poems: September 12th, 1999 page 1
Nikolaus Maack
wrote:
>End of the World
>-----------------------
>Can you hear me ?
>Are you there, my beloved ?
>If this were the end
>the very end of the world,
>end of the whole of it all,
>I would want most of all
>to spend the last of it,
>with you, and loving you
>my beloved.
Criticism
-----------
The world ends now, sweet,
as I shake my sour scent on
your wet sugar dot.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
(Artsy for Fartsy's sake.)
Now with a TITLE that **FLASHES!!**
Morpheal
-----------------------
Can you hear me ?
Are you there, my beloved ?
If this were the end
the very end of the world,
end of the whole of it all,
I would want most of all
to spend the last of it,
with you, and loving you
my beloved.
And maybe we could
stretch the very end,
the very end of the world,
end of the whole of it all,
into a long, long time,
and I would want most of all
to spend the last of it
with you, and loving you
my beloved.
---------------
To Touch You
-------------------
Why do my fingers,
my hands,
want to touch you,
passionately touch you,
as if you are the one
last true instance of beauty
in the whole world,
to hold and cherish ?
Why do my fingers,
my hands,
want to touch you,
passionately touch you,
as if you are the one
last attractive woman
in the whole world,
to caress and love ?
I know there are many
instances of beauty,
and attractive women
in the whole world,
and it is a mystery to me,
that I want you
so very passionately,
and wholly.
Passionately,
the way a divine madness
is a kind of mystery,
and a kind of wanting,
as takes some from the world,
you are a madness to me
that takes something of me
away from it all.
Something about you
takes something of me
away from all your sisters,
something about you
that nothing else
seems able to replace,
for while we are alive
there would be love.
I long for a blessing
such as the blessing
of your hand held in mine,
sometimes it would be enough
if only we could touch,
so I can hold and cherish
caress and love
the fact that we are.
-----------------------------
About Him
---------------
I don't know
what it is about him.
That man had you
and he had
some
of your sisters too.
He would have
had all your sisters
if they had come
to him,
to be had,
and I doubt
he would ever
have remembered
one face
or one name,
even if they did
whisper their truths
into his ears.
Now I wonder
if he is keeping
only one of them
or three
or two,
and I wonder
what it is
about him
that he could have
you
and all your sisters,
while I was kept away
from you
kept watching
the scenes
while they came
and went
with him,
as they passed through
a few
of my usual haunts,
leaving me standing
as though
a lonely tower,
watching
that little conqueror
gather each
of his pretty spoils.
I was passionate
about you,
but he had you too,
as well as your sisters,
perhaps he had
their sisters too,
making me jealous
that to you
I do not seem as beautiful
as he seems beautiful
to you,
or was it your sisters
who made him
more beautiful
as what he had
from them ?
----------------
When All Else Fails
-------------------------
When all else fails,
if anyone can
perhaps I could
take and reweave
the threads
of superstrings,
pulling them out
like endless streams
of scarves
from a sleeve,
if it would make
any difference,
to your understanding
how I really feel.
If all else fails
if anyone could,
I would,
create a world
for us to love in,
if it would make
any difference
to your understanding
how I really feel.
I am in love with you,
and when all else fails
if anyone can,
perhaps I could
pull impossible miracles
out of the matrices
of space-time,
for you,
I would conjure
them up like rabbits
pulled out hats,
if it would make
any difference,
to your understanding
how I really feel.
I am in love with you,
and when all else fails
if anyone can
I wish I could
do the impossible
for you as I am
so in love with you,
so very in love with you,
if there is anything
I could do,
when all else fails,
that would make
any difference
to your understanding
how I really feel,
I would do it.
What can I do,
what can I really do,
when I am
so in love with you
and you don't understand
how I really feel.
-------- September 12th, 1999 page 1
Bob Ezergailis morp...@bserv.com Canada
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Brandon J. Freels
-----------------------
You heard me
I hated Toni Morrision's Beloved
It caused the end of the world
but most of all i want to make it with you
[i.e. make love to you]
maybe we could
stretch your vagina into
a long, long line
Fascinan
to criticize someone's work, but your insults maul all lines of decency with
the foaming brutality of a Bear on crank.
