RAP Statistics / week ending 18 Oct 2003
Texas Max King
"Lmdelsanto" <lmdel...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031019055539...@mb-m15.aol.com...
>
>
>
> And its a shame because I feel the same way, Marg.
>
> Plus Gary feels I cant write poetry Yes, his attitude stinks.
what the boys will never understand . . . is that you, Angel, and Marg,
write poetry with a feminine emotional energy that they will never have.
You both write personal poetry from the heart and it usually deals
with personal issues. There are a few very close minded individuals
hanging out here that don't understand that 'poetry' is interpretive.
And that not every style of poetry will appeal to everyone.
Most of the poems I've seen posted by Angel and Marg
would require a few small changes that would make them
'publishable' material. Understand that poetry editors are
often close minded, and will generally only embrace
poetry that follows their own specific criteria.
The other important point to note here is that both
Angel and Marge consistently post 'POEMS' to this
newsgroup. Unlike others who never post poetry
and only post trash talk (dime a dozen on any street corner).
Whether people like their poetry or their style, or they
do not . . . is insignificant. The important point is that
that they do post their poems. And those of us that
don't live in a box, enjoy reading them. As a matter of
fact, the few poets who post here anymore, happen to
be Angel and Marge.
As I knew when I first started posting here,
critics are a dime a dozen. Poets who have the courage
to post their innermost feelings publicly
and accept a certain degree of idiocy inherent in humanity . . .
are rare.
About six years ago when I was reading publicly,
much more than I do today . . . I joined with a young lady that
wrote very much in the same style as Angel and Marg.
Her poetry was generally emotional with a healthy dose
of flowery cliche and grammaticaly complete with all
the neccesary adjectives and prepositions . . . this of course
made them somewhat prose. What I realized is that no matter how
hard I tried, I could not duplicate her style because I
did not have the same emotional energy or openess
that she did. This was the reason I enjoyed reading with her
most. Together we had a balance between symbolic, universal,
hard biting poetry (my style of choice) and energized emotional poetry.
My poetry was always minimalist. Leaving out adjectives and prepositions
wherever possible. Hers was wordy and prose like.
What a few around here don't understand is that we need
all styles to be artisitcally complete.
Unfortunatly, many here are not 'artists'. They are career
workers who would like to be artists. But they have neither the
open-mindedness of an artist nor the freedom and creative
aptitude required. In my book their opinions are valueless.
They comment from the standpoint of their own envy or
jealousy.
Gary is a good example of the critics mouth. His only
value here since he returned has been as a
'chucky cop'. He doesn't contribute poetry or
valuable critique.
Folks like Gary and others here do not trully
nurture poetry, poets or the freedom of the human
spirit. Their only contribution is to demean others
for their own personal gratification.
And as such are neither to be admired or
nor listened to. They are more like the ugly decorations
on the tree that we bear only because of their
emotional value.
Write on . . .
-Max
>
> Angel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Subject: Re: RAP Statistics / week ending 18 Oct 2003
> >From: "pandora" pan...@peak.org
> >Date: 10/19/2003 4:53 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <bmtje2$ah5$1...@quark.scn.rain.com>
> >
> >
> >"Alcatroll Labs Inc." <alca...@NOSPAMinsurgent.org> wrote in message
> >news:bmsrqc.3...@gadfly.meow.org...
> >> Statistics: Messages per Day (12/10/03 - 18/10/03)
> >>
> >> rec.arts.poems
> >>
> >> Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
> >> 256 307 286 253 240 248 240
> >>
> >>
> >> Header-statistics for: Subject: (Re:/was: skipped)
> >> (based on msgs with bodies between 12/10/03 and 18/10/03)
> >>
> >> rec.arts.poems
> >> 1830 100.00% (probe count)
> >> 301 16.45% Chuck & Ashland pic
> >
> >> 44 2.40% Anyone on Peter J. Ross's photo gallery...
> >
> > 33 1.80% I'm going to New York...
> >
> >> 32 1.75% Anyone on Peter J. Ross's photo gallery...Class Action Lawsuit?
> >
> >> 13 0.71% Ashland
> >
> >> 9 0.49% I'm going to fuck up some people's lives soon...
> >
> >> 5 0.27% RAP Statistics / Week Ending 11 Oct 2003
> >
> >> 5 0.27% Jim Standish sent me a fax.
> >
> >> 5 0.27% STRANGE DOINGS
> >>
> >> 4 0.22% Pandora Old Whore-ah
> >
> >> 3 0.16% A ROOM IN A HOUSE
> >
> >> 3 0.16% HARD LESSON LEARNED-repost for Angel
> >
> >
> >Hmmmm, the above numbers tell me quite a lot....like it's time for me to
> >move along. It's been fun folks. Thanks to all those who have helped me
> >through the years.
> >
> >Marguerite K.A. Petersen
> >AKA Kathleen O'Toole, Elvira, goddess and of course, pandora
> >
> >P.S. Gary, you might wish to learn to be less arrogant.
> >
> >> Alcatroll Labs Inc.
> >> From the desk of the Executive Vice-President.
> >> Meow!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Horatio
"Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com> wrote in message
news:WWAkb.54141$3A6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
Here, in my opinion, is a perfect summation of the differences between RAP
and AAPC and crossposting it is as much a troll as Chucky crossposting his
views on women to AAPC and soc.men or his views on politics between AAPC and
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
-H
ggamble
wrote:
Holy shit Max, I'll just let you continue shooting yourself in the
foot; you don't need any help from me to make you look foolish.
The full moon was last week.
Go figure.
"In a text-based medium, those with a facility for language
always have an unfair advantage over those who don't."
ggamble
Sam Albaniensson
news:o3t5pvct5q1ied3f0...@4ax.com
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:43:02 GMT, "Texas Max King"
> <max...@pstx.com> wrote:
>
> Holy shit Max, I'll just let you continue shooting yourself in
> the foot; you don't need any help from me to make you look
> foolish.
>
> The full moon was last week.
> Go figure.
>
> "In a text-based medium, those with a facility for language
> always have an unfair advantage over those who don't."
>
> ggamble
Your so called critique is of evil nature, mister Ggamble. How
dare you to offend innocent deceased poems the way you do, young
man?
\^/
©_©
/©\
\_
\\\
\_/
ggamble
wrote:
I guess we all need to get busy *posting our innermost feelings* and
*nurturing the human spirit.* Heh.
Here's some old sigfiles from some of your brethren in the Heart And
Soul Parade:
"stop being so doggamn anal, and if you can't get past the awful
'errors' in spelling and grammar, then get a life - cos editors are a
dime a dozen, but promising poets are priceless.
lots of people on this ng don't seem to understand that, even if you
are infallible in yr grammar, you must read a poem how the poet has
written it, not how you think you would have written it."
shunichi waha
"Sorry, but this poem means absolutely nothing to me."
Robert Barcus, referring to "Poem in October" by Dylan Thomas.
"Hey PJR (your know what that stands for dontcha?) you should change
your underware once in a while. You smell. As far as the poem, it's
better than any thing you've ever written. Thanks for continuing your
clown act. You're good at that at least."
Kenny Chaffin, responding to legitimate criticism.
"I believe that poetry does not necessarily have to be something you
work at."
poetchic
"Hey, first drafts are often the most pure. editing is like second
thoughts, not from the Muse, if you catch my drift.
I just try to keep up with the pen, sort of automatic, this craft is
sort of creepy like that..the well of souls and all. Poe wrote
"Annabel Lee " in one sitting. Untitled is good also..aint we all?"
arguere, attempting to complete a coherent thought.
"Juat because a man or woman doesn't have a home, or mentally
dissabled, blind, deaf, dumb(can't speek)or nothing semm to be wrong
with them at all they are individuals and that make them the best
landscaping ever."
Myrnee Murray
"The ability to write is a gift, if one does not believe that, then
please take notice in the reasoning why your words need to be
written."
crowstouch
And one of my personal favorites:
"The poem is a call to write, calling all writers to write, and it
muses on the genesis of a class of writer, writers who feel they were
born to write, and so, for many of these, I would imagine the sight of
a pen engendered a purity of lust from the very first sight. I know I
could scarcely put it down, I felt as if I was deserting somebody if I
did not write."
Carter Mobley
Texas Max King
> Here, in my opinion, is a perfect summation of the differences between RAP
> and AAPC and crossposting it is as much a troll as Chucky crossposting his
> views on women to AAPC and soc.men or his views on politics between AAPC and
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
sorry, H. . . . didn't know it would create a fluster.
Believe me, the reason I posted this to AAPC
is because the content addresses stylistic differences
and the interpretive value of critics.
I felt it was 'on topic' enough to be shared
with the AAPC writers.
Guess I was wrong . . .
-Max
"Horatio" <qwer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:F9Bkb.11044$Jz1....@news02.roc.ny...
Horatio
> "Horatio" <qwer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F9Bkb.11044$Jz1....@news02.roc.ny...
>
> > Here, in my opinion, is a perfect summation of the differences between
RAP
> > and AAPC and crossposting it is as much a troll as Chucky crossposting
his
> > views on women to AAPC and soc.men or his views on politics between AAPC
and
> > alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
>
> sorry, H. . . . didn't know it would create a fluster.
> Believe me, the reason I posted this to AAPC
> is because the content addresses stylistic differences
> and the interpretive value of critics.
> I felt it was 'on topic' enough to be shared
> with the AAPC writers.
> Guess I was wrong . . .
hmm . . .no, it doesn't 'fluster' me per se, and I think stylistic
differences and interpretive values of critics are on topic in AAPC.
Unfortunately, the girth of your article was support for a very specific
brand or view on poetry that is antithetical to the value structure of AAPC.
I am not saying that there is no place for it, obviously many people do
enjoy it which is why it is nice there is a group for showcasing like RAP.
As you know, AAPC is more directed toward the analysis of technical aspects
of poetry with the goal of improving the finished product (and the overall
quality of the writing) - a process that is rigorous and often blunt. Many
of the abstract qualities that you endorse in your post are the very
qualities that hinder the process.
So, no offense meant, you'll forgive me if I neither endorse nor try to
argue aginst that very specific "style".
-H
Texas Max King
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:fadef76.03101...@posting.google.com...
> "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com> wrote in message news:<WWAkb.54141$3A6....@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > "Lmdelsanto" <lmdel...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031019055539...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> > There are a few very close minded individuals hanging out here that don't
> > understand that 'poetry' is interpretive.
>
> > And that not every style of poetry will appeal to everyone.
>
I'll only answer because you took the time to respond, Cythera.
(see Horatio . . . I told you it was on topic, even for AAPC)
Even good poetry is interpretive. I may consider a Cummings
poem a good poem. You may say it sucks. You may tell me
a Wadsworth poem is good. I might say it's cumbersome
and boring. See how that works?
> > Most of the poems I've seen posted by Angel and Marg
> > would require a few small changes that would make them
> > 'publishable' material. Understand that poetry editors are
> > often close minded, and will generally only embrace
> > poetry that follows their own specific criteria.
> >
> > The other important point to note here is that both
> > Angel and Marge consistently post 'POEMS' to this
> > newsgroup.
>
> I don't know if the poems they post are good or not, but if they
> aren't,then who cares?
exactly, I know for a fact it ahppens here
all the time. Who cares? Who is hurt by it?
Noone.
> > Unlike others who never post poetry
> > and only post trash talk (dime a dozen on any street corner).
> > Whether people like their poetry or their style, or they
> > do not . . . is insignificant.
>
> I am noticing that you keep mentioning style as if it were somehow
> external to content.
Now you're trying to see a green elephant
where a grasshopper sits. I never said style was 'external' to content.
Poetry is a combination of factors, much like
a painting, a film or a short story.
It is the skillful combination of content,
word choice, word combinations and
story telling. This includes style, rhythm,
metre, alliteration, grammar and puctuation.
Not to mention line breaks, creativity and
imagery. By themselves none of these
make a 'poem'. Combined, if done well,
it can be quite powerful. A poem can still
be a good poem if it is missing any of these
by itself. Few master all of them.
Style is the unique characteristic
that defines it and differentiates it from others.
Styles can be emotional, symbolic, universal,
laden with imagery, laden with contemporary or
traditional references, political, terse,
cynical, disjointed or a number of others.
Style is generally intertwined with content.
> > The important point is that
> > that they do post their poems. And those of us that
> > don't live in a box, enjoy reading them. As a matter of
> > fact, the few poets who post here anymore, happen to
> > be Angel and Marge.
