Name Some Good Poets, For A Change
S D Rodrian
in the sense that you can predict any given work
from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
Shakespeare wrote a lot of massively boring leagues
& leagues of words; and some of the "worst" poets
of all are those blessed souls who are celebrated for
their singularly unparalleled one poem wonders (W E
Henley's ubiquitous "Invictus").
Without going into the usually lengthy lecture on
what constitutes "Great" or even "good" poetry, here
are a few judgments traveling backwards through time
(hint: study what has survived across the ages)...
Intelligence is what creates good poetry because
poetry is at its core a setting down of our thoughts;
and if our thoughts are dumb, then that's what must
follow as our poetry. Thus the best poets have been
very intelligent persons (Shakespeare, whether "he"
really was Shakespeare or "he" was de Vere ... and
Emily Dickinson, who was not merely a most repressed
neurotic but manifestly a keen and insightful observer/
discoverer of the cosmic in the minutiae around her).
It is very likely that almost everything (though never
all, certainly) by those two poets will prove very good
or even very great poetry.
There are a handful of poets in every age who manage
to write a dozen or more truly distinguished poems
(and some, such as Robert Frost, Dylan Thomas, e e
cummings, T S Eliot, W B Yeats, Keats & Shelley,
Browning & Whitman, Tennyson & Wordsworth, Poe
and Byron, Burns & Blake, Edna Millay & Marianne
Moore, Ezra Pound & Wallace Stevens, A E Housman,
Hart Crane, Milton, Pope ... have all unquestionably
contributed more than just one dozen each).
And so those are the poets on whose work you should
probably concentrate first in order to discern the essence
of "good" poetry (even though I have already given you
the true essence of good and competent poetry: a good
and competent mind). There's a handful of others to be
included, if you're so inclined: Mathew Arnorld, Longfellow,
Stephen Spender, Thomas Hardy, Gerard Manley Hopkins,
Coleridge, Andrew Marvell, John Donne & Ben Jonson,
Marlowe & Herrick, George Baker, Elizabeth B Browning,
W H Auden, W C Williams ... poets who perhaps have
written fewer "great" poems, but who have nevertheless
unquestionably written more "great" poems than most
persons who've tried their hand at it. You should keep
those poets in mind as well when you make up your mind
to inquire into which qualities are more likely to foster
the creation (by you?) of a great/good poem (if the thing's
in you).
And forget about trying to imagine that "modern" poetry
is "better" than "traditional" poetry; or that the opposite
is true: Poetry is what our language says we are thinking.
The "thinking" thumps "the slang."
There are probably many more great poems which have
expressed great thoughts about the most mundane of
matters than there are great poems about "great" subjects:
A great mind will conceive of something great to say;
and a small mind speaking through a megaphone will
still holler out a lot of pointless nonsense.
This, no doubt, will leads us to ask the ages-old question
of what ever happen to Leigh Hunt (who in his time was
popularly considered a "greater" poet than Keats or Shelly
and most of their contemporaries)... and all such "wonders?"
Well, the answer is simple: They did NOT write great poems.
However popular the works of many a song lyricist may be
("the answer, my friend, is blow'n in the wind")... once you
remove the melody, as it were, they are revealed/exposed
as the pointless mouthings they are. (If the poem is not the
answer--does not contain the answer, if the point of the
poem is to point out that you just don't know... then it's a
pretty pointless poem, absent one hell of a great redeeming
melody). This is just as true of every other "extraneous
artifact" which artificially raises the popularity of a given
"poem" or "poet" (such as the efforts of mutual-admiration
societies in whatever forms they take, from mere access to
"a" publication, or membership in academic/"civic clubs"
whose "dues" are paid in currencies other than just poems).
Ben Jonson's marvelous lyric, "Drink to me only with thine
eyes..." is chockful of striking metaphors even 400 years
later (and in spite of the unforgettable melody married to it).
This is certainly NOT the case with Berlin's "White Christmas."
For the sake of "the slang," here are a few 20th Century
poets who, in my sole judgment, have written great lines
(which may yet make of them candidates to be considered
to have been among the great poets)... in no particular order
of importance, although you may note some "popular"
omissions, certainly. These are "modern" masters who
actually managed to create extremely intelligent/competent,
purposeful poetry in & of itself (from whatever why they wrote)
..
Basil Bunting, Grey Burr, Ted Hughes, W S Merwin, Richard
Wilbur, Allen Tate, Theodore Weiss, Archibald MacLeish,
Vassar Miller, Vachel Lindsay, W D Snodgrass, Ralph
Pomeroy, J V Cunningham, X J Kennedy, James Wright,
Howard Nemerov, Robert Lowell, Edgar Bowers, Conrad
Aiken, Edith Sitwell, Elinor Wylie, James Dickey, Kenneth
Rexroth, Louis MacNeice, Robert Horan, G S Fraser, Sylvia
Plath, Selden Rodman, Robert Penn Warren, Laurie Lee,
Marya Zaturenska, Oscar Williams... & some random notes:
[I never found a poem by Robert Graves I thought was great.]
[I remember writing on the edge of a Robert Creeley poem:
"This guy's a jerk." ("Kore" ?) But I liked his, "The Signboard" ,
"I Know A Man" , "After Lorca" & "lots others" of his poems.]
[I consider Stephen Crane nuts, and anybody who likes him
perverse.] [I have no idea why the great W H Auden has fallen
out of favor with some persons, even though perhaps he wrote
more than he should have.] [Although I enjoy W C Williams'
"The Yachts" ... I don't think much of the bulk of his work. Sorry.
I enjoy/admire a lot of Whitman's lines, but, frankly, I find his
endless enumerations annoying.] [Wordsworth is maligned now
for what he did, rather than worshipped for what he wrote...
as he instead ought to be.] [I have never been able to find the
poetry in George Herbert, hard as I've tried to.] [Ferlinghetti's
"Underwear" is funny, albeit screw the sob's politics.] That's it.
There are a few other "extremely" well regarded "modern"
poets about whom I can't say anything especially positive.
Poems/phrases which can be reduced to, "I hurt," or "I feel
bad," "I like this" or "I really, really hate that," or adjectives
for their own sake (usually "dirty words" or quite outrageous
insults)... this is what children do all the time and will never
be real poetry. (In fact, I don't know of anybody who is so
"gentle a soul" as to even be outraged by these antics any
more.) Do not confuse a novel/interesting way of looking at
something ... with just merely telling people how you feel
about the thing--who cares about that outside of your mother?!
Edwin Markham's "The Man With The Hoe" , Edwin Arlington
Robinson's "Richard Cory" , Richard Eberhart's "The Groundhog" ,
Edwin Muir's "The Road" , John Davidson's "Thirty Bob a Week" ,
Emily Bronte's "Remembrance" , Frank O'Hara's To The
Harbormaster" , Adrienne Rich's "33" , Robert Lowell's "Caligula" ,
Paris Leary's "September 1, 1965" , X J Kennedy's "Heartside
Story" , John Masefield's "Sea-Fever" , W H Davies's "Leisure" ,
Francis Thompson's "The Hound of Heaven" , Edmund Waller's
"Go, Lovely Rose" , William Oldys's "The Fly" , Thomas Carew's
"A Song" , Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach" and Thomas Gray's
"Elegy Written In A Country Churchyard" are some masterpieces
you can mine for the essence of what constitutes great poetry ...
by poets who although they only produced a few great works,
yet managed to touch the greatest heights of this great art with
their handful of undisputed masterpieces.
Study on! *
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
* I dare not prompt anyone to actually write: Poetry?
There is no more time-wasting a person in this world
than one who goes out of his way to encourage people
to write "poetry" (or to "talk," for that matter).
gnarl
"S D Rodrian" <s...@azena.com> wrote in message
news:3E0FB02A...@azena.com...
> .. There are really no "good" or "bad" poets
> in the sense that you can predict any given work
> from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
> Shakespeare wrote a lot of massively boring leagues
> & leagues of words; and some of the "worst" poets
> of all are those blessed souls who are celebrated for
> their singularly unparalleled one poem wonders (W E
> Henley's ubiquitous "Invictus").
>
> Without going into the usually lengthy lecture on
hah.
g.
Aidan Tynan
S D Rodrian wrote in message <3E0FB02A...@azena.com>...
>
>Without going into the usually lengthy lecture on
>what constitutes "Great" or even "good" poetry, here
>are a few judgments traveling backwards through time
>(hint: study what has survived across the ages)...
Yes, but the Canon can be studied not only as a system of inclusion but of
exclusion. In other words, writers were often 'included' for reasons other
than their greatness. (Feminist and postcolonial critics have written a lot
on this that shouldn't sound too outlandish.) For example, why do Matthew
Prior and Maria Edgeworth languish in relative obscurity when people talk of
the 18th century?
>
>Intelligence is what creates good poetry because
>poetry is at its core a setting down of our thoughts;
>and if our thoughts are dumb, then that's what must
>follow as our poetry. Thus the best poets have been
>very intelligent persons (Shakespeare, whether "he"
>really was Shakespeare or "he" was de Vere ...
Each age fashions a Shakespeare for itself. The idea that there is a 'pure'
Shakespeare untouched by history, politics, aesthetics etc. should seem more
and more ridiculous.
and
>Emily Dickinson, who was not merely a most repressed
>neurotic but manifestly a keen and insightful observer/
>discoverer of the cosmic in the minutiae around her).
>
>It is very likely that almost everything (though never
>all, certainly) by those two poets will prove very good
>or even very great poetry.