You've easily surpassed typical middle-school boy effrontery here. I wonder
what all of your anger truly reflects? I mean, it's a bit odd to go histrionic
over poetry:
>Shooting is too good for you. Get in the burlap bag, and I will beatyou with
>a plumber's helper until you promise to stop writing these piecesof animal
>waste down as poetry.
Such tatty remarks!
Don't read Bob's posts if you find them so distasteful; others read them and
enjoy them. Why don't you write poetry instead of continually being on the
attack.
Fas
Nikolaus Maack
Sex, a pleasant pacing
------------------------------
The long line of your vagina has no parallel.
(I cannot lay my prick beside it.)
Instead, I use my cock to trace the to and fro
of your long love line
all the live long lay.
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Humans can't live on acrylic paint alone.
Eat paint with a friend.
Brandon J. Freels
------------------------------
The long line of men marching into
your vagina are just a parody of my penis
(Why can't I lay beside you?)
Inside of your breasts
I use a chicken to trace the morphology
of your nipples
Nikolaus Maack
-------------------------------
As I drink of you,
my lust thirst unquenched,
labia press against
my cheeks --
two half-cooked
hummingbird breasts.
Brandon:
---
Brandon J. Freels
-------------------------------
I think of your ass,
as your bust birsts out of the trench.
Your labia is a printing press.
Against my butt cheeks
two half-cooked fish are swimming.
I'm cumming on your breasts.
Nikolaus Maack
---------------------
Tiffany Towers,
a backwards hunchback,
a hunchfront.
Breasts of burden carried her
down a runway, up a firepole.
Packed her bras,
went back to school,
a self-imposed exile
from Porn World.
Now 9 to 5, day in and out,
just another pretty face, ass, tits, cunt?
But clothed, thank you.
When she
late night slumber struts
down smokey runways,
up flaming firepoles...
Is she dreaming?
Or having a nightmare?
Brandon:
---
Paul Whitehead
<fasc...@aol.com> writes
This is just to say - what's happened to your proposal for us to post
verse on a theme? Pick the theme, man; oh, to hell with it, here is
something called 'fragment', which I wrote in '93 and have reworked
slightly now. Maybe it's about tension. Tension, then sexual tension
and getting it together, with further tension? I forget, but quite
possibly. Is this a secret affair which might be discovered? Mmm, maybe
not. Or the moments before a Big Bang? Possibly.
fragment
The slow slow beating of the drums; the waiting
for bad news; when will it come? Fingers pull
then rearrange the wires; on Friday nights
he whispers what he requires
of her and all her sins and dreams.
The closing of the curtain; release of
light to scan and to avert or fall between
the linen sheets; the movement time
dissolves into the hearts which beat
and unify the threads of ease, perspiring
in the darkness where they meet. To turn the
handle now might tense the spring, or else release
them from their suffering.
Paul
Nikolaus Maack
>Dale, take a laxative and let it all go for the love of Yahweh. It's one thing
>to criticize someone's work, but your insults maul all lines of decency with
>the foaming brutality of a Bear on crank.
I just wanted to mention that while I agree with Dale's criticism of
Morpheal's poems, I also agree that he's not critiquing in the right
*kind* of way. To my amazement, it's quite possible to say all the
things Dale said -- nasty, nasty criticism -- and have the person
thank you for it.
Morph, I think you would benefit from rewriting and reworking your
poems. While it's somewhat impressive that you post five, six, seven
poems here every day, it's not unusual for me to skip them, knowing
that they're just not that great. There may be moments within them,
but the idea of skimming through the sand for the gold flecks doesn't
appeal -- that should be your job.
Seven okay poems a day, in my mind, is not worth one EXCELLENT poem
every day. Maybe take the one of the bunch that you like the most,
and revise, rephrase, rethink. Yes, one of the dangers of editting
and rewriting is you'll kill some of the freshness of the poem. On
the other hand, most of your freshness isn't that fabulous.
One of the problems I note in your stuff is the thing that kills
poetry -- and Dale touched on this -- cliche. For example, "shattered
dreams" is a cliche in the extreme. When I saw you'd written a poem
with this title, I flinched. When I saw that you used the phrase
"shattered dreams" in your poem entitled "shattered dreams", I sighed.
Whenever you note a couple of words in a poem that seem too familiar,
question why they're there. Did you do it the easy way? Is there a
new, more interesting, more accurate way to describe what you want to
say? The first choice on how to describe something is often the easy
choice, the sloppy choice.