> >
> > As I knew when I first started posting here,
> > critics are a dime a dozen.
>
> > Poets who have the courage
> > to post their innermost feelings publicly
>
>
> Public airings of innermost feelings are not what poetry is.
A poem without feeling is not a poem.
I'm not talking about emotional journals or
'therapeutic' poetry.
I'm talking about poems that express the innermost
feelings of the writer. Some poems express the writers
feelings on a subconcious level and it is barely
noticeable. Other poems express the writers feelings
directly but in a very subtle way. And yet other poems
express the writers feelings with an 'in your face'
attitude. A poem that does not express the
poets feelings is not a poem. Some of course
have more emotional energy than others.
Think about this next time you read a few poems
and tell me where you find a writer is not expressing
their emotion or feelings about the topic or 'content'.
And after all, the goal of the writer or the painter
or the story teller or the film maker . . . is to
elicit an emotion from the reader.
Ne c'est?
> > and accept a certain degree of idiocy inherent in humanity . . .
> > are rare.
> > About six years ago when I was reading publicly,
> > much more than I do today . . . I joined with a young lady that
> > wrote very much in the same style as Angel and Marg.
>
> > Her poetry was generally emotional with a healthy dose
> > of flowery cliche and grammaticaly complete with all
> > the neccesary adjectives and prepositions . . .
>
> oh
>
>
> > this of coursemade them somewhat prose. What I realized is that no
> > matter how hard I tried, I could not duplicate her style because I
> > did not have the same emotional energy or openess
> > that she did. This was the reason I enjoyed reading with her
> > most. Together we had a balance between symbolic, universal,
> > hard biting poetry (my style of choice) and energized emotional poetry.
> > My poetry was always minimalist. Leaving out adjectives and prepositions
> > wherever possible. Hers was wordy and prose like.
> >
> > What a few around here don't understand is that we need
> > all styles to be artisitcally complete.
>
> > Unfortunatly, many here are not 'artists'. They are career
> > workers who would like to be artists. But they have neither the
> > open-mindedness of an artist nor the freedom and creative
> > aptitude required.
>
> Many artists are not open-minded or especially free. What they are is
> driven.
Without freedom you have no art.
Without an open-mind you have no creative validity.
Certainly drive is important, but it is not a neccesity.
Many artists throughout history were not neccesarily 'driven'.
They were simply expressing their own personal creative
freedoms. 'Drive' is more a product of 'commercial success'
which in reality is not neccessary to be an artist.
>
> > In my book their opinions are valueless.
>
> > They comment from the standpoint of their own envy or
> > jealousy.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. One really cannot know what another person's
> feelings are.
Again, I must disagree. It is often evident what peoples
feelings are by what they write.
Envy and jealousy are still the most common
and the most vile of vices even today.
-Max
Horatio
>
> "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com> wrote in message
news:<WWAkb.54141$3A6....@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > > "Lmdelsanto" <lmdel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031019055539...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > > There are a few very close minded individuals hanging out here that
don't
> > > understand that 'poetry' is interpretive.
> >
> > > And that not every style of poetry will appeal to everyone.
> >
> > Good poetry is apt to appeal to poetry lovers.
>
> I'll only answer because you took the time to respond,
Cythera.
> (see Horatio . . . I told you it was on topic, even for AAPC)
My apologies, I honestly thought you were trolling us, Max.
Carry on, then.
-H
> <snip>
Texas Max King
"Horatio" <qwer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:nWIkb.11071$TU4....@news02.roc.ny...
I agree, Horatio. 'Comments', (as in AAPC) is often akin
to pulling your heart out, laying it on the table
and handing every one a scalpel knife.
But folks post their poems to AAPC by choice, not because they're forced.
And brutality is often the poetic critics trait by nature.
But as much as you can argue about the technical merits
or failures of a poem . . . in the end . . . quality is interpretive.
We all enjoy different poems for poems for different reasons.
Some folks like poetry that is bursting with imagery and
flowering word combinations. Others like poems that
are succinct and use few words to invoke sharp meaning
(as in the oriental style of painting-the least strokes, the better).
Helping other poets make better chices is a good thing.
But again, in the end, it is the poet that is trying to express
the thought. I've written poems that I thought were not too good.
then I've cut them loose on critics. Sometimes what they have to
say is beneficial, other times I know for a fact that if I did
what 'they' wanted with my poem, it would not be the same
poem. Personally, I believe that the least revision of a poem
is usually best. A good writer will give the poem most of
what it needs the first time they write it. This is not to say revision
is not a good thing. On the contrary, most of the time it is neccessary.
Usually the first time you wrote it, the right word didn't come to mind.
So you wrote the word that fit best at the time knowing
you could come back later and make the change that would perfect it.
But I've also found that sometimes you can revision a poem to death.
You try to make it so perfect, that it no longer says what you
originally intende it to say. I know may of the writers out there
will agree with me on this. There is a fine line in revision
before you go from making it a 'better' poem, to where
you get to killing the poem as it was originally intended.
But enough already. My time is up for now.
> Many of the abstract qualities that you endorse in your post are the very
> qualities that hinder the process.
Not neccessarily.
>
> So, no offense meant, you'll forgive me if I neither endorse nor try to
> argue aginst that very specific "style".
No offense taken. 'Style' can be a nebulous term.
-Max
ggamble
wrote:
> A poem without feeling is not a poem.
Max.
You don't know what you're talking about.
But that's okay, because this is usenet, and pretty much anything
goes. But, I just thought I'd do you a favour and let you know
that you don't have a clue what you're talking about because poems
have words, writers have feelings, readers have feelings and poems
have words. Until you learn those simple facts, all your apparently
made up all by yourself *feeling theory* is just so much
self-defensive drivel we often hear emanating from people who are too
lazy, undisciplined or unimaginative to learn how to write. I don't
really know if you personally fall into this category, but most people
who espouse the *poems have feelings* theory certainly do. I'm not
going to try to convince you because I've had that particular
conversation hundreds or maybe thousands of times and I don't really
care if you go on baying at the moon proclaiming that you're an
~artist~ and poems have feelings and we need to post our innermost
feelings and nurture the human spirit and so forth. Surely, this isn't
the first time that someone has called you on this issue unless you
made all this up all by yourself, and have never espoused this little
theory of yours in front of, you know, people who care about writing.
"It's funny how jealous people will go out of their way to knock
someone else down. I've read your stuff and it stinks to be quite
honest. I have sold more poems than you have ever written....."
Candice Lee
J Rinier
wrote:
Forgive my butting in, but please remember that there is the lump in
the throat (emotion) and then there is the result (fart, tear,
sleepiness, poem) of the lump in the throat.
We don't have to stab someone in the lump to critique the result of
it. Never do so, in fact, unless the poet is having a difficult time
distinguishing between the lump and the result of the lump.
Separate yourself from your art.
Or die of it.
Cheers!
J Rinier
<snip>
[RAP mauled by grasshoppers]
Horatio
"J Rinier" <gotgkSP...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7abf89433d6bd267...@news.teranews.com...
You have to understand, J - it's RAP. You can say it and say it again and
then when you're done you can say it again, nothing will change. There is
some subset of poetry that includes post.poems.com poetry.com etc. and a lot
of people seem to subscribe to this set of beliefs and enjoy it.
Hey, they deserve a place as well, as long as they try to limit that shit in
AAPC.
-H
(so, uh, how the heck do we draft gamble over here)
J Rinier
wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Forgive my butting in, but please remember that there is the lump in
>> the throat (emotion) and then there is the result (fart, tear,
>> sleepiness, poem) of the lump in the throat.
>>
>> We don't have to stab someone in the lump to critique the result of
>> it. Never do so, in fact, unless the poet is having a difficult time
>> distinguishing between the lump and the result of the lump.
>>
>> Separate yourself from your art.
>> Or die of it.
>
>You have to understand, J - it's RAP. You can say it and say it again and
>then when you're done you can say it again, nothing will change. There is
>some subset of poetry that includes post.poems.com poetry.com etc. and a lot
>of people seem to subscribe to this set of beliefs and enjoy it.
>
>Hey, they deserve a place as well, as long as they try to limit that shit in
>AAPC.
>
>-H
>
>(so, uh, how the heck do we draft gamble over here)
Heh.
Buy him a beer?
Dunno enough about the chap.
I know enough (a ceaseless dedication to broadcasting the chuckler's
idiocy and sub-humane commentary to any who will listen) to like him
though.
To Gamble:
Cheers!
J Rinier
Horatio
OK - Hey Gamble, there is a pint of Oktoberfest over in AAPC for you, you
just have to come over to get it.
That should work. What kind of loser would turn down a pint of Oktoberfest.
(After he drinks a few, he'll probably forget where the door is. Good.
Doesn't belong in RAP)
>
> Dunno enough about the chap.
> I know enough (a ceaseless dedication to broadcasting the chuckler's
> idiocy and sub-humane commentary to any who will listen) to like him
> though.
no, he is causing a mass uproar and exodus over in RAP by broadcasting the
difference between a "POEM" and a "FEELING". Seems pretty unpopular over
there, probably fit right in over here.
-H
J Rinier
wrote:
Sounds priceless.
I would, however, have to wade through shit to claim the diamond.
And the GF has murder in her eyes now.
I'll return in thirty minutes or less.
Cheers!
J Rinier
>
>-H
>
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:43:02 GMT, "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com>
> wrote:
>
> I guess we all need to get busy *posting our innermost feelings* and
> *nurturing the human spirit.* Heh.
alt.support.poems
alt.support.poetry.comments
alt.support.deepest.feelings.innermostestnesses
alt.support.vampires
alt.support.cerulean
>
> Here's some old sigfiles from some of your brethren in the Heart And
> Soul Parade:
>
> "stop being so doggamn anal, and if you can't get past the awful
> 'errors' in spelling and grammar, then get a life - cos editors are a
> dime a dozen, but promising poets are priceless.
> lots of people on this ng don't seem to understand that, even if you
> are infallible in yr grammar, you must read a poem how the poet has
> written it, not how you think you would have written it."
> shunichi waha
alt.support.anal.sushi
rec.tum.sore
>
> "Sorry, but this poem means absolutely nothing to me."
> Robert Barcus, referring to "Poem in October" by Dylan Thomas.
There is no "alt.support.illiterates" because, of course, those who
need it can't read it.
>
> "Hey PJR (your know what that stands for dontcha?) you should change
> your underware once in a while. You smell. As far as the poem, it's
> better than any thing you've ever written. Thanks for continuing your
> clown act. You're good at that at least."
> Kenny Chaffin, responding to legitimate criticism.
>
> "I believe that poetry does not necessarily have to be something you
> work at."
> poetchic
alt.support.holy.baby
alt.support.truly.gifted
alt.support.ossumly.gifted
alt.support.every.word.just.as.the.holy.ghost.told.me
>
> "Hey, first drafts are often the most pure. editing is like second
> thoughts, not from the Muse, if you catch my drift.
> I just try to keep up with the pen, sort of automatic, this craft is
> sort of creepy like that..the well of souls and all. Poe wrote
> "Annabel Lee " in one sitting. Untitled is good also..aint we all?"
> arguere, attempting to complete a coherent thought.
alt.support.pure.muse
alt.support.musal.purity
alt.support.alexander.poe
poetry.com
>
> "Juat because a man or woman doesn't have a home, or mentally
> dissabled, blind, deaf, dumb(can't speek)or nothing semm to be wrong
> with them at all they are individuals and that make them the best
> landscaping ever."
> Myrnee Murray
alt.support.landscaping
>
> "The ability to write is a gift, if one does not believe that, then
> please take notice in the reasoning why your words need to be
> written."
> crowstouch
>
> And one of my personal favorites:
>
> "The poem is a call to write, calling all writers to write, and it
> muses on the genesis of a class of writer, writers who feel they were
> born to write, and so, for many of these, I would imagine the sight of
> a pen engendered a purity of lust from the very first sight. I know I
> could scarcely put it down, I felt as if I was deserting somebody if I
> did not write."
> Carter Mobley
alt.support.pure.lust
alt.binaries.pure.lust
alt.support.phallic.pens
alt.support.the.holy.ghost.said.you.just.had.to.hear.this
alt.support.car.54.where.are.you
alt.support.truth.is.choosing.which.prick.to.suck
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
The moving cursor writes, and having writ,
blinks on.
