PPB: In the slant sunlight of the young October / Alfred Austin

[George J. Dance]

Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin

In the slant sunlight of the young October,
Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
[...]

https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

#pennyspoems

[NancyGene]

George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.

[George J. Dance]

Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.

BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.

[Faraway Star]

Outstanding pick, good to see that you're getting close scrutiny from your readers...!

[NancyGene]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > >
> > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > >
> > > #pennyspoems
>
> > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.

That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg. What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts. Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?

>
> BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.

Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays? Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.

We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:

"The Human Tragedy ACT IV
by Alfred Austin
Alfred Austin
Personages:
Gilbert- Miriam-
Olympia- Godfrid.
Protagonists:
Love- Religion-
Patriotism- Humanity.
Place: Rome-Paris.
Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"

That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."

[Michael Pendragon]

I've often pondered over whether a Dramatic Poem like "Manfred" would be considered a play or a poem. Byron's "Manfred" was never intended to be presented on stage -- although it has been.

My own verse drama, "Night Magick," could go either way. I didn't write it with the idea of having it produced on stage in mind; that is to say, I intended it to be read. However, when I read it, I experience it as a "closet drama," wherein the scenes appear as a stage production in my mind.

Austin has certainly presented "The Human Tragedy" in drama format; so AFAICS, referring to it as either a "play" or a "poem" is acceptable.


Michael Pendragon
"No, there's no time limit, no explanation date, on Usenet threads."
-- Will Dockery on why he refuses to explain any of his unintelligible sentences

[Ash Wurthing]

I find presenting a poetry collection as a "play" to be an interesting idea.
Protagonists: Love- Religion-Patriotism- Humanity.
That idea I may have to steal for my collection.

[Will Dockery]

At least NancyGene is good for something.

😃

[Ash Wurthing]

But you're not...
Oh, wait you inspired a collection of satirical poetry!

[Will Dockery]

Look who's talking, Ash Wurthing, the do nothing no talent wannabe thug of the poetry newsgroup.

HTH and HAND.

[NancyGene]

George, Lord Byron, would probably have had it produced in multiple forms today. He missed out on greater fame and money.

>
> My own verse drama, "Night Magick," could go either way. I didn't write it with the idea of having it produced on stage in mind; that is to say, I intended it to be read. However, when I read it, I experience it as a "closet drama," wherein the scenes appear as a stage production in my mind.

Where can interested readers access "Night Magick?"

>
> Austin has certainly presented "The Human Tragedy" in drama format; so AFAICS, referring to it as either a "play" or a "poem" is acceptable.

And therefore George Dance is wrong.

We also see in "The Human Tragedy:"
"ACT I
Personages:
Olive—Godfrid—Gilbert.
Protagonist:
Love.
Place: England.
Time: June-November 1857."

"ACT II
Personages:
Olympia--Godfrid--Gilbert--Olive.
Protagonists:
Love- Religion.
Place: Spiaggiascura--Milan--Florence.
Time: March 1858-May 1859."

"ACT III
Personages:
Godfrid--Gilbert--Miriam--Olympia.
Protagonists:
Love--Religion--Patriotism.
Place:
Capri--Mentana.
Time:
October-November 1867."

The above stage directions set the scene for acts in a play. George Dance should have known that we had a reason for also calling the poem a "play." George Dance didn't look far enough into Mr. Austin's work to realize that. George Dance was...wrong.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:23:56 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 11:48:37 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > >
> > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg. What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.

Which is why John Dunne trying to find his way to London, Ireland was so funny.

😃

[NancyGene]

We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."

[Michael Pendragon]

Just as the Donkey doesn't read the posts he responds to (especially the poems of his "friends"), it is becoming clear that George D. doesn't read/research the poems that he copy/pastes to his blog.

Mr. Austin's poem could be a masterpiece... or a pretentious bore. Had George read, and commented on, the poem, his blog (and the AAPC threads he uses to advertise it) would be worth reading.


Michael Pendragon
"Now it turns out that Waffle House is open until nine at night, which is a major change from the open all night schedule that was traditional."
-- Will Dockery, discussing poetry.

[Michael Pendragon]

The 1889 version features a rather lengthy preface, which may also be interesting. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read it, or the poem. (I'm still working my way through "Ulysses" when not writing my own poetry.) I would, however, like to give Mr. Austin's poem a read -- the title alone makes me suspect that it's right up my alley.


Michael Pendragon
"Waffle House is no longer the late night spot for coffee, conversation and Wi-Fi."

[Family Guy]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 10:20:27 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Look the do nothing no talent wannabe thug of the poetry newsgroup.
>

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:34:34 PM UTC-4, Family Guy wrote:
>
> the do nothing no talent wannabe thug of the poetry newsgroup.
> >

Don't be so hard on yourself, Dink.

😃

[Ash Wurthing]

Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)

[NancyGene]

We are still on the waiting list for "Ulysses" at the library. We did scan the preface, but it looked at first glance like a slog, but we will revisit it. We were mostly looking for info on "The Human Tragedy."

[Ash Wurthing]

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 9:26:27 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:23:56 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 11:48:37 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg. What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> Which is why John Dunne trying to find his way to London, Ireland was so funny.

Funny to a LoseNet vet that thinks I'm a "hypothetical" fool!
Funny to a hypocrite who cries:
Will Dockery
Nov 15, 2022, 9:16:17 PM
No problem, everyone makes a mistake from time to time.

So why are you obsessing over two mistakes made-- what over a year ago now?
Exactly as what others say about you:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/oC9y6haxMQM/m/L25h6RJxAQAJ
:D

[George J. Dance]

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > >
> > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > >
> > > > #pennyspoems
> >
> > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.

In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.

> What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.

Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.

> Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?

Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?

> > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.

> Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?

Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.

> Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.

Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.

> We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
>
> "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> by Alfred Austin
> Alfred Austin
> Personages:
> Gilbert- Miriam-
> Olympia- Godfrid.
> Protagonists:
> Love- Religion-
> Patriotism- Humanity.
> Place: Rome-Paris.
> Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
>
> That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."

Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:52:34 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > >
> > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > >
> > > > > #pennyspoems
> > >
> > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
>
> > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
>

We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so.

> > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> >
> > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > by Alfred Austin
> > Alfred Austin
> > Personages:
> > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > Protagonists:
> > Love- Religion-
> > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> >
> > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
>

Imagine the narrator as delivering a monologue.

Yes, the text of the poem doesn't *look* like a play.

And since none of us have read it (I feel safe including you), we cannot make unsupported hypotheses about it. We can only go by what few facts we have established.

To wit:

1) The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play,
2) The poem is divided into "Acts," listing "Dramatis Personae" (in the 1889 ed.) and "Personages" and "Protagonists" (in the ed. quoted from above).

Since we have to assume that Mr. Austin isn't a Donkey-level moron, we must conclude that he divided it into "Acts" for a reason.

Your reason ("he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles") is speculative, and since you haven't read the poem, a wild guess.

I'm not pretending that my own conclusion is definitive by any stretch of the imagination. I'm saying that when confronted with a poem that is divided into "Acts," and lists "Dramatis Personae" and "Setting," should be considered to partake of both forms (poem and play, a.k.a., "Dramatic Verse") until its form has been determined.



Michael Pendragon
“I can't seriously imagine anyone wanting, much less trying, to pass off a Will
Dockery ‘creation' as his own. That would be like asserting property
rights over a drifting clump of offshore sewage.”
-- Gerard Ian Lewis

[Michael Pendragon]

I found a bio on Mr. Austin that's a bit more in-depth than the Wikipedia article, which says that Austin "saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."

https://allpoetry.com/Alfred-Austin

This leads me to believe that his decision to break his poem into "Acts," etc., was due to his desire to have it viewed as "Dramatic Poetry" in imitation of Shakespeare's plays (which he discusses in the afore-mentioned Preface to the 1889 edition of his poem).

"I suppose it everybody's opinion that the most delightful of all love-stories in verse is 'Romeo and Juliet.'"

NOTE that he refers to the play as having been written "in verse."

Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin

I can see a man fitting the above description presenting his poem in quasi-play format because he considered Dramatic Verse superior to all other forms.


