis Beard"
><bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kevin Taylor" wrote in message
<3750e155....@news.intergate.bc.ca>...
>>>
>>>OK O.B. ... all I want to know from you is this... What is an advanced
>>>form of poetry?
>>
>>
>> I could simply dismiss your question by pointing out the fact that we
>>weren't talking about poetry, we were talking about painting. However,
that
>>would be intellectually dishonest, so I'll try to answer your question as
>>best I can.
>
>Large of you considering that the string is titled "Why your poetry
>still sucks."
Having read the subject line does not excuse you from reading the contents
before replying.
BTW, the thread entitled 'Why Your Poetry Sucks' did not originate with
me. I started the one called 'Why Your Poetry Still Sucks' because it was
an extension of the original thread, and I thought it sounded better than
'Return of the Son of Why Your Poetry Sucks' for some reason.
>> What is an advanced form of poetry? An advanced form of poetry is one
>>that reaches beyond the bounds of convention and sets its own structure,
but
>>is informed by the conventions and traditions of the past.
>
>You have FORM as the deciding criterion. And that is probably where
>all the fuss and furor is centered. Form is only one (the most
>evident) facet of poetry.
>I am poorly informed of the conventions and traditions you speak of
>and yet I would challange you on the point that my poetry is poor
>because of it. Or that some of it is not "advanced".
>Others here might have the same objection.
As a matter of fact, I've read some of your poetry. If you are so poorly
informed of poetic conventions and traditions, then where did you get the
very conventional structure, reminiscent of Robert Service, that you employ
in pieces like 'Stone Age Poet'? How is it that you know the difference
between a simile and a metaphor? It seems to me that either you've blown my
words out of proportion, or you've underestimated your own level of
education.
Or are you just being argumentative?
>At any rate, the description you give is a generality when applied to
>a single poem or poet.
It was never meant to apply to a single poem or poet. Look again -- I
said "an advanced form of poetry", not "an advanced poem".
>> I would consider
>>a great deal of what is called 'free verse' to be advanced poetry, because
I
>>feel that it is more difficult to play on the emotions of the reader when
>>you eschew powerful devices like rhyme and strictly regular, obvious
meter.
>
>Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 notwithstanding, I suppose. It's the only one
>I know.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you. What is your point regarding Shakespeare's
Sonnnet 116?
>> As you sensed when you posted your question, we're getting into deeper
>>waters at this point. I'm not a perfect person and I don't know
everything,
>>so forgive me if I begin to stumble in my responses to your highly
>>aggressive interrogations.
>
>Whoa! Ain't that a case of the pot calling the kettle "black"?
>Seems to me that the quote from you I began with was:
>
>> How many times do I have to draw the line, little fogbrain? If you
>>haven't learned the fundamentals, then your attempts at advanced forms are
>>nothing but semi-random wankery. Get it? It's SIMPLE.
>
>How do you characterize that statement?
It was a response to some confused individual's post sarcastically calling
me 'big thinker' and attempting to flame me. In the "deeper waters"
paragraph above, I was being straightforward and sincere.
You *are* just being argumentative, aren't you? If not, may I suggest
that you take the context into account before you attempt to pick apart the
things I write in my posts?
>Anyway, I haven't followed all of this string .. so I'd rather read
>your poetry than argue semantics (to begin with) so can you point me
>to a poem or two that you have written... preferably advanced stuff
>but in lieu of such ... just about anything?
Of course. I have a web site that is in serious need of an update.
You'll find it at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4236. It isn't
pretty like yours, but when I originally put it up I wanted people using
text-only browsers like Lynx to be able to read it, too. One of these days
soon I'm going to add a whole bunch of stuff to my web site, but I'm too
busy stirring up the Usenet anthill at the moment. <----- HEMIDEMISEMIJOKE,
NOT TO BE TAKEN INTERNALLY
-M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards
M. Otis Beard skrev i meldingen ...
>
Allow me to substitue 'realism' for
>'mixing paint, cleaning brushes and perceiving the internal structure of
>form in a two-dimensional surface' and I think you'll see my meaning.
>
I saw your meaning and you're wrong. There is a constant flux between
representation and abstraction, between familiarity and inovation, between
the established and that which challenges the establishment, etc. in both
art and poetry. Some people, under some circumstances, editors for example,
need working guidelines to the usage of terms such as 'poetry' or 'art'. In
uncontrolled and independent environments such as this, anything goes.
You're not doing anything wrong by making, posting and arguing your
ideas, far from it; just remember that such discussions crop up regularly
around here, like:
a) shit after a barbecue
b) spare pricks at a whore's wedding
c) flowers in spring
whereupon
1) people
2) flies
3) small furry animals posing as inland revenue officers
4) inland revenue officers posing as small furry animals
buzz around and ...
I am weak and unable to find more alternatives, or satisfactory
combinations of the above. Feel free.
I didn't get to anything resembling 'high school' until I was 39 years
old. I hate bad spelling, bad form etc. You just don't lay your trip on
someone else. All that sex and drugs should have taught you that.
p
Prembone
<bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
[snip lots of stuff about monkeys and masturbation and abstract art
and the English language]
I just posted a reply to this one in the original thread, q.v. If you
want to move a discussion into a new thread, it helps to advise us
that you're doing so instead of posting the same thing twice.
"Fish to fish, chips to chips, fish to chips and chips to fish;
each to its own, as each desires, and may all be well fed! Jolly good."
The Prembone Pages http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/
M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards wrote in message <37511...@news.jancomulti.com>...
>
>M. Otis Beard skrev i meldingen ...
>>
><snip>
>
> Allow me to substitue 'realism' for
>>'mixing paint, cleaning brushes and perceiving the internal structure of
>>form in a two-dimensional surface' and I think you'll see my meaning.
>>
>
> I saw your meaning and you're wrong. There is a constant flux between
>representation and abstraction, between familiarity and inovation, between
>the established and that which challenges the establishment, etc. in both
>art and poetry. Some people, under some circumstances, editors for
example,
>need working guidelines to the usage of terms such as 'poetry' or 'art'.
In
>uncontrolled and independent environments such as this, anything goes.
Is that a counterargument, or just filler that allows you the luxury of
telling me that I'm wrong?
> You're not doing anything wrong by making, posting and arguing your
>ideas, far from it; just remember that such discussions crop up regularly
>around here, like:
>a) shit after a barbecue
>b) spare pricks at a whore's wedding
>c) flowers in spring
>
>whereupon
>
>1) people
>2) flies
>3) small furry animals posing as inland revenue officers
>4) inland revenue officers posing as small furry animals
>
>buzz around and ...
>
> I am weak and unable to find more alternatives, or satisfactory
>combinations of the above. Feel free.
At least we can agree that you are weak. I don't see any coherent
argument here at all.
> I didn't get to anything resembling 'high school' until I was 39 years
>old. I hate bad spelling, bad form etc. You just don't lay your trip on
>someone else. All that sex and drugs should have taught you that.
"Don't lay your trip on someone else" meaning, exactly, what? Don't
critique poetry? Don't theorize on the nature of poetry? Don't disagree
with anyone on any subject whatsoever, even if you have a cogent argument,
because it might make them feel bad?
Have another bong hit, and quit laying your trip on me.
-M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards
M. Otis Beard skrev i meldingen ...
> Is that a counterargument,
Yes it is, referring to and explaining its reference to your mad
obsession with what is acceptable and what isn't. No more explanation.
You're full of waffle. Fuck off.
p
Westermeyer
"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
>
> Westermeyer wrote in message <3750BE69...@home.com>...
> >> >Otis Beard wrote:
> >> >>I also have no artistic respect for
> >> >> painters who produce purely abstract works, but are incapable of
> realism.
> >> >> That doesn't mean I would prohibit their efforts, it means that I have
> no
> >> >> interest in looking at their work, which does not properly belong in a
> >> >> museum or other public forum set aside for the work of artists.
> >> >
> >> >Sounds like a great little project for you. Band together with
> >> >like-narrowminded people to send all them Kandinskys and Jackson
> >> >Pollacks back where the came from.
> >>
> >> What makes you think Kandinsky and Jackson Pollack couldn't paint?
> >>
> >> -M. Otis Beard
> >
> >
> >You're so pretentious, you can't even follow your own argument.
>
> My argument is that painters who are incapable of realism are just wanking
> around when they do abstract stuff.
> Your argument seems to have something to do with me being the Devil.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Did you think I was saying that all abstract painting is wankery?
>
> >Tell you what, big thinker, help me understand your point here by
> >drawing a line between this unmelodic screech music you claim to dislike
> >and what you prefer; Abstract painting that doesn't belong in museums
> >and what you prefer.
>
> Oh, my. . . he called me a "big thinker" just now.
>
> How many times do I have to draw the line, little fogbrain? If you
> haven't learned the fundamentals, then your attempts at advanced forms are
> nothing but semi-random wankery. Get it? It's SIMPLE.
>
> Hit the books.
>
> -M. Otis Beard, Famous Mean Pedantic Guy
Hit the books? THis is funny. Believe me. I continue to hit the books,
as well as the mountains of them I never finished. In all my schooling,
I never read a book on "how to write poetry" (I'm reminded of that scene
in Dead Poets Society in which they tear out the introduction of the
arcane verse book). I polish my poetic style by continuing to barrel
into experiences that cause intense affect and desperately ferreting my
brain for ways to bridle it with word, sound, space, and meter. I find
the palette of Websters to limiting, so I take a ball peen hammer to it
and glue the pieces (sometimes random odd and jagged shapes) into spaces
where the rules of language don't work. Much of what I write is
influenced by chance variables. For example, I do most of my writing
while driving to and from the hospital on a long stretch of interstate
5. I'm usually listening to loud music. I may swipe a random word from
a song, an image I see darting past me.
I'm not saying--and this is important, Spanky--that others here should
write poems the way I do. Because I think everyone is wired differently
as to how they've learned to bridle affect with language. You are soap
boxing the idea that there's some GE requirement for writing poetry, or
for painting. There isn't. To overemphasize rigid criteria in terms of
grammer, form, etc, often is at the expense of moving someone uniquely
with your work. Creativity breaks out of the molds you defend. The best
art I've experienced has done unconventional things, things that may
have pissed their teachers off. I can offer many many examples.
And this is why I always jump on self inflated people like you who
arrive on RAP and immediately start pontificating that they have the
real universal definition of good poetry, because they don't.
By the way, are you the one who originally crossposted this to the teen
poetry group? Big tough wordy man.
--Robert
steve...@my-deja.com
especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
"or something"
beavis and butthead"
In article <3750e155....@news.intergate.bc.ca>,
see sig file wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 1999 22:20:49 -0700, "M. Otis Beard"
> <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > How many times do I have to draw the line, little fogbrain? If you
> >haven't learned the fundamentals, then your attempts at advanced
forms are
> >nothing but semi-random wankery. Get it? It's SIMPLE.
> >
> > Hit the books.
> >
> OK O.B. ... all I want to know from you is this... What is an advanced
> form of poetry?
> Had you said that without the fundamentals any atempts at poetry would
> be semi-random (and what is semi-random for that matter?) wankery, I
> wouldn't have said anything... but you qualified your statement.
> Saying that poetry is advanced suggests that "naive poetry" "poetry
> sauvage" "popular poetry" etc all might exist and... well, you know...
> avanced hallmark.
>
> So I want to know HOW you know if poetry is advanced or not. I mean...
> you look at a poem and something there says "advanced!"?
> Explain.
>
> Kevin Taylor kevin...@cheerful.com
> Canada po...@intergate.bc.ca
>
> My poetry
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Bistro/8066
>
> ___________________________________________________
> We are in the age of Great Delusions - when black
> appears white, and white appears black - when the
> sane are made to appear insane and the insane act
> as the world's psychiatrists." Senator Jack Tenney
> ___________________________________________________
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
M. Otis Beard
Westermeyer wrote in message <3751775C...@home.com>...
>
>Hit the books? THis is funny. Believe me. I continue to hit the books,
>as well as the mountains of them I never finished.
That's a very telling sentence. Do you think you'll ever finish one?
>In all my schooling,
>I never read a book on "how to write poetry"
There is no such book, at least, not one that adequately covers the
subject, but that doesn't mean that you can rely entirely on your own
knowledge and instincts. Read poetry, read history, read myth, write
poetry.
>I find the palette of Websters to limiting, so I take a ball peen hammer to
it
>and glue the pieces (sometimes random odd and jagged shapes) into spaces
>where the rules of language don't work.
You accuse me of arrogance and pretentiousness, and then make a ridiculous
statement like this one? You find the palette of Websters[sic] to[sic]
limiting? How long did it take you to learn every single word in the
dictionary, anyway?
Your assertion of your own genius wouldn't be any more convincing if it
lacked obvious errors, but it would be slightly less amusing. I would
expect anyone who had mastered the palette of Websters[sic] to be able to
spell and punctuate correctly, at the very least.