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com> wrote in message
> news:%AJkb.82445$7_1....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:fadef76.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com> wrote in message
> news:<WWAkb.54141$3A6....@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > > > "Lmdelsanto" <lmdel...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031019055539...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >
> > > > There are a few very close minded individuals hanging out here that
> don't
> > > > understand that 'poetry' is interpretive.
alt.support.interpreting.holy.ghost.barf
alt.support.interpretating.chicken.guts
alt.support.wood.auguring
> > >
> > > > And that not every style of poetry will appeal to everyone.
> > >
> > > Good poetry is apt to appeal to poetry lovers.
> >
> > I'll only answer because you took the time to respond,
> Cythera.
> > (see Horatio . . . I told you it was on topic, even for AAPC)
>
> My apologies, I honestly thought you were trolling us, Max.
>
> Carry on, then.
>
> -H
> > <snip>
Dennis M. Hammes
>
...
> >> > Most of the poems I've seen posted by Angel and Marg
> >> > would require a few small changes that would make them
> >> > 'publishable' material.
alt.support.typesetters
poetry.com
>
> Sorry. No. No editor would give the works currently
> being produced by either Angel or Marg a second thought.
> The former is a small step from Will Dockery's; Angel shows
> neither signs of nor interest in getting better. I am more
> confident that Marg may improve but she will have to learn
> to accept criticism and understand that as a developing writer
> our CURRENT skill level pales in importance compared to our
> artistic abilities a year, two years or a decade from now.
alt.support.they.insulted.my.pome
alt.support.they.just.dont.understand
alt.support.but.it.really.happened
alt.support.but.it.really.happened.that.way
...
> [snip for brevity]
>
> >> Public airings of innermost feelings are not what poetry is.
> >
> > A poem without feeling is not a poem.
alt.support.bleeding.alphabets
> >
> > I'm not talking about emotional journals or
> > 'therapeutic' poetry.
> > I'm talking about poems that express the innermost
> > feelings of the writer. Some poems express the writers
> > feelings on a subconcious level and it is barely
> > noticeable. Other poems express the writers feelings
> > directly but in a very subtle way. And yet other poems
> > express the writers feelings with an 'in your face'
> > attitude. A poem that does not express the
> > poets feelings is not a poem.
>
> Exactly wrong. Now, had you said: "A poem that does
> not express the READER'S feelings is not a poem" we could,
> at least, have an intelligent discussion on the subject.
> I'd STILL disagree with you, but at least I could respect
> the position that you would be defending.
>
> [snip for brevity]
>
> >> > What a few around here don't understand is that we need
> >> > all styles to be artisitcally complete.
>
> The sudden subject switch from QUALITY to STYLES gives me the
> uneasy feeling that you consider the terms interchangeable.
alt.support.interchangeable.spelling
alt.support.he.threw.sugar.on.my.mudpie
>
> > Again, I must disagree. It is often evident what peoples
> > feelings are by what they write.
> > Envy and jealousy are still the most common
> > and the most vile of vices even today.
> >
> > -Max
>
> Agreed. But only ignorance is fatal.
Michael Cook
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:3F93C7A2...@arvig.net...
> ggamble wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:43:02 GMT, "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I guess we all need to get busy *posting our innermost feelings* and
> > *nurturing the human spirit.* Heh.
>
> alt.support.poems
> alt.support.poetry.comments
> alt.support.deepest.feelings.innermostestnesses
> alt.support.vampires
> alt.support.cerulean
> >
> > Here's some old sigfiles from some of your brethren in the Heart And
> > Soul Parade:
> >
> > "stop being so doggamn anal, and if you can't get past the awful
> > 'errors' in spelling and grammar, then get a life - cos editors are a
> > dime a dozen, but promising poets are priceless.
> > lots of people on this ng don't seem to understand that, even if you
> > are infallible in yr grammar, you must read a poem how the poet has
> > written it, not how you think you would have written it."
> > shunichi waha
>
> alt.support.anal.sushi
> rec.tum.sore
heh
didn't chuck write the FAQ for that one?
Robin Sommo
"Horatio" <qwer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<. . .>
> Unfortunately, the girth of your article was support for a very specific
> brand or view on poetry that is antithetical to the value structure of
AAPC.
> I am not saying that there is no place for it, obviously many people do
> enjoy it which is why it is nice there is a group for showcasing like RAP.
>
I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that rap has no critical process.
It's the presence of such a process that's causing all this fuss. The
difference is that rap has no FAQ, so the people offerring criticism
are sometimes taking as great a risk as the people posting poems.
I have learned a great deal about poetry (among other things) and
raised, if not the quality of my writing, then at least my expectations
from reading rap.
R.
Texas Max King
"Horatio" <qwer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_MJkb.11078$Ue5...@news02.roc.ny...
> My apologies, I honestly thought you were trolling us, Max.
>
> Carry on, then.
I don't know about AAPC, but it's tough
to get a serious discussion of poetry on RAP nowadays.
Write on, Horatio . . .
-Max
here's a quote I dug up from my ancient
poetry library, I can't seem to find it on the net anywhere,
but I thought it appropriate.
'Words are but pictures, true or false designed,
to draw the lines and features of the mind
the characters and artificial draughts
to express the inward images of thoughts
and artists say a picture may be good
although the mortal be not understood
whence some infer they may admire a style
though all the rest be ever so mean and vile
appalud the outsides of words, but never mind
with what fantastic tawdry they are lined.'
-Samuel Butler (1612-1680)
'Satire Upon The Abuse of Higher Learning'
>
> -H
> > <snip>
>
>
ggamble
wrote:
> I don't know about AAPC, but it's tough
> to get a serious discussion of poetry on RAP nowadays.
It's especially tough when you think that poems have feelings and that
posting text on usenet is *sharing your innermost feelings*, and that
it's possible to *nurture the human spirit* online.
Max, if you want to have a serious discussion regarding poetry, go
learn something about it first.
cringing on your behalf
Renay St. James
*****this isn't directed at ANYONE in particular, so if you're
gonna get sensitive...DON'T. (now that we have *that* out of
the way) I've seen a lot, lot, lot of bitching that there aren't
enough critiques on rap, but I still don't see many critiques.
then when someone *does* bother, s/he is "being mean"
or "insensitive" or "just doesn't get it." what the hell? either
you put it out there and take what you get, whether you like
it or not or you shut up about it. if the only response you
want is, "gosh, that's very emotional, thanks for posting it."
put a request at the top. no, I don't do online crits. often.
I also don't bitch about not getting them. DUH.
Renay
Horatio
"Renay St. James" <re...@chucksucks.lots> wrote in message
news:NeSkb.597083$Oz4.590563@rwcrnsc54...
>
>
> *****this isn't directed at ANYONE in particular, so if you're
> gonna get sensitive...DON'T. (now that we have *that* out of
> the way) I've seen a lot, lot, lot of bitching that there aren't
> enough critiques on rap,
The view is fine from over here in AAPC, don't bother cutting down all your
trees on our account(s).
>but I still don't see many critiques.
> then when someone *does* bother, s/he is "being mean"
> or "insensitive" or "just doesn't get it." what the hell?
That sounds pretty consistent with the view I've had of RAP. hmmm . . . did
this become a problem recently?
> either
> you put it out there and take what you get, whether you like
> it or not or you shut up about it. if the only response you
> want is, "gosh, that's very emotional, thanks for posting it."
> put a request at the top. no, I don't do online crits. often.
> I also don't bitch about not getting them. DUH.
I am glad you crossposted that. I have recently been feeling very fortunate
and you have confirmed my suspicions - I am very fortunate.
-H
>
> Renay
>
>
>
>
Peter J Ross
rec.arts.poems:
>"Horatio" <qwer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
><. . .>
>> Unfortunately, the girth of your article was support for a very specific
>> brand or view on poetry that is antithetical to the value structure of
>AAPC.
>> I am not saying that there is no place for it, obviously many people do
>> enjoy it which is why it is nice there is a group for showcasing like RAP.
>>
><. . .>
>
>I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that rap has no critical process.
>It's the presence of such a process that's causing all this fuss.
And the process is nothing new. There's no guarantee of critique in
RAP, but it happens, and the critiquers in RAP are just as
knowledgeable about poetry as the critiquers in AAPC.
>The
>difference is that rap has no FAQ, so the people offerring criticism
>are sometimes taking as great a risk as the people posting poems.
Historically, AAPC is an offshoot of RAP. Some heart-and-soul poets
didn't like the way they were being laughed at in RAP so they set up a
gentler newsgroup. Then such people as Joy Yourcenar and Gary Gamble
started posting to AAPC, drove out the old regulars, and the rest is
history.
The fundamental message to sensitive souls in both groups is the same:
if you don't like harsh critique, that's tough. This is Usenet. You're
the only one who decides whose posts you want to read.
>I have learned a great deal about poetry (among other things) and
>raised, if not the quality of my writing, then at least my expectations
>from reading rap.
Both groups contain good and bad poetry. Both groups contain
accomplished critiquers and idiotic kooks. Both groups contain a lot
of off-topic material - though I have to say that RAP's tendency to
play games with passing kooks is a lot more entertaining than AAPC's
recent Iraqfest was.
I just wish that people who think the grass grows greener on their
side of the fence would shut up about it.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
J Rinier
Heh.
J Rinier
[RAP fed to the pigs]
Ironywaves
news:bn1eva.3...@gadfly.meow.org...
> Historically, AAPC is an offshoot of RAP. Some heart-and-soul poets
> didn't like the way they were being laughed at in RAP so they set up a
> gentler newsgroup. Then such people as Joy Yourcenar and Gary Gamble
> started posting to AAPC, drove out the old regulars, and the rest is
> history.
That's a fascinating tidbit of history... any idea where these founders of
a.a.p.c. went? Could explain why we "heart&soul" natural poets don't get
along so well here these days... but, as you wrote, PJR, this is Usenet, and
anyone who can hang with it is "welcome".
More r.a.p./a.a.p.c. history would be interesting... how long have these two
newsgroups existed?
Will
Rob Evans
<p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> writes
>
>Historically, AAPC is an offshoot of RAP. Some heart-and-soul poets
>didn't like the way they were being laughed at in RAP so they set up a
>gentler newsgroup. Then such people as Joy Yourcenar and Gary Gamble
>started posting to AAPC, drove out the old regulars, and the rest is
>history.
>
didn't have a side to take but I couldn't really see the point of AAPC.
I still don't. I subscribe to both but I can't see the difference.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
Ironywaves
news:mCoNF$ULyDl$Ew...@mla001.demon.co.uk...
I don't really see much of a difference, either. The same regulars on each
group, mostly, making the difference in the two a very thin one, if any.
That's why is was interesting to read that a.a.p.c. was intended by the
founders to be different than r.a.p.--- *but* since they didn't make it a
moderated newgroup, the doors were open for anyone to enter, which is how it
really should be on Usenet. When I come across a moderated newsgroup here, I
generally don't bother.
Anyone have a roster of the "original" regulars of these groups? How long
they've existed..? When the current regulars first showed up? Is there a
link to an r.a.p./a.a.p.c. history essay of some kind somewhere?
Will
Dennis M. Hammes
Of course not.
He stole it.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
"THE NEW YORKER DOES NOT ACCEPT UNSOLICITED SUBMISSIONS AND
IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RETURN OR LOSS OF SUBMISSIONS."
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
Too, when the student has failed to distinguish between the
"spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings" and the spontaneous
overflow of its last meal, it is useless to discuss the finer points
of didactic parameter.
j r sherman
come on, Rob! the differences are so obvious. the people in RAP have lighter
skins than those in AAPC.
geez.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
Of sprites and goblins."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>In message <bn1eva.3...@gadfly.meow.org>, Peter J Ross
><p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> writes
>>
>>Historically, AAPC is an offshoot of RAP. Some heart-and-soul poets
>>didn't like the way they were being laughed at in RAP so they set up a
>>gentler newsgroup. Then such people as Joy Yourcenar and Gary Gamble
>>started posting to AAPC, drove out the old regulars, and the rest is
>>history.
>>
>Yes, I remember the little rumbles when AAPC was set up.
Wow, you must be old . . .
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
> And after all, the goal of the writer or the painter
> or the story teller or the film maker . . . is to
> elicit an emotion from the reader.
> Ne c'est?
Mais non. If that were true, paintings of kids with oversized eyes and
stories about dying kittens would be the apotheosis of artistic
expression.
Renay St. James
"Ironywaves" <irony...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:vp8jjd9...@corp.supernews.com...