Michael Pendragon
“Oh, don't be silly.
Dockery's trademark is a turd with a liplock on it.
(You've seen his other ‘drawings.’ It only /looks like/ he's
sucking cock.)”
-- Dennis M. Hammes on Will Dockery.

[Will Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:

>> > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
>> > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
>> That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.

> In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.

>> What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.

> Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.

>> Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?

> Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some.. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?

>> > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.

>> Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?

> Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.

>> Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
>> https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.

> Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.

>> We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
>>
>> "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
>> by Alfred Austin
>> Alfred Austin
>> Personages:
>> Gilbert- Miriam-
>> Olympia- Godfrid.
>> Protagonists:
>> Love- Religion-
>> Patriotism- Humanity.
>> Place: Rome-Paris.
>> Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
>>
>> That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."

> Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.

Well put, George.

[NancyGene]

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > >
> > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > >
> > > > > #pennyspoems
> > >
> > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.

We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg. If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.

> > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.

George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us? You continually deflect from the original problem.

> > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?

1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.
3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.
4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"

> > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
>
> > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.

Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play." You are wrong.

> > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.

Nonsense.

> > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> >
> > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > by Alfred Austin
> > Alfred Austin
> > Personages:
> > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > Protagonists:
> > Love- Religion-
> > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> >
> > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.

Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.

[Will Dockery]

Agreed and seconded.

😃

[George J. Dance]

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > >
> > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.

I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.

> If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.

Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.

> > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.

> > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]

Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.

* Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.

> George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?

Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:

> > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.

> You continually deflect from the original problem.

NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
(1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
(2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
(3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.

Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.

> > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?

> > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.

Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.

> 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.

Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.

> 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.





> 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"



> > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> >
> > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.

> Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."

That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?

> You are wrong.

No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.

> > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.

> > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> Nonsense.

So you haven't looked at the text of either work.

> > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > >
> > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > by Alfred Austin
> > > Alfred Austin
> > > Personages:
> > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > Protagonists:
> > > Love- Religion-
> > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > >
> > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.

> Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.

Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
>
> > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.

That's absurd.

...

[Michael Pendragon]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
>
> > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
>

What's with the name-calling, George?

I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).

> > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:

Your alleged "thank you" was of the back-handed variety, as it was given along with a patronizing attempt to misrepresent NancyGene's familiarity with literary terms.

Why couldn't you have just thanked her, corrected your blog, and moved on?

Was you ego threatened by her correction?

> > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.
> > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> (1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
> (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
>
> Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.

No, George.

NancyGene corrected the date you'd mistakenly attributed to the edition of Mr. Austin's poem that you'd published an excerpt from. This is the sort of thing that literary scholars do.

You returned her correction with a back-handed "thank you" and a patronizing attempt to explain the meaning of "tragedy."

You've also hurled your usual childish names and Jim (who is no longer here) and myself (although I have been addressing you by your name).

You claim that your interactions here are dictated by your "system of ethics" commonly known as "Tit for Tat," yet you persist in launching unprovoked attacks on others, simply because you choose to see them as "enemies."

> > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
>
> > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
>

You have *nothing* to base this accusation on, George.

As a casual reader of "Penny's Pages," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.

If "Penny's Pages" is meant to be a scholarly tool for those interested in obscure and forgotten poetry, you would devote the necessary time to ensure that such mistakes do not occur.

> > 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.
> Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.

Again, you have no basis for making this accusation. You remind me of a spiteful child who refuses to own up to his mistakes.

> > 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"
>
>
>
> > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> > >
> > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
>
> > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
>

NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George. She corrected an error on your blog.

Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.

Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.

> > You are wrong.
>
> No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.

She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."

I have cited passages from Mr. Austin's biography (at All Poetry) and from the Preface of the 1879 and 1889 editions of his poem that support this conclusion.

Tellingly, you have ignored both of the posts in which I'd mentioned these.

> > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> > Nonsense.
>
> So you haven't looked at the text of either work.

I've no doubt that both NancyGene and I are (now) as familiar with Mr. Austin's poem as yourself.

> > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > > >
> > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > Alfred Austin
> > > > Personages:
> > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > > Protagonists:
> > > > Love- Religion-
> > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > > >
> > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
>
> > Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.
> Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.

If Mr. Austin had wanted "The Human Tragedy" to be thought of as "a long poem," he would have separated it into Cantos. The fact that he *chose* to separate it into Acts shows that he wanted it to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse" (which is what he believed to be the highest form of poetry, and which he felt was exemplified in the plays of William Shakespeare).

You stand corrected.


Michael Pendragon
“You invented the unspeakable shit called
duckrish because English is beyond you and now you seem to be having
trouble understanding your own mangled language.”
-- Rob Evans to Will Dockery

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:

Again, well put.

😃

[NancyGene]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:55:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> >
> > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.

Maybe you should just have deleted the poem and started over? However, since we did point out your mistake, which lead to your "change," we are responsible for your changing the version and the date. You would not have done that if we had not looked more closely into your posting.

You put Michael and Jim's poetry on one of your sites and refused to removed it, including refusing to remove Jim's picture. Do you give "anyone" credit on your blaarrggg except for yourself? We would love to read one of your research papers.

> >
> What's with the name-calling, George?

That is George Dance's method of dealing with being wrong.

>
> I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).

Jim is waiting for Dockery's demise, which cannot come soon enough.

> > > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> > Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> > Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
> Your alleged "thank you" was of the back-handed variety, as it was given along with a patronizing attempt to misrepresent NancyGene's familiarity with literary terms.

Yes, his thank you might as well have been accompanied by a spit on the ground. George Dance tries to belittle others in order to build himself up, and that is particularly apparent when he is criticized.

>
> Why couldn't you have just thanked her, corrected your blog, and moved on?

"Thank you, NancyGene, for catching that error. I'll change it on the site--much appreciated." (George Dance never said that.)
>
> Was your ego threatened by her correction?

> > > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.
> > > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> > NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.

To George Dance, his "fixing it" means that it "never" existed.

> > (1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
> > (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> > (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
> >
> > Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.
> No, George.
>
> NancyGene corrected the date you'd mistakenly attributed to the edition of Mr. Austin's poem that you'd published an excerpt from. This is the sort of thing that literary scholars do.

George Dance seems to have limited his vocabulary to "troll" and "lying," no matter the circumstance.

>
> You returned her correction with a back-handed "thank you" and a patronizing attempt to explain the meaning of "tragedy."

If George Dance understood so much about Austin's work, why didn't he accompany the original posting with a commentary?

>
> You've also hurled your usual childish names and Jim (who is no longer here) and myself (although I have been addressing you by your name).

Big brains are supposed to have big thoughts.

>
> You claim that your interactions here are dictated by your "system of ethics" commonly known as "Tit for Tat," yet you persist in launching unprovoked attacks on others, simply because you choose to see them as "enemies."
> > > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> >
> > > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> > Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
> >
> You have *nothing* to base this accusation on, George.

George Dance could have no way of knowing if we visit his blaarrrgg or not. As we said, we don't often visit that site(s), and if we do it is for a purpose.

>
> As a casual reader of "Penny's Pages," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.

It would be more valuable to poetry readers to have an in-depth analysis of the poem rather than excerpts from 20 poems that just happen to have the season in one line.

>
> If "Penny's Pages" is meant to be a scholarly tool for those interested in obscure and forgotten poetry, you would devote the necessary time to ensure that such mistakes do not occur.

And we will not always point out the errors.

> > > 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.
> > Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.
> Again, you have no basis for making this accusation. You remind me of a spiteful child who refuses to own up to his mistakes.

We don't read every George Dance post. However, George Dance SHOULD check every date in his postings.

> > > 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.
> > > 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"
> >
> > > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >
> > > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> > That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
> >
> NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George. She corrected an error on your blog.

George Dance considers any correction to be an attack.

>
> Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.

It's his attempt to cover his insecurities. He know that you and we are much superior to him intellectually. He is barely hanging onto the ledge.

>
> Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.

Absolutely, which is why we said "play" above.

> > > You are wrong.
> >
> > No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.
> She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."

Mr. Austin was attempting to produce something similar in form to those works (and Shakespeare's). We will have to read the full poem/play/work.