You're like an infant who gurgles and coos to himself instead of
attempting to speak, because he finds the palette of language to[sic]
limiting. You seem to have decided that the rules of language don't work,
yet you plainly have not bothered to learn them.
Hooray for you!
-M. Otis Beard
Animeg3282
>I also have no artistic respect for
>painters who produce purely abstract works, but are incapable of realism.
>That doesn't mean I would prohibit their efforts, it means that I have no
>interest in looking at their work, which does not properly belong in a
>museum or other public forum set aside for the work of artists.
Hey! What if the abstract art was composed of skillful brush strokes and
conveyed a intense feeling of say..sadness to everyone who say it? Could it be
in the museum if it was like that?
Chisa Tori
Co-defender of the Scouts, AOL, and Relm
AGFF Goddess and Guru of Cute, Diminutive Mistress of Leather and Lace, and of
Small Words
Yaoi Brigade Member
Pledged to the Way of the Wimp
Westermeyer
deemed earlier discussions with you. Deep waters. Indeed.
Actually, poor compartmentalized little man who can't understand why
some don't want to enter his compartment, one need not know every word
in the dictionary to find it limiting to their poetry, nor does it make
me elitist, like I'm somehow better than my language. I read voraciously
those who stay within the bounds of standard grammar and vocabulary, as
well as those who don't. Creative artists in the visual realm and
musicians frequently feel pressure to blast free from dictated confines
of their media. I tend to gravitate toward them.
What is most pathetic about you, Beard, is your desperate clinging to
the "go read a book" weapon. Your belief that you have this wisdom to
bequeath, and when someone argues with you, you assume they haven't read
as much as you. I consider myself pretty well read. Perhaps you could
name the books you believe to be imperative for folks to acquire some of
the important knowledge. I'm waiting on baited breath for your reading
list, puppy.
--Robert
M. Otis Beard
steve...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7it0kb$p0i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>how pathetic is someone who tries to tell someone else they're wrong?
That depends on how wrong the other person actually is.
>especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
>self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
Your definition of poetry is wrong, that's how.
-M. Otis Beard
M. Otis Beard
Animeg3282 wrote in message
<19990531134011...@ng-cj1.aol.com>...
>Otis Beard said:
>
>>I also have no artistic respect for
>>painters who produce purely abstract works, but are incapable of realism.
>>That doesn't mean I would prohibit their efforts, it means that I have no
>>interest in looking at their work, which does not properly belong in a
>>museum or other public forum set aside for the work of artists.
>
>Hey! What if the abstract art was composed of skillful brush strokes and
>conveyed a intense feeling of say..sadness to everyone who say it? Could it
be
>in the museum if it was like that?
You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I misspoke
when I mentioned realism. I apologize and retract. Realism isn't
important, technique is. . . so I would have no problem at all with the
painting you describe.
Now: would you consider a highly evocative painting that was the result of
someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas to be
abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
-M. Otis Beard
Dan Eble
MOB> >especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
MOB> >self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
MOB>
MOB>
MOB> Your definition of poetry is wrong, that's how.
MOB>
Yeah, *some* poetry is an expression of one's self; but there's also
satire, didactic, other types I can't remember, and other types I've never
learned. That guy obviously writes only to express himself. He must be
an atp&s regular. ;-)
For example, here is a poem fragment I began in response to some awful
poetry (IMO) posted on rap. The only expression of myself the reader can
glean from it is a generalization of my style (which is exaggerated in
this case). It was meant to be a fancy and fun way for me to tell that
floundering versifier Why his Poetry Sucks.
It seems you have your articles misplaced,
Without the which your cadence stuttering
Runs puttering around with shoes unlaced.
Your stanza structure isn't bright, instead
Dislimnifying as a bulb replaced
And cast disgraced into a glassy bed.
I've been writing poetry on and off for about 6 years now. The majority
has not been motivated by personal reflection, but by a love of the sonic
elements of language. There are times when I put myself into it, but
usually it's just a word game to me. Am I abnormal? Or am I normal, and
it's just the rest of you artists who are abnormal?
--
Dan Eble <eb...@ticalc.org> [My other .sig's a four-liner.]
Dale Houstman
"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
>
> Realism isn't important, technique is. .
"Realism" is a rather old-fashioned notion in these days of quantum
physics, and I think it has had entirely too much run in American arts.
You may have no respect for those who can not render realistic objects,
but this doesn't appear to me to be an aesthetic approach. Most of the
world's art isn't (and hasn't been) "realistic" in this narrow way; aznd
much "primitive" art is (of course) abstract. As for technique, while no
one is denying the beauty of a well-wrought line, pure technicians in
painting (as in writing) are dullards. What one wants is a power of
evocation.
>
> Now: would you consider a highly evocative painting that was the result of
> someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas to be
> abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
It makes no difference what we call it; aleatory art is as old as the
cotswolds! Even some of our most "realistic" depictions have an element
of chance to them; any artist who is not alive to the power of chance
and accident to release and evoke desire is not much of an artist. If
that happy accident produces beauty of an evocative (or provocative)
substance, it makes no what you or I call it. It has called itself...
DMH
Kevin Taylor <nosp@m.ca.ca>
<bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I misspoke
>when I mentioned realism. I apologize and retract. Realism isn't
>important, technique is. . . so I would have no problem at all with the
>painting you describe.
>
> Now: would you consider a highly evocative painting that was the result of
>someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas to be
>abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
>
Now we're cookin'!
Invoke chaos theory in the interpretation of art (re "accident")
Or just call it serendipity.
Or perhaps just a curious abstraction.
Just joking...
Whether it is art or not really only depends on your definition of
art.... wanna start another string?
Matthew Breton
> Now: would you consider a highly evocative painting that was the result of
>someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas to be
>abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
This is a pretty self-defeating statement, huh? Fer me to consider an _evocative_ painting, I gotta already have considered it one bit or another. And if I'm thinkin it's evocative, it's pretty sure to make me look at it a bit closer, regardless of who or what done made it.
On th'other hand -- maybe this was the point you meant to make? -- if someone come up to me and says, "Hey, I just tipped over a few cans of paint and ~wow~ what a purty pattern it made -- come and see!" I wouldn't be likely to bother.
On yet another hand (what was that crack about which planet someone was from?) there's this computer 'round a museum hereparts that can generate these accurate, if technical, paintings. The programmers swear there's some aesthetic quality to them, but we all know programmers are Philistines. But computer-generated art (and monkey-generated art, and cat-generated art -- "Why Cats Paint") generated at least a little nub of controversy some time back, since it touches on the question of what art is, and what an artist is, and what a viewer is.
Those questions, I figger, are jes' bout unanswerable as what makes a poem a poem. Or good.
Now, I agree with you to some degree -- I got my own ideas fer what makes a good poem. I don't 'spect anybody to necessarily 'spect em, but they're interestin' to discuss now and then. Most so I can reflect on why I like what I like, maybe broaden out what I do like a bit more, maybe convince someone that what I likes is what they likes too. There's a way ta discuss _de gustibus_, an' "Why Your Poetry [Still] Sucks" ain't a very good start, middle, or endin'.
But if'n you want to start over a bit, I'd like to hear.
- Matt
M. Otis Beard
"Kevin Taylor" wrote in message <37531c6c....@news.intergate.bc.ca>...
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 12:51:31 -0700, "M. Otis Beard"
><bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I misspoke
>>when I mentioned realism. I apologize and retract. Realism isn't
>>important, technique is. . . so I would have no problem at all with the
>>painting you describe.
>>
of
>>someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas to be
>>abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
>>
>
>Invoke chaos theory in the interpretation of art (re "accident")
>
>Or just call it serendipity.
>
>Or perhaps just a curious abstraction.
>
>Just joking...
>
>Whether it is art or not really only depends on your definition of
>art.... wanna start another string?
There are many subtle degrees of sense that can be signified by the word
'art'. Compare the word 'art' with the words 'artifice' and 'artificial'
for instance. In that sense, art is a deliberately executed creation
conceived of by a conscious mind. People often talk about 'found art'
though, and that concept implies that art can be something that takes place
in the interaction between observer and thing observed. In that sense, the
observer is the artist regardless of the fact that he or she did not
physically create the art in question.
Can the concept of 'found art' be applied to painting? Perhaps, but if
so, is the artist the person who inadvertantly splashed the canvas, or the
person who is moved by looking at the splashed canvas?
Can the concept of 'found art' be applied to poetry? I can't think of any
honest way that it can be. If a computer is programmed to generate verse,
isn't the programmer the artist, albeit once removed from his work?
-M. Otis Beard
JE777777
M. Otis Beard
Matthew Breton wrote in message <7ivaup$i...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
> "M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>> Now: would you consider a highly evocative painting that was the result
>>of someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas
>>to be abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
>
>_evocative_ painting, I gotta already have considered it one bit or
another.
>And if I'm thinkin it's evocative, it's pretty sure to make me look at it a
>bit closer, regardless of who or what done made it.
Thet weren't a statement, pard, thet were a question, an' not one o' them
thar ree-torical nor smartalecky sarcastic-like questions, neither. Sorry
fer the confusion!
>On th'other hand -- maybe this was the point you meant to make? -- if
>someone come up to me and says, "Hey, I just tipped over a few cans of
paint
>and ~wow~ what a purty pattern it made -- come and see!" I wouldn't be
>likely to bother.
Now yer on m'wavelength! Thet's jes' perzackly what I was talkin' 'bout.
Now me, I'd prolly go 'head and take me a good long gander at setch an
animal, but I don't think I'd go callin' it art any more 'n I'd call an ol'
sow's ear a velvet purse. I *might* be persuaded to call it some kind o'
'found art', but then I'd have to call m'self th' artist, and call ever'body
else what took a look at it an' saw sumpin' evocative an artist, too.
That'd all be finer 'n a frog's haar split three ways with me, but I'd still
consider th' thang a mere curiousity and not art in th' traditional sense.
>On yet another hand (what was that crack about which planet someone was
>from?) there's this computer 'round a museum hereparts that can generate
>these accurate, if technical, paintings. The programmers swear there's
some
>aesthetic quality to them, but we all know programmers are Philistines.
But
>computer-generated art (and monkey-generated art, and cat-generated art --
>"Why Cats Paint") generated at least a little nub of controversy some time
>back, since it touches on the question of what art is, and what an artist
>is, and what a viewer is.
I think I'd have t' drawr a line 'tween th' computery kind o' art an' th'
animal kind o' art, m'self. A computer has to be programmed, so I figger
the programmer is th' artist once removed, an' th' computer is jes' a
artist's tool, like a paintbrush er a pencil.
>Those questions, I figger, are jes' bout unanswerable as what makes a poem
>a poem. Or good.
>
>Now, I agree with you to some degree -- I got my own ideas fer what makes a
>good poem. I don't 'spect anybody to necessarily 'spect em, but they're
>interestin' to discuss now and then. Most so I can reflect on why I like
>what I like, maybe broaden out what I do like a bit more, maybe convince
>someone that what I likes is what they likes too. There's a way ta discuss
>_de gustibus_, an' "Why Your Poetry [Still] Sucks" ain't a very good start,
>middle, or endin'.
>
>But if'n you want to start over a bit, I'd like to hear.
Well, pard, here's th' thang thet really gits me a-goin' on the subjeck: I
am of th' 'pinion thet it is he'pful (and possibly even necessary) for the
aspirin' poet to construck and/or subscribe to a coherent theory an'
feelosophy o' poetry. Plus, it do tend to irk me sumpin' fierce to see a
buncha younguns claimin' the title o' Poet when they kin barely spel there
oan names, much less write good English like you 'n' me. I started out
a-tryin' to discombombulate and rile up them kids over yonder in a.t.p.a.s.
so's I could mebbe git their attention and teach 'em a thang er two. That
li'l tactic is startin' to work purty good now, but I ain't crosspostin' th'
non-argumentative pedantic stuff much, just the hellfire and brimstone
pedantic stuff, mostly. I got me a coupla teenage poetry students now thet
I only jaw with in e-mail.
You seem like a purty smart feller, 'n' I shore wouldn't mind chewin' the
fat with ya on this here topic, so if'n yore inclined we should go 'head 'n'
git it on. I orta warn ya, though, thet m'long lost brother's comin' to
town tomorra fer a coupla days, so I'm liable t' be a leetle bit slow in
replyin' t' yer posts 'til he gits tired o' gittin drunk with me and heads
fer home.
-M. Otis Beard
M. Otis Beard
Dale Houstman wrote in message <37530E18...@gte.net>...
>
>
>"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
>>
>
>> Realism isn't important, technique is. .
>
>physics, and I think it has had entirely too much run in American arts.
>You may have no respect for those who can not render realistic objects,
No, no, I've changed my tune on that point. I'm not a painter, I'm a
poet, so please forgive me if I drew a faulty analogy and let it lead me
into further error.