>
>There are a handful of poets in every age who manage
>to write a dozen or more truly distinguished poems
>(and some, such as Robert Frost, Dylan Thomas, e e
>cummings, T S Eliot, W B Yeats, Keats & Shelley,
>Browning & Whitman, Tennyson & Wordsworth, Poe
>and Byron, Burns & Blake, Edna Millay & Marianne
>Moore, Ezra Pound & Wallace Stevens, A E Housman,
>Hart Crane, Milton, Pope ... have all unquestionably
>contributed more than just one dozen each).
>
>And so those are the poets on whose work you should
>probably concentrate first in order to discern the essence
>of "good" poetry (even though I have already given you
>the true essence of good and competent poetry: a good
>and competent mind).
Ha! The least competent minds in history have created the most competent
poetry.
There's a handful of others to be
>included, if you're so inclined: Mathew Arnorld, Longfellow,
>Stephen Spender, Thomas Hardy, Gerard Manley Hopkins,
>Coleridge, Andrew Marvell, John Donne & Ben Jonson,
>Marlowe & Herrick, George Baker, Elizabeth B Browning,
>W H Auden, W C Williams ... poets who perhaps have
>written fewer "great" poems,
Says who? Personally, I'd take Auden and Williams over Millay and cummings
any day, while I'd far sooner read Hardy than Dickinson. And why is Donne an
optional extra whereas Pope is compulsory? I'd far sooner read Prior than
either of them! And where the hell are Dryden, Wyatt, Spencer, Sidney?
but who have nevertheless
>unquestionably written more "great" poems than most
>persons who've tried their hand at it. You should keep
>those poets in mind as well when you make up your mind
>to inquire into which qualities are more likely to foster
>the creation (by you?) of a great/good poem (if the thing's
>in you).
>
>And forget about trying to imagine that "modern" poetry
>is "better" than "traditional" poetry; or that the opposite
>is true: Poetry is what our language says we are thinking.
And our thought often tells us what our language is up to behind our backs.
But then, language is what let's us do the thinking in the first place.
>The "thinking" thumps "the slang."
>
>There are probably many more great poems which have
>expressed great thoughts about the most mundane of
>matters than there are great poems about "great" subjects:
>A great mind will conceive of something great to say;
>and a small mind speaking through a megaphone will
>still holler out a lot of pointless nonsense.
And our language is what let's us know what manner of thought we've thunk.
>
>This, no doubt, will leads us to ask the ages-old question
>of what ever happen to Leigh Hunt (who in his time was
>popularly considered a "greater" poet than Keats or Shelly
>and most of their contemporaries)... and all such "wonders?"
>Well, the answer is simple: They did NOT write great poems.
They thunk they did.
>However popular the works of many a song lyricist may be
>("the answer, my friend, is blow'n in the wind")...
Yes, and once Scott was considered as great as Shakespeare. And once upon a
time, you were a dunce unless you knew Latin, and they usen't teach the
Classics to women, either, until Samuel Johnson came along.
[I have never been able to find the
>poetry in George Herbert, hard as I've tried to.]
Norton Anthology of Eng Lit, volume one. I think Herbert's better than Donne
and Marvell.
Who died and made you Harold Bloom, anyway?
>by poets who although they only produced a few great works,
>yet managed to touch the greatest heights of this great art with
>their handful of undisputed masterpieces.
Masterpieces are rarely ever undisputed.
-Aidan
Z.U.Oraqref
S D Rodrian wrote:
> There are a handful of poets in every age who manage
> to write a dozen or more truly distinguished poems
> (and some, such as Robert Frost, Dylan Thomas, e e
> cummings, T S Eliot, W B Yeats, Keats & Shelley,
> Browning & Whitman, Tennyson & Wordsworth, Poe
> and Byron, Burns & Blake, Edna Millay & Marianne
> Moore, Ezra Pound & Wallace Stevens, A E Housman,
> Hart Crane, Milton, Pope ... have all unquestionably
> contributed more than just one dozen each).
The only unquestionable ones in this list is Thomas, and maybe Eliot.
The other ones are all suspicious. Some are really rather mediocre,
like Yeats and Blake and Pope and Keats and Shelley. Milton was a
writer, as far as I know. The poems he wrote were completely forgettable
Only a complete loon would suggest that there's some sort of objective
list of accomplished poems in the first place. There is no such thing.
The canon of english literature is like the american dream: it's made to
shelter insensitive nerds whose world is forever created by some hollow
cloud they'd call God if they'd had any balls whatsoever.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill
Do you have any idea how profoundly foolish you sound?
No, obviously not.
Josh
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>Only a complete loon would suggest that there's some sort of objective
>>list of accomplished poems in the first place. There is no such thing.
>>The canon of english literature is like the american dream: it's made to
>>shelter insensitive nerds whose world is forever created by some hollow
>>cloud they'd call God if they'd had any balls whatsoever.
>
> Do you have any idea how profoundly foolish you sound?
Sounds foolish to a Disney Nerd? And?
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman
I'm no great fan of canons, but to suggest that one of the great radical
geniuses of the ages - Blake - is mediocre is to open yourself to
well-deserved incredulity. There is hardly anyone who will argue for Poe
as a poet, and I personally don't enjoy reading Whitman, if only because
his utopian vision of America appears to have been a complete bust. But
Marianne Moore is unassailable in my eyes, and Wallace Stevens is
succulent. Frost is so difficult he seems too easy, but the Greeks would
have worshipped him at the Olympics. Hart Crane is uneasy, but has a
handful of fantastic poems (and one is enough really).
But I assume you're only trying to get a rise.
dmh
S D Rodrian
news:<ZqPP9.37639$zX3....@news.indigo.ie>...
> >probably concentrate first in order to discern the essence
> >of "good" poetry (even though I have already given you
> >the true essence of good and competent poetry: a good
> >and competent mind).
>
> Ha! The least competent minds in history have created the most competent
> poetry.
This is very telling. Perhaps you should reconsider which
poets (whom you have just confessed to admire because of their
rattled\questioned brains) you now consider to have been the
more competent ones... or, at the least, admit your preference
for the productions of halfwits and fools, devil-may-care.
> > There's a handful of others to be
> >included, if you're so inclined: Mathew Arnorld, Longfellow,
> >Stephen Spender, Thomas Hardy, Gerard Manley Hopkins,
> >Coleridge, Andrew Marvell, John Donne & Ben Jonson,
> >Marlowe & Herrick, George Baker, Elizabeth B Browning,
> >W H Auden, W C Williams ... poets who perhaps have
> >written fewer "great" poems,
>
> Says who?
It's up there in the header, and again at the end of this post.
> Personally, I'd take Auden and Williams over Millay and cummings
> any day, while I'd far sooner read Hardy than Dickinson.
Ah! A prose-fancier, I see. I prefer poetry, meself. Sorry.
(Williams wrote a scant few melodious lines, compared to cummings's
whipping up oceans of symphonic storms, in the comparison.) Although
I don't think I would dare to pick between Auden and Millay.
> And why is Donne an
> optional extra whereas Pope is compulsory? I'd far sooner read Prior than
> either of them! And where the hell are Dryden, Wyatt, Spencer, Sidney?
Who reads more than half a dozen pages of Donne?! (Marvelous as
those 1/2 doz pages may be.) But Pope was not merely a great poet,
he was also a genius. And, except for my favorite read (Dryden's
translation of Plutarch)... all those nearly-forgotten poets are
exactly where they belong, I'd say. These were the authors of but
a few great poems each (Spencer's mighty lines are top-heavy with age
nowadays--it is an effort for modern readers to enjoy him now, unless
one be a true lover/student of his language... as is the the case with
a much better poet: Chaucer). And I am an admirer of Sidney, believe me.
And of Smart, and many others...
> but who have nevertheless
> >unquestionably written more "great" poems than most
> >persons who've tried their hand at it. You should keep
> >those poets in mind as well when you make up your mind
> >to inquire into which qualities are more likely to foster
> >the creation (by you?) of a great/good poem (if the thing's
> >in you).
> [I have never been able to find the
> >poetry in George Herbert, hard as I've tried to.]
>
> Norton Anthology of Eng Lit, volume one. I think Herbert's better than Donne
> and Marvell.
To quote somebody: "Who died and made you Harold Bloom,
anyway?" Again: You prefer prose to verse: Bully! Donne and
Marvell are masters of the mellifluous verse. Herbert is
someone who should have written his homilies in the plain
prose they ARE written in & left off chopping his lines so
it wouldn't now confuse easily confused people like your Norton
editors. (Maybe my bias against superstition colors my opinion
a bit, I will admit.)
> Masterpieces are rarely ever undisputed.
> -Aidan
True. But when they (undisputed masterpieces) are (undisputed
masterpieces) I just don't see how they could have been disputed
(without their then indisputably being disputed masterpieces
instead of the undisputed masterpieces they are)... And you?!
Dale Houstman
S D Rodrian wrote:
>
> Who reads more than half a dozen pages of Donne?!
Me.
dmh
Stuart Leichter
He has to be doing that. Did you misread Pope as Poe or type Poe for Pope?
Pope was another genius.
>
> dmh
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman wrote:
> I'm no great fan of canons, but to suggest that one of the great radical
> geniuses of the ages - Blake - is mediocre is to open yourself to
> well-deserved incredulity.