>
> I have cited passages from Mr. Austin's biography (at All Poetry) and from the Preface of the 1879 and 1889 editions of his poem that support this conclusion.
>
> Tellingly, you have ignored both of the posts in which I'd mentioned these.

That doesn't jibe with George Dance's thoughts of being omnipotent.

> > > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > So you haven't looked at the text of either work.
> I've no doubt that both NancyGene and I are (now) as familiar with Mr. Austin's poem as yourself.

We have looked at many versions of the poem/play/work.

> > > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > > Alfred Austin
> > > > > Personages:
> > > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > > > Protagonists:
> > > > > Love- Religion-
> > > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > > > >
> > > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
> >
> > > Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.
> > Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.
> If Mr. Austin had wanted "The Human Tragedy" to be thought of as "a long poem," he would have separated it into Cantos. The fact that he *chose* to separate it into Acts shows that he wanted it to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse" (which is what he believed to be the highest form of poetry, and which he felt was exemplified in the plays of William Shakespeare).
>
> You stand corrected.

A definitive judgment.

[Faraway Star]

You nailed it G.D.

[George J. Dance]

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:

Indeed, no one was talking about Will or anyone like him until you mentioned him -- and your only reason for mentioning him seems to be to open up this thread to name-calling. So be it; your doing that provides both an opportunity and another reason to ask the perennial question:
WTF is wrong with you, Michael Monkey?

> > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.

> > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [must] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.

By the same token, "Manfred" is a play.

> > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > >
> > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > by Alfred Austin
> > > Alfred Austin
> > > Personages:
> > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > Protagonists:
> > > Love- Religion-
> > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > >
> > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
> >
> Imagine the narrator as delivering a monologue.
>

While all the other actors are running hither and yon pantomiming the story? That was ludicrous enough, but it got even more so when the characters spoke. For instance, lines like this in Act I:

CXXIII
She leaned away, she hung athwart the ledge
Of the young torrent, and with quivering lips,
"Don't," she cried, "don't! My pledge! my sacred pledge!"

CXXIV
And when the spell of silence was uncharmed,
" Let us go home," she said ; "'tis better so.'
But they who fight with love are soon disarmed,
And bare their breast in striking the first blow.

CXXX
Halting and bending forward his tall frame,
To peer within, "What a sweet nook !" he cried.
"Who trained these branches was not much to blame.
Shall we not use their shade, and see, unseen,
The yellowing Autumn trench on Summer's green?"

Through this part of the poem, there are only two "personages" speaking, Gotfrid and Olive. But every time one of them speaks, up pops the imaginary narrator to interject "he said", "she said," etc.

This might work as a short Monty Python or Bonzo Dog Band skit; but it's no way to to write a play. Austin wrote some plays, so presumably he knows that.

> Yes, the text of the poem doesn't *look* like a play.

... or read like one.

> And since none of us have read it (I feel safe including you), we cannot make unsupported hypotheses about it. We can only go by what few facts we have established.
>
> To wit:
>
> 1) The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play,

It's a narrative poem. If you think that requires a narrator other than the writer, then you can call it "narrated" as well; but there is no obvious narrator.

> 2) The poem is divided into "Acts," listing "Dramatis Personae" (in the 1889 ed.) and "Personages" and "Protagonists" (in the ed. quoted from above).

No, Austin didn't use the term "Dramatis Personae" in this poem (though he did in at least one play). He added the Protagonists and the Places in 1876, when he renamed his cantos Acts, and added the Personages in 1889.

> Since we have to assume that Mr. Austin isn't a Donkey-level moron, we must conclude that he divided it into "Acts" for a reason.
>
> Your reason ("he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles") is speculative, and since you haven't read the poem, a wild guess.

I didn't say that I haven't read the poem. If that's what you want to believe, I don't see any reason to argue the point with you, but I will point out that's just something you made up on your own.

[Faraway Star]

Well put G.D.

You nailed that lying sack of monkey shit Penhead with that one...!

That is all.

[George J. Dance]

Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?

> > > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> > Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> > Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:

> > > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.

> Your alleged "thank you" was of the back-handed variety, as it was given along with a patronizing attempt to misrepresent NancyGene's familiarity with literary terms.

Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.

> Why couldn't you have just thanked her, corrected your blog, and moved on?

Exactly what I did. NG has since been insisting that /The Human Tragedy/ was, too, a play, so we moved on to that.

> Was you ego threatened by her correction?

Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?

> > > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> > NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.

> > (1) you claimed I'd used ["the wrong version here of the lines" *], and I thanked you for telling me that.
[* Edited for accuracy]

> > (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> > (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
> >
> > Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.
> No, George.
>
> NancyGene corrected the date you'd mistakenly attributed to the edition of Mr. Austin's poem that you'd published an excerpt from.

No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.

> This is the sort of thing that literary scholars do.
>
> You returned her correction with a back-handed "thank you" and a patronizing attempt to explain the meaning of "tragedy."

Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.

> You've also hurled your usual childish names and Jim (who is no longer here) and myself (although I have been addressing you by your name).

As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.

> You claim that your interactions here are dictated by your "system of ethics" commonly known as "Tit for Tat," yet you persist in launching unprovoked attacks on others, simply because you choose to see them as "enemies."
> > > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> >
> > > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> > Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
> >
> You have *nothing* to base this accusation on, George.
>

Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?

> As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.

Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything. It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.

> If "Penny's Pages" is meant to be a scholarly tool for those interested in obscure and forgotten poetry, you would devote the necessary time to ensure that such mistakes do not occur.


> >

> > > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.

I've since tracked down the two earlier versions; neither of them were "plays" either.

> > > >
> > > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >
> > > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> > That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
> >
> NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.

Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.

> She corrected an error on your blog.

And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.

> Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.

Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.

> Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.

I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse

> > > You are wrong.
> >
> > No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.
> She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."

No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.

> I have cited passages from Mr. Austin's biography (at All Poetry) and from the Preface of the 1879 and 1889 editions of his poem that support this conclusion.
>
> Tellingly, you have ignored both of the posts in which I'd mentioned these.

> > > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > So you haven't looked at the text of either work.

> I've no doubt that both NancyGene and I are (now) as familiar with Mr. Austin's poem as yourself.

Well, there's no sense in trying to discuss that with you.

> > > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > > Alfred Austin
> > > > > Personages:
> > > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > > > Protagonists:
> > > > > Love- Religion-
> > > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > > > >
> > > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
> >
> > > Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.
> > Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.
> If Mr. Austin had wanted "The Human Tragedy" to be thought of as "a long poem," he would have separated it into Cantos.

As I've already said, Austin did separate it into Cantos -- in the 1862 edition, the alleged "play" that NG wanted me to use on PPB rather than the text I'd selected). He only got the "Acts" idea later.

> The fact that he *chose* to separate it into Acts shows that he wanted it to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse" (which is what he believed to be the highest form of poetry, and which he felt was exemplified in the plays of William Shakespeare).
>
> You stand corrected.
>

I'll take a look for where you've quoted Austin as saying that's what he wanted. As with your friend NG, the procedure with you is "Don't trust, verify."

[Michael Pendragon]

I was under the impression that your "system of ethics," otherwise known as "Tit for Tat," only applied to direct attacks on one's person. When you call people by childish names for having made fun of one of your friend, you're defeating the (supposedly) positive results of its application.

In short, I am now obligated under the rules of Tit for Tat to call you "Mr. Dunce" in return.

And yet another temporary cease fire is brought to a close.

What part of "The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play," are you failing to understand?

> > Yes, the text of the poem doesn't *look* like a play.
> ... or read like one.
> > And since none of us have read it (I feel safe including you), we cannot make unsupported hypotheses about it. We can only go by what few facts we have established.
> >
> > To wit:
> >
> > 1) The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play,
> It's a narrative poem. If you think that requires a narrator other than the writer, then you can call it "narrated" as well; but there is no obvious narrator.

My suspicion is that "Love," "Humanity," & co. is narrating it. But as I said, I haven't read it, so that's just a suspicion.