>but this doesn't appear to me to be an aesthetic approach. Most of the
>world's art isn't (and hasn't been) "realistic" in this narrow way; aznd
>much "primitive" art is (of course) abstract. As for technique, while no
>one is denying the beauty of a well-wrought line, pure technicians in
>painting (as in writing) are dullards. What one wants is a power of
>evocation.
Pure technique isn't what I was talking about, though. Technique and
power of evocation, as you call it, are not mutually exclusive terms, and I
would never think of arguing in favor of one over the other. One needs both
in painting and in poetry, and that's the argument I've been making. Come
to think of it, some of the worst fiction I've ever read was written by a
highly skilled technical writer. His grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax
and usage were perfect, but his stories were flat, dead yawners from
beginning to end.
>> Now: would you consider a highly evocative painting that was the result
of
>> someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas to be
>> abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
>
>It makes no difference what we call it; aleatory art is as old as the
>cotswolds! Even some of our most "realistic" depictions have an element
>of chance to them; any artist who is not alive to the power of chance
>and accident to release and evoke desire is not much of an artist. If
>that happy accident produces beauty of an evocative (or provocative)
>substance, it makes no what you or I call it. It has called itself...
Unless I am mistaken, aleatory art is dependent to a degree on the element
of chance, but that element of chance does not comprise the entire process,
and that makes all the difference. If it were otherwise, then the term
'aleatory art' would cover things like natural landscapes and found art.
Does it? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think so. My (admittedly
sketchy) understanding of 'aleatory art' is that a piece in which the artist
has deliberately or subconsciously or even accidentally introduced a
significant random element fits the bill, but 'accidental' art that is
entirely random and not the result of an artist's determination to create a
work of art does not.
Since I'm so unsure of what is meant by 'aleatory' art, let's assume for a
moment that anything sufficiently evocative which incorporates a degree of
randomness that is equal to or greater than a set minimum fits the
definition of the term. By this definition, natural landscapes, sunsets,
sea urchins, and the canvas that has been accidentally splashed by some
clumsy big-footed goober tripping over his own boats are all examples of
aleatory art. . . but who are the artists, and why? It seems to me that, in
the case of the splashed canvas, the big-footed goober is only the artist
inasmuch as he observes the canvas and finds it evocative, which does make
him AN artist, but not THE artist, since he has no more claim on that title
than anyone else who makes a similar observation of the canvas. Thus the
canvas IS art, but the clumsy goober who inadvertently applied the paint to
the canvas is not an artist by virtue of having done so.
This is getting interesting.
-M. Otis Beard
M. Otis Beard
Dan Eble wrote in message ...
If that makes you abnormal, then I'm abnormal, too, and proud of it.
Revealing yourself and your emotions in your poetry is often a Good Thing,
and when it is done well in a poem that is structurally sound (or free and
informed), it makes for some of the most powerful and enduring poetry of
all. However, the purpose of poetry is not necessarily to reveal the poet's
innermost thoughts and feelings. For most forms of poetry (note that I said
"most"), communication is the primary purpose, just as it is in most other
types of writing. The poem you've posted here has a fairly dense structure
that gives it a great rhythym (I really like this kind of internal rhyming,
BTW), and your meaning is clear and not at all obscured by the structure
you've imposed on it. It doesn't tell us much about your secret thoughts,
or the agony of your soulful yearnings towards the Beloved, or even who you
are as a person (except indirectly), but I wouldn't hesitate to call it a
successful poem. Your word games have obviously helped you develop a
sophisticated sense of structure, and that is an incredibly useful and
valuable thing for any writer to have.
-M. Otis Beard
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
> Come
>to think of it, some of the worst fiction I've ever read was written by a
>highly skilled technical writer. His grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax
>and usage were perfect, but his stories were flat, dead yawners from
>beginning to end.
Harold inserted his tongue into Alice's oral orifice to a depth of 20
cm, then retracted and reinserted it twice. "Never contract the jaw
muscles during the insertion of a tongue," he told her gently, "or
allow a tongue to be inserted within three hours after having eating
garlic, onions, or foods to which the partner may have an allergy or
sensitivity."
Animeg3282
> You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I misspoke
>when I mentioned realism. I apologize and retract. Realism isn't
>important, technique is. . . so I would have no problem at all with the
>painting you describe.
>
> Now: would you consider a highly evocative painting that was the result of
>someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas to be
>abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
>
>
Umm..uh...^_^;; I don't know. Depends if I know if it was intentional or not.
M. Otis Beard
Animeg3282 wrote in message
<19990601180854...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>Otis said:
>
>> You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I misspoke
>>when I mentioned realism. I apologize and retract. Realism isn't
>>important, technique is. . . so I would have no problem at all with the
>>painting you describe.
>>
>> Now: would you consider a highly evocative painting that was the result
of
>>someone accidentally tripping and splashing paint across a canvas to be
>>abstract art, or merely a curiousity?
>>
>>
>
>Umm..uh...^_^;; I don't know. Depends if I know if it was intentional or
not.
Here's a better question: if you tripped and accidentally splashed paint
across a canvas, and the result was highly evocative, would you consider
yourself an artist for having splashed the paint on the canvas?
-M. Otis Beard
Animeg3282
> Here's a better question: if you tripped and accidentally splashed paint
>across a canvas, and the result was highly evocative, would you consider
>yourself an artist for having splashed the paint on the canvas?
>
No, I'd spend the whole morning grumbling about what a dork I am.
Georgiana Cohen
: Westermeyer wrote in message <3751775C...@home.com>...
: >
: >I find the palette of Websters to limiting, so I take a ball peen hammer to
: it
: >and glue the pieces (sometimes random odd and jagged shapes) into spaces
: >where the rules of language don't work.
: You accuse me of arrogance and pretentiousness, and then make a ridiculous
: statement like this one? You find the palette of Websters[sic] to[sic]
: limiting? How long did it take you to learn every single word in the
: dictionary, anyway?
Umm..
Lewis Carroll, "Jabberwocky."
As a sidenote, several of the words Carroll created in this poem have been
incorporated into the vernacular.
Go, jagged shapes!
--
________________________________________________________________________
| Georgiana Cohen Happiness makes up in height|
| Boston University, COM '01 for what it lacks in length.|
| gvc...@bu.edu -- Robert Frost|
| |
| http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/7852 |
|_____________________________ ICQ = 7297847 ____________________________|
Georgiana Cohen
: >especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
: >self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
: Your definition of poetry is wrong, that's how.
In this brief exchange, we have the essence of the debate at hand.
I say, once and for all, leave it up to the individual. Jesus Christ, who is
going to be hurt by a fifteen-year-old's poem which begins, "I lost my girl /
I lost my shoe / I lost my car / Man, I'm so blue". Let him call it poetry.
Leave it to the guys at the publishing houses to decide whether or not they
want it published and labelled as "poetry." Personally, I think some of
Langston Hughes' stuff ("It's such a bore being always poor" is one of his
poems [in its entirety], I believe. i forget the line breaks.) is just
completely unappealing and that I could write better lyric than ones like the
poem I quoted above. But I bet very few of you if any would say that it
wasn't a poem, simply because of the author's name. "But it's HUGHES!"
My angst-dripping poetry didn't hurt anyone; it only helped me. Maybe most of
it sucked, but who did I hurt by calling it poetry or myself a poet? Nobody.
Let kids write. It's certainly not a bad thing. Let uneducated adults
write. It can't hurt. It can only help.
Sometimes just expressing yourself in short sentences stacked in column form
can help more than anything else.
Kevin Taylor <nosp@m.ca.ca>
>M. Otis Beard (bar...@uswest.net) wrote:
>
>: >especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
>: >self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
>
>: Your definition of poetry is wrong, that's how.
>
>In this brief exchange, we have the essence of the debate at hand.
>
>I say, once and for all, leave it up to the individual. Jesus Christ, who is
>going to be hurt by a fifteen-year-old's poem which begins, "I lost my girl /
>I lost my shoe / I lost my car / Man, I'm so blue". Let him call it poetry.
By allowing that which is not to pretend to that which is we are all
reduced. That is the problem with much of today's "poetry." While it
may always have been difficult to define poetry in the past it has now
become politically incorrect to even attempt to do so. This, largely
due to the "everything is poetry" school and the perpetration of the
lie that because someone calls it poetry that it now has that status
by common assent.
And admitting not-poetry to the ranks of poetry causes a further
problem: that of a perception of good poetry and bad poetry. But
poetry cannot be other than good. Bad poetry is not poetry. It may be
verse, doggeral or a host of other things that are defined by form and
technique alone but it lacks the quality or essence we love to quibble
about.
As a poet I have written many poems and of them perhaps only a few
lines of real poetry.
>Leave it to the guys at the publishing houses to decide whether or not they
>want it published and labelled as "poetry." Personally, I think some of
>Langston Hughes' stuff ("It's such a bore being always poor" is one of his
>poems [in its entirety], I believe. i forget the line breaks.) is just
>completely unappealing and that I could write better lyric than ones like the
>poem I quoted above. But I bet very few of you if any would say that it
>wasn't a poem, simply because of the author's name. "But it's HUGHES!"
Shit is shit. Langston Hughes means nothing to me. Give me a poem that
I can call poetry and I don't care who's name is under it.
>
>My angst-dripping poetry didn't hurt anyone; it only helped me. Maybe most of
>it sucked, but who did I hurt by calling it poetry or myself a poet? Nobody.
>Let kids write. It's certainly not a bad thing. Let uneducated adults
>write. It can't hurt. It can only help.
>
>Sometimes just expressing yourself in short sentences stacked in column form
>can help more than anything else.
>
Yes, it can. So go ahead and write. Keep writing. Then write some
more. Call yourself a poet if you want to because a poet is not just
someone who has created poetry, it is someone who aspires to poetry.
Kevin Taylor <nosp@m.ca.ca>
>M. Otis Beard (bar...@uswest.net) wrote:
>
>: >especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
>: >self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
>
>: Your definition of poetry is wrong, that's how.
Well... not utterly wrong. Poetry is a form of communication. You can
communicate anything you wish to within that form. Just as you can
with prose, painting, sculpture, dance etc. Because something has some
qualities of poetry (ie poetic) does not make it poetry. "Poetry" is
possibly one of the most abused words in the English language.
Excuse the polemic.
Dale Houstman
Georgiana Cohen wrote:
>
> My angst-dripping poetry didn't hurt anyone; it only helped me. Maybe most of
> it sucked, but who did I hurt by calling it poetry or myself a poet? Nobody.
> Let kids write. It's certainly not a bad thing. Let uneducated adults
> write. It can't hurt. It can only help.
Is someone stopping kids from writing? This is a depressing revelation
to me! You don't "hurt" anyone by calling a non-poem a poem. Unless you
consider that by stating something un- or badly-formed is well-formed
you deny yourself the possibility of actually creating a well-formed
thing. In other words, you "settle" too soon in lands unfertile. You
might not be hurting those who pass you by on the way towards the lush
meadows (unless they are unusually empathetic), but your children will
not thank you for the dirt they eat in place of corn.
There is nothing wrong with uneducated adults writing, although they
will have to educate themselves in at least some aspects of the poetic.
Poetry pre-dates formal education by a goodly number of centuries, but
it is almost synonymous with self-education and self-revelation. All the
ancient sages speak of preparing yourself for the vision. It just isn't
enough to wait. One has to have a language up to the task.
> Sometimes just expressing yourself in short sentences stacked in column form
> can help more than anything else.
This is just a form. As such it can be filled with ambrosia or
cadaverine.
DMH
Joy Yourcenar
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>This is just a form. As such it can be filled with ambrosia or
>cadaverine.
>
>DMH
Oh, a new word, a new world. Thank you, Dale. I'll pass this one on to
Ebb.
Joy
Illusions you say?
Yes, I guess to you my Jesus Christ qualities
are an illusion.
~Sharon McElroy~
Michael Stephens
Stop, stop. You're turning me on.
ms
eric casteleijn
>Bad poetry is not poetry.
made me laugh
-
eric
-------------------------------------
'I just want you to hurt like I do'
-Randy Newman
-------------------------------------
Georgiana Cohen
: On 2 Jun 1999 02:45:57 GMT, gvc...@bu.edu (Georgiana Cohen) wrote:
: >M. Otis Beard (bar...@uswest.net) wrote:
: >
: >: >especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
: >: >self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
: >
: >: Your definition of poetry is wrong, that's how.
: >
: >In this brief exchange, we have the essence of the debate at hand.
: >
: >I say, once and for all, leave it up to the individual. Jesus Christ, who is
: >going to be hurt by a fifteen-year-old's poem which begins, "I lost my girl /
: >I lost my shoe / I lost my car / Man, I'm so blue". Let him call it poetry.
: By allowing that which is not to pretend to that which is we are all
: reduced.
Reduced? Reduced from what to what? Off of what pillar would I be knocked?