Great radical what? Blake was a confused religious fanatic. He made a
lot of nice drawings, but wrote only 3 poems in his entire life worth
taking a look at. Why on earth anyone would classify someone like that
as one of the 'all time major poets' escapes me. It's ridiculous, and
insulting to the people who wrote a whole lot better and do not get named.
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman
I meant Poe, as he was mentioned. Personally, I like Poe if only because
of his short stories and influences on the French. I even like several
of his poems, "Ulalume" in particular. I don't know much about Pope,
although I've read a little of his work. I don't much like the word
"genius" as it seems to invite vague abuses from all sides. From what
I've read Pope seems to have a solid enough lock on his position, unless
the company downsizes or merges with Nabisco. In that case, he might
easily be replaced with a trash compacter and a piece of office
"artwork." Something to do with the beach in tones of pink and cyan. no
more than three gulls and a sun that doesn't overreach, making the
manager feel uneasy in his position.
dmh
Dale Houstman
You said it. I disagree. As for being a "religious fanatic" he was one
of the first who located the divine in the human imagination, and warned
against the "merely" religious. I'd rather see that great nut on TV than
Pat robertson anyday.
Your hysterical response makes you seem more the religious fanatic than
Blake ever was. I suggest you learn how to conduct a conversation before
you attempt to post again. You're an embarrassment to yourself.
Blake wrote many poems, and since I (and several other people I know)
read and reread many of those poems, your main point is demonstrably
inaccurate.
His radicalism is obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read
anything at all about him. The fact you seemed to miss it entirely
doesn't say much for your cognitive abilities.
dmh
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > Great radical what? Blake was a confused religious fanatic. He made a
> > lot of nice drawings, but wrote only 3 poems in his entire life
> > worth taking a look at. Why on earth anyone would classify someone
> > like that as one of the 'all time major poets' escapes me. It's
> > ridiculous, and insulting to the people who wrote a whole lot better
> > and do not get named.
> >
> > Z.U.Oraqref
>
> You said it. I disagree. As for being a "religious fanatic" he was one
> of the first who located the divine in the human imagination, and warned
> against the "merely" religious.
Read: he was even worse than your average religious fanatic. The pedant
religious ramblings of Blake are the worst types of misattributed
imagination I've ever encountered in literature. 97% of his written work
is completely unreadable because of it.
> Your hysterical response makes you seem more the religious fanatic than
> Blake ever was.
Disney Houstman and his wobbly finger, now that's fucking entertainment.
> I suggest you learn how to conduct a conversation before
> you attempt to post again. You're an embarrassment to yourself.
I never grow tired of the endless streams of agogy from the other side
of the ocean.
> Blake wrote many poems, and since I (and several other people I know)
> read and reread many of those poems, your main point is demonstrably
> inaccurate.
You should start circle jerking with P.Hill and all the other pedant
psycho's from AAPC.
> His radicalism is obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read
> anything at all about him.
Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
Z.U.Oraqref
indigoganesh
So what do you think of Rumi?
Simon.
Joshua P. Hill
Nope, you obviously don't.
Josh
Z.U.Oraqref
indigoganesh wrote:
>>Great radical what? Blake was a confused religious fanatic. He made a
>>lot of nice drawings, but wrote only 3 poems in his entire life worth
>>taking a look at. Why on earth anyone would classify someone like that
>>as one of the 'all time major poets' escapes me. It's ridiculous, and
>>insulting to the people who wrote a whole lot better and do not get named.
>>
>>Z.U.Oraqref
> So what do you think of Rumi?
Now that's someone who could write poetry. He's much better than Blake.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>> His radicalism is obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read
>> anything at all about him.
>
>Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
Wondering which of the only two remaining possibilities is more
embarrassing:
A. That you read Blake's poetry so incompetently that you understood
nothing of his social, religious, and political views
B. That you didn't actually read Blake's poetry, but claimed you had
and presumed to judge it nonetheless
(All, of course, while somehow managing to avoid such saliencies of
his life as his arrest for treason.)
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>
>>>Only a complete loon would suggest that there's some sort of objective
>>>list of accomplished poems in the first place. There is no such thing.
>>>The canon of english literature is like the american dream: it's made to
>>>shelter insensitive nerds whose world is forever created by some hollow
>>>cloud they'd call God if they'd had any balls whatsoever.
>>
>> Do you have any idea how profoundly foolish you sound?
>
>Sounds foolish to a Disney Nerd? And?
My, my, blew your cover. Not that I didn't recognize your inimitably
senseless blatherings; that would be difficult.
Josh
Stuart Leichter
Ask around the neighborhood about Pope, they'll tell you.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>Sounds foolish to a Disney Nerd? And?
>
>
> My, my, blew your cover. Not that I didn't recognize your inimitably
> senseless blatherings; that would be difficult.
What cover, Disney Boy? Do you think I'd use the same email adress if
this name was a cover? It's even the same name, but you're not literate
enough to realise that. Reminds me of this:
and this:
Z.U.Oraqref
SDR
> Only a complete loon would suggest that there's some sort of objective
> list of accomplished poems in the first place. There is no such thing.
> The canon of english literature is like the american dream: it's made to
> shelter insensitive nerds whose world is forever created by some hollow
> cloud they'd call God if they'd had any balls whatsoever.
>
> Z.U.Oraqref
Dharma's father, I see! Love your show. In any case:
You SIMPLY ought to pardon the world for having an opinion.
Having a discriminating taste is not always a bad thing.
S D Rodrian
Dennis M. Hammes
The "Oriental flavor" is pretty good if the noodles don't get soggy.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
A computer without language
is an expensive cut of meat.
http://scrawlmark.net
Dennis M. Hammes
Busie old Foole, S. Rodrian...
SDR
> I'm no great fan of canons, but to suggest that one of the great radical
> geniuses of the ages - Blake - is mediocre is to open yourself to
> well-deserved incredulity. There is hardly anyone who will argue for Poe
> as a poet,
Ouch! Now you're getting personal; for I am the fellow
who is always in awe of the DRAMA in Poe's poetry (whether
all the "sound & fury" in his lines is really necessary:
And I don't believe evocative lines like the following
really need anybody to argue their greatness:
Helen, your beauty is to me
Like those Nicean barks of yore,
That gently, o'er a perfumed sea,
The weary, wayworn wanderer bore
To his own native shore.
On desperate seas long wont to roam,
Your hyacinth hair, thy classic face,
Your Naiad airs have brought me home
To the glory that was Greece
And the grandeur that was Rome.
Lo! in yon brilliant window-niche
How statue-like I see you stand,
The agate lamp within your hand!
Ah, Psyche, from the regions which
Are Holy Land!
(Even when I read Shakespeare, I modernize some terms
"wherever possible.")
> and I personally don't enjoy reading Whitman, if only because
SDR
Obviously, mine was just a rhetorical question
to counterbalance a previous unbalanced reply.
SDR
Joshua P. Hill
Would you please, after all these years, stop misusing the word
"literate"? Your usage has, to the ears of an English speaker, the
effect of fingernails screeching on a blackboard.
Josh
Dale Houstman
I don't make a big fuss about neighbors, and I certainly don't go about
asking them whom I should read and whom I should enjoy reading.
dmh
Dale Houstman
True: but the "canon" isn't really produced by "the world" but by a
relatively small group of academics. It's not a bad reading list, and I
don't think you'd sound dumb as a wrench at parties if that is all you
read, but it is only - after all - a collegiate Billboard chart, and not
- in any real way - the world speaking directly to your linguistic centers.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>S D Rodrian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Who reads more than half a dozen pages of Donne?!
>>
>>Me.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> Busie old Foole, S. Rodrian...
Yup. I lak da way da threads are tengled.
dmh
Dale Houstman
SDR wrote:
> Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:<3E0FEF69...@citilink.com>...
>
>
>>I'm no great fan of canons, but to suggest that one of the great radical
>>geniuses of the ages - Blake - is mediocre is to open yourself to
>>well-deserved incredulity. There is hardly anyone who will argue for Poe
>>as a poet,
>
>
> Ouch! Now you're getting personal; for I am the fellow
> who is always in awe of the DRAMA in Poe's poetry (whether
> all the "sound & fury" in his lines is really necessary:
> And I don't believe evocative lines like the following
> really need anybody to argue their greatness:
I LIKE Poe, I've even gone to a university class or two to understand
him more (it worked!), but I've realized over time that there is hardly
anyone who will argue FOR his poetry, although - at the moment - his
prose and his critical skills seem intact. He has been - unfortunately
lost beneath his myth, and much of that incredible mind has been made
into a Roger Corman film, or a cartoon. So I was speaking generally, not
personally.
dmh
Dale Houstman
As rhetorical questions go it lacks irony. It certainly appears to be a
question founded on an opinion, so I answered it.
dmh
sheila miguez herndon
>
> Stuart Leichter wrote:
> > Ask around the neighborhood about Pope, they'll tell you.
>
> I don't make a big fuss about neighbors, and I certainly don't go about
> asking them whom I should read and whom I should enjoy reading.
different strokes. I enjoy chatting with people about what to
read. My flatmate has a history of cod fisheries in Canada that
sounds good. He also explained more about Thorsten Veblen, whom
I only knew from a poem by Robert Hass. small world.
sheila
Dale Houstman
sheila miguez herndon wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>
>> Stuart Leichter wrote:
>> > Ask around the neighborhood about Pope, they'll tell you.
>>
>> I don't make a big fuss about neighbors, and I certainly don't go about
>> asking them whom I should read and whom I should enjoy reading.
>
>
>
> different strokes.
With different ropes?