(To be honest, I have given out this advice, and advice like it, so
many times, I'm tempted to sit down and write a lengthy FAQ on how to
write a good poem.)
Fascinan (on Dale):
>You've easily surpassed typical middle-school boy effrontery here. I wonder
>what all of your anger truly reflects? I mean, it's a bit odd to go histrionic
>over poetry:
Actually, it isn't. I can understand Dale's rage. On Freenet, my
internet provider, there's a newsgroup for the posting of poetry.
Many teenagers post their "oh woe to be young and sensitive" poems
there. They tend to be cliched, quickly written, no editting at all,
with spelling mistakes and worse.
When I write a poem -- even a throwaway piece for this newsgroup -- I
agonize over every word. I like to edit. I especially like to
eliminate unnecessary words and awful cliche.
So when I see a poem that someone wrote in four seconds flat, with
little or no effort to avoid cliche...
"The tears, they all run a race,
run a race down my face.
I'm so very, awfully sad.
Why does the world have to be so bad?"
I want to SCREAM. People who slap together poetry so easilly, with so
little effort, who insist that it's "good work" when they've done no
work at all... It's this sort of thinking that has reduced poetry to
a litrerary joke. Poetry is no longer something anyone wants to read
-- it's something you use to "express your feelings".
The problem is the feelings aren't being expressed. A formulaic
shadow of the feelings are on the page, nothing more.
Is Morph guilty of such behavior? I would have to say yes.
Nik
Brandon J. Freels
but keep the gold.
Paul Whitehead
<ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> writes
>Fascinan:
>>Dale, take a laxative and let it all go for the love of Yahweh. It's one thing
>>to criticize someone's work, but your insults maul all lines of decency with
>>the foaming brutality of a Bear on crank.
>
>I just wanted to mention that while I agree with Dale's criticism of
>Morpheal's poems, I also agree that he's not critiquing in the right
>*kind* of way. To my amazement, it's quite possible to say all the
>things Dale said -- nasty, nasty criticism -- and have the person
>thank you for it.
>
>Morph, I think you would benefit from rewriting and reworking your
>poems. While it's somewhat impressive that you post five, six, seven
>poems here every day,
When I told someone in a poetry society that I might write 4 or 5 a year
in good years, she seemed to think that was a high figure!
<snip>
I think Morph uses poetry as a consciousness-skimming outlet (a sort of
'release' of some sort) (ah, am I attacking him or trying to understand
him, or acknowledging that this method is one way of producing 'poetry'
:-}! but I could be wrong.
Morph, what is the driving force behind your poetry? Bearing in mind
that John Clare had poetry raging in his head a good deal of the time,
and that he wrote down vast amounts of it, I am not, generally speaking,
against volume.
P.
Morpheal
Paul Whitehead <weste...@western-pr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <37df41e4...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>, Nikolaus Maack
> <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> writes
> >Fascinan:
>>Dale, take a laxative and let it all go for the love of Yahweh.
>>It's one thing to criticize someone's work, but your insults maul all
>>lines of decency with the foaming brutality of a Bear on crank.
Now, now, don't beat up on Houstman. I thought it was somewhat amusing .
The odd thing is that he admitted to having read them.
> >Morph, I think you would benefit from rewriting and reworking your
> >poems.
I post rough drafts. Been doing that for years.
> I think Morph uses poetry as a consciousness-skimming outlet (a sort
>of 'release' of some sort)
Not consciousnessness skimming and it really does not provide "release",
but it does provide some EXPRESSION, and sometimes clarification, or
exploration of a subject. The subject as responses to the subject and as
the subject as known to respond to. In that sense projection s into the
future of desires, dreams, hopes, do occur into the work and are
important, but also the retrospective element that constitutes a
significant part of any writing. Content is derivative from something of
past experience, memories, and projections into the future are based
partially on that information.
>Morpheal what is the driving force behind your poetry?
Experiential. Existential.
> Bearing in mind that John Clare had poetry raging in his head a good
>deal of the time, and that he wrote down vast amounts of it, I am not,
>generally speaking, against volume.
I don't function that way. I have to sit down and write, so as to get
any writing done. There is poetry only when I do that. It is a chosen
mode of thinking, and expression, but the subject matter is often given
by means of what life experiences are currently more emphatic.
dale houstman
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:37df41e4...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> Fascinan:
> >Dale, take a laxative and let it all go for the love of Yahweh. It's one
thing
> >to criticize someone's work, but your insults maul all lines of decency
with
> >the foaming brutality of a Bear on crank.