:That is the problem with much of today's "poetry." While it
: may always have been difficult to define poetry in the past it has now
: become politically incorrect to even attempt to do so. This, largely
: due to the "everything is poetry" school and the perpetration of the
: lie that because someone calls it poetry that it now has that status
: by common assent.
Poetry isn't about status. Just because someone is a poet doesn't make them
a better or higher grade individual.
: And admitting not-poetry to the ranks of poetry causes a further
: problem:
Ranks? THere are ranks? Is there a form I forgot to fill out, a line I
forgot to stand in?
: that of a perception of good poetry and bad poetry. But
: poetry cannot be other than good. Bad poetry is not poetry. It may be
: verse, doggeral or a host of other things that are defined by form and
: technique alone but it lacks the quality or essence we love to quibble
: about.
So there is no such thing as a bad poem? If it's a bad poem, it's not a poem?
I'm sorry you feel that way. That's l;ike saying if a nuclear test gone awry
ends up killing 5,600 people, it wasn't a nuclear test, since it went wrong.
: As a poet I have written many poems and of them perhaps only a few
: lines of real poetry.
Same here...
<snip>
: Yes, it can. So go ahead and write. Keep writing. Then write some
: more. Call yourself a poet if you want to because a poet is not just
: someone who has created poetry, it is someone who aspires to poetry.
I agree with you here.
Georgiana Cohen
: Georgiana Cohen wrote:
: >
: > My angst-dripping poetry didn't hurt anyone; it only helped me. Maybe most of
: > it sucked, but who did I hurt by calling it poetry or myself a poet? Nobody.
: > Let kids write. It's certainly not a bad thing. Let uneducated adults
: > write. It can't hurt. It can only help.
: Is someone stopping kids from writing? This is a depressing revelation
: to me! You don't "hurt" anyone by calling a non-poem a poem. Unless you
: consider that by stating something un- or badly-formed is well-formed
: you deny yourself the possibility of actually creating a well-formed
: thing. In other words, you "settle" too soon in lands unfertile. You
: might not be hurting those who pass you by on the way towards the lush
: meadows (unless they are unusually empathetic), but your children will
: not thank you for the dirt they eat in place of corn.
Some people in this group have said that kids who write angst-laden,
low-quality poems should cease producing the "trash" because it pollutes some
high-and-mighty, arbitrarily and self-importantly conceived concept of poetry.
You have to gurgle before you speak.
: There is nothing wrong with uneducated adults writing, although they
: will have to educate themselves in at least some aspects of the poetic.
: Poetry pre-dates formal education by a goodly number of centuries, but
: it is almost synonymous with self-education and self-revelation. All the
: ancient sages speak of preparing yourself for the vision. It just isn't
: enough to wait. One has to have a language up to the task.
I'm not saying that uneducated adults should stay uneducated. I'm saying, why
should the poetry that comes from the likes of them, from teenagers, and
others not as schooled as thou or I in poetics be chastised for writing poetry
like they have been in other posts in this group? Who does it hurt? Why
bother making is an "us" and "them" issue?
: > Sometimes just expressing yourself in short sentences stacked in column form
: > can help more than anything else.
: This is just a form. As such it can be filled with ambrosia or
: cadaverine.
If writing down
how you feel
so it looks like this
helps someone,
then by God,
let them.
Bruce Tindall
>If writing down
>how you feel
>so it looks like this
>helps someone,
>then by God,
>let them.
Yes, let them. But don't call the result "poetry" .
The word "poet" comes from the Greek for "maker". If the writer is
spilling words onto paper for the purpose of helping him- or herself,
rather than for the sake of the thing being made (the poem), then
the activity is more properly called "therapy", which itself is often
a very good thing, but is not at all the same as "poetry".
Some people may make themselves feel better by going into their
workshop and randomly banging some nails into some boards. If it
lets them blow off their anger and frustration and prevents them from
shooting up a high school, great. But don't call the activity
"carpentry", and don't call the random assemblage of wood "a house".
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Kevin Taylor <nosp@m.ca.ca>
>Some people in this group have said that kids who write angst-laden,
>low-quality poems should cease producing the "trash" because it pollutes some
>high-and-mighty, arbitrarily and self-importantly conceived concept of poetry.
>
>You have to gurgle before you speak.
Perhaps someone said that. But the difference is that a poem is not
necessarilly poetry. It is a catch-all of FORMS.
Roses are red, violets are blue... is a poem... not poetry.
>If writing down
>how you feel
>so it looks like this
>helps someone,
>then by God,
>let them.
>
Yes but call it therapy.
Sim Sim
Dr. Slappy Fellgood
Why shouldn't it? we live in a temporal world, where nothing is as it seems. Why
shouldn't Everyone's Poetry Sucks, Everywhere, for Everything?
Because it does, and it doesn't. it's a Jungian dilemma of epic proportions,
endowed by the poem's creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness, yet, and the yet here is bigger and more bold than
anyone could imagine, and yet, it does NOT suck with the same ferocity as it
does suck. it sucks and does not suck in two equal, yet opposite directions!!
Any educated person knows this, yet... alas, the battle continues to this day,
each side digging in for the "long haul", bringing in the big siege guns, laying
waste to women and children, not heeding the honorable truce set forth by Henry
V, NO! The war must continue until there is no one left to fight.
Honorable? perhaps, but fool hardly.
everyone with any education and sense knows that in the study of Poetry, there
are four main elements all poets must understand, and those elements are:
Air
Fire
Wind
Water
think about it morons!!!
AIR:
"i shot and arrow into the air"!!!!
FIRE:
"he fucked me like molten fire"!!!
WIND:
"i heard (his or her) voice whisper in the wind"
WATER:
"he fucked me like molten water".
There! without those four elements poetry is lost and wandering around in the
park asking for spare change and cigarettes! ALL educated people know this! This
is a truth beyond question or even discussion.
Yet, it's not.
Because as educated people we know there are more than 4 elements in the
universe. like Zinc, and Iron and Oxygen, and Carbon, and Plutonium.
It's when we branch out from the basic 4 elements, and explore the other
elements that are found in the Universe, does our poetry grow, and truly take on
the unalienable rights of the creator.
for example....
ZINC:
"he fucked me like molten Zinc"
PLUTONIUM:
"our love was like Plutonium"
don't you finally see???? can't you finally understand??? the universe and all
it's elements are like the elements of poetry!!!! a perfect harmony, equal yet
opposite, a ying and yang, a shields and yarnell, a captain and
tenille...directly perfect, yet flawed like a drunken irishman on St. Patrick's
day. equal, yet opposite, like the idea of david copperfield actually having sex
with a supermodel.
ALL poetry sucks, yet all poetry is the same, all poetry is this, all poetry is
that, all creativity is secondary to the greater union, yet the greater union is
only secondary to the greater whole. the harmony lies within, yet the harmony
lies within the change that comes from within. without the change, the harmony
fails, without the harmony the greater union becomes lesser, with a lesser union
creativity becomescommonplace, and a union where creativity becomes second place
cannot stand!!! it's as simple and as clear as that!!!
this constant bickering about what makes up poetry is only adding to the
creation of a lesser union!!! don't you understand??
and THIS, my godforsaken little child, is why Everyone's Poetry Sucks,
Everywhere, for Everything. there is no more need to search for the answer, the
answer, like a test for civil service, has already been provided for you, by me.
take the knowledge being offered you, BE the knowledge that i give you.
Understand your limitations, yet rejoice in your differences, and be one with
your poetry and the poetic mind! because the alternative is sin....
and as every educated person knows, the wages of sin... is debt.
i can do no more here.
Dr. Fellgood.
www.netgood.com/~poetry/theonlyanswer
j r sherman
says...
>
>On 2 Jun 1999 02:45:57 GMT, gvc...@bu.edu (Georgiana Cohen) wrote:
>
>>M. Otis Beard (bar...@uswest.net) wrote:
>>
>>: >especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
>>: >self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
>>
>>: Your definition of poetry is wrong, that's how.
>
>communicate anything you wish to within that form. Just as you can
>with prose, painting, sculpture, dance etc. Because something has some
>qualities of poetry (ie poetic) does not make it poetry. "Poetry" is
>possibly one of the most abused words in the English language.
>Excuse the polemic.
>
>
Dale Houstman
Georgiana Cohen wrote:
>
>
> Some people in this group have said that kids who write angst-laden,
> low-quality poems should cease producing the "trash" because it pollutes some
> high-and-mighty, arbitrarily and self-importantly conceived concept of poetry.
Oh I personally don't care if people write the word "SMEGMA" on a
baseball cap and call it a raga for Demeter! Most poetry (even the stuff
people think is legitimate) is crap with a diploma. But you have to
expect that someone who has at least labored to learn something in life
is going to cranked when some dishrag shows up spouting moldy figs into
a hatbox and calling it a saga. It's no different than any other effort
in that any plumber will tell any amateur that putting a rubber on a #2
pencil won't fix the toilet. Though poetry can be difficult to
ascertain, there are obvious examples of pure drivel. Some things must
NOT be poetry so that some things CAN be. It's really that simple to
begin with. Then it gets more detailed...
>
> You have to gurgle before you speak.
True; but if you show up at an opera house spitting tobacco juice into a
catcher's mitt and claiming you are a tenor, the best lesson is to be
told you're fooling yourself. Right off. If someone is interested in
poetry, the few words of these ng dwellers aren't about to turn them
off. If they do, they probably just aren't cut from the right bolt.
> If writing down
> how you feel
> so it looks like this
> helps someone,
> then by God,
> let them.
I don't care; i've written many poems as skinney or skinnier. Still, it
isn't about whether it "helps" them or not. If they post poetry, they
should expect that they will receive comments. If they don't want them
(and they may be perfectly correct in avoiding them) then don't post
them. Problem solved all around! What's the deal?
DMH
M. Otis Beard
Dr. Slappy Fellgood wrote in message <7j46n2$25...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>
>everyone with any education and sense knows that in the study of Poetry,
there
>are four main elements all poets must understand, and those elements are:
>
>Air
>Fire
>Wind
>Water
I think you're full of phlogiston.
-M. Otis Beard
Paul Feeney
M. Otis Beard <bar...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:b7i53.379$j7.3...@news.uswest.net...
>
> Dr. Slappy Fellgood wrote in message <7j46n2$25...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >everyone with any education and sense knows that in the study of Poetry,
> there
> >are four main elements all poets must understand, and those elements are:
> >
> >Air
> >Fire
> >Wind
> >Water
What are you talking about? These aren't even defined as elements, except
in the children's programme, "Captain Planet," and I don't know about you,
but these elements aren't really very important to me - I stepped into that
one! - but I don't care. And what about earth? Got something against it do
you?
Paul ... :~)
--
"An apology for the Devil: It must be remembered that we have only heard
one side of the case. God has written all the books."
-Samuel Butler
Dr. Slappy Fellgood
>
>
>Dr. Slappy Fellgood wrote in message <7j46n2$25...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>everyone with any education and sense knows that in the study of Poetry,
>there
>>are four main elements all poets must understand, and those elements are:
>>
>>Air
>>Fire
>>Wind
>>Water
>
>
>
>
> -M. Otis Beard
and it burns-burns-burns... the ring of fire, the ring of fire...
kisses and love,
Dr. Slappy....
Dr. Slappy Fellgood
Dr. Slappy Fellgood
Why shouldn't it? we live in a temporal world, where nothing is as it
seems. Why shouldn't Everyone's Poetry Sucks, Everywhere, for
Everything?
Because it does, and it doesn't. it's a Jungian dilemma of epic
proportions, endowed by the poem's creator with certain unalienable
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet, and the yet
here is bigger and more bold than anyone could imagine, and yet, it
does NOT suck with the same ferocity as it does suck. it sucks and
does not suck in two equal, yet opposite directions!! Any educated
person knows this, yet... alas, the battle continues to this day, each
side digging in for the "long haul", bringing in the big siege guns,
laying waste to women and children, not heeding the honorable truce
set forth by Henry V, NO! The war must continue until there is no one
left to fight.
Honorable? perhaps, but fool hardly.
everyone with any education and sense knows that in the study of
Poetry, there are four main elements all poets must understand, and
those elements are:
Air
Fire
Wind
Water
think about it morons!!!
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>
>Why shouldn't it? we live in a temporal world
Not me. I live in an occipital world, with occasional peregrinations
into the parietal.
Josh
M. Otis Beard
Georgiana Cohen wrote in message <7j3ll9$f4m$3...@news1.bu.edu>...
>Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) wrote:
>
>: Is someone stopping kids from writing? This is a depressing revelation
>: to me! You don't "hurt" anyone by calling a non-poem a poem. Unless you
>: consider that by stating something un- or badly-formed is well-formed
>: you deny yourself the possibility of actually creating a well-formed
>: thing. In other words, you "settle" too soon in lands unfertile. You
>: might not be hurting those who pass you by on the way towards the lush
>: meadows (unless they are unusually empathetic), but your children will
>: not thank you for the dirt they eat in place of corn.