> enjoy chatting with people about what to
> read. My flatmate has a history of cod fisheries in Canada that
> sounds good. He also explained more about Thorsten Veblen, whom
> I only knew from a poem by Robert Hass. small world.
>
I've found most people's opinions on what is worth doing are informed by
the newspapers and TV. Why go there? I have close friends who share a
rather catholic taste in literature and - also - enjoyable junk, so I
don't feel any great need to wake up the strange woman to the right of
me, or the burned out hippie to the left of me, or the bad father across
the street, to get their literary picks.
I don't consider a flatmate a neighbor: I speak to my wife about all
things all the time. Her I listen to!
dmh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Poe's poems seem to me to have joined in recent years the rotating
rank of obviously great works which are disdained for a time by the
more fashionably frobulated floggerts of recherche academia. At their
best, they are utterly unforgettable, unique, and powerful; does
anyone doubt that they will still be read when the mediocritoid
tediums who disdain them have long since vanished into library dust,
along with the sashaying-queen metaphors of the exploding quail egg
set?
(Shit, I'm starting to sound like Martijn with a brain.)
Josh
Stuart Leichter
<sheil...@feafaroth.org> wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > Stuart Leichter wrote:
> > > Ask around the neighborhood about Pope, they'll tell you.
> >
> > I don't make a big fuss about neighbors, and I certainly don't go about
> > asking them whom I should read and whom I should enjoy reading.
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
>
>
> different strokes. I enjoy chatting with people about what to
> read. My flatmate has a history of cod fisheries in Canada that
> sounds good. He also explained more about Thorsten Veblen, whom
> I only knew from a poem by Robert Hass. small world.
>
> sheila
Thanks for the reminder! Dover has a $2 edition of Thorstein Veblen's The
Theory of the Leisure Class, I've wanted to read that since 25 yrs ago, I
keep forgetting to buy it. I'm thinking, What bookstore will special order
a book that retails for $2?
Joshua P. Hill
Ever read the Theory of the Leisure Class? It's a delightful book.
Josh
S D Rodrian
news:<9d44a879.02123...@posting.google.com>...
> "Anthony Abelaye" <abe...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:<aup149$4p5$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
> > "S D Rodrian" <s...@azena.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E0FB02A...@azena.com...
> > > .. There are really no "good" or "bad" poets
> > > in the sense that you can predict any given work
> > > from any given individual will be "good" or "bad."
> >
> > There are really no "good" or "bad" poets anymore because poetry as an
> > art-form is dead. It's nothing more now than a masturbatory exercise that a
> > few loners practice in dimly-lit cafes to attract members of the opposite
> > sex, or given the benefit of the doubt, it helps sensitize them in a
> > desensitized world.
Well, thank you for tell us why you yourself try/tried
to write poetry. But although aspects of the "craft" may
fall into or out of fashion (rhyming, scansion, line-
chopping, alliteration and mellifluousness, or cacophony
and discord... insanity, reason, reassuring maturity, or
childishness trying to shock the adults): the fact is that
as long as we earth creatures use any sort of language...
we shall engage in some sort of linguistic art-form---and
"that" art-form shall be known as poetry. --God. Just as
for that period of time we shall continue to employ legs
we shall DANCE! (And if rhythm fails us, because our hearts
have evolved from muscled pumps into continuously flowing
mechanisms... we shall still dance, I dare say, only much
less brutally--perhaps to Delius. It shall be an odd sort
of dancing. No doubt about that.)
> ... Although it exists in written form poetry has
> historically been primarily a spoken medium. It is only for a
> comparatively brief period of history that it was mostly written down.
> Poetry nowadays is primarily expressed as song lyrics.
>
> Is this not poetic:
> "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
> And it don't mean nothing if it ain't free" - Kris Kristofferson
> Simon.
Well, some lies are "poetic" (so why not that one): When
one has to fight every minute of the day for one's freedom...
what the hell kind of freedom is that?!?!?!?!?! No, dear sir:
Since freedom results from some social compact amongst
the civilized to respect/guarantee each other's freedom,
liberty will always be the greatest thing anybody can lose.
But these days you will find much more "true" poetry coming
out of any of the countless standup comics roaming the land,
than from all the song lyricists/rappers now everywhere raping
our ears.
sheila miguez herndon
Nope. I am hoping my flatmate has it. If not him, the library.
And Stuart, downstream, says that it's now a Dover classic for
$2. Hard to beat that price, if I can't find it elsewhere.
btw, was Lorca in the list? I am slow going through a bilingal facing
page edition of his poems that came out this year. I really love
it. If he wasn't, let me recommend him.
For the prose newsgroups! Richard Powers, on whom I have a
literary crush. I found a web site for him,
http://www.richardpowers.net.
He has a new book coming soon! sigh. I really love _Plowing the
Dark_, _Gold Bug Variations_, _Prisoners Dilemma_, ... oh, all of
them. He's amazing.
sheila
Dennis M. Hammes
Pope Alexander wrote a lot of Bull.
Dennis M. Hammes
Jim R Feliciano
>
>.. There are really no "good" or "bad" poets
Robert Frost, the best.
--
Sincerely from,
Jim R Feliciano
jfe...@muse.sfusd.edu
Hey!!! Buy My Book "The Guys" it's a fun Book.
http://www.publishamerica.com
Thank You!!!
Hey my site Take your sense of humor with you.
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/banzai/834/shake1.html
Aidan Tynan
sheila miguez herndon wrote in message ...
I just bought Theory of the Leisure Class.
-Aidan
>
>sheila
>
Aidan Tynan
>
>Thanks for the reminder! Dover has a $2 edition of Thorstein Veblen's The
>Theory of the Leisure Class, I've wanted to read that since 25 yrs ago, I
>keep forgetting to buy it. I'm thinking, What bookstore will special order
>a book that retails for $2?
That's the one I got! Even after the p+p from Amazon it was still cheap.
-Aidan
Aidan Tynan
S D Rodrian wrote in message <3E0FF08B...@sdrodrian.com>...
>"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
>news:<ZqPP9.37639$zX3....@news.indigo.ie>...
>> S D Rodrian wrote in message <3E0FB02A...@azena.com>...
>>
>> Ha! The least competent minds in history have created the most competent
>> poetry.
>
>This is very telling. Perhaps you should reconsider which
>poets (whom you have just confessed to admire because of their
>rattled\questioned brains) you now consider to have been the
>more competent ones... or, at the least, admit your preference
>for the productions of halfwits and fools, devil-may-care.
Maybe it means I have an incompetent mind, and sometimes I do often prefer
the productions of so-called half-wits in favour of those of the so-called
competents.
>
>> > There's a handful of others to be
>> >included, if you're so inclined: Mathew Arnorld, Longfellow,
>> >Stephen Spender, Thomas Hardy, Gerard Manley Hopkins,
>> >Coleridge, Andrew Marvell, John Donne & Ben Jonson,
>> >Marlowe & Herrick, George Baker, Elizabeth B Browning,
>> >W H Auden, W C Williams ... poets who perhaps have
>> >written fewer "great" poems,
>>
>> Says who?
>
>It's up there in the header, and again at the end of this post.
>
>> Personally, I'd take Auden and Williams over Millay and cummings
>> any day, while I'd far sooner read Hardy than Dickinson.
>
>Ah! A prose-fancier, I see. I prefer poetry, meself.
?? Hardy wrote poetry, you know. He's one of a few that could write equally
well in poetry and prose.
Sorry.
>(Williams wrote a scant few melodious lines, compared to cummings's
>whipping up oceans of symphonic storms, in the comparison.)
You'd have a hard time convincing people of that, although I see little
point in trying to 'prove' one's personal tastes unless you *really* what
other people think.
Although
>I don't think I would dare to pick between Auden and Millay.
>
>> And why is Donne an
>> optional extra whereas Pope is compulsory? I'd far sooner read Prior than
>> either of them! And where the hell are Dryden, Wyatt, Spencer, Sidney?
>
>Who reads more than half a dozen pages of Donne?! (Marvelous as
>those 1/2 doz pages may be.) But Pope was not merely a great poet,
>he was also a genius.
I agree with Dale on the term 'genius'. It seems to be wheeled out whenever
anyone wants to prove their take on the Canon is more accurate than
another's. That's not to say Pope wasn't a genius; just please define what
genius (as opposed to simply 'great poet') means.
And, except for my favorite read (Dryden's
>translation of Plutarch)... all those nearly-forgotten poets are
>exactly where they belong, I'd say. These were the authors of but
>a few great poems each (Spencer's mighty lines are top-heavy with age
>nowadays--it is an effort for modern readers to enjoy him now, unless
>one be a true lover/student of his language... as is the the case with
>a much better poet: Chaucer).
I'd have to disagree here and say Chaucer is one of the most 'universal' (if
such a things exists) of poets, along with Shakespeare, although you have to
read him in the original.
And I am an admirer of Sidney, believe me.
>And of Smart, and many others...
I like Skelton.
>
>> but who have nevertheless
>> >unquestionably written more "great" poems than most
>> >persons who've tried their hand at it. You should keep
>> >those poets in mind as well when you make up your mind
>> >to inquire into which qualities are more likely to foster
>> >the creation (by you?) of a great/good poem (if the thing's
>> >in you).
>
>> [I have never been able to find the
>> >poetry in George Herbert, hard as I've tried to.]
>>
>> Norton Anthology of Eng Lit, volume one. I think Herbert's better than
Donne
>> and Marvell.