This is pure crap. Just because you are unable to make a discernment between
exercises of the imagination, sticky bun sentimentality, scams, shams and
pure hoohah, it doesn't hold that my calling attention to it is (to quote
Leo) "out of order." The truth be told, it is Morpheal's "work" (which seems
to drip out of him like piss from an incontinent tapir) is the insult here,
and one which you are more than willing to overlook in the name of a
specious notion about "artistic freedom." Art may be free or it may not be,
but not everything disguised as art is, and this ain't. For one thing, it
appears that this drivel is a pose, from what I can discern. His "feelings"
(which from the proof of the poems are dead as the flowers in Old Man
Winter's asshole) do not appear to be "bruised" so I suspect he is rather
enjoying this. So why are you so bent on ruining his pleasure at this late
date? Sadist... Also (and this is always the petard you "defenders of
expression" like to fling yourselves upon) IF you are such a defender of the
faith, why don;t you accept my statements as poems in their own right, and
stop telling me to cease and desist? Hypocrites like honey I suppose, and
are so easily attracted by the postures and attitudes of the under achievers
and giggling schoolboys of "litrachure" when they are disguised in the same
sweet glaze that defends the ham against the tongue. I haven't said anything
that Nik either hasn't said (or wanted to say) and that you and all the
others wouldn't say if you really had any notions of what the imagination
and the poetic were, rather than these "spews of nonsense" and
non-sequential (and thus inconsequential) threads that you either squirt
from your abdmoen like a Dadaistic spider, or coo over like brain-addled
doves, afraid of losing your slim grasp on anything. The fact is
"surrealism" (as evidenced by most of the participants on this ng) appears
to be the Last Chance Hotel for those who couldn't make it on the "real"
entertainment circuit. "I cain't write poetry, so I gotta be a surrealist,
Ma" is written all over this dead-end way station.
The fact is, there isn't any other hole in the universe that would accept
Morpheal's liquid shit as an expression of any human kind; it isn't real, it
isn't graceful, it isn't telling, it isn't funny, it isn't imagistic, it
isn't ANYTHING! Your acceptance and defense of it reveals something about
you, but that's about it.
DMH
j
dale houstman
> I just wanted to mention that while I agree with Dale's criticism of
> Morpheal's poems, I also agree that he's not critiquing in the right
> *kind* of way. To my amazement, it's quite possible to say all the
> things Dale said -- nasty, nasty criticism -- and have the person
> thank you for it.
Pantywaist...
>
> Morph, I think you would benefit from rewriting and reworking your
> poems. While it's somewhat impressive that you post five, six, seven
> poems here every day
Please Please Please: explain to me and the world what is "impressive" about
posting even a hundred empty pieces of trash, unless you worship mere energy
and a lack of other outlets?
>There may be moments within them
Please Please Please: show me some of these rare gems stuck in the general
sludge.
>Maybe take the one of the bunch that you like the most,
> and revise, rephrase, rethink.
You are talking to a man who thinks you're a fool and thanking him for
pissing down your leg seven times a day. What's that make you?
Yes, one of the dangers of editting
> and rewriting is you'll kill some of the freshness of the poem.
"Freshness" ARE YOU KIDDING!!!
DMH
dale houstman
Fascinan,
> Fascinan (on Dale):
> >You've easily surpassed typical middle-school boy effrontery here. I
wonder
> >what all of your anger truly reflects? I mean, it's a bit odd to go
histrionic
> >over poetry:
Oh, that's a pretty sentiment for someone who fancies themselves a
surrealist. Surrealism is the Literalization of the Poetic, it celebrates
and promotes the Poetic. I have written poetry for over 30 years, and I am
not supposed to care about it when someone uses it (as I suspect in this
case) a big sticky bun of a joke?
Your attitude is the odd one...
DMH
dale houstman
Fascinan writes
> >
> >Don't read Bob's posts if you find them so distasteful; others read them
and
> >enjoy them.
Don't read my posts if you find them so distasteful. Where does your boat of
comprehension dock?
>Why don't you write poetry instead of continually being on the attack.
I do, and I have posted some of it. What are you going to do about it?