>
>low-quality poems should cease producing the "trash" because it pollutes
some
>high-and-mighty, arbitrarily and self-importantly conceived concept of
poetry.
These newsgroups might be polluted by such efforts, but uninformed verse
does not pollute or degrade poetry itself unless you include it in your
definition of what poetry actually is. Indiscriminate inclusiveness, not
bad verse, degrades poetry as an artform, and degrades it mightily.
I don't have any particular need or desire to force angsty teens to quit
writing trash, but I do have an interest in separating trash from poetry.
We can help that process along by defining poetry more clearly, and
encouraging young minds to strive for a higher level of artistry.
>You have to gurgle before you speak.
Of course you do, but you don't have to call infantile gurgling rhetoric.
>: There is nothing wrong with uneducated adults writing, although they
>: will have to educate themselves in at least some aspects of the poetic.
>: Poetry pre-dates formal education by a goodly number of centuries, but
>: it is almost synonymous with self-education and self-revelation. All the
>: ancient sages speak of preparing yourself for the vision. It just isn't
>: enough to wait. One has to have a language up to the task.
In some areas of the world (like Ireland), poetry *was* formal education.
The reason we do not have a good clear picture of the Druids is that their
history was a strictly oral tradition that was handed down from generation
to generation in the form of verse.
>I'm not saying that uneducated adults should stay uneducated. I'm saying,
why
>should the poetry that comes from the likes of them, from teenagers, and
>others not as schooled as thou or I in poetics be chastised for writing
poetry
>like they have been in other posts in this group? Who does it hurt? Why
>bother making is an "us" and "them" issue?
They shouldn't be chastised for writing trash, they should be chastised
for calling their trash poetry. . . and then they should be educated. That
is our responsibility as adults and as poets. Unfortunately, sometimes it
is difficult or even impossible to get a teenager's attention and respect
without engaging them in a little verbal combat.
>: > Sometimes just expressing yourself in short sentences stacked in column
form
>: > can help more than anything else.
>
>: This is just a form. As such it can be filled with ambrosia or
>: cadaverine.
Nicely said, Dale!
>If writing down
>how you feel
>so it looks like this
>helps someone,
>then by God,
>let them.
There is
no law against
writing in this fashion.
However,
it is important
to recognize that this
is
not
poetry.
-M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards
M. Otis Beard skrev i meldingen ...
>
>Georgiana Cohen wrote in message <7j3ll9$f4m$3...@news1.bu.edu>...
>>Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) wrote:
>>
>>Some people in this group have said that kids who write angst-laden,
>>low-quality poems should cease producing the "trash" because it pollutes
>some
>>high-and-mighty, arbitrarily and self-importantly conceived concept of
>poetry.
>
>
> These newsgroups might be polluted by such efforts,
These ngs 'include' they are not 'polluted by'
>but uninformed verse
>does not pollute or degrade poetry itself
no, it doesn't
>unless you include it in your
>definition of what poetry actually is.
Still it doesn't
>Indiscriminate inclusiveness, not
>bad verse, degrades poetry as an artform,
no it doesn't
> and degrades it mightily.
Perceived degradation of perceived might: interdependent and illusory.
> I don't have any particular need or desire to force angsty teens to quit
>writing trash,
good
>but I do have an interest in separating trash from poetry.
Go ahead
>We
The royal 'we'?
>can help that process along by defining poetry more clearly, and
>encouraging young minds to strive for a higher level of artistry.
It is conceivable and I propose that it is the case, that many 'young
minds', or those who possess them, differ from you in their idea of
encouragement.
I propose furthermore that the image of strife in the process of their
maturing, is contrived.
We may all decide for ourselves as to the validity of the height/depth
metaphor you employ.
Your use of the term 'artistry' is sub judice in this thread.
>>You have to gurgle before you speak.
>
>
> Of course you do, but you don't have to call infantile gurgling rhetoric.
I do, but you need not assume that rhetoric : The art of using language
so as to persuade or influence others...(OED) is so very different to, or
more noble than, infantile gurgling.
>>: There is nothing wrong with uneducated adults writing, although they
>>: will have to educate themselves in at least some aspects of the poetic.
>>: Poetry pre-dates formal education by a goodly number of centuries, but
>>: it is almost synonymous with self-education and self-revelation. All the
>>: ancient sages speak of preparing yourself for the vision. It just isn't
>>: enough to wait. One has to have a language up to the task.
>
>
> In some areas of the world (like Ireland), poetry *was* formal education.
>The reason we do not have a good clear picture of the Druids is that their
>history was a strictly oral tradition that was handed down from generation
>to generation in the form of verse.
>
and because they were ethnically cleansed by the Romans and later the judeo-
christians from whom the royal 'we' takes its rhetorical lead.
>>I'm not saying that uneducated adults should stay uneducated. I'm saying,
>why
>>should the poetry that comes from the likes of them, from teenagers, and
>>others not as schooled as thou or I in poetics be chastised for writing
>poetry
>>like they have been in other posts in this group? Who does it hurt? Why
>>bother making is an "us" and "them" issue?
>
>
> They shouldn't be chastised for writing trash,
Nor can they be, as no-one judges.
> they should be chastised
>for calling their trash poetry.
Still the same problem
>and then they should be educated.
*be educated* gives us another problem; they might otherwise have educated
themselves.
> That
>is our responsibility as adults and as poets. Unfortunately, sometimes it
>is difficult or even impossible to get a teenager's attention and respect
>without engaging them in a little verbal combat.
The idea of shooting them comes to mind, but it's been getting bad press
lately.
>>: > Sometimes just expressing yourself in short sentences stacked in
column
>form
>>: > can help more than anything else.
>>
>>: This is just a form. As such it can be filled with ambrosia or
>>: cadaverine.
>
>
> Nicely said, Dale!
>
>>If writing down
>>how you feel
>>so it looks like this
>>helps someone,
>>then by God,
>>let them.
>
>
> There is
> no law against
> writing in this fashion.
> However,
> it is important
> to recognize that this
> is
> not
> poetry.
>
>
> -M. Otis Beard
>
I need only look at the signature.
I'm full of waffle
too
see?
p
Button Presser
Damn that Madonna, you just can't trust her.
Dave
http://www.thepentagon.com/buttonpresser
Joshua P. Hill wrote in message >Not me. I live in an occipital world, with
Joshua P. Hill
M. Otis Beard
Georgiana Cohen wrote in message <7j25b8$gsp$2...@news1.bu.edu>...
>
>Umm..
>Lewis Carroll, "Jabberwocky."
>As a sidenote, several of the words Carroll created in this poem have been
>incorporated into the vernacular.
>Go, jagged shapes!
I'm all for that. . . but Lewis Carroll had already achieved a certain
level of competence with the English language when he wrote Jabberwocky.
-M. Otis Beard
termite
"M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net> confessed:
>
> Georgiana Cohen wrote in message <7j3ll9$f4m$3...@news1.bu.edu>...
(...)
>
>>If writing down
>>how you feel
>>so it looks like this
>>helps someone,
>>then by God,
>>let them.
>
>
> There is
> no law against
> writing in this fashion.
> However,
> it is important
> to recognize that this
> is
> not
> poetry.
this
is
not
thought
poetry
can you see
why
guy?
--
"If ten billion rednecks shot at ten billion road
signs with ten billion shotguns for ten billion years, they would
eventually produce all the world's great literary works in Braille."
-Arsenic
http://www.net-link.net/~termite
Prembone
>If writing down
>how you feel
>so it looks like this
>helps someone,
>then by God,
>let them.
Hmmm. I would change that penultimate line to:
then by Elton,
Just a suggestion.
All Homage To The Elton!!!
Prembone (remove b.s. phrase when replying)
The Elton John Worship Page
http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/elton/
Prembone
wrote:
> These newsgroups might be polluted by such efforts, but uninformed verse
>does not pollute or degrade poetry itself unless you include it in your
>definition of what poetry actually is. Indiscriminate inclusiveness, not
>bad verse, degrades poetry as an artform, and degrades it mightily.
> I don't have any particular need or desire to force angsty teens to quit
>writing trash, but I do have an interest in separating trash from poetry.
>We can help that process along by defining poetry more clearly, and
>encouraging young minds to strive for a higher level of artistry.
[snip]
> They shouldn't be chastised for writing trash, they should be chastised
>for calling their trash poetry. . . and then they should be educated. That
>is our responsibility as adults and as poets. Unfortunately, sometimes it
>is difficult or even impossible to get a teenager's attention and respect
>without engaging them in a little verbal combat.
> There is
> no law against
> writing in this fashion.
> However,
> it is important
> to recognize that this
> is
> not
> poetry.
You
are taking
this
all way
too
seriously.
Worm food,
Otis. We are
worm food
waiting
on the shelf
to be
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
d.
It doesn't get
more
degraded
than
this.
Chomp.
***
Prembone
"Fish to fish, chips to chips, fish to chips and chips to fish;
each to its own, as each desires, and may all be well fed! Jolly good."
The Prembone Pages http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/
M. Otis Beard
Prembone wrote in message <37574d51....@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>You
>are taking
>this
>all way
>too
>seriously.
What's wrong with taking poetry seriously?
No offense, but maybe you should find a nice debate on something you DO
take seriously if you want to participate in a debate.
>Worm food,
>Otis. We are
>worm food
>waiting
>on the shelf
>to be
>c
> o
> n
> s
> u
> m
> e
> d.
>
>It doesn't get
>more
>degraded
>than
>this.
>
>Chomp.
Oh, well, since you put it that way, I'll just sit here, mute, and wait to
die.
Life would not be precious if it were not ephemeral, and art would not be
the noble pursuit it is.
-M. Otis Beard
eric casteleijn
wrote:
> There is
> no law against
> writing in this fashion.
> However,
> it is important
> to recognize that this
> is
> not
> poetry.
>
>
> -M. Otis Beard
I notice you didn't request c&c, but may i? Let me start off by saying
i like where you are going with this poem. Self reference is tricky,
but very rewarding if you can pull it off. I think i would lose the
caps and make it into one long sentence. Obviously this would mean
doing something about the at present perambulatory rhythm. IMO it
needs more speed. Change 'however'. 'but' is better, but may be too
simple. Anyways, here's my version:
there's
no law that says
you can't write in this fashion
but
it's important
to see
that this is no kind
of
poetry.
Prembone
wrote:
>
>Prembone wrote in message <37574d51....@news.earthlink.net>...
>>
>>You
>>are taking
>>this
>>all way
>>too
>>seriously.
>
>
> What's wrong with taking poetry seriously?
"If you have to ask,....." (finish the quote)
> No offense, but maybe you should find a nice debate on something you DO
>take seriously if you want to participate in a debate.
No offense, Mr. Otis, sir,
but
you
just
don't
grok
poetry
is
PLAY
creativity
is
PLAY
life
is
PLAY
--- but this incomprehension is but venial sin. For your penance, go
find a copy of Julia Cameron's book The Artist's Way and start
reading. And loosen up, baby. Groovy. Shagadelic, even.
>>Worm food,
>>Otis. We are
>>worm food
>>waiting
>>on the shelf
>>to be
>>c
>> o
>> n
>> s
>> u
>> m
>> e
>> d.
>>
>>It doesn't get
>>more
>>degraded
>>than
>>this.
>>
>>Chomp.
>
>
> Oh, well, since you put it that way, I'll just sit here, mute, and wait to
>die.
You are
missing
the
POINT:
life is
too short
to take it
seriously
so take it
seriously
and PLAY with it
because
in the end
all that matters
is that you had
a good trip,
and helped others to
do the same.
You grok?
> Life would not be precious if it were not ephemeral, and art would not be
>the noble pursuit it is.
Fuck nobility. Have fun. Embrace life. Good poetry doesn't happen
while you're starching your shirts.
M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards wrote in message <3756c...@news.jancomulti.com>...
>
>M. Otis Beard skrev i meldingen ...
>>
>>>
><snip>
>>>Some people in this group have said that kids who write angst-laden,
>>>low-quality poems should cease producing the "trash" because it pollutes
>>some
>>>high-and-mighty, arbitrarily and self-importantly conceived concept of
>>poetry.
>>
>>
>
If you like. I used the phrase "might be" to indicate that this is a
matter of opinion. I realize that the statement was somewhat ambiguous, and
I apologize for the confusion, which is entirely my fault.
>>but uninformed verse
>>does not pollute or degrade poetry itself
>
>no, it doesn't
We can agree without reservation on that much.
>>unless you include it in your
>>definition of what poetry actually is.
>
>Still it doesn't
Can you explain your position, or are you just going to make the assertion
without backing it up?
>>Indiscriminate inclusiveness, not
>>bad verse, degrades poetry as an artform,
>
>no it doesn't
I've taken the liberty of anticipating the next seven posts in this
exchange in order to save time:
"Yes it does."
"No it doesn't."
"Yes it does."
"No it doesn't."
"Yes it does."