> > 2) The poem is divided into "Acts," listing "Dramatis Personae" (in the 1889 ed.) and "Personages" and "Protagonists" (in the ed. quoted from above).
> No, Austin didn't use the term "Dramatis Personae" in this poem (though he did in at least one play). He added the Protagonists and the Places in 1876, when he renamed his cantos Acts, and added the Personages in 1889.
> > Since we have to assume that Mr. Austin isn't a Donkey-level moron, we must conclude that he divided it into "Acts" for a reason.
> >
> > Your reason ("he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles") is speculative, and since you haven't read the poem, a wild guess.
> I didn't say that I haven't read the poem. If that's what you want to believe, I don't see any reason to argue the point with you, but I will point out that's just something you made up on your own.
>

You haven't.

I'm too familiar with your m.o. to consider that a guess.

[Michael Pendragon]

This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.

> > > > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> > > Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > > * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > > > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> > > Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
> > > > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.
> > Your alleged "thank you" was of the back-handed variety, as it was given along with a patronizing attempt to misrepresent NancyGene's familiarity with literary terms.
> Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.

I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."

> > Why couldn't you have just thanked her, corrected your blog, and moved on?
> Exactly what I did. NG has since been insisting that /The Human Tragedy/ was, too, a play, so we moved on to that.

"Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.

> > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
>

Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.

> > > > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> > > NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> > > (1) you claimed I'd used ["the wrong version here of the lines" *], and I thanked you for telling me that.
> [* Edited for accuracy]
> > > (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> > > (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
> > >
> > > Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.
> > No, George.
> >
> > NancyGene corrected the date you'd mistakenly attributed to the edition of Mr. Austin's poem that you'd published an excerpt from.
> No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.

I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.

> > This is the sort of thing that literary scholars do.
> >
> > You returned her correction with a back-handed "thank you" and a patronizing attempt to explain the meaning of "tragedy."
> Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
>

And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.

> > You've also hurled your usual childish names and Jim (who is no longer here) and myself (although I have been addressing you by your name).
> As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
>

That never happened, George.

> > You claim that your interactions here are dictated by your "system of ethics" commonly known as "Tit for Tat," yet you persist in launching unprovoked attacks on others, simply because you choose to see them as "enemies."
> > > > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> > >
> > > > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> > > Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
> > >
> > You have *nothing* to base this accusation on, George.
> >
> Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?

I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.

> > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
>
> Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
>

I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.

> It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.

Grant me some credit, George.

If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.

> > If "Penny's Pages" is meant to be a scholarly tool for those interested in obscure and forgotten poetry, you would devote the necessary time to ensure that such mistakes do not occur.
>
>
> > >
> > > > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> I've since tracked down the two earlier versions; neither of them were "plays" either.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > > > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> > > That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
> > >
> > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.

I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com

> > She corrected an error on your blog.
> And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.

As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."

> > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.

NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.

> > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse

No, George, I'm not.

This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.

I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.

Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.

> > > > You are wrong.
> > >
> > > No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.
> > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.

Wrong.

They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.

"Romeo & Juliet" is a "verse drama" (IMHO), however, Mr. Austin referred to it as an example of "Dramatic Verse" -- which he considered (along with "Narrative Verse") to be the highest form of poetry.

Mr. Austin's definition of "Dramatic Verse" includes both "Dramatic Verse" ("Manfred") and "Verse Drama" ("Romeo & Juliet").

> > I have cited passages from Mr. Austin's biography (at All Poetry) and from the Preface of the 1879 and 1889 editions of his poem that support this conclusion.
> >
> > Tellingly, you have ignored both of the posts in which I'd mentioned these.
>
> > > > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> > > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > So you haven't looked at the text of either work.
>
> > I've no doubt that both NancyGene and I are (now) as familiar with Mr. Austin's poem as yourself.
> Well, there's no sense in trying to discuss that with you.

Nor, by the same token, with you.

> > > > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > Alfred Austin
> > > > > > Personages:
> > > > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > > > > Protagonists:
> > > > > > Love- Religion-
> > > > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > > > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
> > >
> > > > Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.
> > > Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.
> > If Mr. Austin had wanted "The Human Tragedy" to be thought of as "a long poem," he would have separated it into Cantos.
> As I've already said, Austin did separate it into Cantos -- in the 1862 edition, the alleged "play" that NG wanted me to use on PPB rather than the text I'd selected). He only got the "Acts" idea later.
>

Can you say "grasping at straws"?

> > The fact that he *chose* to separate it into Acts shows that he wanted it to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse" (which is what he believed to be the highest form of poetry, and which he felt was exemplified in the plays of William Shakespeare).
> >
> > You stand corrected.
> >
> I'll take a look for where you've quoted Austin as saying that's what he wanted. As with your friend NG, the procedure with you is "Don't trust, verify."

Regarding literature, that should be your stance with *everyone* -- including published scholars on the subject.

[W.Dockery]

>> > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles.. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.

Agreed and seconded.

😃

[W.Dockery]

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>
>> > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
>> >
>> > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
>> > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
>> > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
>> >
>> > #pennyspoems

>> George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.

> Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.

> BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.

Again, nailed it.

😃

[George J. Dance]

The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:

<quote>

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:

> > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >

> We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.

</q>

- and here's your Asstroll:
<quote>

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)

</q>

Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

> > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."

I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

> "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.

As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.

> > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> >
> Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.

No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.

> > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.

NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.

> > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> >
> And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.

And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."

> > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> >
> That never happened, George.

Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.

Once again, here's you:

<quote>

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:

> > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >

> We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.

</q>

- and here's your Asstroll:
<quote>

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)

</q>

We're back to name-calling, by your choice.

> > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.

Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.

> > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> >
> > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> >
> I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> Grant me some credit, George.

It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
"I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en

The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.

> If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.

No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!

> > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.

> I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com

There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:

(1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
(2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
(3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
(4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
(5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
(6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.

; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.

> > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."

No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.

> > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.

The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.

> > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> No, George, I'm not.
>
> This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
>
> I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.

Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?

> Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.

I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.

> > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> Wrong.

No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.

> They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.

I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.

snip

[NancyGene]

George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so." If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one), what was his reason for using "Acts?" By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.

[Will Dockery]

Thanks again for setting the record straight, George.

😃

[Michael Pendragon]

Where have I called you anything other than "George" in the above?


Goebbels notwithstanding, repeating a lie does *not* make people believe it. It shows them just how big a liar you actually are.

> > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

I posted it on 10/23/2023 in this thread (see above).

And just so you can't lie about it again, here it is:

"[Austin] saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."

https://www.poemhunter.com/alfred-austin/biography/#google_vignette

> > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.

No, Dunce, it is not.

"Written in 1816-1817 by the British poet Lord George Gordon Byron, Manfred is a closet drama, meaning that Byron never intended it to be produced onstage despite writing it in the style of a play in verse, with dialogue parts for various characters."

https://www.supersummary.com/manfred/summary/

> > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > >
> > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.

Despite it's being presented as a play?

When discussing a literary work, you *cannot* ignore such things as the author's having separated it into "Acts," provided a cast of Characters, and a Setting.

The author *intended* it to be read as a play (a "closet drama").

His motivation for doing so may be surmised from the poemhunter biographical note quoted above.

> > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
>

Again, Lying Dunce, I did not say that NancyGene's *correction* wasn't in this thread. We are all aware that NancyGene corrected you *here" -- just as we are all aware that the error had appeared *in your blog.*

You made an error on your blog.
NancyGene corrected your error (in this thread).
You've been throwing an epic hissyfit ever since.

> > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > >
> > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."

"[Austin] saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."

https://www.poemhunter.com/alfred-austin/biography/#google_vignette


If you believe that PoemHunter is mistaken, I suggest that you read *all* of Mr. Austin's essays and (if no instance of "dramatic verse" occurs), that you take it up with them.

> > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > >
> > That never happened, George.
> Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
>
> Once again, here's you:

Again, Lying Dunce, the only name that I called you in the quoted passage is "George."

Is "George" no longer you name?

> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> </q>
>
> - and here's your Asstroll:
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> </q>
>
> We're back to name-calling, by your choice.

No, Lying Dunce. We're back to name-calling by your actions.

> > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
>

NancyGene was correcting your blog entry, Dunce.