>
>To quote somebody: "Who died and made you Harold Bloom,
>anyway?"
Eh? I was quoting personal opinion, not espousing them as objective facts
which you were doing with yours.
>Again: You prefer prose to verse:
Eh?
Bully! Donne and
>Marvell are masters of the mellifluous verse. Herbert is
>someone who should have written his homilies in the plain
>prose they ARE
D + M were masters of getting women to have sex with them after they read
their poetry, and of this I am mightily respectful, however I find Herbert's
poems have a little more substance to them. I don't know how you can
classify his stuff as prose especially when lineation was so important in
his work.
written in & left off chopping his lines so
>it wouldn't now confuse easily confused people like your Norton
>editors. (Maybe my bias against superstition colors my opinion
>a bit, I will admit.)
And D + M *weren't* superstitious? Why do think they're called metaphysical
poets?
-Aidan
Will Dockery
You fuckwit snobs! LoL
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ironywaves
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message news:<3E10D899...@arvig.net>...
Dale Houstman
Aidan Tynan wrote:
\
>
>
> I like Skelton.
>
>
His TV show or his clown paintings?
dmh
Frank ess
Don't forget his cinematic _ouvre_. What a guy.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
>
>
> Wondering which of the only two remaining possibilities is more
> embarrassing:
>
> A. That you read Blake's poetry so incompetently that you understood
> nothing of his social, religious, and political views
>
> B. That you didn't actually read Blake's poetry, but claimed you had
> and presumed to judge it nonetheless
Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman
First off: YOU'RE the one b eing so certain about Blake's work and
attitudes, so you MUST have information on him beyond mere ignorance,
and you SHOULD be sharing it with us.
Secondly, Blake defied the standing ideas of what God was: he located
all good in unfettered human desire. Not a popular notion, even now. He
supported the American Revolution, and - rather vociferously - woman's
rights. What a religious fanatic, hey? He said such "conservative" things as
"The Road of Excess leads to the Palace of Wisdom."
Let's see Pat Robertson or the Pope get behind that!
"Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desire."
What a cranky old republican!
He embraced youth, and preferred their energy and imagination to the
foderol of old wisdom, encouraged sedition and revolted against
government and the Vatican.
Some received wisdom on the old madman:
"According to Tate Director Stephen Deuchar, Blake, “despite his
famously radical politics and vehement rejection of much of the social
establishment about him, has been affectionately adopted by a wide
British public as a kind of patron saint.”
"Famously radical? Not in your neighborhood, hey?
"Blake responded directly to the social injustices he perceived around
him, as can be seen in his poem, Holy Thursday, which paralleled
contemporary reports about a baby found dead in Lambeth Marsh. The Poor
Rate Books and documents from the Westminster Lying-in Hospital bear
witness to the suffering which he encountered on his doorstep. And the
Songs of Experience, produced in 1794 as a pair to the earlier volume,
Songs of Innocence, first published in 1789, reflect his continuing
pessimism and despair that cruelty should persist in the world."
"In Marshall's words "he (William Blake) demands bread for all and a
fair return for a fairs day work. He would like to see an end to
capital, tax and empire. He calls for complete sexual and racial
equality and celebrates universal toleration". "
And on an on and on...
There's plenty more where that came from.
He was also a radical artist, perfecting a color etching process that
remains secret today.
Any other questions?
dmh
Stuart Leichter
It's not my question, but ours not to reason why, according to Tennyson's
poor sods. You can only fit so many authors into a textbook, only so many
authors in a college term, and cuz Blake doesn't square with the Christian
Humanist tradition or much of any representative body of work, he's seen
as sui generis but not in those words. Millions of good writers have been
omitted from the textbook literary history, but you can find them all if
the text includes Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. In the
intro course Blake is one of the radical ones, high as a Memorable Fancy
over the French Revolution. So, Blake was radical cuz we made him be
called that. It's how nouns function, especially when they're predicate
nominatives. Would a time machine help? Take you back to a 'time' when
Europe wasn't selfconsciously Europe yet? When the mere notion of the
'individual' was a radical thought, around when Darwin was born. It's easy
with hindsight for the rear-view doors of perception to let you see things
as they've become, if not as they are. Don't be belittling Blake, he was
little enough as it was. And he's good for the economy, he gets assigned,
books are published.
William Blake. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (in Full Color). New York:
Dover, 1994. ISBN 0-486-28122-1 (pbk.) ["reproduction of a rare facsimile"
(whatever that means, but I don't think it's like 'genuine leather')]
$4.95
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
> >
>
> First off: YOU'RE the one b eing so certain about Blake's work and
> attitudes, so you MUST have information on him beyond mere ignorance,
> and you SHOULD be sharing it with us.
Oh REALLY now THAT'S really INTERESTING.
> Secondly, Blake defied the standing ideas of what God was: he located
> all good in unfettered human desire. Not a popular notion, even now.
Not popular? It's the friggin essence of consumerism.
He
> supported the American Revolution, and - rather vociferously - woman's
> rights.
Quite common in 18th century England. Enlightment Age.
> What a religious fanatic, hey? He said such "conservative"
> things as
>
> "The Road of Excess leads to the Palace of Wisdom."
Plagiarized from old arabic texts. And not very good.
> Let's see Pat Robertson or the Pope get behind that!
You seem to have no idea what 'excess' means.
> "Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desire."
>
> What a cranky old republican!
'Act upon your desires' is really not a revolutionairy message in the
age known for its useless frivolity.
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman
Stuart Leichter wrote:
> In article <3E114434...@chello.nl>, maan...@chello.nl wrote:
>
>
>>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
>>>
>>>
>>>Wondering which of the only two remaining possibilities is more
>>>embarrassing:
>>>
>>>A. That you read Blake's poetry so incompetently that you understood
>>>nothing of his social, religious, and political views
>>>
>>>B. That you didn't actually read Blake's poetry, but claimed you had
>>>and presumed to judge it nonetheless
>>
>>Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
>>
>>Z.U.Oraqref
>
So, Blake was radical cuz we made him be called that.
And apples are apples cuz we made them be called that. A rather sophist
argument. Blake was radical because he fits every definition of the
word, and that - despite all the post-modern drivel - actually means
something about him, not just the word. Blake didn't associate with
kings, had no patience with the merely rich, and wouldn't sell his
vision for an appearance on a later night talk show. That makes him
radical, he made himself radical. He knew how the poor got poor and
stayed poor, and he knew it wasn't because they were damned by God. He
knew the Church was as full of whoremongers and swamp-souled men as any
local tavern. He didn;t despise pleasure, and put the human imagination
and man's unfettered desire above low obediance to man-made rules.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Z.U.Oraqref wrote:
>
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>> > Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
>> >
>>
>> First off: YOU'RE the one b eing so certain about Blake's work and
>> attitudes, so you MUST have information on him beyond mere ignorance,
>> and you SHOULD be sharing it with us.
>
>
> Oh REALLY now THAT'S really INTERESTING.
Maybe to an over-aggressive monkey's uncle, but not to anyone with
common sense and the ability to read.
>
>
>> Secondly, Blake defied the standing ideas of what God was: he located
>> all good in unfettered human desire. Not a popular notion, even now.
>
>
> Not popular? It's the friggin essence of consumerism.
You seem not to understand the word "unfettered." Too bad. It would
really be a useful notion to have in this one-sided conversation. Blake
wasn't talking about the dominion of The Consumer Age. Has the idea of
human desire (in your failing mind) been degraded so much by post-modern
obfuscation that you can't see the difference between being offered a
wide choice of hamburgers and "unfettered human desire." When dicmommy
drop you on your head and leave you there?
>
>
>
> He
>
>> supported the American Revolution, and - rather vociferously - woman's
>> rights.
>
>
> Quite common in 18th century England. Enlightment Age.
Among radical circles yes. Not amongst "religious cranks" as you termed
him. This is the problem with simple (I mean simple) contrarians; they
cannot sustain an argument even on their own terminology. At any rate,
the commonality of an idea doesn't speak to it possession or absence of
radicalism. But you probably can't understand that, because something
dark and moist appears to be blocking the span between your brain and
your typing fingers.
>
>
>
>> What a religious fanatic, hey? He said such "conservative" things as
>>
>> "The Road of Excess leads to the Palace of Wisdom."
>
>
> Plagiarized from old arabic texts. And not very good.
Whether he plagiarized it or not, and whether you consider it "good" or
not, it still adds up to a VERY radical notion for what you call a
"religious fanatic." You shouldn't forget the essence of your "argument"
in mid-stream, because I am pretty certain your brain doesn't have the
qualities to act as a floatation device.
>
>
>> Let's see Pat Robertson or the Pope get behind that!
>
>
> You seem to have no idea what 'excess' means.
Right... And you seem to have no idea what your original argument was. A
leak? Too much alcohol in the birth mixture? An inability to sustain
even a thin anemia of a thought?
>
>
>> "Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desire."
>>
>> What a cranky old republican!
>
>
> 'Act upon your desires' is really not a revolutionairy message in the
> age known for its useless frivolity.
>
But - again - I have to remind you of your own argument: this is all
coming from what you consider a "religious fanatic." You seem to drift
away from your own thoughts like leaves from a leaf blower.
Until you are willing and able to drop your contrarian-poseur mask, and
actually have a conversation that isn't so closely tied to just the idea
of "winning at any cost" I assume this "conversation" has taken the
usual right turn up your ass.
dmh
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman wrote:
>>> Secondly, Blake defied the standing ideas of what God was: he located
>>> all good in unfettered human desire. Not a popular notion, even now.