"No it doesn't."
"Yes it does."
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, would you like to have a
meaningful discussion of the point upon which we disagree?
>> and degrades it mightily.
>
>
>Perceived degradation of perceived might: interdependent and illusory.
I didn't say anything about degrading the might of poetry, I said that
indiscriminate inclusiveness is mighty in its degradation of poetry as an
art form.
>> I don't have any particular need or desire to force angsty teens to quit
>>writing trash,
>
>good
>
>>but I do have an interest in separating trash from poetry.
>
>Go ahead
>
>>We
>
>The royal 'we'?
No, "we" meaning those of us who have enough experience and education to
help the up-and-comers towards a better understanding of the nature of art.
>>can help that process along by defining poetry more clearly, and
>>encouraging young minds to strive for a higher level of artistry.
>
> It is conceivable and I propose that it is the case, that many 'young
>minds', or those who possess them, differ from you in their idea of
>encouragement.
So? I can't be all things to all people, and neither can you. Does that
mean we should give up?
> I propose furthermore that the image of strife in the process of their
>maturing, is contrived.
> We may all decide for ourselves as to the validity of the height/depth
>metaphor you employ.
> Your use of the term 'artistry' is sub judice in this thread.
I'm sorry, but I'm self-educated, and there are some gaps in my knowledge.
I don't understand the usage of the Latin 'sub judice'. Can you enlighten
me, please?
>>>You have to gurgle before you speak.
>>
>>
>> Of course you do, but you don't have to call infantile gurgling
rhetoric.
>
>
> I do, but you need not assume that rhetoric : The art of using language
>so as to persuade or influence others...(OED) is so very different to, or
>more noble than, infantile gurgling.
I've chosen to think that rhetoric (in the sense you cite, which is
exactly what I meant by it) *is* different from and more noble than
infantile gurgling. I realize that there are arguments against that point
of view, but I can't think of any that are conclusive and absolute (although
the topic seems like a fertile field for learned discourse). If you have
such an argument, please share, and perhaps I'll change my mind.
BTW, I would *kill* for a copy of the OED. I hear there are plans for an
authorized online version, but I doubt it will be free.
>*be educated* gives us another problem; they might otherwise have educated
>themselves.
Autodidacts may not attend school or follow the syllabi of
school-appointed teachers, but they still learn from teachers (I know this
seems like a contradiction, but I don't think that "autodidactic" should be
defined *too* literally, because a literal interpretation of the term would
only apply to people who are cut off from all contact with human society and
culture). The difference is that they choose their own teachers, and learn
eclectically. If we offer them guidance and provide them with access to
information, they will take what seems useful to them and develop
accordingly. You may not see this as a useful or important process to
participate in, but I do.
>> That
>>is our responsibility as adults and as poets. Unfortunately, sometimes it
>>is difficult or even impossible to get a teenager's attention and respect
>>without engaging them in a little verbal combat.
>
>The idea of shooting them comes to mind, but it's been getting bad press
>lately.
Perhaps a mild electrical shock to the nipples would prove efficacious.
I'm sure there must be some precedent for that in the Catholic school
system.
-M. Otis Beard
M. Otis Beard
Prembone wrote in message <3757e28e....@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>"If you have to ask,....." (finish the quote)
". . .you must be talking to someone who doesn't take poetry very
seriously."
>> No offense, but maybe you should find a nice debate on something you DO
>>take seriously if you want to participate in a debate.
>
>No offense, Mr. Otis, sir,
> but
>you
> just
> don't
> grok
> poetry
> is
>
> PLAY
>
> creativity
>
>is
>
> PLAY
>
> life
>
>is
>
> PLAY
>
>
>--- but this incomprehension is but venial sin. For your penance, go
>find a copy of Julia Cameron's book The Artist's Way and start
>reading. And loosen up, baby. Groovy. Shagadelic, even.
Ooooh, thank you, but no. I prefer to do my dancing in the direction of
progress, even if I'm doomed to fail.
>Fuck nobility. Have fun. Embrace life. Good poetry doesn't happen
>while you're starching your shirts.
No, and it usually doesn't happen while you're refusing to put any effort
into it, either. I mean, if you're just playing around and don't care about
possibly advancing the art of poetry with your work (or imparting a little
wisdom to the younger generation), then why do you bother debating at all?
Why not just run along and play while the grownups do all the work?
-M. Otis Beard
Westermeyer
"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
>...I mean, if you're just playing around and don't care about
> possibly advancing the art of poetry with your work (or imparting a little
> wisdom to the younger generation), then why do you bother debating at all?
> Why not just run along and play while the grownups do all the work?
>
> -M. Otis Beard
Good God, are you still at it, Beard? Are "advancing the art of poetry"
and "imparting wisdom to the younger generation" the primary reasons why
you write poetry? Pretty lofty ambitions, and pretty deluded to believe
that you're in the process of doing those things (alt.teens.poetry.
indeed).
And "work", you call it? Man, shoveling the dog shit off the lawn is
work. Non-technical writing is more like play than almost anything I do.
If it starts feeling like a chore to finish a poem or short story, I put
down my pen.
--Robert
Dancing Bear
>
> No, and it usually doesn't happen while you're refusing to put any effort
>possibly advancing the art of poetry with your work (or imparting a little
>wisdom to the younger generation), then why do you bother debating at all?
>Why not just run along and play while the grownups do all the work?
Kinda condescending attitude, don'tcha think? You make many assumptions
with statements like this. Too many to be comfortable with. But then, had you
stopped and looked at your (how does that one idiot say it?) "deja-mountain,"
you'd see a pattern there, I'm sure.
I'm constantly impressed with moralizing do-gooders who think that every child
and simpleton (or as one bleeding fool actually said, "the weak") need them to
come running to their rescue or to impart "little wisdom" on them.
-Dancing Bear
Editor-in-Chief, Disquieting Muses
http://www.disquietingmuses.com
Bear's Lair
http://www.hooked.net/~bear
M. Otis Beard
Dancing Bear wrote in message <7j9uhv$k...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <z5Y53.253$J23....@news.uswest.net>, "M. says...
>>
>> No, and it usually doesn't happen while you're refusing to put any
effort
>>into it, either. I mean, if you're just playing around and don't care
about
>>possibly advancing the art of poetry with your work (or imparting a little
>>wisdom to the younger generation), then why do you bother debating at all?
>>Why not just run along and play while the grownups do all the work?
>
>Kinda condescending attitude, don'tcha think?
Was it? I was responding to an assertion that poetry (and all of life
itself) is nothing but frivolous child's play, and not worth arguing about.
I have to admit that, taken out of context, my words must seem horribly
condescending. In context, I don't think they really were.
-M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards
I think I've snipped your name elsewhere, so I've put it back here.
I have some trouble judging as to whether your basic intention is to make a
point or points, or to practice your skills in some form of rhetorical
tennis. In my last post, I rather assumed the latter.
Life and death, for example, are matters of life and death. This
isn't.
<fundamental snip>
> Can you explain your position, or are you just going to make the
assertion
>without backing it up?
I prefer the latter, but I'll say something very general about the
series of retorts. You stated that 'poetry' is degraded by the inclusion of
certain things within the usage of the term. By this you may either have
meant poetry itself or the term 'poetry'. No matter. A problem I perceive
here, is that you define 'poetry'. You also define those elements that you
do not wish to include as poetry, although others, apparently, do.
If, for some purpose or project, you need to have a working definition
of a term such as 'poetry', in order to provide a reliable frame of
reference within which to work or, if you are an editor or hold some other
position through which you are obliged to provide a consistent response to
poetry or to the term or to material pertaining to either, then your case is
good. Otherwise you have no mandate to impose a definition.
>>>Indiscriminate inclusiveness, not
>>>bad verse, degrades poetry as an artform,
>>
>>no it doesn't
>
>
> I've taken the liberty of anticipating the next seven posts in this
>exchange in order to save time:
>
> "Yes it does."
> "No it doesn't."
> "Yes it does."
> "No it doesn't."
> "Yes it does."
> "No it doesn't."
> "Yes it does."
I think that looks better like this:
>>>>>>>yes it does
>>>>>>no it doesn't
>>>>>yes it does
>>>>no it doesn't
>>>yes it does
>>no it doesn't
>yes it does
Why seven?
> Now that we've gotten that out of the way, would you like to have a
>meaningful discussion of the point upon which we disagree?
I contend that the participle of get is got.
>>Perceived degradation of perceived might: interdependent and illusory.
>
> I didn't say anything about degrading the might of poetry, I said that
>indiscriminate inclusiveness is mighty in its degradation of poetry as an
>art form.
>
And I implied that both the degradation and the might thereof, were
illusions.
<snip>
> No, "we" meaning those of us who have enough experience and education to
>help the up-and-comers towards a better understanding of the nature of art.
>
Being self-educated, there's no-one but mr. Self to say whether or not
you have enough of it. I contest(ed) your claim to be helping the
up-and-comers.
>>>can help that process along by defining poetry more clearly, and
>>>encouraging young minds to strive for a higher level of artistry.
>>
>> It is conceivable and I propose that it is the case, that many 'young
>>minds', or those who possess them, differ from you in their idea of
>>encouragement.
>
> So? I can't be all things to all people, and neither can you. Does that
>mean we should give up?
>
*We* should be less obstinate, stubborn, pig-headed, mulish, unyielding,
dogged, stiff, rigid, inelastic, wooden, inflexible, unbending, obdurate,
hardened, case-hardened, uncompromising, intransigent, set, hidebound,
obscurantist, bigoted, fanatic, OK maybe a little bit fanatic, possibly
bigoted.
>> I propose furthermore that the image of strife in the process of their
>>maturing, is contrived.
>> We may all decide for ourselves as to the validity of the height/depth
>>metaphor you employ.
>> Your use of the term 'artistry' is sub judice in this thread.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm self-educated, and there are some gaps in my
knowledge.
>I don't understand the usage of the Latin 'sub judice'. Can you enlighten
>me, please?
>
Literally: 'Under a judge', being the subject of a judicial enquiry and
therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere. Used slightly
ironically here, where the Anglo-Saxon term 'moot' would be more accurate.
'Moot', etymologically, refers to the meetings of councils of Germanic
tribes, wherein disagreements and matters of policy were decided. In the
event of a number of council members being off hunting, raping, pillaging,
or whatever, a particular decision might be 'moot' until they could
reconvene. In modern terms, a matter or term is 'moot' through concensus,
when a decision is pending. Wonderful language, English; typically, the
Latinate term has legal status, the Anglo-Saxon does not.
<nip>
>
> I've chosen to think that rhetoric (in the sense you cite, which is
>exactly what I meant by it) *is* different from and more noble than
>infantile gurgling. I realize that there are arguments against that point
>of view, but I can't think of any that are conclusive and absolute
(although
>the topic seems like a fertile field for learned discourse). If you have
>such an argument, please share, and perhaps I'll change my mind.
>
There are differences. There are similarities. Form, function, status
and possibly other criteria may be used to differentiate. I think awareness
of criteria in a given instance is important (here). We learn communication
more or less from conception, here's an obpoem:
First Dialogue
The baby sucks
The mother gives
The baby sucks
The mother gives
The baby stops
The mother rocks
The baby sucks
The mother gives.
Is this the rhythm
Of our conversation?
PSR
The spectrum of effects in communication is vast. The phenomenon of
poetry derives, probably, at least partially, from this. It's a fascinating
discussion, but not one to which I bring any particular argument.
> BTW, I would *kill* for a copy of the OED. I hear there are plans for an
>authorized online version, but I doubt it will be free.
>
I have a two volumed Shorter OED which cost less than a new bicycle.
Ten full-priced CDs ought to do it. Not much of a story, but it does
explain all the words as it goes along.
>>*be educated* gives us another problem; they might otherwise have educated
>>themselves.
>
>
> Autodidacts may not attend school or follow the syllabi of
>school-appointed teachers, but they still learn from teachers (I know this
>seems like a contradiction, but I don't think that "autodidactic" should be
>defined *too* literally, because a literal interpretation of the term would
>only apply to people who are cut off from all contact with human society
and
>culture). The difference is that they choose their own teachers, and learn
>eclectically. If we offer them guidance and provide them with access to
>information, they will take what seems useful to them and develop
>accordingly. You may not see this as a useful or important process to
>participate in, but I do.
>
Ultimately, all our knowledge is autodidactic. Ultimately, we have been
taught everything we know. It amounts to a use of terms, rather than a
definition of them. Agreement is concensual and contextual.
The eclecticism of autodidacts is a welcome relief from the dogmatism of
some of the products of educational regimes. The essential enigma that
arises is that of your championing the sort of tradition and heritage which,
I would argue, the educational establishment does more than anything to
preserve.
Still, good for you. If the self-informing choose their teachers, all
you can do is set out your stall. Good luck.
p
Prembone
wrote:
>
>
>"M. Otis Beard" wrote:
>
>>...I mean, if you're just playing around and don't care about
>> possibly advancing the art of poetry with your work (or imparting a little
>> wisdom to the younger generation), then why do you bother debating at all?