Had you previously stated that you've no interest in the accuracy of your Penny's posts, then NancyGene's correction could (arguably) be deemed a troll.

However, since one assumes that you'd like your Penny's Pages to be as accurate as possible, NancyGene's correction can only be viewed as beneficial.

> > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > >
> > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > >
> > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > Grant me some credit, George.
> It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en

What part of "barring evidence to the contrary" are you failing to understand, Dunce?

Allow me to make this crystal clear to you: I trust NancyGene. I don't trust you.

In this case, I have visited your blog, read the exchanges here, and looked up both Mr. Austin and his poem. The evidence sides with NancyGene.

> The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.

Stop lying, Lying Dunce.

Mr. Austin has presented his poem as a play (dividing it into Acts, etc.). NancyGene has *correctly* described it as a "closet drama."

Based on the biographical information provided by PoemHunter, and Mr. Austin's Preface to the 1889 ed. of his play, I believe that NancyGene's description is correct.

I also believe that 1) your description is incorrect, and that 2) you realize that it's incorrect, and that 3) you are only insisting that it is correct because your ego is too delicate to admit that you are wrong.

> > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
>

I have made no contradictory statements whatsoever, Dunce.

Please concentrate really hard and try to follow this:

1) I rarely visit your blog.
2) The only times I visit your blog and/or your Wiki and/or whatever else you choose to call them are when a) NancyGene points out an error on said blog, or when b) someone alerts me to your having attached my name/bio to one of the above.

Got that?

> > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
>
> > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
>
> (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.

You're inferences are incorrect, Dunce.

If Austin retitled his Cantos as Acts, the correct inference is that he wished his poem to be read as a "closed drama."

> ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
>

And, again: he later *knowingly* changed the divisions from Cantos to Acts. The *inference* to be drawn from this is clear (see above).

> > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.

No, Dancing Dunce, you said "I thanked them" (immediately above).

You *lied* when you said that you "thanked them," because (also noted above) your "thank you" was backhanded at best.

> > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
>

You're playing yet another variation on IKYABWAI (which has repeatedly been shown to be the only tactic in "The Dunce Playbook").

The truth is that NancyGene pointed out an error on your blog.

You are unable to accept a correction, and have been attacking NancyGene ever since.

> > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > No, George, I'm not.
> >
> > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> >
> > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
>

Again, I do not pretend to have read Mr. Austin's essays.

His biographical information at PoemHunter states the following:

"[Austin] saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."

https://www.poemhunter.com/alfred-austin/biography/#google_vignette


If you believe that PoemHunter is mistaken, I suggest that you read *all* of Mr. Austin's essays and (if no instance of "dramatic verse" occurs), that you take it up with them.

> > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
>

That's nice, Dunce.

However, unless NancyGene finds an error in it, I doubt I shall be reading it.

> > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > Wrong.
> No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
>

There you go again, Lying Dunce. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact are answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:

(1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
(2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.

(3) Austin "saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression" (PoemHunter)
(4) fact: Austin did not *originally* write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
(5) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
(6) inference: Austin did so because he wished his poem to be thought of as a form of as a "closet drama"/"dramatic verse"(from 3).
(7) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a poem, but a hybrid form of poetry and drama ("closed drama"/"dramatic verse").

> > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.

You've "heard" because I told you so, Deceitful Dunce.

However:

"Written in 1816-1817 by the British poet Lord George Gordon Byron, Manfred is a closet drama, meaning that Byron never intended it to be produced onstage despite writing it in the style of a play in verse, with dialogue parts for various characters."

https://www.supersummary.com/manfred/summary/


As always, HtH & HAND


Michael Pendragon
"I'll ask you again to to put your claims in my mouth."
-- George "Fillerup" Dance

[George J. Dance]

I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.

> If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),

Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).

> what was his reason for using "Acts?"

You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.

Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.

Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.

> By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.

OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."

[Michael Pendragon]

Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."

As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?

> > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).

The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):

Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin

If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.

> > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
>

Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?

Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.

> Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
>

And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?

> Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.

Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."

One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.

Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."

As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."

> > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
>

The only name I called you in the passage you'd quoted is "George."

Does you Tit for Tat system of "ethics" justify attacking others because they're involved in a fight with one of your friends? If so, does it allow you to attack others for having insulted a politician, political party, or political issue that you support?

If so, you're a half-step away from justifying totalitarianism.


Michael Pendragon
"This one got me laid more than once, which after all is the true purpose of
good poetry, as is all art. That, and a free tab with the bartender."
-- Will Donkey on the purpose of art.

[Will Dockery]

As usual, if Michael Pendragon is typing, he's probably lying.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

One of us is lying, Donkey.

Please point out where I called our resident Dunce anything other than "George" in the above-quoted passage.


Michael Pendragon
"I do go in for the childish name-calling."
-- Will Dockery in a rare moment of self-acknowledgement

[Ash Wurthing]

I can say the same about you now, with definitive proof after you identified as lies, your very own words that I quoted.
Poor Dockery, you're trolling got the better of you!

[Ash Wurthing]

I've tried to tell them why their tit for tat would embroil them in an endless spat from which they will not extract themselves:
Blind idiots, always they talk so simple minded about gangs and leaders, ignorant to the fact that this strife is a complex web of individual struggles interwoven in fighting.
So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle and there's no way to sort out what's self defense, what's solely or justly provoked or what's actual uncalled for trolling. Nor is there probably any stopping it now. This has gone on too long, people are now too entrenched and embittered, so not to be provoked and not to go overboard.

They're bold enough to ignore but not brave enough to face criticism.

He presents himself as someone with morals but his ethics are only in tatting spitefully, to hen peck so pettily, for he owns not a single worthy attribute to be regarded highly. A goodly wussy crying bully.
He thinks he knows the half of it and therefor thinks he's a leader-- of the ignorant, that is.
He would only lead his adherents to their inane demises. Sadly, something as minuscule as a virus would make short work of his self-imagined greatness.

I just have to laugh, them thinking that I crave their praise. Hell, I don't need anything from them but their attempted ridicule and contempt-- they seem to get more butt sore from my scorn than I do from theirs. As I've implied, they are my glaring battern.

They cannot see but I'm reveling in this fabulous fractious bout among such fine company, this bloodied lot of louts! And I'm all for the brawl, I just love the writing that's inspired when the furor is flying. When things are too entrenched, too self-vested, the animosity now too deeply ingrained for anyone not to rub each other wrong, enmity is the usual m.o. for that hoped for k.o.
With the tempestuous winds, Gaia wails in pain
her children's poisonous works courses in her veins

> If so, you're a half-step away from justifying totalitarianism.

Yep, as I been trying to warn people, even so called freedom loving Libertarians can become totalitarians when imposing their ideas of individual over Society which grants and protects the individual's freedom. How can you have pluralistic order to protect everyone in the self absorbed anarchy of individualism.

[General-Zod]

NancyGene wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>
>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
>>
>> In the slant sunlight of the young October,
>> Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
>> Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
>> [...]
>>
>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
>>
>> #pennyspoems

> George Dance, you have the wrong version

Either way, the poem is quite splendid..!

That is all.

[Michael Pendragon]

Actually, I've got no real animosity for the Donkeys, and am perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones. I don't even care if they continue to call me names, level false accusations against me, etc. All that I want from them is that they limit themselves to 10 posts per day (with unlimited posts in the four designated threads mentioned elsewhere).

I think that most (if not all) of my supposed "Team" would be glad to ignore the Donkey and his socks altogether -- provided that they stop burying our threads.

> They're bold enough to ignore but not brave enough to face criticism.

You're granting them too much credit. There's nothing bold about they're willingness to ignore criticism. They have the minds and maturity levels of children, and believe that negative criticism will magically be discounted if they stamp their feet deny it loudly enough -- and countered it with an IKYABWAI.

> He presents himself as someone with morals but his ethics are only in tatting spitefully, to hen peck so pettily, for he owns not a single worthy attribute to be regarded highly. A goodly wussy crying bully.
>

How he can call "Tit for Tat" a "system of ethics" is beyond me.

I can only surmise that his father's refusal to let him play with the neighborhood children have left him incapable of interacting with others on an adult level.