DMH
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:AQSD3.43655$FG4.1...@news1.teleport.com...
> What we're saying is: Strip the poem until it shivers. Throw out the dirt,
> but keep the gold.
What I'm saying is: Morpheal is a phony pile of spew. Strip him naked until
he shivers. There is no "gold" in them thar Morpheals...
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
<dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Please Please Please: explain to me and the world what is "impressive" about
>posting even a hundred empty pieces of trash, unless you worship mere energy
>and a lack of other outlets?
He's trying. Sure, he's failing, but he's trying.
>>There may be moments within them
>
>Please Please Please: show me some of these rare gems stuck in the general
>sludge.
Note the "may be".
>You are talking to a man who thinks you're a fool and thanking him for
>pissing down your leg seven times a day. What's that make you?
A thoughtful critic. I've been in seven or eight different writing
groups over the years. If you want your commentary to be heard, you
have to butter it. Telling someone they suck -- even if they really
do suck -- rarely helps.
But none of this particularly matters, because I tried the soft
approach and Morpheal ignored me. I tried a slightly harder approach,
and that didn't register on him either. So, fuck him.
A lot of the teenagers who post in ncf.sigs.arts.poetry, a local
poetry writing newsgroup, would get very mad if you critiqued their
work. They said they were "expressing themselves" and didn't want
criticism. This made many other people mad, causing them to shout,
"Why post if you don't want honest feedback?"
Morpheal, despite being 45, is behaving like a teenager. So what do
you do with a poet who, frankly, sucks, but won't listen to your
advice, and insists on posting more and more material that continues
to suck in exactly the same way it always does? You ignore them.
> Yes, one of the dangers of editting
>> and rewriting is you'll kill some of the freshness of the poem.
>
>"Freshness" ARE YOU KIDDING!!!
At the time, I said this because it's obvious -- I think -- that
"freshness" is one of the things Morpheal values in his work. You'd
call it spewing crappolla from the top of his head without editting or
rewriting, and I'd have to agree with you. But he sees it as
"freshness". If that's something he values, and wants to express,
it's up to a good critic to suggest how he can keep that quality,
while not writing crap.
Unfortunately, Morpheal seems more than happy to keep writing crap.
If you think it's crap, he says, then you haven't understood. He's
wrong, unfortunately -- I understand that it's crap.
So there's no point in offering any more advice to him. Agreed?
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Face my faces or feast on my feces.
Fascinan
All I see is multiple posts by yourself and Nik continually bashing Morpheal's
poetry. Dale your negativity, your unrelenting abrasive and attacking manner
reveals too much about you.
Everyone knows your stand on Morpheal's (and now my) postings. Don't read them
if you are so above them -- your arrogance is overwhelming. Your absolutism
about what liberates the imagination is shocking. You continually beat
Morpheal into the ground like he's a man with no feelings, no creativity, and
no passion, yet look back at all the thousands of your postings. The bulk
forms a Charybdis of bitter, abrasive, and negative criticism.
Fas
dale houstman
Nikolaus
>
> He's trying. Sure, he's failing, but he's trying.
Physical activity without promise depresses me...
>
> >>There may be moments within them
> >
> >Please Please Please: show me some of these rare gems stuck in the
general
> >sludge.
>
> Note the "may be".
But how can that be relevant here: you could read them and resolve that "may
be" very quickly. In fact, I consider it your duty!!
>
> >You are talking to a man who thinks you're a fool and thanking him for
> >pissing down your leg seven times a day. What's that make you?
>
> A thoughtful critic. I've been in seven or eight different writing
> groups over the years. If you want your commentary to be heard, you
> have to butter it. Telling someone they suck -- even if they really
> do suck -- rarely helps.
Oh I don't know. I was in a writing group once and told a woman she couldn't
write worth bear piss. Haven't heard from her since. That's success for you.
She obviously heard loud and clear. Even the instructor later told me that
he couldn't figure out why he had let her into the class. Things happen.
Anyway surely he's gone beyond the stage of "bringing up baby" by now?
>
> Morpheal, despite being 45, is behaving like a teenager. So what do
> you do with a poet who, frankly, sucks, but won't listen to your
> advice, and insists on posting more and more material that continues
> to suck in exactly the same way it always does? You ignore them.
A point you've made before, and which has merit, but no fun.