*****I remember when aapc was born, but I don't know who was
there originally. what I do remember from the dim mists of time is
the quality of rap poetry. it was here, it was large, and it ruled the
known universe. this was waaaaay back when, mind you, but there
was always, ALWAYS a good read daily. I still have a notebook of
hardcopy from then that I dig out once in awhile. the flames have
always been present, the flamewars now are piddly compared to
what went on back in the wayback. off the top of my head (this
list is VERY incomplete: Helen, the Karens, some Jennifers, Marie,
Jenny Marie, McNeilly, JJ (Beau Blue), Blaise, Satan (yes, he DID
post here), Greg, Ralph, etc. and Marek. not last! not least! my very
first ever critique was from him. ripped me to shreds. the poem turned
itself into something very good because of it. that was a 10 second
list. there are so many more! used to be a rap gathering every summer.
Renay
Renay
Texas Max King
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:fadef76.03102...@posting.google.com...
> Hi, Max,
> Nooo, poetry isn't "interpretive."
Hi Cythera,
It is, but that's only my opinion.
Each person takes from a poem
what is most relevant to their own experiences.
It may have been what the author intended, it may not.
And although there are certain traditional parameters
for what constitutes a good poem . . . this is also 'interpretive'.
Interpretive-to make out or bring out the meaning of.
> You need to find a different word, one which will accurately -- and if
> possible, precisely -- indicate what you mean.
>
> No, I was trying to see what you meant by "style" in the following
> points you made:
>
> > Style is the unique characteristic that defines it [a poem]
>
> Would you say this is also true for a painting?
Most certainly . . . VanGogh was defined by his impressionist style,
Picasso by his abstracts, Goya by his Classical style.
What was it that made them different? Their styles.
Picasso's self-portrait and Picasso's have the
same content, but their styles are what made
their 'content' unique even though it was the same subject matter.
>
> I don't know what _you_ mean by "free." Was Van Gogh -- for instance
> -- free?
> How about de Sade, as he was writing in prison?
Where they physically constrained? Yes.
Where they creatively constrained to develop
new ideas or approaches to old topics?
Again, no, most certainly not.
I'm not talking physical freedom . . .
what I refer to is their own creative freedom.
Did de Sade's imprisonment constrain him from
writing whatever he thought should be said.
Most certainly not.
'scuse me if I move on to appease the rest of the lions den . . .
-Max
Texas Max King
"Peter J Ross" <p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> wrote in message news:bn1eva.3...@gadfly.meow.org...
> rec.arts.poems:
>
> >"Horatio" <qwer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> ><. . .>
> >> Unfortunately, the girth of your article was support for a very specific
> >> brand or view on poetry that is antithetical to the value structure of
> >AAPC.
> >> I am not saying that there is no place for it, obviously many people do
> >> enjoy it which is why it is nice there is a group for showcasing like RAP.
> >>
> ><. . .>
> >
> >I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that rap has no critical process.
> >It's the presence of such a process that's causing all this fuss.
>
> And the process is nothing new. There's no guarantee of critique in
> RAP, but it happens, and the critiquers in RAP are just as
> knowledgeable about poetry as the critiquers in AAPC.
Most agreed.
> >The
> >difference is that rap has no FAQ, so the people offerring criticism
> >are sometimes taking as great a risk as the people posting poems.
>
> Historically, AAPC is an offshoot of RAP. Some heart-and-soul poets
> didn't like the way they were being laughed at in RAP so they set up a
> gentler newsgroup. Then such people as Joy Yourcenar and Gary Gamble
> started posting to AAPC, drove out the old regulars, and the rest is
> history.
I remember distinctly.
I was one of the ones that abdicated a seperate
poetry group to 'comment' on the poems
posted on RAP to decrease some of the clutter at the time.
Silly me.
> The fundamental message to sensitive souls in both groups is the same:
> if you don't like harsh critique, that's tough. This is Usenet. You're
> the only one who decides whose posts you want to read.
>
> >I have learned a great deal about poetry (among other things) and
> >raised, if not the quality of my writing, then at least my expectations
> >from reading rap.
>
> Both groups contain good and bad poetry. Both groups contain
> accomplished critiquers and idiotic kooks. Both groups contain a lot
> of off-topic material - though I have to say that RAP's tendency to
> play games with passing kooks is a lot more entertaining than AAPC's
> recent Iraqfest was.
Agreed
> I just wish that people who think the grass grows greener on their
> side of the fence would shut up about it.
Ditto
-Max
Joshua P. Hill
Don't know about RAP, but AAPC is all on Google. None of the original
AAPC regulars are still here, though that has nothing to do with Joy
and Gary as someone here claimed, and much to do with the trolls.
Joshua P. Hill
AAPC is 6 years old & was founded by a kid named Michael Giardina:
"In five years, the old lady has developed several tumors and (it
seems) pernicious anemia and some sort of Dutch rash. On some days, I
think she requires shooting." -- Dale
Texas Max King
"ggamble" <gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:d4q7pvg5jbn7kk0cg...@4ax.com...
Gary, if you're a paid writer or a teacher or
a publisher or an editor, my respects. Please
tell me you're one of the above. Even so, my point stands.
Marg and Angel, no matter how good or how bad their poems
are harmless here. If you really were a professional
and your concerns (that they write badly) were sincere,
then I certainly think your attitude and comments would be different.
Personally, I nurture young poets that I feel have potential.
I look for a certain quality of sincerity and love of language.
They may not have the techniques or rules down,
but those can be learned.
But you're right, who am I fooling here.
Why should I think you might ever understand.
I didn't see the Pullitzer sitting on your mantle . . .
-Max
>
> cringing on your behalf
>
>
>
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
> Gary, if you're a paid writer or a teacher or
> a publisher or an editor, my respects. Please
> tell me you're one of the above. Even so, my point stands.
> Marg and Angel, no matter how good or how bad their poems
> are harmless here. If you really were a professional
> and your concerns (that they write badly) were sincere,
> then I certainly think your attitude and comments would be different.
> Personally, I nurture young poets that I feel have potential.
> I look for a certain quality of sincerity and love of language.
> They may not have the techniques or rules down,
> but those can be learned.
> But you're right, who am I fooling here.
> Why should I think you might ever understand.
> I didn't see the Pullitzer sitting on your mantle . . .
The Pulitzer prize is awarded for understanding? Interesting theory,
that.
Peter J Ross
rec.arts.poems:
Your ignorance of the newsgroup you post your boring crap to is
showing, kook, as is your inability to read. The only people from the
early days of AAPC who had survived to post there when I arrived in
2000 were Bruce Tindall and carmen. In the early days they were the
only glimmers of critical light in the group. Otherwise, from Autumn
1997 until a few real poets and critiquers arrived, AAPC was flooded
with web-tv-type morons such as its creator, Michael Giardina.
Good riddance to a load of talentless poetasters.
Texas Max King
"Colin Ward" <kal...@mts.net> wrote in message . .
> >> > "Texas Max King" wrote:
>snip - edited for brevity<
> But no one would say that Cummings' or Wadsworth's works are
> not valid as poetry. They may not be to our tastes, but they ARE
> poetry. To wit: no one would have any difficulty in distinguishing
> Cummings' or Wadworth's very worst efforts from, say, Angel's best.
> Hence, there really IS such a thing as GOOD poetry, even if we don't
> LIKE all of it. And none of us here should need to be told that
> there is such a thing as BAD poetry. See how that works?
And as a writer, all the poetry you write is good, right?
And when you first started writing poetry, every word you
wrote was perfect and every poem a masterpiece, right?
And everyone always agrees that what you consider one
of your good poems, really is 'good', and that one of your
bad poems really is bad? And as you were developing as a writer
all of your mentors and teachers told you your writing sucked
without giving you tips on how to improve . . .
I see how that works now.
> No? Okay. I like the Winnipeg Goldeyes, our local AAA
> baseball team. I loathe the New York Yankees (doesn't everyone?).
> Does this mean that [I think that] the Goldeyes are a better team
> than the Yankees? Or even close? Given that the teams will never
> meet how can we know that the Yankees would mop up the field with
> the Goldeyes? By knowing something about the endeavour and
> recognizing vast differences in skill when we see them.
So your point here is . . . the underdogs never win . . .
and what you might consider a mediocre or 'below par'
poet today will never be a great poet. Sorry Colin, can't help
you with your skepticism of the human potential for
advancement or improvement. And I certainly can't help you
in your thinking that the the Goldeyes, in a strange twist of fate,
would whoop the Yankees back to Queens.
> >> > Most of the poems I've seen posted by Angel and Marg
> >> > would require a few small changes that would make them
> >> > 'publishable' material.
>
> Sorry. No. No editor would give the works currently
> being produced by either Angel or Marg a second thought.
> The former is a small step from Will Dockery's; Angel shows
> neither signs of nor interest in getting better. I am more
> confident that Marg may improve but she will have to learn
> to accept criticism and understand that as a developing writer
> our CURRENT skill level pales in importance compared to our
> artistic abilities a year, two years or a decade from now.
So the answer is to tell them to get the hell off of RAP,
because the sophist poets that write and read on RAP
can't help them and this isn't a workshop, it's only a
a display case for great polished works of art
that will not only exceed the tests of time but will also
be remembered as artistic masterpieces that will have
changed the course of mankind?
RAP has no Faq . . . and that's the way we like it.
Everyone is free to post whatever . . . and if you do be
ready to take the hard knocks.
Those are the RULES.
> >> I don't know if the poems they post are good or not, but if they
> >> aren't, then who cares?
>
> Certainly not Angel. I suspect that Marg does, and that
> is why she has a much better chance of developing as a poet.
Angel doesn't care? I've got some really good shit, Colin,
burn that Canadian farm hemp in the fireplace.
Of course she cares, dude. She looks for what most poets
that post here look for . . . constructive criticism to improve.
It's as rare as brain cells in kookies head.
Too many cliches . . . waaaah!
Not enough imagery . . . waaah!
Bad word choices . . . waaah!
Your meter is off . . . waaah!
Bad line breaks . . . waaah!
No internal rhyme . . . waaah!
Gee, thanks for making me a better poet, aye?
> [snip for brevity]
> > I'm not talking about emotional journals or
> > 'therapeutic' poetry.
> > I'm talking about poems that express the innermost
> > feelings of the writer. Some poems express the writers
> > feelings on a subconcious level and it is barely
> > noticeable. Other poems express the writers feelings
> > directly but in a very subtle way. And yet other poems
> > express the writers feelings with an 'in your face'
> > attitude. A poem that does not express the
> > poets feelings is not a poem.
>
> Exactly wrong. Now, had you said: "A poem that does
> not express the READER'S feelings is not a poem" we could,
> at least, have an intelligent discussion on the subject.
> I'd STILL disagree with you, but at least I could respect
> the position that you would be defending.
I won't debate the 'feelings' issue with you or Gary.
Answer this the next time you read any poem . . .
what emotion is the writer expressing?
Anger, love, sympathy, empathy, disgust,
satisfaction, bitterness, placidity, joy,
resentment, dissillusion, vengeance,
hysteria, enlightenment?
Are these not emotions, feelings?
> [snip for brevity]
> >> > What a few around here don't understand is that we need
> >> > all styles to be artisitcally complete.
>
> The sudden subject switch from QUALITY to STYLES gives me the
> uneasy feeling that you consider the terms interchangeable.
. . . another elephant for a grasshopper?
No I don't. Style does not guarantee quality.
And quality is rarely simply stylistic.
Quality is a most eluding term, ask Pirsig.
Style (as it relates to writing and by definition)
is a 'distinctive manner in appearance or form'.
Quality is a 'degree of excellence'.
IMO . . . style has much more defined parameters
than quality.
But I'll refrain from a debate on quality
since I personally consider it sometimes
most subjective.
> > Again, I must disagree. It is often evident what peoples
> > feelings are by what they write.
> > Envy and jealousy are still the most common
> > and the most vile of vices even today.
> >
> > -Max
>
> Agreed. But only ignorance is fatal.
. . . and so is neglect, apathy and
callousness. And by the way . . .
jealousy and envy are most certainly also fatal.
Ignorance by itself is not the only fatal vice
humanity embraces.
-Max
Texas Max King
"ggamble" <gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:rds6pv41hr4kh7jt4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:34:03 GMT, "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > A poem without feeling is not a poem.
>
> Max.
> You don't know what you're talking about.
. . . thank you, Gary, you're always so helpful.
> But that's okay, because this is usenet, and pretty much anything
> goes.
kind of. There are boundaries. Some do forget.