> He thinks he knows the half of it and therefor thinks he's a leader-- of the ignorant, that is.

Which is why his nickname of "Mensa George" (given to him long before my arrival here) has stuck.

> He would only lead his adherents to their inane demises. Sadly, something as minuscule as a virus would make short work of his self-imagined greatness.

PJR named George the leader of "The Dunce Gang." And, although he functions on a subservient level to the Donkey, the latter (and his socks) look up to him as their intellectual superior. The fact that George's "Gang" is made up of illiterate pissbums speaks volumes.

> I just have to laugh, them thinking that I crave their praise. Hell, I don't need anything from them but their attempted ridicule and contempt-- they seem to get more butt sore from my scorn than I do from theirs. As I've implied, they are my glaring battern.
>

Like children, they are prone to project their own feelings, reactions, and motivations on others. George gets butthurt at the drop of a hat, so he believes that others get butthurt at the drop of a hat as well.

> They cannot see but I'm reveling in this fabulous fractious bout among such fine company, this bloodied lot of louts! And I'm all for the brawl, I just love the writing that's inspired when the furor is flying. When things are too entrenched, too self-vested, the animosity now too deeply ingrained for anyone not to rub each other wrong, enmity is the usual m.o. for that hoped for k.o.
>

George cannot grasp the fact that having a Donkey or four to kick around can be both therapeutic and fun. We slap them around for the same reasons that PJR and his alt.kooks peers slapped them around -- because it's fun (in an admittedly sadistic way).

> With the tempestuous winds, Gaia wails in pain
> her children's poisonous works courses in her veins
> > If so, you're a half-step away from justifying totalitarianism.
> Yep, as I been trying to warn people, even so called freedom loving Libertarians can become totalitarians when imposing their ideas of individual over Society which grants and protects the individual's freedom. How can you have pluralistic order to protect everyone in the self absorbed anarchy of individualism.
> >

George spent his childhood under the rule of an authoritarian father (and probably mother as well). Now that his parents are dead, he's free to do whatever he pleases. He's like a little boy who's experiencing his first taste of freedom at summer camp. No one is going to tell him what to do. And no amount of reasoning will convince him otherwise.


Michael Pendragon
"I would posit 13/14 as being an area where rational consent is possible, but anything younger while possible, is not advisable."
-- The late, unlamented Stephen "Pickles" Pickering [attempting to justify Ginsberg's having had sex with 14-year old boys]

[Faraway Star]

> > So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle

Which could all end if we all simply decided to exist peacefully here..!

> Actually, I've got no real animosity for the Dxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and am perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones. I don't even care if they continue to call me names, level false accusations against me, etc. All that I want from them is that they limit themselves to 10 posts per day

As I recall, Doc has agreed to a 50 post a day limit, which seems fair and I would likely agree to the same as well.

Sounds like a fair deal for peace..!

[Jordy C]

“Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!

[Faraway Star]

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
>
> “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!

Good day J.C.

Well put...!

[Ash Wurthing]

Well I go axes to burying in their thick skulls, but I agree with you here-- the biggest reason none of those I knew would come here is that they didn't want to be buried by attention hogs like Zog and Dockery. If those fools want to dominate a so called group, my associate said they can have it- a "group" of just their work and no one else or the audience that they would had brought with them. They get plenty of attention on modern social media and don't need this dead place. Fitting punishment for attention starved whippin' fools, I would say.

> I think that most (if not all) of my supposed "Team" would be glad to ignore the Donkey and his socks altogether -- provided that they stop burying our threads.
> > They're bold enough to ignore but not brave enough to face criticism.
> You're granting them too much credit. There's nothing bold about they're willingness to ignore criticism. They have the minds and maturity levels of children, and believe that negative criticism will magically be discounted if they stamp their feet deny it loudly enough -- and countered it with an IKYABWAI.
> > He presents himself as someone with morals but his ethics are only in tatting spitefully, to hen peck so pettily, for he owns not a single worthy attribute to be regarded highly. A goodly wussy crying bully.
> >
> How he can call "Tit for Tat" a "system of ethics" is beyond me.
>
> I can only surmise that his father's refusal to let him play with the neighborhood children have left him incapable of interacting with others on an adult level.
> > He thinks he knows the half of it and therefor thinks he's a leader-- of the ignorant, that is.
> Which is why his nickname of "Mensa George" (given to him long before my arrival here) has stuck.
> > He would only lead his adherents to their inane demises. Sadly, something as minuscule as a virus would make short work of his self-imagined greatness.
> PJR named George the leader of "The Dunce Gang." And, although he functions on a subservient level to the Donkey, the latter (and his socks) look up to him as their intellectual superior. The fact that George's "Gang" is made up of illiterate pissbums speaks volumes.
> > I just have to laugh, them thinking that I crave their praise. Hell, I don't need anything from them but their attempted ridicule and contempt-- they seem to get more butt sore from my scorn than I do from theirs. As I've implied, they are my glaring battern.
> >
> Like children, they are prone to project their own feelings, reactions, and motivations on others. George gets butthurt at the drop of a hat, so he believes that others get butthurt at the drop of a hat as well.
> > They cannot see but I'm reveling in this fabulous fractious bout among such fine company, this bloodied lot of louts! And I'm all for the brawl, I just love the writing that's inspired when the furor is flying. When things are too entrenched, too self-vested, the animosity now too deeply ingrained for anyone not to rub each other wrong, enmity is the usual m.o. for that hoped for k.o.
> >
> George cannot grasp the fact that having a Donkey or four to kick around can be both therapeutic and fun. We slap them around for the same reasons that PJR and his alt.kooks peers slapped them around -- because it's fun (in an admittedly sadistic way).
> > With the tempestuous winds, Gaia wails in pain
> > her children's poisonous works courses in her veins
> > > If so, you're a half-step away from justifying totalitarianism.
> > Yep, as I been trying to warn people, even so called freedom loving Libertarians can become totalitarians when imposing their ideas of individual over Society which grants and protects the individual's freedom. How can you have pluralistic order to protect everyone in the self absorbed anarchy of individualism.
> > >
> George spent his childhood under the rule of an authoritarian father (and probably mother as well). Now that his parents are dead, he's free to do whatever he pleases. He's like a little boy who's experiencing his first taste of freedom at summer camp. No one is going to tell him what to do. And no amount of reasoning will convince him otherwise.

Oh yeah, coming from rebellious rock, I dare say that you nailed it. People rebelling against rules and no knowing why they were rules, just that they didn't want people to tell them what to do, yet they'll turn around and tell people what to do according to their world view. I've watched peers perish to that stupidity and cannot say that I feel any sympathy.

[Ash Wurthing]

But you didn't demonstrate any peaceful intent on your part despite claiming such principles. If you had these so called peaceful principles, you wouldn't had resorted to every troll trick you used against me about my comics. I didn't do anything when it came to that to justify your outright misrepresentations of my words concerning that.
You, man of "peace," didn't say a goddamned thing when your friend made outright false accusations about me "applauding the mass murder of school children." You and Will showed your true troll faces and will never get peace from me-- you don't deserve any such reward for your lowly behavior. Jordy was the only one among you that showed any kind of restraint in responding to my criticisms of him, not you fools. I don't need you fools, I'm starting to get tied up several other projects where I am needed, so soon I may not even be here. Do you have other people or companies asking for you and your creative work?

[Will Dockery]

Zod has always been a man of peace, even when he was in the Navy.

:)

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:

> “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>

Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute to which one might attribute some worth.

Nor, for that matter, have you.

In Dunce's favor, he at least possesses the ability to write and discuss poetry -- both of which you do not.


Michael Pendragon
"Well, most kids from my era were getting it on by that age (13-14) or even earlier, myself included, but with each other, folks of a similar age… True, we do things somewhat differently down South."
-- Will Dockery, on the normalcy of sex with adolescents “down South.”

[Michael Pendragon]

> Zod has always been a piece, even when he was in the Navy.

I hear he managed to repeatedly shirk his duties by swapping cum-gobbling for swabbing.


Michael Pendragon
"A favorite movie.... I read it like a comic book....."
-- George "Stink" Sulzbach, career pissbum

[Will Dockery]

> > Zod has always been a man of peace, even when he was in the Navy.