>> Not popular? It's the friggin essence of consumerism.
>
> You seem not to understand the word "unfettered." Too bad. It would
> really be a useful notion to have in this one-sided conversation. Blake
> wasn't talking about the dominion of The Consumer Age. Has the idea of
> human desire (in your failing mind) been degraded so much by post-modern
> obfuscation that you can't see the difference between being offered a
> wide choice of hamburgers and "unfettered human desire."
The problem is the prefix: 'human'. If Blake would have been a writer
instead of an airhead he'd have realised that such a prefix immediately
evokes the worst sorts of desires. The fact that he wasn't aware of that
means a lot. Of course he was no less of a blind puppet for humanism as
Shakespeare was, or all the other 'great romantics' - even in his more
or less psychotic visions Blake tried desperately to be a good
moralistic boy.
>> Quite common in 18th century England. Enlightment Age.
>
> Among radical circles yes. Not amongst "religious cranks" as you termed
> him. This is the problem with simple (I mean simple) contrarians; they
> cannot sustain an argument even on their own terminology.
It's you who confuse two issues here: whether Blake was a radical and
whether Blake was a religious crank. Both questions were raised by me,
but in this instance I was specifically eluding to the radical
argument.His ideas were not really 'radical'in 18th century England. I
called him a 'religious fanat' not a 'religious conservative' - you seem
to suffer from an unability to spot such distinctions.
>>> "The Road of Excess leads to the Palace of Wisdom."
>>
>> Plagiarized from old arabic texts. And not very good.
>
> Whether he plagiarized it or not, and whether you consider it "good" or
> not, it still adds up to a VERY radical notion for what you call a
> "religious fanatic."
That's not true at all. Opus Dei, for example, believes strongly in the
excess of suffering in the name of God. Christianity itself preaches
excess rather than self-restriction: go forth and multiply yourself.
Frig in the name of the Lord. You're all sinners, which is the perfect
excuse to indulge in sin. Catholic countries have a reputation of being
the most promiscious in the world.
>> 'Act upon your desires' is really not a revolutionairy message in the
>> age known for its useless frivolity.
>>
> But - again - I have to remind you of your own argument: this is all
> coming from what you consider a "religious fanatic." You seem to drift
> away from your own thoughts like leaves from a leaf blower.
You seem very uninformed about the mechanisms that constitute the make
up of various religions. 'Follow your heart' is the basic message of
almost any religion. 'Fuck your family, go be a gay commune hippy' -
that's Jesus, and that's Blake, and there's fuck next to nothing
'radical' about it; it is the psychological dress of the idealist, and
idealism is from all ages and all times. It's a dreamers thing, not the
thing of a radicalist.
> Until you are willing and able to drop your contrarian-poseur mask, and
> actually have a conversation that isn't so closely tied to just the idea
> of "winning at any cost"
'Contrarian' is just a substitute word for 'troll', which has the same
function nowadays for the plejibian as the word 'witch' used to have for
them in the late Middle Ages. Your retort is as jaded as your artistic
make up: uninformed surrealism for the granny generation.
Z.U.Oraqref
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman wrote:
>>> Secondly, Blake defied the standing ideas of what God was: he located
>>> all good in unfettered human desire. Not a popular notion, even now.
>> Not popular? It's the friggin essence of consumerism.
>
> You seem not to understand the word "unfettered." Too bad. It would
> really be a useful notion to have in this one-sided conversation. Blake
> wasn't talking about the dominion of The Consumer Age. Has the idea of
> human desire (in your failing mind) been degraded so much by post-modern
> obfuscation that you can't see the difference between being offered a
> wide choice of hamburgers and "unfettered human desire."
The problem is the prefix: 'human'. If Blake would have been a writer
instead of an airhead he'd have realised that such a prefix immediately
evokes the worst sorts of desires. The fact that he wasn't aware of that
means a lot. Of course he was no less of a blind puppet for humanism as
Shakespeare was, or all the other 'great romantics' - even in his more
or less psychotic visions Blake tried desperately to be a good
moralistic boy.
>> Quite common in 18th century England. Enlightment Age.
>
> Among radical circles yes. Not amongst "religious cranks" as you termed
> him. This is the problem with simple (I mean simple) contrarians; they
> cannot sustain an argument even on their own terminology.
It's you who confuse two issues here: whether Blake was a radical and
whether Blake was a religious crank. Both questions were raised by me,
but in this instance I was specifically eluding to the radical
argument.His ideas were not really 'radical'in 18th century England. I
called him a 'religious fanat' not a 'religious conservative' - you seem
to suffer from an unability to spot such distinctions.
>>> "The Road of Excess leads to the Palace of Wisdom."
>>
>> Plagiarized from old arabic texts. And not very good.
>
> Whether he plagiarized it or not, and whether you consider it "good" or
> not, it still adds up to a VERY radical notion for what you call a
> "religious fanatic."
That's not true at all. Opus Dei, for example, believes strongly in the
excess of suffering in the name of God. Christianity itself preaches
excess rather than self-restriction: go forth and multiply yourself.
Frig in the name of the Lord. You're all sinners, which is the perfect
excuse to indulge in sin. Catholic countries have a reputation of being
the most promiscious in the world.
>> 'Act upon your desires' is really not a revolutionairy message in the
>> age known for its useless frivolity.
>>
> But - again - I have to remind you of your own argument: this is all
> coming from what you consider a "religious fanatic." You seem to drift
> away from your own thoughts like leaves from a leaf blower.
You seem very uninformed about the mechanisms that constitute the make
up of various religions. 'Follow your heart' is the basic message of
almost any religion. 'Fuck your family, go be a gay commune hippy' -
that's Jesus, and that's Blake, and there's fuck next to nothing
'radical' about it; it is the psychological dress of the idealist, and
idealism is from all ages and all times. It's a dreamers thing, not the
thing of a radicalist.
> Until you are willing and able to drop your contrarian-poseur mask, and
> actually have a conversation that isn't so closely tied to just the idea
> of "winning at any cost"
'Contrarian' is just a substitute word for 'troll', which has the same
Aidan Tynan
>
>Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
He claimed Pope and Dryden knew nothing about poetry, for one thing. And
this in an age when those two were considered the most important English
poets ever.
-Aidan
>
>Z.U.Oraqref
>
Aidan Tynan
>It's you who confuse two issues here: whether Blake was a radical and
>whether Blake was a religious crank. Both questions were raised by me,
>but in this instance I was specifically eluding to the radical
>argument.
I think you've successfully eluded your own argument and have begun alluding
to your own illusions.
>His ideas were not really 'radical'in 18th century England.
To call Pope and Dryden crappy poets was a pretty radical thing to do.
I
>called him a 'religious fanat' not a 'religious conservative' - you seem
>to suffer from an unability to spot such distinctions.
>
>
>
> >>> "The Road of Excess leads to the Palace of Wisdom."
> >>
> >> Plagiarized from old arabic texts. And not very good.
> >
> > Whether he plagiarized it or not, and whether you consider it "good" or
> > not, it still adds up to a VERY radical notion for what you call a
> > "religious fanatic."
>
>That's not true at all. Opus Dei, for example, believes strongly in the
>excess of suffering in the name of God. Christianity itself preaches
>excess rather than self-restriction: go forth and multiply yourself.
>Frig in the name of the Lord. You're all sinners, which is the perfect
>excuse to indulge in sin. Catholic countries have a reputation of being
>the most promiscious in the world.
Yes, but only for those *within* the clergy. The rest of us have to make do
with that monogamy thing.
>
> >> 'Act upon your desires' is really not a revolutionairy message in the
> >> age known for its useless frivolity.
> >>
> > But - again - I have to remind you of your own argument: this is all
> > coming from what you consider a "religious fanatic." You seem to drift
> > away from your own thoughts like leaves from a leaf blower.
>
>You seem very uninformed about the mechanisms that constitute the make
>up of various religions. 'Follow your heart' is the basic message of
>almost any religion.
I don't know about other religions, but I was raised a Catholic and never
came across any such notion. The basic notion of all the monotheisms is
"believe in me and yee shall have everlasting life", isn't it? Or in other
words, do as I say not as I do.
'Fuck your family, go be a gay commune hippy' -
>that's Jesus, and that's Blake, and there's fuck next to nothing
>'radical' about it; it is the psychological dress of the idealist, and
>idealism is from all ages and all times.
Damn Hegelians again.
It's a dreamers thing, not the
>thing of a radicalist.
>
> > Until you are willing and able to drop your contrarian-poseur mask, and
> > actually have a conversation that isn't so closely tied to just the idea
> > of "winning at any cost"
>
>'Contrarian' is just a substitute word for 'troll', which has the same
>function nowadays for the plejibian as the word 'witch' used to have for
>them in the late Middle Ages.
Should we burn you on your own petard?
-Aidan
Stuart Leichter
> Blake didn't associate with
> kings, had no patience with the merely rich, and wouldn't sell his
> vision for an appearance on a later night talk show. That makes him
> radical, he made himself radical.
First of all, you weren't around then. Second, I don't know what kind of
TV or radio gizmos you depend on, but I watch William Blake (not Robert) 3
times a week when he's on the Isaiah Channel. Funny, how life has it,
Isaiah visits Blake and then Blake visits Isaiah, don't you think? You're
right about the remuneration part, but only partly right. Blake uses his
talk show status to good effect, 3 times a year he puns on the ratings
sweeps and says he turns his (union scale) proceeds over to other sweeps.