> But, I just thought I'd do you a favour and let you know
> that you don't have a clue what you're talking about because poems
> have words, writers have feelings, readers have feelings and poems
> have words.
Thanks again for the kind favour from the bottom
of your 'innermost feelings' heart. But let me clear this up for
since you might be confused in your zealousy to disagree with me.
Poems express feelings. The writers feelings. The words in
a poem express feelings, the writers feelings.
Glad we cleared that up.
> Until you learn those simple facts, all your apparently
> made up all by yourself *feeling theory* is just so much
> self-defensive drivel we often hear emanating from people who are too
> lazy, undisciplined or unimaginative to learn how to write.
if you say so.
> I don't really know if you personally fall into this category, but most people
> who espouse the *poems have feelings* theory certainly do. I'm not
> going to try to convince you because I've had that particular
> conversation hundreds or maybe thousands of times and I don't really
> care if you go on baying at the moon proclaiming that you're an
> ~artist~ and poems have feelings and we need to post our innermost
> feelings and nurture the human spirit and so forth.
I never said we had a 'need' to post our innermost feelings . . .
though it seems to me to be what most writers do. A great story
is often because a writer feels strongly about the topic or experience.
You wouldn't understand, though. And as for 'nurturing the human spirit'
that is only valid for those that give a shit. For others who seem to
be focused on other materialistic or selfish aspects of our society it is
well . . . inmaterial, aye?
> Surely, this isn't
> the first time that someone has called you on this issue unless you
> made all this up all by yourself, and have never espoused this little
> theory of yours in front of, you know, people who care about writing.
On contraire, mon frere, but as you said yourself
you really don't know if I personally fall into the
'too lazy, undisciplined or unimaginative to learn how to write' category.
So for the sake of debate here, let's just say I have also discussed the
issue on numerous occasions with other writers and/or scholars
(thousands of times maybe even).
Is drive an emotion, Gary?
-Max (not even the Jesuits ever appreciated my
my theological arguments, eh JR?)
Joshua P. Hill
Methinks I catch a whiff of something unpleasantly off, like meat
that's been sitting in the bottom of the refrigerator a little too
long. Which reminds me of why I killfiled your /last/ email address.
Heh -- "talentless poetasters"! The smaller the dog, the bigger the
bark, eh?
Texas Max King
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:kd69pvkpepgt1i0vm...@4ax.com...
I thought they gave a Pullitzer out to great writers, hmmm,
I must've been wrong. Sorry.
-Max
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:kd69pvkpepgt1i0vm...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:04:44 GMT, "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Gary, if you're a paid writer or a teacher or
>> > a publisher or an editor, my respects. Please
>> > tell me you're one of the above. Even so, my point stands.
>> > Marg and Angel, no matter how good or how bad their poems
>> > are harmless here. If you really were a professional
>> > and your concerns (that they write badly) were sincere,
>> > then I certainly think your attitude and comments would be different.
>> > Personally, I nurture young poets that I feel have potential.
>> > I look for a certain quality of sincerity and love of language.
>> > They may not have the techniques or rules down,
>> > but those can be learned.
>> > But you're right, who am I fooling here.
>> > Why should I think you might ever understand.
>> > I didn't see the Pullitzer sitting on your mantle . . .
>>
>> The Pulitzer prize is awarded for understanding? Interesting theory,
>> that.
>
> I thought they gave a Pullitzer out to great writers, hmmm,
> I must've been wrong. Sorry.
Great writers? Good ones, anyway. Usually. At some point. Which,
unfortunately, makes your comment no less ludicrous: I daresay Gary is
a far better critic -- and writer -- than any number of "paid
writers," teachers, publishers, and editors, not to mention Pulitzer
Prize winners.
Peter J Ross
rec.arts.poems:
<...>
> Too many cliches . . . waaaah!
> Not enough imagery . . . waaah!
> Bad word choices . . . waaah!
> Your meter is off . . . waaah!
> Bad line breaks . . . waaah!
> No internal rhyme . . . waaah!
The first five errors are enough to stop me reading well-known
"classic" poems after a few lines, never mind the amateurish efforts
of many RAP posters.
The fact that you include internal rhyme (an optional sound effect) on
your hate-list of essential ingredients for competent poetry-writing
suggests, frankly, that you don't know what you're talking about.
<...>
> Answer this the next time you read any poem . . .
> what emotion is the writer expressing?
None at all, if the writer has a clue about how to write.
The writer may or may not be aiming to arouse emotions in the
*reader*. The writer's *own* emotions are utterly irrelevant. And
appreciation of good poetry isn't necessarily emotional. Good poetry,
from the Iliad onwards, tends above all to appeal to the mind.
<...>
>> Agreed. But only ignorance is fatal.
>
> . . . and so is neglect, apathy and
> callousness. And by the way . . .
> jealousy and envy are most certainly also fatal.
Do you honestly suppose that such an accomplished writer as Gary is
*jealous* or *envious* when he takes time to offer a beginner some
advice?
> Ignorance by itself is not the only fatal vice
> humanity embraces.
Ignorance of metre, sound, syntax and a dozen other important aspects
of good poetry (as previously listed by Gary) is, however, fatal to
poetry.
Please stop telling potentially talented beginners that any crap will
do as long as they imagine it ~expresses~ their ~feelings~. They won't
improve as writers until they get past such adolescent nonsense.
Texas Max King
"Peter J Ross" wrote in message . . .
> In the early days they were the
> only glimmers of critical light in the group.
I don't know about AAPC, but in recent years
the only critic I can remember that had any sincerity
was a guy named Martin. There was also a
guy named 'Red' for awhile . . .
but as usual the rift raft scared them away.
After all, if you had that rare talent and time,
would you really want to waste it here with
a load fool of losers and wannabe's?
I know I wouldn't. Personally, I don't have the time
to disect others poems. In earlier years the
poets critiqued each other.
But I guess my idea of critique is different from
Gary and others. I've always thought of critique as
positive feedback to improve.
Anyone can point out fallacies, but few can point
out the weaknesses in ways that are not
vindictive or demeaning. You don't have to
demean a poet to help them improve.
I've seen you do this on various occasions, Peter.
I've done it myself a few times (disect a poem to be helpful, that is).
Unfortunately there are others whose idea
of critiquing a poets work is to point out where
it falls short without contributing positive
feedback to improve it. Sad this world we live in.
As I've said before great poetry critiques are rare.
Which is why I stopped asking for them on RAP
years ago. I find the art of critique to be extremely fallible
and if not done appropriately, it is also detrimental
to the writer.
It's no different than in business management.
If I see you fucking up on the job and all I tell you
is that you are a fuck up, because you did this wrong,
then I'm not a very good manager. But if I point out that
you seriously fucked up and this is the way it should
be done and that's what we expect . . . then at least
I've given you a glimmer of hope that you aren't a
total fuck up. Of course, if you are a total fuck up,
then it's usually better to say so and tell them to
move on.
Poetry critique ain't no different.
-Max
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>> Exactly wrong. Now, had you said: "A poem that does
>> not express the READER'S feelings is not a poem" we could,
>> at least, have an intelligent discussion on the subject.
>> I'd STILL disagree with you, but at least I could respect
>> the position that you would be defending.
>
> I won't debate the 'feelings' issue with you or Gary.
Seems to me you have.
> Answer this the next time you read any poem . . .
> what emotion is the writer expressing?
> Anger, love, sympathy, empathy, disgust,
> satisfaction, bitterness, placidity, joy,
> resentment, dissillusion, vengeance,
> hysteria, enlightenment?
> Are these not emotions, feelings?
Ask this the next time your wife yells at you or your dog wags its
tail. The expression of emotion is something we all do; poetry is not.
Peter J Ross
rec.arts.poems:
Do you burble meaninglessly often? (Don't bother answering: I know you
do.)
>Which reminds me of why I killfiled your /last/ email address.
I've been using this email address regularly for about two months, and
I added the spamblock at about the same time as you changed your email
address to avoid Swen-A, so stop whining. I'm at least as easy to
plonk as you are. You recently escaped from *my* killfile just in case
you had anything to say in the AAPC gallery threads, but I suppose you
couldn't fit anything about how great it is to murder Iraqis into
those threads.
>Heh -- "talentless poetasters"! The smaller the dog, the bigger the
>bark, eh?
As long as you don't flood AAPC with your anti-poetic warmongering
crap as you've done in the past, your yapping is almost unnoticeable.
But I still wonder why you're here. No life, eh?
Peter J Ross
rec.arts.poems:
> Poems express feelings. The writers feelings. The words in
> a poem express feelings, the writers feelings.
Psst, Gary! .sig material here.
Texas Max King
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:r6a9pvs7plaeob6sd...@4ax.com...
. . . suck on . . .
-Max
yyyiii...@yahoo.com
josh this is what happens if you don't train peter right: he will bark at you
unless you bite back each time.
ying
Texas Max King
"Peter J Ross" <p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> wrote in message news:bn2da5.3...@gadfly.meow.org...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:04:46 GMT, Texas Max King wrote in
> rec.arts.poems:
>
> <...>
>
> > Too many cliches . . . waaaah!
> > Not enough imagery . . . waaah!
> > Bad word choices . . . waaah!
> > Your meter is off . . . waaah!
> > Bad line breaks . . . waaah!
> > No internal rhyme . . . waaah!
>
> The first five errors are enough to stop me reading well-known
> "classic" poems after a few lines, never mind the amateurish efforts
> of many RAP posters.
>
> The fact that you include internal rhyme (an optional sound effect) on
> your hate-list of essential ingredients for competent poetry-writing
> suggests, frankly, that you don't know what you're talking about.
I'll have to diasagree with you on internal rhyme.
But we can agree to disagree.
It was by no means comprehensive,
but (at least the first five) are the most common
gripes heard.
> > Answer this the next time you read any poem . . .
> > what emotion is the writer expressing?
>
> None at all, if the writer has a clue about how to write.
Again I'll have to disagree with you and Gary on this . . .
and lets keep this academic shall we?
Emotion is an integral part of the writing process . . .
both intentionally and on a sub-concious psychological level,
unless of course you are a journalist, where emotion is
very much frowned upon and is adverse
to objective writing in the journalistic trade.
> The writer may or may not be aiming to arouse emotions in the
> *reader*. The writer's *own* emotions are utterly irrelevant.
Since you and Gary are so quick to point out that
I don't know what I'm talking about . . . I'll have to make the same
claim here. Peter, you don't know what you're talking about
when you say the 'writers' emotions are utterly irrelevant.
How can you overlook the emotional energies inherent in the writing
process. Do writers write as robots, without feeling for their subject matter
or for what they are attempting to convey? Is there no emotion involved
in the 'drive' of the writer to create exceptional literature.
I think not, but I guess we'll never agree on this
so it becomes a mute point to continue this discussion.
> And appreciation of good poetry isn't necessarily emotional. Good poetry,
> from the Iliad onwards, tends above all to appeal to the mind.
And now you want to biologically seperate 'the mind'
from 'emotion'. Homer wrote with a passion damnit,
and that sure as hell is emotional. I'm not sure if you two actually believe
emotions do not play a part in the writing process or if you are
both just baiting me . . . but again, I am not debating here to get personal,
I'm merely stating my opinion and responding to a different point of view.
Discussion without intentional aggressive insult is still possible here,
isn't it?
> >> Agreed. But only ignorance is fatal.
> >
> > . . . and so is neglect, apathy and
> > callousness. And by the way . . .
> > jealousy and envy are most certainly also fatal.
>
> Do you honestly suppose that such an accomplished writer as Gary is
> *jealous* or *envious* when he takes time to offer a beginner some
> advice?
I never specifically said Gary was envious or jealous
(though others may be), if he is an accomplished writer,
as I said before, all due respects, but I happen to disagree.
It is my perogative. I've met accomplished writers who were
complete idiots and assholes. I've met accomplished musicians
that were complete idiots and assholes. I've met accomplished
actors and directors and producers that were complete idiots and
assholes . . . not to mention sports celebs . . .
'accomplished' does not make any of them right all the time.
> > Ignorance by itself is not the only fatal vice
> > humanity embraces.
>
> Ignorance of metre, sound, syntax and a dozen other important aspects
> of good poetry (as previously listed by Gary) is, however, fatal to
> poetry.
On this we can agree . . . but again this goes back to
another of my pet peaves of the past. Technical impeccability does
not make a great poem or even a good poem. Many technical academics
can't write a good poem for shit. They beat a poem to technical death.