>
> I hear he managed to repeatedly shirk his duties by swapping cum-gobbling for swabbing.

Michael Pendragon's ongoing gay fantasy is noted, again.

😃

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:23:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
>
> > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> >
> Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute

Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Unlike our resident Dunce (and our resident Donkey, for that matter) I don't pretend to be either a pillar of morality or the victim of malicious trolls.

I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.

That said, the only "shit" I've ever thrown is yours -- right back in you dumbassed face.


Michael Pendragon
“You deliver pizza for a living, you can't write to save your life and your music is an embarrassment
against humanity. You're about as famous as the next homeless person begging me
for change.”
-- J.R. Sherman to Will Dockery

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:42:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:23:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> > >
> > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > > >
> > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
>
>

> I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.

Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.

> That said, the only "shit" I've ever thrown

Is whatever of your own monkey shit that you haven't eaten, Pendragon.

Glad to set the record straight on that.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:43:35 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:42:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:23:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-4, Jordy C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > > > >
> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> >
> >
> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.

No, Donkey. I don't lie. I don't have to.

And as to being delusional... everyone is. Life is an illusion. To be alive is to be delusional.

> > That said, the only "shit" I've ever thrown
> Is whatever of your own monkey shit that you haven't eaten, Pendragon.
>
> Glad to set the record straight on that.

As previously noted, I throw your own shit back in your face.

Everything I've ever said about you comes directly from *your* posts and *your* photos.

When a fat, stumpy-legged Donkey posts photos of himself online, he can't blame others for pointing out that he's a fat, stumpy-legged Donkey.


Michael Pendragon
"I've already stated my opinion doesn't offend me that the word fetus doesn't offend me."
-- Will Donkey, a man unoffended by his own opinions

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:

>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > Jordy C wrote:
>
>> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>> > > > >
>> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
>> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
>> >
>> >
>> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
>> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.

> I don't lie

That's another lie right there.

And so it goes.

😃

[Michael Pendragon]

No, Donkey, it isn't.

Every word I've ever posted about you was directly based on *your* posts and *your* photos.

Once again, I challenge you to post one lie that I've supposedly written.

Anything you post, I'll support from your own writings and photos.


-- Michael Pendragon
"...such as the (deleted) post above."
-- Will Donkey, demonstrating his propensity for gibberish

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 9:03:45 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 8:49:13 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> > Jordy C wrote:
> > >
> > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> > > I don't lie
> >
> > That's another lie right there.
> No

Why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon, you delusional little fuckwit?

😃

[Michael Pendragon]

[Will Dockery]

Like I said, that's another lie right there.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

You're repeating yourself, Donkey.

Again, if you can post an example of a supposed "lie" I'd made about you, I can readily show that it was based on your own words and/or photographs.

Put up or stop whining.

Michael Pendragon
"He's not obsessing, he's laughing.overover this typo..."
-- Will Donkey laughing overover other people's typos.

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:10:10 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >> Jordy C wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
> > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
> > > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
> > >
> > > I don't lie
> > Like I said, that's another lie right there.
> You're repeating yourself

You asked for an example of your lying, and that's the most recent example.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

No, Donkey, it isn't. It's a denial of your unsupported accusation.

For it to become an example, you would first need to provide evidence that I had lied.

So, again: post an example of a supposed "lie" that I've made, and I shall show that it was derived from your own words and/or photographs.

Michael Pendragon

WILL DONKEY: As always, thanks again for helping bring these almost forgotten poets out of obscurity, George Dance.
GENERAL ZOD: Seconded...
WILL DONKEY: Good morning, Zod, agreed.*

*Will Donkey agreeing with himself.

[W.Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:21:23 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>> Jordy C wrote:
>
>> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Let us agree that our resident Dunce has as yet to reveal a single attribute
>> > > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I have openly admitted, time and again, to being evil, wicked, mean, and nasty... and egotistical and sadistic to boot.
>> > > > >> Not to mention a liar and a delusional little fuckwit monkey.
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't lie
>> > > Like I said, that's another lie right there.
>> > You're repeating yourself
>> You asked for an example of your lying, and that's the most recent example.

> No

Yes, Pendragon, and you've been lying and shit slinging here for years, now.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Yet you're unable to cite one specific example.

Riiiiiiiiight.


Michael Pendragon
“I call it as I see it, Pendragon. I don't need you mucking things up with your facts.”
-- Will Dockery, giving us the facts on facts

[Faraway Star]

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:08:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:16:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>> Jordy C wrote:
>
> > >> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>

> > >> > > > >> > > > Dance has as yet to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>
> >> > > > >> > > Look who's talking, Michael Pendragon, the delusional little shit slinging monkey.
>

> > Yes, Pendragon, and you've been lying and shit slinging here for years, now.
> Yet you're unable to cite one specific example.

Here is ONE example for you Penhead, your many lies about Mike and myself being gay, which is simply an untruth...

You have been corrected about this lie yet you continue to spread it...

There you go.

[Michael Pendragon]

As I said, that is based entirely upon Will Donkey's posts. I've explained many times how Will always insists on addressing you as a couple.

If Will presents you as a couple, and addresses you as a couple, I can only assume that you are a couple.

I don't know you. I don't know Dirty. And I don't know (nor care about) your sleeping arrangements under the tarp.

I can only base what I know about you on what you and Will Donkey post.

HtH & HAND


Michael Pendragon
"The poet has the last, definitive, word on the meaning(s) of his poetry."
-- Will Dockery on the multiplicity of definitives

[Faraway Star]

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:30:13 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:16:55 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
> > >>> Jordy C wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
>

> > Here is ONE example for you Penhead, your many lies about Mike and myself being gay, which is simply an untruth...
> >
> > You have been corrected about this lie yet you continue to spread it...
> >
> > There you go.
> As I said, that is based entirely

Based entirely on YOUR sleazy fantasies about Mike and myself, Penhead, stop lying..!

[Michael Pendragon]

How would I know anything about you or Dirty, Stinky?

I know about you both from 1) your poetry, 2) your photos, 3) your posts, and 4) Will's posts.

Based on both your and Will's posts, one gets the impression that you two are (metaphorically) joined at the hip. You appear to spend your days and nights together. You appear to spend your weekends together. You bathe together in the Chattahoochee (you call it "swimming"). And Will continually addresses you both as a single entity (a couple): "How are you and Dirty Mike tonight?" "What are you and Dirty Mike doing this weekend?" etc.

You deny that you're a couple, of course... but you could be "closeted" (or in your case, should one say "tarped"?).

Based on the above-cited posts, I sincerely believe that you and Dirty are a couple.

And, in the immortal words of George Costanza: "It isn't a lie if you believe it."

As always, HtH & HAND


Michael Pendragon
“In 1976-77 I was on the school newspaper and literary magazine staffs, so, not bragging, but I have paid my dues in this poetry game.”
-- Will Dockery, reminiscing on the apex of his poetic career

[Faraway Star]

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:04:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:32:28 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> > >
> > > > Here is ONE example for you Penhead, your many lies about Mike and myself being gay, which is simply an untruth...
> > > >
> > > > You have been corrected about this lie yet you continue to spread it...
> > > >
> > > > There you go.
> > > As I said, that is based entirely
> > Based entirely on YOUR sleazy fantasies about Mike and myself, Penhead, stop lying..!
> How would I know anything

That's exactly right, you don't.

You make up lies about Mike and myself based on your weird fantasies...

[Michael Pendragon]

Again:

[Will Dockery]

Stop lying, Pendragon.


Just because Zod and Mike live in the same hobo camp it doesn't mean they're a couple.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:20:41 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Stop lying, Pendragon.
>
>
> Just because Zod and Mike live in the same hobo camp it doesn't mean they're a couple.

Then why do you address them as such?

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:23:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:20:41 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > Stop lying, Pendragon.
> >
> >
> > Just because Zod and Mike live in the same hobo camp it doesn't mean they're a couple.
> Then why do you address them as such

I never have, that's another of your lies, Pendragon.