>
>But he sees it as
> "freshness". If that's something he values, and wants to express,
> it's up to a good critic to suggest how he can keep that quality,
> while not writing crap.
Good luck!
> Unfortunately, Morpheal seems more than happy to keep writing crap.
> If you think it's crap, he says, then you haven't understood. He's
> wrong, unfortunately -- I understand that it's crap.
>
> So there's no point in offering any more advice to him. Agreed?
Actually at this point I do agree, but the bigger problem is the blindness
of others to his grandiose awfulness. It isn't really about him anymore, but
about the energy (brown aura!) that he gives off and that others support as
a legitimate concern of the imagination. What does this say about them?
DMH
Fascinan
First off, I've never made any claim whatsoever that I am a "surrealist" as it
falls into the myriad definitions put forth here -- I suppose a working
regurgitation of Breton is the unspoken default here, for better or worse. As
I apprehend Surrealism, there are many aspects I like about it, and so am
attracted to it on in a general sense. I certainly do not fancy myself a
"surrealist" though.
Secondly, I don't care how long you have written poetry, your accolades, or
whether or not you're the Mr. Majestic of the whole realm of poetry itself! I
do think that your defeating and negative assaults do EVERYTHING to kill any
type of creative effort. When someone writes poetry they are being creative
the way they want to be. If one's style is antithetical to your perceptions of
what is really good poetry, in no way does a barrage of insults (saying your
poetry SUCKS) help that individual to continue any kind of creative expression.
Nik, in the very least, offers some potentially very positive contributions. I
fear that if more people bashed others' creativity in such abrasive manner that
no one would write anything, and all that would be left is resentment, doubt,
and bitterness.
Actually, you are correct by saying my attitude is the odd one, because
prevailing attitudes are seemingly insolent, unsupportive, and negative --
perhaps this is the path to the liberation of the imagination?
Fas
'It's incredibly difficult for me to come to terms with the agonizing
conclusion that I will most likely never achieve the cultural level of
importance as WWF wrestler Brett "the hitman" Hart.'
Brandon J. Freels
Nik = gooble-gabble gooble-gabble
Fascinan = purple fur engineer
dale houstman
> Dale = tornado toastflakes
> Nik = gooble-gabble gooble-gabble
> Fascinan = purple fur engineer
>
DMH
Paul Whitehead
Freels <fre...@teleport.com> writes
>Dale = tornado toastflakes
>Nik = gooble-gabble gooble-gabble
>Fascinan = purple fur engineer
>
>
P.
elag
Paul Whitehead
<el...@concentric.net> writes
>meow?
>
>
You don't know how?
P
dale houstman
Mavarla <mav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990930160538...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Hi, Fasci, how's tricks? I haven't visited Surrealia in several months.
>
> To the posters attempting to change Bob's style: It's been a somewhat
amusing thread, but I still love his poems.
Then you're an idiot. And a self-professed one at that... But I am not
trying to change Bob's style: for one thing he doesn't have one. This stuff
is the common drool of the horde. For another thing, I can tell he doesn't
have the wherewithal to change even if he wanted to. This "style" isn;t a
choice on his part, it's all he is capable of. and it's a distinct failure.
I wouldn't want to reiterate all that's been said, but poetry involves (A) a
love affair with language and (B) an engagment with imagery. Bob seems
incapable of either.
> You may not think his poetry is "good," but I do.
You may think his poetry is "good," but I don't. your personal opinion -
however comforting it is to you - isn't the point here. Bob's poetry is
demonstrably a huge failure. No matter how much you or Fascinan love it, its
shortcomings are both huge and obvious to anyone who has read motre than
three poems.
>there's a concinnous flow to them, among other things
Though I find it difficult to believe, I'll take your word that he's
"concinnous" when he werites them. Maybe TOO "concinnous"?
>but it's the simplicity and lack of cynicism which
> makes them so beautiful.
They're nothing but cynical: they describe love in terms of Patty Duke and
Father Knows Best. There is little doubt (unless Bob is brain-damaged) that
he cannot believe love is like this, so I must assume these are "poses." As
such they are cynical. If you want to see the power of true innocence read
Blake, or Emily Dickinson. Simplicity does not mean idiocy and bland
reiteration of societal norms. True simplicity is a reconnection with the
imagination prior to its socialization. Nothing that sounds this much like
Hallmark can really be a product of innocence, but only a grown man
pretending to innocence. Few things are creepier. He's like a poetic
pedophile...