I've heard poems from 'street poets' that know little of syntax or form
that far surpass some of the 'technical academic' trash
that they attempt to pass off as poetry simply because
they have a degree in literature. And more often than not,
it is because of the passion and emotion 'the street poet'
evicts in the written word. You're both wrong here, Peter,
passion and emotion is as critical to poetry
as objectivity and unbias is to journalism.
Unfortunately, modern academics have lost sight
of these basic traits that are as important to
a poem as any of the technical aspects.
> Please stop telling potentially talented beginners that any crap will
> do as long as they imagine it ~expresses~ their ~feelings~. They won't
> improve as writers until they get past such adolescent nonsense.
I never told any of the writers here that expressing
'emotions' or 'feelings' constitutes good poetry.
On the contrary, therapeutic crap is best left in journals or
shared with close friends that can handle it. What I did say
is that some writers are better than others at writing
stylistically 'emotional' poems. All writers grow through an
'adolescent' stage. Even mature writers may sometimes write
verse that is inherently adolescent. But the innocence of youth
in poetry is not neccesarily a bad thing. I can even thiink
of a few poets that spent their entire lives writing
adoloscent poetry . . . and now they're considered
'great' contemporary writers. The great thing about poetry
is that it is never black and white. It is imbued with gray areas
that make it an ever expanding art . . . open to experimentation
and creativity. Sometimes it fails and every so often it succeeds.
If your idea of poetry is the strictly traditional rhyme of
Homer, Shakespeare and the other Classicists, well that's fine.
But contemporary poetry would have never developed and become
acceptable, if writers would not have experimented with prose
or alternative styles of writing.
nuff said . . . I'm burned out . . .
and I have other things to do.
-Max
Sick Mind
"Renay St. James" <re...@chucksucks.lots> wrote
> *****I remember when aapc was born, but I don't know who was
> there originally. what I do remember from the dim mists of time is
> the quality of rap poetry. it was here, it was large, and it ruled the
> known universe. this was waaaaay back when, mind you, but there
> was always, ALWAYS a good read daily. I still have a notebook of
> hardcopy from then that I dig out once in awhile. the flames have
> always been present, the flamewars now are piddly compared to
> what went on back in the wayback.
You don't say!
> off the top of my head (this
> list is VERY incomplete: Helen, the Karens, some Jennifers, Marie,
> Jenny Marie, McNeilly, JJ (Beau Blue), Blaise, Satan (yes, he DID
> post here), Greg, Ralph, etc. and Marek. not last! not least! my very
> first ever critique was from him. ripped me to shreds. the poem turned
> itself into something very good because of it. that was a 10 second
> list. there are so many more! used to be a rap gathering every summer.
>
> Renay
Some criticize by just being better. Think about it.
What happened to "Cristina A."?
Sick Mind a.k.a. Mind Manner a.k.a. Manny
boro...@worldnet.att.net
Joshua P. Hill
<p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:22:12 -0400, Joshua P. Hill wrote in
>rec.arts.poems:
>
>>Methinks I catch a whiff of something unpleasantly off, like meat
>>that's been sitting in the bottom of the refrigerator a little too
>>long.
>
>Do you burble meaninglessly often? (Don't bother answering: I know you
>do.)
Ah, repression! Vill der patient next exhibit sublimation und
reaction-vormation, or vill he vonce again pretend he has not read der
rest of der post?
>>Which reminds me of why I killfiled your /last/ email address.
>
>I've been using this email address regularly for about two months, and
>I added the spamblock at about the same time as you changed your email
>address to avoid Swen-A, so stop whining. I'm at least as easy to
>plonk as you are.
Oh, you changed your email address because of Swen-A, did you? My, my,
but I /never/ would have guessed. Thank you, oh Great Oxford Downgoer,
for that marvelous bit of enlightenment.
That's Oxford, everybody, /Oxford,/ Peter went to /Oxford,/ and in a
feat unparalleled in the annals of studentdom, passed an examination
without even /studying!/
See? I'm a decent sort: I even do your work for you.
>You recently escaped from *my* killfile just in case
>you had anything to say in the AAPC gallery threads, but I suppose you
>couldn't fit anything about how great it is to murder Iraqis into
>those threads.
Perhaps the Great Failed Oxonian cares to explain to us humble
poetasters how someone who favored removing a dictator who, according
to Amnesty International, murdered 50,000 Iraqis a year is in favor of
killing Iraqis?
I didn't think so.
But you don't really care about Iraqi lives, do you, Peter. That much
is obvious: even failed Oxonians can add and subtract.
>As long as you don't flood AAPC with your anti-poetic warmongering
>crap as you've done in the past, your yapping is almost unnoticeable.
>
>But I still wonder why you're here. No life, eh?
This from the milquetoastian monomaniac who prances after Chuckles
like Ahabette pursuing the great white minnow? Ah, well, no one ever
said you weren't hypocritical. Indeed, hypocrisy seems to be your
defining characteristic -- after the rudeness, the snobbery, the
nastiness, the pettiness, the fawning, and the wooden toe, that is.
But, to answer your question, I'm not here because of the tedious
trolling which ruined the group and for which your obsessional
responses to Tom and Chuck are largely responsible, nor am I here to
catch the occasional poem which floats by like a turd in a
storm-swollen sewer. I'm here because Gary started posting again, and
his posts are every bit as witty as yours are not.
Joshua P. Hill
>Peter J Ross <p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> wrote in message news:<bn29fp.3...@gadfly.meow.org>...
>> Your ignorance of the newsgroup you post your boring crap to is
>> showing, kook, as is your inability to read. The only people from the
>> early days of AAPC who had survived to post there when I arrived in
>> 2000 were Bruce Tindall and carmen. In the early days they were the
>> only glimmers of critical light in the group. Otherwise, from Autumn
>> 1997 until a few real poets and critiquers arrived, AAPC was flooded
>> with web-tv-type morons such as its creator, Michael Giardina.
>
>josh this is what happens if you don't train peter right: he will bark at you
>unless you bite back each time.
Like a puppy, isn't he? Without, unfortunately, the cute floppy ears
or the little wet nose.
But, you know, I've pretty much ignored Peter since he went nuts a
couple of years ago. Benders, at least, had a fascinating ability to
betray his own intellect both accidentally and by design, the sly
deviousness of the Machiavellian businessman, and an almost comical
ugliness of personality and intent. But arguing with Peter ain't
exactly wrassling with alligators: it's more like a game of tug-of-war
with an abused puppy.
E Selow
>
> What happened to "Cristina A."?
I too miss her and her beautiful color poems. I have a feeling she
turned up here a couple months ago, but that may just be my
imagination.
Elvira
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:r6a9pvs7plaeob6sd...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:22:55 GMT, "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> The Pulitzer prize is awarded for understanding? Interesting theory,
>> >> that.
>> >
>> > I thought they gave a Pullitzer out to great writers, hmmm,
>> > I must've been wrong. Sorry.
>>
>> Great writers? Good ones, anyway. Usually. At some point. Which,
>> unfortunately, makes your comment no less ludicrous: I daresay Gary is
>> a far better critic -- and writer -- than any number of "paid
>> writers," teachers, publishers, and editors, not to mention Pulitzer
>> Prize winners.
>
> . . . suck on . . .
And to think I thought that human cloning was illegal! Yet here they
are, more fools stamped in the same old mold: poetry comes from the
heart, what gives you people the right to judge so-and-so's
wall-placque doggerel it ain't like you is Miss Greech my forth grade
teacher what told me mah pome "Ah Loves Mah Cow" was the best thing
since that Miltown fellow wrote Pair O' Dice Lost, how many poems has
/you/ ever published heh-heh-heh-heh-heh. Oh, and you're just sucking
up to Gary Gamble: they always do that dumb imputation of motive thing
when their argument flags, which doesn't take long, given that Igor,
unable to find that lock of Einstein's hair, apparently settled on a
toenail clipping from Dubya instead.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
> Since you and Gary are so quick to point out that
> I don't know what I'm talking about . . . I'll have to make the same
> claim here. Peter, you don't know what you're talking about
> when you say the 'writers' emotions are utterly irrelevant.
> How can you overlook the emotional energies inherent in the writing
> process. Do writers write as robots, without feeling for their subject matter
> or for what they are attempting to convey? Is there no emotion involved
> in the 'drive' of the writer to create exceptional literature.
> I think not, but I guess we'll never agree on this
> so it becomes a mute point to continue this discussion.
"If poetry isn't understanding all, the whole word, then it isn't
worth anything. Young poets forget that poetry must include the mind
as well as the emotions. Too many poets delude themselves by thinking
the mind is dangerous and must be left out. Well, the mind is
dangerous and must be left in." -- Robert Frost
"There is a great deal, in the writing of poetry, which must be
conscious and deliberate. In fact, the bad poet is usually unconscious
where he ought to be conscious, and conscious where he ought to be
unconscious. Both errors tend to make him 'personal.' Poetry is not a
turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the
expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of
course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it
means to want to escape from these things." -- TS Eliot
Renay St. James
"Sick Mind" <boro...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:pt6lb.9156$Ec1.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
*****I will not. later today I have a presentation and I don't want
to show up with creases on my forehead. you explicate. until
then, I will settle for it being an implied criticism on the part of
whoever is feeling abused at any given moment. "better" is
too broadly subjective for this topic. better at writing? better at
accepting the need for improvement? better at punctuating?
where are the other two? I see this turning into a debate!
*****here. this needs work.
LAUGH LINES
------------------
this is the time for not frowning
for not smiling either
because each time I do
the gentle crescent creased
between my nose and chin
lingers longer afterward
reminding me maybe I have smiled
too much already
and at some point some
soft humor will etch itself
permanently along my cheek
until I either have to smile
forever to hide it
or face my face as mine
wondering
what was so damn funny
that it chiseled me
like stone
Renay
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:04:46 GMT, "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Exactly wrong. Now, had you said: "A poem that does
> >> not express the READER'S feelings is not a poem" we could,
> >> at least, have an intelligent discussion on the subject.
> >> I'd STILL disagree with you, but at least I could respect
> >> the position that you would be defending.
> >
> > I won't debate the 'feelings' issue with you or Gary.
>
> Seems to me you have.
>
> > Answer this the next time you read any poem . . .
> > what emotion is the writer expressing?
> > Anger, love, sympathy, empathy, disgust,
> > satisfaction, bitterness, placidity, joy,
> > resentment, dissillusion, vengeance,
> > hysteria, enlightenment?
> > Are these not emotions, feelings?
No, little boy. They're "words." Squiggles on a screen. You put
'em there yourself, and I got a nickel seZ you weren't "feeling" a
dam' thing when you put 'em there.
And I got my life, fortune, and honor seZ /they/ (the squiggles)
don't feel anything.
So it don't mean a thing if they ain't got that swing.
It means even less if they fail to /point/ to what produced 'em
(that part would be the "objective correlative," the notes for the
pome).
>
> Ask this the next time your wife yells at you or your dog wags its
> tail. The expression of emotion is something we all do; poetry is not.
>
What he said.
> --
>
> Josh
>
> To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.
NOBODY here would put up with the chuckles or the Dorkery if they
didn't serve a purpose /on a poultry froup/.
Notice. Dorkery and the chuckles /claim/ (squiggles) to be
"having feelings."
In squiggles.
Dorkery's pometic status depends on squiggle response; the
chuckles' whole life does. Thus, Dorkery and the chuckles /pay
attention/ to the squiggles; they have to. (I didn't say they paid
attention to /working at them/.)
Other squiggles slap the crap out of them merely by pointing to
the Earth (notes for the pome) that their squiggles /aren't/
pointing to.
The whole point of their presence here is the primary and daily
proof of the fact that THE SQUIGGLES AREN'T HAVING ANY FEELINGS.
That poultry isn't feelings, isn't claims to be having them.
That the notes for the pome "touch the Earth," are a map telling
you "where the Rocks are."
And the pome Got That Swing. Or it don't.
What confuses other Kiddies so badly is that it's so easy for some
squiggles to prove not only that the /pome/ isn't Having A Feeling
At You, neither is the pomet.
[Such as the Tomble bee and the Albanian walrus /have no
language/; the words mean nothing; parrot-monkeys push words around
in toedull astonishment that these same words /actually "effect"/
other people. You find out what does "effect" them, and blow 'em
out of the water; targets such as these are professionally useless
to the pomet, whatever they may be to the swordsman or
psychologist.]