😃

[Michael Pendragon]

DONKEY: Good morning my friend, hope you and Mike are having a nice day so far.

STINKY: Mike and I had a fabulous day on side of river...!!

DONKEY: Happy holiday to you two.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/OBg-auqlGUs/m/cyzh-95BAgAJ


Why do you lie so much, Donkey?

Michael Pendragon
"His trash will be composted."
-- The late, unlamented Stephen "Pickles" Pickering

[Will Dockery]

Again, you're wrong, Pendragon.

Zod and Mike live in the same tent village so I often tell Zod to give Mike my regards.

Nothing sexual about it.

And so it goes.

😃

[Coco DeSockmonkey]

Sexual or platonic, they still appear to be a couple:

DONKEY: Good morning my friend, hope you and Mike are having a nice day so far.

STINKY: Mike and I had a fabulous day on side of river...!!

DONKEY: Happy holiday to you two.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/OBg-auqlGUs/m/cyzh-95BAgAJ

That's couple talk.

HtH & HAND


Michael Pendragon

"Good evening my friend, thanks again for the fee."
-- Will Donkey-for-Hire, 1681 Forestside Dr, Columbus, GA 31907

[W.Dockery]

Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:

> On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> Again, you're wrong, Pendragon.
>>
>> Zod and Mike live in the same tent village so I often tell Zod to give Mike my regards.
>>
>> Nothing sexual about it.
>>
>> And so it goes.



> Sexual or platonic, they still appear to be a couple

Again, more accurately, neighbors.

And so it goes.

[General-Zod]

Exactly, you nailked it Doc...!

[Ash Wurthing]

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:45:13 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:42:08 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:54:01 PM UTC-4, Faraway Star wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > > > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > > > > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > > > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > > > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > > > > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > > > > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > > > > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > > > > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > > > > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > > > > </q>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > > > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > > > > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > > > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > > > > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > > > > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > > > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > > > > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > > > > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > > > > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > > > > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > > > > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > > > > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > > > > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > > > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > > > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > > > > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > > > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > > > > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > > > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > > > > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > > > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > > > > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > snip
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > > > > > > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > > > > > > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > > > > The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> > > > > > Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> > > > > > If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > > > > > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > > > > > > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > > > > > > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > > > > > > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > > > > > > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > > > > Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > > > > > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > > > > > > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> > > >
> > > > > So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle
> > > Which could all end if we all simply decided to exist peacefully here..!
> > But you didn't demonstrate any peaceful intent
> Zod has always been a man of peace, even when he was in the Navy.

Faraway Star
Sep 5, 2023, 5:01:50 PM
Poor butthurt little motherfuckers... ha ha.

Lo7

[Ash Wurthing]

That was just too hilarious!

[Will Dockery]

"I thank."

😃

[NancyGene]

Donkeys are funny that way. They also have big donkeytits.

[Will Dockery]

Faraway Star wrote:

> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > Faraway Star wrote:
> >> Jordy C wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!
> >
> > > Here is ONE example for you Penhead, your many lies about Mike and myself being gay, which is simply an untruth...
> > >
> > > You have been corrected about this lie yet you continue to spread it...
> > >
> > > There you go.
> > As I said, that is based entirely
> Based entirely on YOUR sleazy fantasies about Mike and myself, Penhead, stop lying..!

Pendragon is a delusional fuckwit, what else would you expect?

:)

[George J.]

NancyGene wrote:

> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:

> We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."

Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".

[Michael Pendragon]

Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:

George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet. He should also take that up with Britannica.
"His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin

Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ

Why do you lie so much, Dunce?

Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?

Are you delusional, dense, or both?


Michael Pendragon
“don't you ever get tired of being wrong?”
-- J.R. Sherman (to Will Dockery)

[NancyGene]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

Obsessed, you are, George Dance! The sources also do not say that "The Human Tragedy" was a floor wax or a delicious dessert topping. And, actually, we have not been looking for other citations. It is a play. As Michael points out in the message just posted, Austin wrote "verse dramas."

We think that Michael Pendragon was right when he said that you use Debating Techniques 101.* How would you know if we were or were not looking for "people" who said it was a play? After 125 years, not many people have thought of "The Human Tragedy" at all. It is only thanks to our bringing it to AAPC's attention that it is being discussed in 2023. Mr. Austin thanks us--cannot you do that too?

*We also took Debating in college. We got an A.

[George J.]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:

> Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:
>
> George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet. He should also take that up with Britannica.

Sounds like NastyGoon is trying, and failing, to read my mind again. In fact, I said their claim that Austin wasn't a good poet was catty.

> "His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin

> Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
> https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.

Michael, I already told you two that Austin wrote verse dramas. He published 8 verse dramas; /The Human Tragedy/ wasn't one of them.

> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ
> Why do you lie so much, Dunce?

What are you claiming is a "lie", Lying Michael? Are you saying it's a lie that NG found "two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play" when it turns out they found a third source that doesn't say it's a play?

> Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?

Why do you think that if you stamp your little foot and scream "YOU'RE LYING!" in a thread, anyone besides your Goon and your Asstroll will believe you?

> Are you delusional, dense, or both?

Are you still pretending that you three aren't in this thread just to troll?

[George J.]

Jordy C wrote:


> “Not a single worthy attribute to be regardless highly”? Please, my friend. That is not nice, and that is not fair… granted, I do tend to much prefer over complicating to oversimplifying, but that is still a statement that can only be stated in extreme anger… people are so very complicated that is is exceedingly difficult to know all there is to know about even our *closest friends and relatives* over a period of many years… yet, you believe it is possible to know whether or not someone has a “single worthy attribute” based on highly selective past from *strangers* over a short time on the internet??? Your letting your *emotiona* override your very fine, intellect here!

Yes, Jordy, you're right that Michael Monkey's clattering was neither nice nor fair; but you cannot expect either fairness or niceness from Michael Monkey. Michael's problem is that when someone claims he's wrong, he does not think they're not asking him to correct his mistake (like a normal person would think). Rather, he sees the criticism as an "attack" on his very identity (his belief that he's someone who never makes mistakes). He reacts (as you say) emotionally, like an animal; he has to choose between fight and flight, and (since he's actually perfectly safe hiding behind his keyboard) he'll always choose to fight.

Which is why, even though Michael Monkey cries "peace" a lot, when he's not crying "peace" he's picking fights. Unlike Zod, I don't think he's consciously being hypocritical or duplicitous in that. I think it's more likely that when he goes into a meltdown like this he can't remember what he thought or felt in his right mind, and when he's in his right mind he can't remember what he thought or felt when he was melting down. Whether Zod's right or I am, though, the effect is the same: our resident Monkey comes across as thoroughly hypocritical and/or duplicitous.

[NancyGene]

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 1:25:16 AM UTC+10, George J. wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > NancyGene wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > >
> > > > We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."
> > >
> > > Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".
> > >
> > Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:
> >
> > George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet. He should also take that up with Britannica.
> Sounds like NastyGoon is trying, and failing, to read my mind again. In fact, I said their claim that Austin wasn't a good poet was catty.

(Us): "If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one), what was his reason for using "Acts?"
(George Dance): "Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you)."

We posted contemporary critiques of Mr. Austin's works. They were not favorable. What does our saying that Mr. Austin was not a very good poet, backed up by written commentary on his poetry, by people who read his poetry during his lifetime, say about us? That we are good researchers? That we know that Mr. Austin was not a very good poet? That he used "Acts" because he wanted to make his "poem" into dramatic verse?

> > "His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
> > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin
>
> > Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
> > https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.
> Michael, I already told you two that Austin wrote verse dramas. He published 8 verse dramas; /The Human Tragedy/ wasn't one of them.
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ
> > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> What are you claiming is a "lie", Lying Michael? Are you saying it's a lie that NG found "two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play" when it turns out they found a third source that doesn't say it's a play?
> > Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?
> Why do you think that if you stamp your little foot and scream "YOU'RE LYING!" in a thread, anyone besides your Goon and your Asstroll will believe you?
> > Are you delusional, dense, or both?
> Are you still pretending that you three aren't in this thread just to troll?

We are discussing poetry. You, George Dance, are covering your ass.

[Will Dockery]

Yes, you nailed it again, George.