> Sure, the overriding theme of his poems appears to be unrequited love for
some unnamed person, but is that such a "terrible" thing?
In poetry it is. Abstraction, despite Bob's ideas, is the death of
imagination.
>
> He's been able to express it in a hundred different ways and there's
something very wonderful about that.
All these "hundred ways' are amazingly the same.
>
> On the surface, where he's coming from might seem redundant or negative,
but there's an underlying sense of hope running through all of his poems
Well, I'm hoping he will quit...
> Genuine cynicism is always a dead end street
This is such obvious crap. Many of the greatest writers are pure cynics:
Swift, Rimbaud... ands at any rate the notion that the question here is one
of choosing between "innocence" and "cynicism" is a straw man: I have
nothing again and while it's true that some >of the funniest things ever
written were satirst either approach, but prefer the writer to reveal some
ardor for language and imagery.
> inordinately cruel, it all makes for short-term pleasure in the long run.
Satire is eternal. Sentimentality is pre-packaged death.
>
> You'll see that I'm right as time goes by
Of course I won't. I'vew been writing poetry for over 30 years, and I am not
about to come to on such drivel. You flatter yourself...
>...and, you'll come to appreciate
> being able to go to this place, every now and then, and take comfort in
the
> fact that Bob's style or content hasn't changed.
And shit still stinks!
DMH
elag
elag
Bob Ezergailis is like a force of nature.
Shall I oppose the rain for soaking me to the bone?
Better to sit inside drinking Earl Grey
and listening to angry songs.
Perhaps... writing a poem about the rain...
Morpheal
mav...@aol.com (Mavarla) wrote:
> dm...@mindspring.com Fri. 01 October 1999 06:21 PM EDT wrote:
>
> >>I'vew been writing poetry for over 30 years, and I am not about to
come to on
> such drivel.<<
> Ho-hum...if this sentence (which is copied electronically and hence,
> verbatim, from your own post),
Although we know that he finds my poetry to be so distasteful to him,
even if in purely critical terms, the question continues to remain as to
why he spends so very much time reading it, and commenting on it. I
suggest he has a secret fascination with it, though for what reasons we
might only guess. He seems to be making a major study of it, and
certainly it has oiled some cogs in his cerebral machinery so as to
produce so many paragraphs of response as we have seen here. The volume
of response seems to rival the quantity of verse, in some instances.
That says something.
Next we will have whole departments studying Morphealist poetry, and its
roots in 20th century existentialist and surrealist thought. A thesis
perhaps on how postmodernism influenced the author. Another on the
question of whether phenomonological method, as presented by Edmund
Husserl, was significantly influential. Later on, a few more
dissertations as to the particularities of language usage, word
frequency, and maybe something on syntactical patternings ? Let's
nominate him to the first chair in Morphealist Critical Studies, and
have done with it. Of course, there is no stipend, but someday, someday,
someone will benevolently fund it.....
--
Bob Ezergailis morp...@bserv.com Canada
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nikolaus Maack
wrote:
>Although we know that he finds my poetry to be so distasteful to him,
>even if in purely critical terms, the question continues to remain as to
>why he spends so very much time reading it, and commenting on it.
He may spend time commenting on it, but I don't think Dale reads your
stuff. There's no need to read your poetry in order to comment on it,
ironically enough. Dale gnashes his teeth and rants at you because
you're comitting all the errors he's desperate to avoid.
Picture if you will, a sculptor who has a dozen tiny hammers, a dozen
chisels, and spends MONTHS on each block of granite. He wants
perfection. Meanwhile, his next door neighbour is also a sculptor,
except he takes a block of granite, hits it with a sledgehammer, and
announces that the resulting rubble is ART.
The sculptor with the hammers and the precision, just on principle,
will despise the man next door. You, Morph, are the man next door,
and many are the days when I want to take away your sledgehammer.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
each painting should not be burned.
Nikolaus Maack
wrote:
>Hey Bob, I realise you are only young, and starting out writing. Perhaps
>people comment on your work to try and help you see how it can be improved.
I reached the same conclusion about Bob. He must be young, I thought.
And then one day, a shocking piece of news fell from the sky -- Bob is
in his 40s. I'm still trying to figure out how this is possible.
scot...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>Hey Bob, I realise you are only young, and starting out writing.