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
The face of a child can say it all,
especially the mouth part of the face.
http://scrawlmark.org
ggamble
wrote:
>I've always thought of critique as
> positive feedback to improve.
Max!
Put the gun away!
You've only got ten toes, and you've shot at least three of them off
already!
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:34:03 GMT, "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com>
> wrote:
>
> > And after all, the goal of the writer or the painter
> > or the story teller or the film maker . . . is to
> > elicit an emotion from the reader.
> > Ne c'est?
>
> Mais non. If that were true, paintings of kids with oversized eyes and
> stories about dying kittens would be the apotheosis of artistic
> expression.
> --
> Josh
"The goal of the writer or painter" is to elicit a /nickel/ from the
reader, so that the artist can quit his day job and get twice the
art (more, actually; it pyramids) done with his given life.
The fact proves that doing so is /not/ the artist's ultimate goal.
Where said reader has no nickel, he cannot contribute to said
goal.
Where his "fellow artists" have no art, they can't, either.
"Elicit /emotion/"? Kid, if "emotion" has to be "elicited" from the
"reader," you may as well try to "elicit" it from a mudpij...
Oh.
ggamble
wrote:
>Max, if you want to have a serious discussion regarding poetry, go
>> learn something about it first.
ggamble
<p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:14:37 GMT, Texas Max King wrote in
>rec.arts.poems:
>
>> Poems express feelings. The writers feelings. The words in
>> a poem express feelings, the writers feelings.
>
>Psst, Gary! .sig material here.
No kidding.
Christ.
"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
Texas Max King,
attempting to express something
but betraying a monumental ignorance instead
ggamble
wrote:
"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
Texas Max King,
attempting to express something
but betraying a monumental ignorance instead
llusions you say?
Yes, I guess to you my Jesus Christ qualities
are an illusion.
~Sharon McElroy~
Dennis M. Hammes
Heh. I think it's got enough periods for a sonnet; you got enough
song?
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com> wrote in message news:<be0lb.86301$7_1....@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:fadef76.03102...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Hi, Max,
> >
> > > Nooo, poetry isn't "interpretive."
> >
> > Hi Cythera,
> > It is, but that's only my opinion.
>
> > Each person takes from a poem
> > what is most relevant to their own experiences.
>
> Then that person is the entity that interprets, right?
Right. But it isn't "pometry" that's "interpretive," it's the
reader, it's epistemology, it's the survival of that being in the
Cave of the Skull.
Max's continual assertion that "interpretive" means "whatever you
want it to mean" is a low-grade psychopathy that results in a large
body of "literature" that is paid to alter the nature of the world
outside the Cave by sucking the "interpretations" of the
"interpreters" /inside/ it.
Orpheus attempted to entice Eurydice out of that Cave; so did I.
Sometimes you just gotta let 'em go (back) to Hell, tits and all.
Max's entire "interpretation" fails in the simple fact that those
artists he "interpretes" all live outside the Cave, and he pays them
only when they make the shadow-pictures that /he/ likes.
Trouble is, that mine (Cave) has run out of gold, silver, lead,
mushrooms, bat-guano; is about to run out of oil if /it/ ever had
any. And the Baby thinks he can "pay" the artiss with his
slightly-used toilet paper ("Federal Reserve Notes," themselves
bad/baby copies of somebody else's pome).
Hey; Mommy came running to Collect it every time he produced it;
it's Therefore "Interpretable" as the single most valuable commodity
in the universe (and the interpretable origin of the word
"commode").
>
> The poem can't interpret. It has no brain and no sense organs, so it
> cannot experience. It cannot feel (have feelings.)
What she said. Squiggles aren't even memory; they're the objective
correlative of the Indexes to memory or they're shit.
>
> A poem is a just set of symbols, arranged by artifice; that is,
> arranged in such a way that is not found in nature.
The pomet, being outside the Cave, /is/ nature. "Symbol sets" are
mathematical transformations; they are thus part of natural law or
they are "interpretations" at the whim of the baby with one toe
outside the door.
(Thing is, the Dragon Baby in the Cave is nature, too, and so is
the doorway through which they interact in either direction.)
>
> The feelings (or not) are only in the "do-er" and the reader.
>
> So when a heart&soul poem is rejected, it is not a rejection of the
> writer's feelings or humanity, but of her or his artifice.
Of /his/ "interpretation," actually.
The Earth touched is sufficiently and immediately reproducible,
and so is the artiss that "touched" it, so that what such an
"artiss" /is/ actually demanding is reproducibly ("naturally")
identifiable in a single approximation.
I.e., what the artiss-baby "want" and the "interpreter"-baby
"want" are so common (natural) as to be classifiable in a small
space. So are the "feelings," mudpies, Federal Reserve Notes, and
gross bodily fluids they trade as "payment" for the "art."
The more-complex the report, the more-complex the legend on the map,
the more layers of data reported. Reported in the same space (the
map), they necessarily overlay each other. The parts bang each
others' elbows and knees, or they get together and "got that swing."
Interesting that today's babies call Brownian Motion in a crowded
Petri dish, "dancing."
>
> artifice. noun. Cleverness or skill; ingenuity.
>
> [French, from Old French, craftsmanship, from Latin artificium, from
> artifex, artific-, craftsman : ars, art-, art; see art1 + -fex,
> maker; see dh- in Indo-European Roots.]
>
> craft
> art
> making
>
> That is what we critique.
>
> [...]
Sometimes that critique must begin on the absence of subject or
artiss, beyond which observation there isn't a lot of artifex to
critique save maybe the pronunciation of "ce-ROO-le-un."
Texas Max King
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:q08apv4km314a6oa6...@4ax.com...
> "If poetry isn't understanding all, the whole word, then it isn't
> worth anything. Young poets forget that poetry must include the mind
> as well as the emotions. Too many poets delude themselves by thinking
> the mind is dangerous and must be left out. Well, the mind is
> dangerous and must be left in." -- Robert Frost
>
> "There is a great deal, in the writing of poetry, which must be
> conscious and deliberate. In fact, the bad poet is usually unconscious
> where he ought to be conscious, and conscious where he ought to be
> unconscious. Both errors tend to make him 'personal.' Poetry is not a
> turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the
> expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of
> course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it
> means to want to escape from these things." -- TS Eliot
Good job, Josh . . . here are a couple more . . .
All good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings:
it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquillity.
-William Wordsworth, Lyrical Ballads, preface (1801).
Poetry is emotion put into measure.
The emotion must come by nature, but the measure can be acquired by art.
-Thomas Hardy The Later Years of Thomas Hardy, Florence Emily Hardy (1930).
Poetry is the revelation of a feeling that the poet
believes to be interior and personal [but] which the reader recognizes as his own.
-Salvatore Quasimodo, New York Times (14 May 1960)
Poetry is ordinary language raised to the Nth power.
Poetry is boned with ideas, nerved and blooded
with emotions, all held together by the delicate, tough skin of words.
-Paul Engle, New York Times ( 17 Feb. 1957)
. . . funny how I'm not the only one that feels this way . . .
-Max
Texas Max King
Poetry is a deal of joy and pain and wonder,
with a dash of the dictionary. ~Kahlil Gibran
Poetry is when an emotion has found its thought
and the thought has found words. ~Robert Frost
You don't have to suffer to be a poet.
Adolescence is enough suffering for anyone.
~John Ciardi, Simmons Review, Fall 1962
What is a Professor of Poetry?
How can poetry be professed? ~W.H. Auden
Mathematics and Poetry are...
the utterance of the same power of imagination,
only that in the one case it is addressed to the head,
in the other, to the heart. ~Thomas Hill
Poetry is nobody's business except the poet's,
and everybody else can fuck off. ~Philip Larkin
Even on the lowest plane, poetry is rarely "rhyme without reason."
It sharpens the wit's cleverness and heightens the lover's dearest sentiments.
Poetry ranges all the way from the childish " Roses are red, violets are blue"
to Robert Burns's immortal song "My love is like a red, red rose."
When we are deeply aroused, we express ourselves in some sort of poetry;
our emotions spill over into a football cheer, a ballad, or a love lyric.
A poem expresses our inner excitement, eases our pain, and glorifies our joy.
Because of its strongly accented beat ana its ability to convey intense feeling,
poetry is the most powerful form of speech.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/rhyme.html
The former member of Wisconsin Arts Board Artist-in-Residence
program agrees with poet laureate Billy Collins' statement, "
poetry is the clear expression of mixed emotions."
http://www.gmtoday.com/content/CLS/2003/August/21.asp
Dale Houstman
>
> A poem is a just set of symbols, arranged by artifice; that is,
> arranged in such a way that is not found in nature.
A human interpretation/ordering is as much a part of nature as an ant
colony's building of a hill.
dmh
Sam Albaniensson
news:3F953AE6...@arvig.net
Fucking drunkard mongrel!
\^/
Š_Š
/Š\
\_
\\\
\_/
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
What you are is the only one who /equates/ poetry with emotional
expression: few would suggest that emotion plays no role in poetry,
or, for that matter, any kind of creative writing.
Rob Evans
<NOSPAMalb...@NOSPAMyahoo.se> writes
into an interesting thread for grown-ups.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
Rob Evans
<josh442R...@snet.net> writes
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:50:35 +0100, Rob Evans <r...@mla001.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <bn1eva.3...@gadfly.meow.org>, Peter J Ross
>><p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> writes
>>>
>>>Historically, AAPC is an offshoot of RAP. Some heart-and-soul poets
>>>didn't like the way they were being laughed at in RAP so they set up a
>>>gentler newsgroup. Then such people as Joy Yourcenar and Gary Gamble
>>>started posting to AAPC, drove out the old regulars, and the rest is
>>>history.
>>>
>>Yes, I remember the little rumbles when AAPC was set up.
>
>
Given the age of both RAP and AAPC, I could be 18.
Rob
--
Rob Evans
Texas Max King
"Renay St. James" <re...@chucksucks.lots> wrote in message news:cP9lb.324101$mp.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> *****here. this needs work.
>
> LAUGH LINES
> ------------------
> this is the time for not frowning
> for not smiling either
> because each time I do
> the gentle crescent creased
> between my nose and chin
> lingers longer afterward >>>lingers 'long' afterward ? <<<
> reminding me maybe I have smiled
> too much already
> and at some point some
> soft humor will etch itself
> permanently along my cheek
> until I either have to smile
> forever to hide it
> or face my face as mine
> wondering
> what was so damn funny
> that it chiseled me
> like stone
>
> Renay
I really liked this Renay . . . it only proves how well you rock!
As for the punctuation . . . I say to the weasel critics , , ,
it don't need no punctuation, it's fine the way it is.
I would add a capital letter at the beginning and a
period at the end, that's it. A few of the line breaks
might be even more powerful if you slid a word up or
down, here or there. But it's right on as is.
Thanks for sharing.
-Max
Texas Max King
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:fadef76.03102...@posting.google.com...
> "Texas Max King" <max...@pstx.com> wrote in message news:<be0lb.86301$7_1....@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:fadef76.03102...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Hi, Max,
> >
> > > Nooo, poetry isn't "interpretive."
> >
> > Hi Cythera,
> > It is, but that's only my opinion.
>
> > Each person takes from a poem
> > what is most relevant to their own experiences.
>
>
> Then that person is the entity that interprets, right?
Right.
> The poem can't interpret. It has no brain and no sense organs, so it
> cannot experience. It cannot feel (have feelings.)
Agreed.
> A poem is a just set of symbols, arranged by artifice; that is,
> arranged in such a way that is not found in nature.
not naturally, per se, no.
> The feelings (or not) are only in the "do-er" and the reader.
by 'do-er' I'm not sure if you mean the 'voice'
in the poem or the author/writer. Sometimes they are different.
But yeah, the poem itself of the words have no 'feelings'.
I don't know who thought I ever said the words of poems itself
had feelings, but they read too much or too little.
> So when a heart&soul poem is rejected, it is not a rejection of the
> writer's feelings or humanity, but of her or his artifice.
Sounds about right.
> artifice. noun. Cleverness or skill; ingenuity.
>
> [French, from Old French, craftsmanship, from Latin artificium, from
> artifex, artific-, craftsman : ars, art-, art; see art1 + -fex,
> maker; see dh- in Indo-European Roots.]
>
>
> craft
> art
> making
>
> That is what we critique.
Ditto. You don't critique that the writer has had the experience
or that the experience is legitimate. You critique
the writers ability to express those emotions so that
they not only have the 'grace' (go get it Gary) of the poetry
but also that they relate in a language that evokes the
desired emotion in the reader.