Dale Houstman
Z.U.Oraqref wrote:
>
>
>
> It's you who confuse two issues here: whether Blake was a radical and
> whether Blake was a religious crank. Both questions were raised by me,
> but in this instance I was specifically eluding to the radical
> argument.
Yuo can't separate the two and make anty sense at all! If you live
amongst Puritans and espouse getting liquored up every Friday night and
screaming "I love Satan!" in church, you are a radical. Radicalism IS
the distinction between your cultural context ("religious fanaticism")
and your public and privatye actions and thoughts. To divide the two is
absurd.
BTW: it's "allude."
>
>
> You seem very uninformed about the mechanisms that constitute the make
> up of various religions. 'Follow your heart' is the basic message of
> almost any religion. 'Fuck your family, go be a gay commune hippy' -
> that's Jesus, and that's Blake, and there's fuck next to nothing
> 'radical' about it; it is the psychological dress of the idealist, and
> idealism is from all ages and all times. It's a dreamers thing, not the
> thing of a radicalist.
>
THIs is the part I laughed at the most (although only slightly more).
The Bible (which - whether you want to believe it or not - is the
central core of the Catholic church) is FULL of restrictions on human
desire. Remember the Ten Commandents, or has your neurological damage
rendered such faint memories unaccessible? Why are there confessionals,
if they are supposed to "follow their hearts." Do you really think all
that priests hear in the agony telephone booth are such things as
"Father, I forgot to seduce that neighbor's wife I've been slobbering
over ever since last Christmas?" EVERY religion is a system of
restrictions, because ALL religions are delusional programs to ensure
some brand of "correctness."
Honestly, I'm still laughing at your statement, and so are my Catholic
friends, who marvel at how far the monkey has fallen in his cognitive
fashions. Even THEY know that religions are systems of rules. The word
"religion: even MEANS "law."
God thinks you're a fool also.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Stuart Leichter wrote:
> In article <3E115E47...@citilink.com>, dm...@citilink.com wrote:
>
>
>>Blake didn't associate with
>>kings, had no patience with the merely rich, and wouldn't sell his
>>vision for an appearance on a later night talk show. That makes him
>>radical, he made himself radical.
>
>
> First of all, you weren't around then.
?
>Second, I don't know what kind of
> TV or radio gizmos you depend on, but I watch William Blake (not Robert) 3
> times a week when he's on the Isaiah Channel. Funny, how life has it,
> Isaiah visits Blake and then Blake visits Isaiah, don't you think? You're
> right about the remuneration part, but only partly right. Blake uses his
> talk show status to good effect, 3 times a year he puns on the ratings
> sweeps and says he turns his (union scale) proceeds over to other sweeps.
And he's dating Carmen Electra, whom he is teaching to paint. Her clown
paintings frighten good Catholics.
dmh
Dennis M. Hammes
...
> The problem is the prefix: 'human'. If Blake would have been a writer
> instead of an airhead he'd have realised that such a prefix immediately
> evokes the worst sorts of desires. The fact that he wasn't aware of that
> means a lot. Of course he was no less of a blind puppet for humanism as
> Shakespeare was, or all the other 'great romantics' - even in his more
> or less psychotic visions Blake tried desperately to be a good
> moralistic boy.
> Z.U.Oraqref
...unlike the lesser European parrot monkey, who is not human and
therefore has no problem denigrating those who attempt (with
whatever success) to be moral. Or (with whatever success) to write
poetry. Or (with whatever success) to read it.
Unlike the arboreal monkeys, it is usually out of its tree, though
like them it strings together various noises it thinks it has
overheard from humans while throwing its dung at the source.
Unlike the hamadryas baboon, it cannot be distinguished by its
bright red balls, because it doesn't have any. But it can be
distinguished by its inability to distinguish William from Eubie.
And by that when it takes Viagra, it gets taller.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> >
> >Let's hear it. Why was Blake a radical?
> >
> >
>
> He claimed Pope and Dryden knew nothing about poetry, for one thing. And
> this in an age when those two were considered the most important English
> poets ever.
>
> -Aidan
Which is why you may think it strange that Z.U.Oraqref claims
/Blake/ knew nothing about poetry. But Z.U.Oraqref claims
/everybody/ knows nothing about poetry, save himself and The Artist
Formerly Knows As Defender Benders, who is really a prince.
(Unfortunately, he believes he is the Prince of Monocle, full of
Grace and Troojps.)
Z.U.Oraqref
Aidan Tynan wrote:
>>His ideas were not really 'radical'in 18th century England.
>
> To call Pope and Dryden crappy poets was a pretty radical thing to do.
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/blakeinteractive/gothic/dante_05.html
Blake's motivation for doing so was a religious one. He naturally
conceived the establishment as 'sinners', and as the establishment
pretty much rejected him at first he was just a pion of his own
ressentiment.
http://www.english.uga.edu/nhilton/Blake/blaketxt1/all_religions_are_one.html
This is typically the kind of fruitcake writing Blake produced most of
his life. It isn't even poetry but a lot of people seem to think it
qualifies as such. It's so utterly infantile and uninteresting it makes
you wonder why, other than for the nice covers of his books, the guy is
considered to be a writer at all, let alone one of the greatest writers
of all time. And radical? This insanely naive pathetic rose-colored
romanticism would classify as 'radical' in an age which was literally
overwhelmed by such rosy ass fantasies? Get the fuck out of here. If
he'd had written this nowadays he wouldn't even find an audience in a
New Age seminar. The humanist church is one of the pillars in the
decline of western culture, which was never a real culture in the true
sense of the word in the first place. The founder of Western
civilisation - Plato - made it abundantly clear what he thought of the
function of poetry, witness the dry and lifeless rationalism/romanticism
of the huge bulk of overemphasized dull Greek and Roman poets.
Z.U.Oraqref
Stuart Leichter
Wow, I thought I was the only one on these newsgroups who had the Greatest
Minds deck of cards game for playing Go Fish, the one called Gough Ghoti,
is that it? It has Plato and a lot of the other types. On Plato's card it
calls him The Father of Western Civilization (zeds for American editions),
but I guess we have different translations. Wm Blake isn't in the deck,
you're right. There's a Wilhelm Reich, though. Same as yours? All
seriousness aside, as Steve Allen puts it, no one seriously says Blake is
among the greatest poets or writers. Thanks to you there's been more
written about him than about most poets.
Joshua P. Hill
You speak of Blake with such dull incomprehension!
You've been raised on the superficial, the trivial, the in-your-face,
and haven't had the education or the humility necessary to transcend
those limitations. The ultimate product of McDonalds, stuffing himself
on soggy greasy paste while excoriating the great cuisines you never
learned to appreciate: "They ain't never gonna get /me/ to eat no
stinkin' raw fish, nosirree BOB."
What makes that sad is that art plays such an important role in your
life. It's as if your great ambition was to be a chef, but you were
unwilling to study anywhere but Hamburger U.
One doesn't have to go to a fancy university to learn to understand
Blake, but one does have to drop one's arrogance long enough to apply
oneself.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>Wow, I thought I was the only one on these newsgroups who had the Greatest
>Minds deck of cards game for playing Go Fish, the one called Gough Ghoti,
>is that it? It has Plato and a lot of the other types. On Plato's card it
>calls him The Father of Western Civilization (zeds for American editions),
>but I guess we have different translations. Wm Blake isn't in the deck,
>you're right. There's a Wilhelm Reich, though. Same as yours? All
>seriousness aside, as Steve Allen puts it, no one seriously says Blake is
>among the greatest poets or writers.
?
Josh
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
> You've been raised on the superficial, the trivial, the in-your-face,
Uhm, pal, you're the one who was raised in the US.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill
Yes, which is why I had the good fortune to live in the city which has
more performances of great music, poetry, plays, and movies than any
other, has hosted any number of great artists, and has a
disproportionate share of the world's great galleries, museums,
libraries, and academic institutions -- and why I came home to live
chamber music, while you came home to trashy pop tunes and teevee
shows.
Josh
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>>You've been raised on the superficial, the trivial, the in-your-face,
>>
>>Uhm, pal, you're the one who was raised in the US.
>
> Yes, which is why I had the good fortune to live in the city which has
> more performances
Oops, there's Josh's quantity = quality argument again.
Here everything bigger. Bigger is Better. Me American.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill
If you weren't so blazingly ignorant, you'd know that the quality of
these institutions are the equal of any -- that, to use one obvious
example, the same singers, instrumentalists, and conductors play the
world's greatest concert stages, albeit a few institutions, such as
the Metropolitan Opera or La Scala, have the prestige and wealth to
mount the most lavish productions and book the very best talent.
Pavarotti is Pavarotti. Some of us got to hear him; you did not. Comes
of living in a city with the population of your entire country, of
course.
Josh
Stuart Leichter
josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS wrote:
Any city has that, though not abundantly. What about the pizza? If Blake
had had pizza, no one would have heard of him, he would have been
mythically sustained by righteous and delicious contraries, not to mention
all the food groups.
Z.U.Oraqref
Stuart Leichter wrote:
-- and why I came home to live
>>chamber music, while you came home to trashy pop tunes and teevee
>>shows.
>>
>>Josh
>
> Any city has that, though not abundantly. What about the pizza? If Blake
> had had pizza, no one would have heard of him, he would have been
> mythically sustained by righteous and delicious contraries, not to mention
> all the food groups.
Chamber music is for nerds.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill
Someone with hair like yours calls other people nerds?