>...work does read like a
>teenager's angst at what he does not fully understand or has experienced.
It is interesting how people see things differently.
I've been reading Bob's stuff off and on for a number of years.
I don't think it ever occurred to me that Bob was young and just
starting out writing. I frankly find his writing very disturbing.
(I'm not talking about whether it is good or bad, ...that is a
judgement that is beyond me, and not an issue that I think is very
important or interesting.) I think Bob has a very good
understanding of what he is doing and what he is writing about. I
think Bob's writing is a spin off, for him a natural and necessary
artifact of a different experiment. The accusation against his
beloved that he makes with his writings is absolute and terrible. It
is also a lie. The burden placed on his beloved is something beyond
what a human being could bear. And also is a lie. And the vagueness
of the remedy, the lack of remedy, is the trick. That Bob writes
about love is a lie. At the same time I think that Bob's writing is
absolutely honest. I think his writing is beyond criticism and really
has nothing to do with the issues people would like to "help"
him with.
Kristina
people comment on your work to try and help you see how it can be improved.
you enjoy writing, your lack of experience and age (I'm assuming here that
you are younger) sorry, horrible assumption, but your work does read like a
teenager's angst at what he does not fully understand or has experienced.
trying to guide you into a greater and deeper world of the exploration and
wonder of writing......it is a fascinating world with many possibilities.
You are sititng on the surface of it, yet to appreciate its greater depths
and beauty.
Good luck with it.
Kristina.
Morpheal <morp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7tj925$ftl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <19991007140140...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> mav...@aol.com (Mavarla) wrote:
> > dm...@mindspring.com Fri. 01 October 1999 06:21 PM EDT wrote:
> >
> > >>I'vew been writing poetry for over 30 years, and I am not about to
> come to on
> > such drivel.<<
>
> > Ho-hum...if this sentence (which is copied electronically and hence,
> > verbatim, from your own post),
>
>
> Although we know that he finds my poetry to be so distasteful to him,
> even if in purely critical terms, the question continues to remain as to
Kristina
> >people comment on your work to try and help you see how it can be
improved.
>
> And then one day, a shocking piece of news fell from the sky -- Bob is
> in his 40s. I'm still trying to figure out how this is possible.
>
> Nik
Kristina.
Bob,
Ohhhhhh my apologies to you, but obviously you enjoy writing, I hope to see
the improvement in your work soon then. There is heaps of great writing out
there that may inspire you and open up different ways of approaching poetry,
I don't mean to sound patronising, just looks like you could use some help
with your work. I don't think it is essentially horrible, but I think it
lacks alot, and really doesn't carry enough to make it interesting,
captivating or thought provoking. In other words it doesn't do anything for
me. This is a personal opinion, I just assumed you started writing and
would perhaps benefit from other perspectives and encouragement to venture
out further.....
Kristina.
Mavarla
To everyone else, except Fasci (who doesn't need explaining to), Bob writes
poetry because this is what he does to stay alive...Bob is not ordering anyone
to read his work nor is he ordering anyone else to change *their* styles of
expression.
Bob just is: No changing him and the more people complain, the happier it makes
me feel to see him unswerved.
He uses the primary theme of an "unrequited love" in his life, but, deep down
inside, I get the feeling that he really doesn't care: She's just a device. She
surfaces every now and then in his poetry, but alot of the poems are really all
about *different* women. His poems are more a celebration of the beauty of
every woman he's ever known and how difficult it is to make up his mind about
who matters the most...and, apparently, he's known quite a few women. What's so
bad about that?
He doesn't just write about women, though, he's written about a myriad of other
things.
I don't read his poems everyday (I don't read anyone else's, from Donne to A.E.
Housman, either...except, my own), but it's good to see that he remains the
same...even when he's getting ganged-up on.
Brandon J. Freels
Bob can write poetry for all the reason in the world.
Bob can use "unrequited love" as a theme if he wants to.
These are not the initial complaint posted against his work.
I would sum up the 'actual' complaint against his work as this:
1. A poem without the poetic is pathetic
2. Bob's poems are without the poetic
3. Since Bob's poems are without the poetic they are pathetic
Why do you feel that Bob's ability to remains the same is a positive
ability? Since when did 'being static' become fashionable?