I like the word 'artifice', Cythera . . . I'll have to find an
opportunity to use it in daily conversation soon.
-Max
>
>
>
>
> [...]
Texas Max King
"ggamble" <gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:qkbapvkb05l5g8is4...@4ax.com...
Thanks Gary,
. . . but I'm practicing . . . I'm going hunting this weekend
and I don't even hunt. As for the toes . . . those weren't my toes
I was shooting at . . . I think you confused three stuffy academics
for toes on my own feet. I like my shoes . . . and my big toe still
fits comfortably in my favorite poetic shelter.
-Max (counting crows)
>
>
>
>
>
Texas Max King
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:ivmapvsds64pmktle...@4ax.com...
Again you're confused, Josh . . .
but a lot of the young kids are today,
so don't feel like a loner. My original sentiment
was that some write 'emotional' poetry better than others.
I never fucking said 'poetry is strictly an emotional expression'.
Although that sentiment can also certainly be argued.
Poetry is much more than mere 'emotion', pal.
The tune seems to have changed though the
'song remains the same'.
-Max
ggamble
wrote:
>>
>> Max!
>> Put the gun away!
>> You've only got ten toes, and you've shot at least three of them off
>> already!
>
> Thanks Gary,
> . . . but I'm practicing . . . I'm going hunting this weekend
> and I don't even hunt. As for the toes . . . those weren't my toes
> I was shooting at . . .
But you hit them just the same.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings. The words in
a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
-- Max
Next . . .
yyyiii...@yahoo.com
> On 20 Oct 2003 22:38:47 -0700, yyyiii...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Peter J Ross <p...@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net> wrote in message news:<bn29fp.3...@gadfly.meow.org>...
>
> >> Your ignorance of the newsgroup you post your boring crap to is
> >> showing, kook, as is your inability to read. The only people from the
> >> early days of AAPC who had survived to post there when I arrived in
> >> 2000 were Bruce Tindall and carmen. In the early days they were the
> >> only glimmers of critical light in the group. Otherwise, from Autumn
> >> 1997 until a few real poets and critiquers arrived, AAPC was flooded
> >> with web-tv-type morons such as its creator, Michael Giardina.
> >
> >josh this is what happens if you don't train peter right: he will bark at you
> >unless you bite back each time.
>
> Like a puppy, isn't he? Without, unfortunately, the cute floppy ears
> or the little wet nose.
>
> But, you know, I've pretty much ignored Peter since he went nuts a
> couple of years ago. Benders, at least, had a fascinating ability to
> betray his own intellect both accidentally and by design, the sly
> deviousness of the Machiavellian businessman, and an almost comical
> ugliness of personality and intent. But arguing with Peter ain't
> exactly wrassling with alligators: it's more like a game of tug-of-war
> with an abused puppy.
hey i am glad you know where your at. me think peter's time is up.
ying
ggamble
<josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>Next . . .
I think this one's a lost cause, Josh.
gg
"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
Texas Max King,
attempting to express something
but betraying a monumental ignorance instead
llusions you say?
Yes, I guess to you my Jesus Christ qualities
are an illusion.
~Sharon McElroy~
"You accused me of a pity ploy, even though you know full well that
you yourself are guilty of undermining the death of someone who was
one of my family members, which I think is completely lacking in any
morality whatsoever."
Cheryl Brown
"Sorry, but this poem means absolutely nothing to me."
Robert Barcus, referring to "Poem in October"
"You didn't respond with violence, or threats,
and that made me realize that you were cowardly and meek.
And not deserving of respect. Lower than a plagiarist.
Yeah, I ripped of a few of those poems.
What the fuck are going to do about?" (sic)
chuckles lysaght,
attempting to explain
how respect is earned.
Texas Max King
"ggamble" <gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:j70cpvs880eqkr60c...@4ax.com...
Texas Max King wrote:
> "Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
> The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
>
> Texas Max King,
. . . let's make sure and keep this in context
as you seem to be having such a good time
betraying your own shallow ignorance.
Gary Gamble wrote:
"But, I just thought I'd do you a favour and let you know
that you don't have a clue what you're talking about because poems
have words, writers have feelings, readers have feelings and poems
have words."
Let's make sure and get it right . . . poems are nothing but words,
they don't ever express feelings. But writers have feelings,
yet they don't express their feelings in their poems.
And the readers have feelings, but the readers feelings
don't ever come from the poems . . . because poems are merely 'words'.
I just wanted to make sure your sophist intellect understood it's own
depth. Can you sort this out for us Gary, or have you confused yourself yet?
Maybe your boyfriend Josh can help you. He seems to be attracted to you
like flies on . . . well, poetic psuedointellectual manure.
Maybe you should call Peter in to help you with it.
I have to admit you are much better at chuck loser battery than
you are with academic discourse. I really feel sorry for the
writers on the group if this is how you 'debate' poetic theory.
Oh, but I forgot, here you're always right. Reminds me of someone
else who always thought they were right. My suspicions about you
and your little dictatorial farce were well founded.
It's easy for you to get away with it on AAPC because you've
already trained your little soldiers here. But when you spread your
one sided gibberish on RAP (yes we remember your last
little fiasco) . . . . you're out of your league.
Oh and Josh . . . Gary might need your emotional support here
so please express your 'feelings' discretely.
-Max (sheesh . . . and they think they're poetic intellects . . .
reminds me of the last geriatric two year olds
I had to babysit in a poetry group)
RAP added to newsgroup list, as Gary posted his
side swipe only to AAPC so as not to rouse the natives
(or was there another reason?).
Texas Max King
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:n5nbpvgv0alfjkbsb...@4ax.com...
here Josh let me express my honest feelings here,
I'll be as poetic as I care to be . . .
such a pair of limp snails
josh and gamble can be
I'm so repulsed
by false sincerity
they have the last word
on poetry
my feelings gush
to read their mush
on how they think they know
yet if you delve and think a bit
you'll notice they can be
quite full of shit
but Josh will bend on his good knee
cause Gary
is his empathy
his crown divine
his whore with wine
oh how happy
they will be
they said hey max,
your feeling words on poetry
have no emotion
we have devotion
we are the queen
and killer bees
said max to them
you're both like phlegm
you can't get off your finger
but pick a nose
and shoot their toes
they'll never see
and never be
emotion, feeling poet ease.
Like? next . . .
-Max
Dennis M. Hammes
I may be wrong (the examiner always flunks the Turing Test in at
least /one/ sense, anyway), but the TexMax may be salvageable.
Won't post the decodes where babies can parrot them, tho.
(Makes things hard on the students, not on me.)
But you may note that he's slowly becoming covered with scar
tissue because he never shoots himself in the same place twice
mostly.
Cf. e.g., the Dorkery, the chuckles, the Brenda-thing, who have
holes in their heads that can pass the traffic of the Holland Tunnel
without ever encountering a single obstacle.
Dennis M. Hammes
Oh, the humanity.
(I freely admit that Max sometimes shoots himself with a whole
train wreck.)
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
Good Lord, man, why can't you type flush left?
ggamble
wrote:
>
>"ggamble" <gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:j70cpvs880eqkr60c...@4ax.com...
>
> Texas Max King wrote:
>
>> "Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
>> The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
>>
>> Texas Max King,
>
> . . . let's make sure and keep this in context
> as you seem to be having such a good time
> betraying your own shallow ignorance.
>
> Gary Gamble wrote:
>
> "But, I just thought I'd do you a favour and let you know
> that you don't have a clue what you're talking about because poems
> have words, writers have feelings, readers have feelings and poems
> have words."
>
> Let's make sure and get it right . . . poems are nothing but words,
> they don't ever express feelings. But writers have feelings,
> yet they don't express their feelings in their poems.
> And the readers have feelings, but the readers feelings
> don't ever come from the poems . . . because poems are merely 'words'.
Maybe there's hope for you yet.
>
> I just wanted to make sure your sophist intellect understood it's own
> depth. Can you sort this out for us Gary, or have you confused yourself yet?
Well, it's been sorted out since my first Literary Criticism class in
1973 for me personally, but I'm pretty sure Robert Penn Warren had
been kicking it around for at least a few decades previous to that.
> Maybe your boyfriend Josh can help you. He seems to be attracted to you
> like flies on . . . well, poetic psuedointellectual manure.
You seem to be descending into the personal, don't blame us for your
inability to understand one of the most basic concepts of aesthetic
theory.
> Maybe you should call Peter in to help you with it.
> I have to admit you are much better at chuck loser battery than
> you are with academic discourse. I really feel sorry for the
> writers on the group if this is how you 'debate' poetic theory.
Why would you feel sorry for the *writers on this group* when all you
consider RAP to be is a *support group for people who can't write*?
> Oh, but I forgot, here you're always right. Reminds me of someone
> else who always thought they were right. My suspicions about you
> and your little dictatorial farce were well founded.
Max, you really are getting carried away, don't you think?
> It's easy for you to get away with it on AAPC because you've
> already trained your little soldiers here. But when you spread your
> one sided gibberish on RAP (yes we remember your last
> little fiasco) . . . . you're out of your league.
I have no idea what fiasco you're attempting to reference, but poems
do not have feelings, Max. All the adhom bombast isn't going to change
that.
I can understand how you feel all hurt and embarrassed and want to
lash out with personal insults. Hell, if I thought poems had
feelings, and that the aim of poetry was solely to elicit an emotional
reaction in the reader, I'd be embarrassed too when the day finally
came when someone was kind enough to show me the ignorance of my
outlook.
>
> Oh and Josh . . . Gary might need your emotional support here
> so please express your 'feelings' discretely.
>
> -Max (sheesh . . . and they think they're poetic intellects . . .
> reminds me of the last geriatric two year olds
> I had to babysit in a poetry group)
>
> RAP added to newsgroup list, as Gary posted his
> side swipe only to AAPC so as not to rouse the natives
> (or was there another reason?).
>
> All good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings:
> it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquillity.
> -William Wordsworth, Lyrical Ballads, preface (1801).
Oh God, that old Wordsworth quote.
One more time, Max:
Poems don't have feelings or emotions.
Writers have feelings and emotions.
Readers have feelings and emotions.
A successful poem *should* at least *attempt* to elicit a
1) Imaginative
2) Sensual
3) Intellectual
and
4) Emotional
response in a receptive and experienced reader.
I'm not making this up, Max.
This is really old news.
How about if you go crack a book and get back to us in a while?
"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
Texas Max King,
ggamble
wrote:
>>
Jesus.
Is everyone from Texas a stark, raving lunatic?
"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
Texas Max King,
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
> here Josh let me express my honest feelings here,
Like I think it's one of the worst examples of light verse I've ever
read here, less the overflow of spontaneous feeling than its breakdown
into poop as it negotiates the twists and turns of the intestinal
tract.
Joshua P. Hill
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:37:59 -0400, Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>Next . . .
>
>I think this one's a lost cause, Josh.
He should feel right at home here, then. Maybe we should set up a
dating service -- Texas and Ebb, what do you think? I doubt Bramwell
would object.
ggamble
wrote:
> . . . and here are a few more . . .
>
>Poetry is a deal of joy and pain and wonder,
>with a dash of the dictionary. ~Kahlil Gibran
"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."
Texas Max King,
attempting to express something
but betraying a monumental ignorance instead
Here, you're now in the company of, heh ~Kahlil Gibran.
Maybe Rod McKuen has a quote about poetry that you'd like to drag up
out of context to *prove* your point.
Actually Max, you are proving a point, it's just not the point you
want to prove.
"Sorry, but this poem means absolutely nothing to me."
Robert Barcus, referring to "Poem in October"
"Of course my favorite poet is ME!!! :-} Oh gosh, who to tell you to
read.....I have read several and to be blunt I just don't get them. I
have read Anne Sexton (committed suicide), Sylvia Plath (committed
suicide), Donald Hall (died I think recently), and several others I
cannot remember."
Robert Barcus
"I believe that poetry does not necessarily have to be something you
work at."
poetchic
"Ya know Gary; now I know that you only stalk and harrass me to be an
asshole! This sonnet, a formal Shakespearean sonnet is a masterpiece
work and still you have something immature and insulting to say. You
have exposed your true ignorance, rude behavior, and lack of respect
to poetry to a tee with this post. Shame on you in the name of
literature!
Shakespeare is gonna roll over in his grave, rise up and kick you in
the face on this one bud!
Sincerely, Sharon"
~Sharon McElroy~