>> Why not just run along and play while the grownups do all the work?
>>
>> -M. Otis Beard
>
>Good God, are you still at it, Beard? Are "advancing the art of poetry"
>and "imparting wisdom to the younger generation" the primary reasons why
>you write poetry? Pretty lofty ambitions, and pretty deluded to believe
>that you're in the process of doing those things (alt.teens.poetry.
>indeed).
>
>And "work", you call it? Man, shoveling the dog shit off the lawn is
>work. Non-technical writing is more like play than almost anything I do.
>If it starts feeling like a chore to finish a poem or short story, I put
>down my pen.
You grok. ;-)
Keep up the good play.
Prembone
<pric...@jancomulti.com> wrote:
>> Now that we've gotten that out of the way, would you like to have a
>>meaningful discussion of the point upon which we disagree?
>
>
>I contend that the participle of get is got.
Not on MY side of the Atlantic, it isn't. ;-)
Prembone
wrote:
>
>Prembone wrote in message <3757e28e....@news.earthlink.net>...
>>On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:38:43 -0700, "M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net>
>>>
>>> What's wrong with taking poetry seriously?
>>
>>"If you have to ask,....." (finish the quote)
>
> ". . .you must be talking to someone who doesn't take poetry very
>seriously."
Nice try. Actually, the full quotation is:
"If you have to ask, you'll never know."
--- spoken, IIRC, by Louis Armstrong, in response to a woman who asked
him, "What is jazz?" I believe he prefaced his response with "Lady,"
but since you're not a lady, I felt free to paraphrase mildly.
>>> No offense, but maybe you should find a nice debate on something you DO
>>>take seriously if you want to participate in a debate.
>>
>>No offense, Mr. Otis, sir,
>> but
>>you
>> just
>> don't
>> grok
>> poetry
>> is
>>
>> PLAY
>>
>> creativity
>>
>>is
>>
>> PLAY
>>
>> life
>>
>>is
>>
>> PLAY
>>
>>
>>--- but this incomprehension is but venial sin. For your penance, go
>>find a copy of Julia Cameron's book The Artist's Way and start
>>reading. And loosen up, baby. Groovy. Shagadelic, even.
>
>
> Ooooh, thank you, but no. I prefer to do my dancing in the direction of
>progress, even if I'm doomed to fail.
Go do your penance, and you **will** make progress. You can probably
find the book at your local library.
>>Fuck nobility. Have fun. Embrace life. Good poetry doesn't happen
>>while you're starching your shirts.
>
> No, and it usually doesn't happen while you're refusing to put any effort
>into it, either.
Did I say anything about "refusing to put any effort"? No. I'm just
telling you to lose the starched-shirt attitude and stop talking as if
art were some Sacred Temple that only a few Worthy Mortals dare
approach with Much Fear and Trembling.
> I mean, if you're just playing around and don't care about
>possibly advancing the art of poetry with your work (or imparting a little
>wisdom to the younger generation), then why do you bother debating at all?
You mental (gratuitous flame, mea culpa), that is exactly what I am
attempting to do for you: impart a little wisdom. The wisdom is in
the play, and the play is the thing, and if you had the least
knowledge of the fool you'd understand how very wise you would be to
follow her.
>Why not just run along and play while the grownups do all the work?
Overly-serious teens and young adults do all the work, more than is
ever necessary. Those of us who have grown up a bit more realize
that life is way too short to be so damn serious about stupid shit
like Advancing The Art Of Poetry. We're more concerned with Giving
Voice To That Which Lies Within Us than with Furthering An Elitist
Institution. To the extent that we work to polish our craft, we do it
to better realize our "vision," not to pass muster with some
ostensible "authority" out there.
If it's any consolation, when I was young, I too was very, very
serious. Time heals all wounds. ;-)
M. Otis Beard
Peter Stewart Richards wrote in message <37591...@news.jancomulti.com>...
> M. Otis,
> I think I've snipped your name elsewhere, so I've put it back here.
>I have some trouble judging as to whether your basic intention is to make a
>point or points, or to practice your skills in some form of rhetorical
>tennis. In my last post, I rather assumed the latter.
I'm only interested in scoring points when I play games, but I do intend
to make a point of logic now and again. I also intend to learn whatever I
can from anyone capable of schooling me. Practice makes perfect, but
"rhetorical tennis" (nice way of putting it, BTW) takes a back seat to
meaningful discourse in my book.
If you and I have had friction due to some ambiguity in our conversation,
then allow me once again to apologize. I don't seek friction, but I don't
shy away from it either, and I'm good at being a complete bastard when I
want to be. I don't really want to be a bastard when I'm engaged in
discourse with reasonably intelligent people.
>Life and death, for example, are matters of life and death. This
>isn't.
No, it isnt. . . but there is quite a bit of ground between the completely
trivial and the deadly serious. Our struggle lies somewhere in the infinite
shades of grey between a nonexistent black and a theoretical white. For me,
arriving at a consensual definition of the concept of poetry is a lot closer
to deadly serious than it is to completely trivial.
>> Can you explain your position, or are you just going to make the
>>assertion
>>without backing it up?
>
> I prefer the latter, but I'll say something very general about the
>series of retorts. You stated that 'poetry' is degraded by the inclusion
of
>certain things within the usage of the term. By this you may either have
>meant poetry itself or the term 'poetry'. No matter. A problem I perceive
>here, is that you define 'poetry'. You also define those elements that you
>do not wish to include as poetry, although others, apparently, do.
>
> If, for some purpose or project, you need to have a working definition
>of a term such as 'poetry', in order to provide a reliable frame of
>reference within which to work or, if you are an editor or hold some other
>position through which you are obliged to provide a consistent response to
>poetry or to the term or to material pertaining to either, then your case
is
>good. Otherwise you have no mandate to impose a definition.
I need to have a working definition of 'poetry' in order to write poetry,
critique poetry, and have meaningful conversations with people like you
about poetry. I've edited and contributed to one paperback anthology of
poetry and short fiction so far, and I have hopes of publishing more.
> I think that looks better like this:
>
>>>>>>>>yes it does
>>>>>>>no it doesn't
>>>>>>yes it does
>>>>>no it doesn't
>>>>yes it does
>>>no it doesn't
>>yes it does
You're right, that really adds a certain emotionally expressive overtone
to the piece. We should submit it to the Innernashunul Liberry of Proety, I
hear they're having a contest.
30 - LOVE!
>Why seven?
"The seventh heaven, most unlike those others,
We once contrived to enter
By a trance of love; it is a green castle
Girdled with ramparts of the blue sea
And silent but for the waves' leisured wash.
There Adam rediscovered Eve:
She wrapped him in her arms."
I dunno. Why not seven?
>> Now that we've gotten that out of the way, would you like to have a
>>meaningful discussion of the point upon which we disagree?
>
>I contend that the participle of get is got.
I'm American. My specialty is coloring my judgment with rumor and
wrapping it in aluminum foil.
>
> Being self-educated, there's no-one but mr. Self to say whether or not
>you have enough of it. I contest(ed) your claim to be helping the
>up-and-comers.
I'm in a public forum. If my education is lacking, it will soon be
pointed out to me. If someone with a wit and sophistication that is
evidently well beyond my own points it out, I'll listen attentively.
Arrogance and autodidacticism are incompatible.
>>>>can help that process along by defining poetry more clearly, and
>>>>encouraging young minds to strive for a higher level of artistry.
>>>
>>> It is conceivable and I propose that it is the case, that many 'young
>>>minds', or those who possess them, differ from you in their idea of
>>>encouragement.
>>
>> So? I can't be all things to all people, and neither can you. Does
that
>>mean we should give up?
>
> *We* should be less obstinate, stubborn, pig-headed, mulish,
unyielding,
>dogged, stiff, rigid, inelastic, wooden, inflexible, unbending, obdurate,
>hardened, case-hardened, uncompromising, intransigent, set, hidebound,
>obscurantist, bigoted, fanatic, OK maybe a little bit fanatic, possibly
>bigoted.
I'm willing to try if you are. *SMILE*
>> I'm sorry, but I'm self-educated, and there are some gaps in my
>knowledge.
>>I don't understand the usage of the Latin 'sub judice'. Can you enlighten
>>me, please?
>>
> Literally: 'Under a judge', being the subject of a judicial enquiry and
>therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere. Used slightly
>ironically here, where the Anglo-Saxon term 'moot' would be more accurate.
>'Moot', etymologically, refers to the meetings of councils of Germanic
>tribes, wherein disagreements and matters of policy were decided. In the
>event of a number of council members being off hunting, raping, pillaging,
>or whatever, a particular decision might be 'moot' until they could
>reconvene. In modern terms, a matter or term is 'moot' through concensus,
>when a decision is pending. Wonderful language, English; typically, the
>Latinate term has legal status, the Anglo-Saxon does not.
I was aware of the etymology and usage of "moot" but had only the literal
translation of "sub judice" to work with. Thanks for taking the time to
clear that up.
Now, then! Er, um, ah. . . what was the question again? I seem to have
foolishly deleted it from my reply! WAAAAH! POETRY IS RUINED FOREVER!
Is this the rhythm / Of our conversation? I hope not, since I don't care
for conversations in which only one party gives while the other takes and
takes and takes. I'm surprised that you didn't include a line in which the
baby gurgles or cries, but your point is taken.
In any case, our requests and demands to have our needs and desires
satisfied make for pretty poor rhetoric. I don't think we have a
disagreement, but I thought I'd toss that comment into the ring.
I've changed the name of this thread to "Why Your Baby Sucks" in honor of
your poem.
> The spectrum of effects in communication is vast. The phenomenon of
>poetry derives, probably, at least partially, from this. It's a
fascinating
>discussion, but not one to which I bring any particular argument.
I've heard it said that there are only seventeen basic plots in fiction.
I don't know how true that is (outside of sitcoms, anyway), but even if God
Itself has ordained that it be so, it seems obvious that this paltry number
of possible plots can be employed to flesh out a myriad of central themes.
I've never heard of anyone propounding a similar theory regarding poetry,
but I'd be interested in listening if anyone were so inclined.
> I have a two volumed Shorter OED which cost less than a new bicycle.
>Ten full-priced CDs ought to do it. Not much of a story, but it does
>explain all the words as it goes along.
<JOKE value="stupid" source="American TV commercial"
metaref="alt.religion.kibology">Mmmmmmmm, etymology.</JOKE>
I'm moving to Moscow, Russia for a year in September, so I'm selling
material goods off more than I'm buying them, but I'll be on the lookout for
your Shorter OED when I get settled.
>> Autodidacts may not attend school or follow the syllabi of
>>school-appointed teachers, but they still learn from teachers (I know this
>>seems like a contradiction, but I don't think that "autodidactic" should
be
>>defined *too* literally, because a literal interpretation of the term
would
>>only apply to people who are cut off from all contact with human society
>>and culture). The difference is that they choose their own teachers, and
>>learn eclectically. If we offer them guidance and provide them with
>>access to information, they will take what seems useful to them and
>>develop accordingly. You may not see this as a useful or important
>>process to participate in, but I do.
>>
> Ultimately, all our knowledge is autodidactic. Ultimately, we have
been
>taught everything we know. It amounts to a use of terms, rather than a
>definition of them. Agreement is concensual and contextual.
I didn't want to go too far in THAT direction with my usage of the term,
either.
> The eclecticism of autodidacts is a welcome relief from the dogmatism
of
>some of the products of educational regimes. The essential enigma that
>arises is that of your championing the sort of tradition and heritage
which,
>I would argue, the educational establishment does more than anything to
>preserve.
The educational establishment in your country (Norway?) probably does, but
here in the States they don't do much more than skim over the surface of the
traditions and heritage to which you refer. American schools typically
cater to the lowest common denominator, and an alarmingly large percentage
of our high school graduates are dismally ignorant as a direct result of
that method. I don't know where the blame for this situation ultimately
lies, but I suspect that it is more a source of frustration for teachers
than it is a strategy. Personally, if I were elected Evil Tyrant of America
tomorrow, I'd have each and every member of every school board in the
country taken out and shot.
An anecdote: I ran into my fifth grade teacher recently at a rest area on
Interstate 5. He told me that he is no longer allowed to "waste" time
teaching his students the fundamentals of arithmetic. He teaches them how
to use pocket calculators instead. I doubt they even cover Reverse Polish
Notation.
Another anecdote: In the course of planning my upcoming trip to Russia, I
visited the offices of a local travel agent. Since I'm staying overseas for
at least a year, I'll be flying one-way and making arrangements for my
return to the States later. This means that I cannot fly into Moscow,
because the Russian government won't give me an entry visa if I travel by
air unless I have my return ticket in hand. I was the only client in the
office at the time, so I had the full attention of no less than THREE travel
agents, none of whom spotted the errors made by their boss. The
conversation went something like this:
ME: "What if I flew into Prague, and took the train to Moscow? Do I need
a visa to fly to Prague?"