Josh
Aidan Tynan
Joshua P. Hill wrote in message ...
Seems like any discussion (on any topic whatsoever) involving Josh and
Martijn always ends up with jingoistic tirades from either/both
participants. It's sad because they *both* claim so vehemently to be above
such silly behavior.
-Aidan
Thomas Dillion
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:4mXQ9.332$V6....@news.indigo.ie...
men, then I skip the rest, after someone rings the bell for playtime, and
the discussion moves out to the yard...
Thomas
>
>
Dale Houstman
I was stupid enough not to know who the hell I was wasting time with. I
should have recognized the contrarian idiocy for what it was, but I was
too busy dreaming of Olive Oyl in a thong!
dmh
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>Chamber music is for nerds.
>
> Someone with hair like yours calls other people nerds?
Einstein was not a nerd. Nerds have boring haircuts.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill
Einstein was pretty much the great nerd of all time.
Josh
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>>>Chamber music is for nerds.
>>>
>>>
>>>Someone with hair like yours calls other people nerds?
>>
>>Einstein was not a nerd. Nerds have boring haircuts.
>
> Einstein was pretty much the great nerd of all time.
He didn't even own a computer, you illiterate twat.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill
Martijn, if you were self-aware enough to recognize the magnitude of
your errors, you would kill yourself. And we don't want that, do we?
Josh
Rob
news:3E108660...@citilink.com...
> I don't consider a flatmate a neighbor
You have a flat mate? If you check the yellow pages I'm certain you
will find a place that will pump him back up.
And, btw, if he's living next to you, then he *is* your neighbor.
Rob
Joshua P. Hill
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>>>>>Chamber music is for nerds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Someone with hair like yours calls other people nerds?
>>>>
>>>>Einstein was not a nerd. Nerds have boring haircuts.
>>>
>>>Einstein was pretty much the great nerd of all time.
>>
>>He didn't even own a computer, you illiterate twat.
>
> Martijn, if you were self-aware enough to recognize the magnitude of
> your errors, you would kill yourself. And we don't want that, do we?
Josh, Einstein didn't have a computer. He couldn't have possibly been a
nerd. He didn't have a nerd haircut either. He was also quite popular
with the girls.
You, on the other hand, do own a computer. You like outdated teeny
romanticism such as Shakespeare, you almost haven't got any hair on your
inflated head, and Napoleon looked like a giant compared to you. You
also like to watch (gay?) porn on the internet. You had a beta
education, you hate modern art and artists in particular, and you live
in the most nerdy part of N.Y., Manhattan.
So why don't you just come out of the closet, instead of wasting other
people's time projecting false archetypes.
Z.U.Oraqref
Dale Houstman
Semantics. I don't consider someone who lives WITH me to be a neighbor,
especially if she's my wife.
dmh
>
>
>
>
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>You, on the other hand, do own a computer.
> You like outdated teeny
>romanticism such as Shakespeare, you almost haven't got any hair on your
>inflated head, and Napoleon looked like a giant compared to you. You
>also like to watch (gay?) porn on the internet. You had a beta
>education, you hate modern art and artists in particular, and you live
>in the most nerdy part of N.Y., Manhattan.
>So why don't you just come out of the closet, instead of wasting other
>people's time projecting false archetypes.
You know, most of this is just your usual half-witted vileness, and,
as such, doesn't merit a response. I do, however, feel compelled to
comment on your homophobia, which seems to me odious even by
comparison to your other character failings: you're just a European
Lysaght.
Josh
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
> You know, most of this is just your usual half-witted vileness, and,
> as such, doesn't merit a response. I do, however, feel compelled to
> comment on your homophobia, which seems to me odious even by
> comparison to your other character failings: you're just a European
> Lysaght.
Ah, so now I'm a homophobe because I wondered what kind of porn you
watch on the internet. Nerd.
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill
Fucking liar. You know damn well what you intended, and so does
everyone else:
"You, on the other hand, do own a computer. You like outdated teeny
romanticism such as Shakespeare, you almost haven't got any hair on
your inflated head, and Napoleon looked like a giant compared to you.
You also like to watch (gay?) porn on the internet. You had a beta
education, you hate modern art and artists in particular, and you live
in the most nerdy part of N.Y., Manhattan.
"So why don't you just come out of the closet, instead of wasting
other people's time projecting false archetypes."
-- Martijn Benders, Lying Homophobe
Josh
Z.U.Oraqref
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>Ah, so now I'm a homophobe because I wondered what kind of porn you
>>watch on the internet.
>
> Fucking liar. You know damn well what you intended, and so does
> everyone else:
> "So why don't you just come out of the closet, instead of wasting
> other people's time projecting false archetypes."
So reffering to you as a closet nerd makes me a homophobe?
You're a funny gay, Josh.
Z.U.Oraqref
Stuart Leichter
josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 06:58:37 +0100, "Z.U.Oraqref"
> <maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>
> "
> You had a beta
> education,
>
> "
Mine broke and they can't locate parts. Anyone have a Sony Betamax they
want to unload, or can anyone point to a site that has Sony (or JVC)
Betamax VCRs for sale?
Art McNutt
at slei...@nb.net wrote on 1/3/03 12:52 AM:
I heard that 3D Realms is /paying/ beta testers. Maybe they could point you
to where to locate parts. 'Course finding tapes that already haven't begun
to deteriorate may be a problem. This /could/ be what 3D Realms is testing.
Me? I had an Eight Track Education. Tough on me, it was; one track mind and
all...
---
Art
Dennis M. Hammes
My curriculum is still in beta. Nobody could figure out the
instructions.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
A computer without language
is an expensive cut of meat.
http://scrawlmark.net
Dennis M. Hammes
No, the chuckles has a flat mate. (She sat on one of his pulltabs.)
Dale Houstman
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>>"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
>>news:3E108660...@citilink.com...
>>
>>
>>>I don't consider a flatmate a neighbor
>>
>>You have a flat mate? If you check the yellow pages I'm certain you
>>will find a place that will pump him back up.
>>
>>And, btw, if he's living next to you, then he *is* your neighbor.
>>
>>Rob
>
>
> No, the chuckles has a flat mate. (She sat on one of his pulltabs.)
All he has to do is blow into the little clear plastic valve until the
patties turn into softballs.
dmh
Joshua P. Hill
"You, on the other hand, do own a computer. You like outdated teeny
romanticism such as Shakespeare, you almost haven't got any hair on
your inflated head, and Napoleon looked like a giant compared to you.
You also like to watch (gay?) porn on the internet. You had a beta
education, you hate modern art and artists in particular, and you live
in the most nerdy part of N.Y., Manhattan.
"So why don't you just come out of the closet, instead of wasting
other people's time projecting false archetypes."
-- Martijn Benders, Lying Homophobe
Josh
Stuart Leichter
<webm...@ci-pac.org> wrote:
> in article sleichte-030...@43.c.pittsburgh.nb.net, Stuart Leichter
> at slei...@nb.net wrote on 1/3/03 12:52 AM:
>
> > In article <iaaa1v47buf6qfd3l...@4ax.com>,
> > josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 06:58:37 +0100, "Z.U.Oraqref"
> >> <maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> "
> >> You had a beta
> >> education,
> >>
> >> "
> >
> >
> > Mine broke and they can't locate parts. Anyone have a Sony Betamax they
> > want to unload, or can anyone point to a site that has Sony (or JVC)
> > Betamax VCRs for sale?
>
> I heard that 3D Realms is /paying/ beta testers. Maybe they could point you
> to where to locate parts. 'Course finding tapes that already haven't begun
> to deteriorate may be a problem. This /could/ be what 3D Realms is testing.
It's what broke the machine, playing tapes wound for too long a time,
dropouts stalled the mechanism, finally blew a fuse or capacitor or
something else I don't know what I'm talking about, and I couldn't eject
the tape without electricity, and well, I forced it because I couldn't
find a bigger hammer, and 2 plastic tape guides snapped, only after some
precise number of days or months had elapsed since Sony discontinued its
Betamax. The tapes have to relax, they haven't deteriorated much, and I
want to convert them to DVD before my DVD player breaks after it goes
obsolete, but that's my Kvetch-22, I can't relax my Beta tapes without a
Beta machine.
>
> Me? I had an Eight Track Education. Tough on me, it was; one track mind and
> all...
ETE? ÉTÉ? Ah bon, moi aussi, mais l'hiver, il blows.
>
> ---
> Art
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Have you checked Ebay? You might be able to find something there.
Josh
Dennis M. Hammes
Foo. Two martinis apiece oughta about do it.
>
> >
> > Me? I had an Eight Track Education. Tough on me, it was; one track mind and
> > all...
>
> ETE? ÉTÉ? Ah bon, moi aussi, mais l'hiver, il blows.
>
> >
> > ---
> > Art
Dennis M. Hammes
Too late; her heart is torn.
Dale Houstman
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>>Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3E108660...@citilink.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I don't consider a flatmate a neighbor
>>>>
>>>>You have a flat mate? If you check the yellow pages I'm certain you
>>>>will find a place that will pump him back up.
>>>>
>>>>And, btw, if he's living next to you, then he *is* your neighbor.
>>>>
>>>>Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>No, the chuckles has a flat mate. (She sat on one of his pulltabs.)
>>
>>All he has to do is blow into the little clear plastic valve until the
>>patties turn into softballs.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> Too late; her heart is torn.
No problem, Chuckles always confuses the cloaca with le coeur anyway.
dmh