TRAVEL AGENT: "Prague? No, you don't need a visa to enter Germany."
ME: "Prague isn't in Germany. It's in the Czech Republic."
TRAVEL AGENT: "You mean Czechoslovakia? Let me look that up for you."
ME: "There is no Czechoslovakia anymore. It's Slovakia and the Czech
Republic now."
TRAVEL AGENT: "Oh, OK. So, Slovakia, that's the same as Slovenia, right?
I don't see any Prague in Slovenia."
ME: "Slovenia is a completely different country, and Prague is in the
Czech Republic, not Slovakia."
TRAVEL AGENT: "Oh, OK. Here it is. Ummmm. . . yes, I *think* you would
need a visa to enter the Czech Republic." (This turned out to be incorrect.
I can stay in the CZ for up to thirty days without a visa, which is more
than enough time for my purpose.)
ME: "That's too bad, I'd really like to see Prague on this trip. OK, what
if I fly into Frankfurt and take the train from there? What would that
cost?"
TRAVEL AGENT: "Frankfurt, France? Let me look that up."
ME: "Frankfurt is in Germany. I don't think the Germans would be very
happy about you handing it over to France like that."
TRAVEL AGENT: "Germany? Are you sure?"
Duh. Duh. Duh. At that point, I went stark staring mad, slaughtered
everyone in the building, and ran naked and bloody through the streets with
a fistful of intestine in one hand and a severed head in the other. JUST
KIDDING. Actually, I just smiled and thanked them and took my business
elsewhere.
> Still, good for you. If the self-informing choose their teachers, all
>you can do is set out your stall. Good luck.
Thank you.
-M. Otis Beard
P.S. -- This will be my last Usenet session for a few weeks. I'm going on
a little road trip with my girlfriend (Seattle, Vegas, L.A., San Francisco,
Portland) and I intend to stay away from computers for the duration. I'll
be back, so please don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond for a
while.
M. Otis Beard
Prembone wrote in message <37594610....@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:03:17 -0700, "M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Prembone wrote in message <3757e28e....@news.earthlink.net>...
>>>On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:38:43 -0700, "M. Otis Beard" <bar...@uswest.net>
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with taking poetry seriously?
>>>
>>>"If you have to ask,....." (finish the quote)
>>
>> ". . .you must be talking to someone who doesn't take poetry very
>>seriously."
>
>Nice try. Actually, the full quotation is:
>
>"If you have to ask, you'll never know."
>
>--- spoken, IIRC, by Louis Armstrong, in response to a woman who asked
>him, "What is jazz?" I believe he prefaced his response with "Lady,"
>but since you're not a lady, I felt free to paraphrase mildly.
I am familiar with the quotation, o condescending one, but it doesn't
apply in this instance. I ask you once again, what's wrong with taking
poetry seriously?
>Did I say anything about "refusing to put any effort"? No.
Yes, you did. If poetry is nothing but play, as you have asserted, then
how does it require effort?
>I'm just
>telling you to lose the starched-shirt attitude and stop talking as if
>art were some Sacred Temple that only a few Worthy Mortals dare
>approach with Much Fear and Trembling.
It isn't your place to tell me what to do or not do, and your
exaggerations of my position on the subject are wildly distorting.
>> I mean, if you're just playing around and don't care about
>>possibly advancing the art of poetry with your work (or imparting a little
>>wisdom to the younger generation), then why do you bother debating at all?
>
>You mental (gratuitous flame, mea culpa), that is exactly what I am
>attempting to do for you: impart a little wisdom. The wisdom is in
>the play, and the play is the thing, and if you had the least
>knowledge of the fool you'd understand how very wise you would be to
>follow her.
I don't mean to insult you, but I've read your writing (and
your --*HLORP!*-- Elton John worship page), and I really don't see how you
could possibly have much to teach me. I already know how to play, thank you
very much (I think I demonstrated that pretty well with my poem, The
Beautiful Day), and I don't accept your definition of poetry as any text
that reflects the feelings of the writer, or your definition of life as
nothing but a brief flash of goofy shenanigans sandwiched between two
infinite periods of nonexistence. If that's all you've got, then I guess we
don't have anything more to talk about right now.
>>Why not just run along and play while the grownups do all the work?
>
>Overly-serious teens and young adults do all the work, more than is
>ever necessary. Those of us who have grown up a bit more realize
>that life is way too short to be so damn serious about stupid shit
>like Advancing The Art Of Poetry.
Since it's "stupid shit" to you, there's no real reason for you to
participate in this thread, is there?
> We're more concerned with Giving
>Voice To That Which Lies Within Us
Go ahead, but if you call that poetry in and of itself, I'll disagree with
you. I'll probably make fun of you, too.
>than with Furthering An Elitist
>Institution. To the extent that we work to polish our craft, we do it
>to better realize our "vision," not to pass muster with some
>ostensible "authority" out there.
What "Elitist Institution" and "authority" are you referring to, I wonder?
And what's all that about working? I could have sworn that you said you
eschew work in favor of play. Silly hippie.
>If it's any consolation, when I was young, I too was very, very
>serious. Time heals all wounds. ;-)
I'm young, and I'm not very serious at all, most of the time, which is why
I spend most of my time on Usenet in alt.religion.kibology. I guess if I
were blowing smoke out of my ass on a subject I don't know or care much
about, I wouldn't be very serious now.
Prembone
casteleijn) wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 04:32:17 GMT, po...@intergate.bc.ca ("Kevin Taylor"
><no...@m.ca.ca>) wrote:
>
>>Bad poetry is not poetry.
>
>made me laugh
It's a koan.
Prembone
wrote:
>Prembone wrote in message <37594610....@news.earthlink.net>...
>>>>> What's wrong with taking poetry seriously?
>>>>
>>>>"If you have to ask,....." (finish the quote)
>>>
>>> ". . .you must be talking to someone who doesn't take poetry very
>>>seriously."
>>
>>Nice try. Actually, the full quotation is:
>>
>>"If you have to ask, you'll never know."
>>
>>--- spoken, IIRC, by Louis Armstrong, in response to a woman who asked
>>him, "What is jazz?" I believe he prefaced his response with "Lady,"
>>but since you're not a lady, I felt free to paraphrase mildly.
>
>
> I am familiar with the quotation, o condescending one
Takes one to know one. ;-)
> but it doesn't apply in this instance.
Why not? Oh. Of course. We're talking about poetry, not jazz.
> I ask you once again, what's wrong with taking
>poetry seriously?
>
>>Did I say anything about "refusing to put any effort"? No.
>
> Yes, you did. If poetry is nothing but play, as you have asserted, then
>how does it require effort?
Sigh. You just don't get it.
"Work with a playful attitude." Does that help you to understand?
>>I'm just
>>telling you to lose the starched-shirt attitude and stop talking as if
>>art were some Sacred Temple that only a few Worthy Mortals dare
>>approach with Much Fear and Trembling.
>
> It isn't your place to tell me what to do or not do
It's not your place to tell the world what is or isn't Real Poetry,
either, but we'll overlook that for the moment.
>, and your
>exaggerations of my position on the subject are wildly distorting.
It's called satire, Otis.
>>> I mean, if you're just playing around and don't care about
>>>possibly advancing the art of poetry with your work (or imparting a little
>>>wisdom to the younger generation), then why do you bother debating at all?
>>
>>You mental (gratuitous flame, mea culpa), that is exactly what I am
>>attempting to do for you: impart a little wisdom. The wisdom is in
>>the play, and the play is the thing, and if you had the least
>>knowledge of the fool you'd understand how very wise you would be to
>>follow her.
>
>
> I don't mean to insult you, but I've read your writing
At least that portion of it which I've put on the Web. And if you
mean to tell me that your opinion is that I don't write well, that
reflects more upon your lack of judgment (or appreciation for my style
of humor, poetry, Elton John worship, etc.) than upon my capability as
a writer. ;-) You are definitely in the minority.
> (and your --*HLORP!*-- Elton John worship page)
True worshipers of The Elton (and even a few Unbelievers with an
intelligent sense of humor) have nothing but praise for The Elton John
Worship Page. I wouldn't expect you to understand, O Humorless
Infidel. Get thee behind me!
On second thought, don't....
>and I really don't see how you could possibly have much to teach me.
You don't see. That doesn't mean I don't have much to teach you.
Whether you are capable of comprehending what I could teach you is
another matter.
BTW, I meant that I had much to teach you about LIFE, not necessarily
about writing. But on that point, see below.
> I already know how to play, thank you very much
Mmmm....I remain skeptical.
> (I think I demonstrated that pretty well with my poem, The
>Beautiful Day)
I don't recall seeing it. I did stop by your web site on GeoCities,
and didn't find it there, but frankly, if you're trying to tell me
that your poetry is better than mine, well....
*****Stepping aside from argument for a moment of dispassioned
critique: *****
The poems on your site are all right, but not outstanding. Honestly,
if I had surfed into your site without knowing who you were, I
wouldn't have been overly impressed. Likely I would have thought,
well, it's not truly **bad** (which, given what's on a lot of web
sites, counts for something!), but neither would I have been blown
away.
*****End of dispassioned critique. Back to argument.*****
Slightly vested-interest addendum to above: My "Oscar Wilde Poem" is
better. ;-) (I've received numerous compliments on it from a variety
of audiences.) If you didn't see it on this NG, go to:
http://www.geocities.com/~secularpagan/poems/oscar.html
> and I don't accept your definition of poetry as any text
>that reflects the feelings of the writer, or your definition of life as
>nothing but a brief flash of goofy shenanigans sandwiched between two
>infinite periods of nonexistence.
Does the word "irony" mean anything to you? Do you like ironic humor?
Do you undestand the concept of using a smartass statement to make a
serious statement? Or do you read everything at the literal,
superficial level?
> If that's all you've got, then I guess we
>don't have anything more to talk about right now.
I do think we see the world in very different ways, and here's the
test:
What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Your answer to this question will determine if there is any hope
whatsoever that you will ever understand the workings of my mind.
>>Overly-serious teens and young adults do all the work, more than is
>>ever necessary. Those of us who have grown up a bit more realize
>>that life is way too short to be so damn serious about stupid shit
>>like Advancing The Art Of Poetry.
>
> Since it's "stupid shit" to you, there's no real reason for you to
>participate in this thread, is there?
Of course there is: to argue against your position. Writing poetry
is not about "advancing the art." It's about writing poetry because
that's what we want to write; whether it's any good or advances "The
Art" is quite beside the point.
>> We're more concerned with Giving
>>Voice To That Which Lies Within Us
>
> Go ahead, but if you call that poetry in and of itself, I'll disagree
> with you.
If it's written in poetic rather than prose or other form, it's
poetry. At any rate, don't sidetrack: My point was that this
expression of a creative vision, not "advancing the art," is the
purpose of writing poetry.
Also, if you want to write **well**, write from within, not with a
finger to the wind of the critics. Constructive criticism is helpful
in the process of shaping and refining, but harmful to the initial
creative impulse.
[snipping the rest of MOB's invitation-to-flame]
> P.S. -- This will be my last Usenet session for a few weeks.
Well, this thread will probably be dead by then so you may not even
see this. But if you do, I think it's safe to say we've reached an
impasse. We each appreciate different things in poetry, thought,
humor, and life, and trying to reach any sort of agreement would be
like reconciling the American Atheist Association with the Southern
Baptist Convention.
PS - Read Julia Cameron's book "The Artist's Way."
"Fish to fish, chips to chips, fish to chips and chips to fish;
each to its own, as each desires, and may all be well fed! Jolly good."
The Prembone Pages http://www.geocities.com/~prembone
CyberKaryn: The Writings http://clik.to/cyberkaryn
The Secular Paganist http://www.geocities.com/~secularpagan
steve...@my-deja.com
<7it0kb$p0i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >how pathetic is someone who tries to tell someone else they're wrong?
>
> That depends on how wrong the other person actually is.
>
> >especially when it comes to poetry, which is the expression of one's
> >self. which means poetry CAN'T be wrong.
>
> Your definition of poetry is wrong, that's how.
hmmmm... maybe you're right, i guess my definition is something like
"your creative self, whatever that is"... what's yours? (i'm curious,
not trying to be sarcastic or anything)
>
> -M. Otis Beard
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Janet Bentley-Dage
Janet
steve...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7k9va7$99h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Russell & Kari Markowitz
<steve...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7k9va7$99h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ted Dage
>Why are there so many people making sport of put-down? Where is the love?
Ummm.
"Can't we all just get along???"
heh.
But this is so much more FUN!
TD
--
"How young I seem; I am exceptional;
I think of all I have.
But really no one is exceptional,
No one has anything, I'm anybody,
I stand behind my grave
Confused with my life, that is commonplace and solitary."
Randall Jarrel, "Next Day"