Post by Texas Max KingPost by Colin WardPost by LmdelsantoPhotograph: circa 1953
[boredom snip]
'scuse me here, Angel . . . I hope you don't mind
if I interject here for a second . . .
fuck off, Colin!
Post by Colin WardThere really isn't a single poetic moment in this
rambling.
I went to your web site and read your boring shit too and you know what . . .
you have little room to talk . . .
What does MY poetry have to do with this? You DO know
the difference between WRITING poetry and CRITIQUING it, right?
Perhaps not, given that you are equally bad at both.
Post by Texas Max Kingyour little five and dime liners you call 'figurative imagery' poetry
I have never used the term "figurative imagery" in
my life. Stooping to lying, Max?
Post by Texas Max Kingare relatively crap and mean little to anyone else but you.
You can't publish your fiction, because it's probably
also crap . . . much like the shit you consider
great 'figurative imagery' poetry.
I've read great figurative imagery poetry
Somehow, I doubt it. :(
I never said it was. I can understand your need for
a distraction, though.
Post by Texas Max KingAm I clear here? or should I explain it to you again?
Post by Colin Ward"What would make it poetry?" you might ask.
. . . how would you know?
Post by Colin WardWell, consider for a moment these lines from Charles
Cornner's "Staring" (as recently posted to the Alsop Review)
...caught
expressionless, before smiles were
compulsory.
all good and fine for Charles and Alsop . . .
but it's not Angel
My point exactly. It has subtlety--a quintessential
aspect of this and all other art forms. Hence, it's "not
Angel."
Post by Texas Max King. . . and I personally think the line
'before smiles were compulsory' is stuffy and forced.
Charles writes like Charles from Charles experiences
No, he does not. He is writing about a fictitious
("his" referred to the voice's) grandfather in a non-existent
photograph. But, unlike Angel's work (note the use of
apostrophes for the possessive, Max), Charles' (see?) work
*becomes* an experience *for the reader*. And that is what
it always comes back to: the READER. The sooner you
understand this the sooner you can take your first step to
comprehending what writing, speaking and all other forms of
communication attempt to accomplish.
Post by Texas Max Kingand Angel writes like Angel from Angel's experiences.
How hard is that for you nookies to understand?
How hard is it for you to understand that no one CARES
about Angel's experiences UNTIL and UNLESS Angel can present
them in a competent and palatable form for the READER so that
it will resonate with THEIR experience?
Oh, and before you tell me that his solipsistic drivel
resonates with YOUR life experience, take a quick trip to
http://www.postpoems.com and read a few thousand other "poems"
exactly like it. Let us know when you figure out that no one
else is bothering to read the "poems" posted there.
Post by Texas Max KingPost by Colin WardSee how deftly he handles the subject of the impact
of modern dentistry on old versus recent photographs?
Without even mentioning dentistry? That subtlety is one
of many things missing from the work you posted, Angel.
He missed a few other things in those lines too . . .
but please, don't let me stop you from goading his praises.
"Goading his praises"? Is English your first language?
Post by Texas Max KingPost by Colin WardHis sleeves
roll back from his hands
like geese from winter.
See how cleverly he uses the simile to give life
to the sleeves? They ROLL back; they are not ROLLED
back. Active, not passive.
The active, not passive argument is legitimate . . .
but again not a RULE. I've mentioned this to Angel,
I remember Renay making this point before, as I'm sure others
have here, you're not unique mister literary.
Did I say I was? No. Quite the opposite. What
I am saying is fundamental--painfully evident to everyone
who has the slightest clue about writing. Did you really
think anyone here would bother discussing ADVANCED writing
technique with you, Max?
Post by Texas Max KingThe simile on the other hand is actually weak and requires a stretch.
Not a great example of excellent use of simile. And while we're
on the subject of simile . . . there is a school of literary thought
(you might not know since you only subscribe to one) that considers
simile a weak poetic technique. They're used as a cop-out
to express something that could be expressed (excuse me here)
much more figuratively.
IN GENERAL, yes, it is a fundamental of writing that
similes are, indeed, weaker than metaphors. Here, of
course, "geese from winter" would not work as a metaphor
and would distract from the active verb tense. In other
words, WEAKNESS is what is DESIRED *in this particular
case*. So, yes, there *is* a place for similes in poetry
(none more appropriate than this, perhaps).
Post by Texas Max KingPost by Colin WardNo such subtlety exists in this particular work
of yours, Angel.
on contraire, pierre . . . you missed the subtlety
in Angels' poem. You're too blindfolded in your ignorance
trying to inflate your ego as a 'professional poet' and
demean her as an amateur.
Given that neither you nor Angel can demonstrate
a single subtle point clearly made in his work, I will
stand by the original assessment.
Oh, and I am not suggesting that either you or Angel
are "amateurs". "Novices" is the term I use, and I do not
use it as an insult. Everyone starts somewhere. The trick
is not to languish there, as you seem determined to do.
Post by Texas Max KingPost by Colin WardNevertheless, this demonstrates why
novice poets such as yourself are well advised to READ
MORE POETRY.
This also demonstrates why you should read more poetry.
And stop professing that the only poetry that is valid
is the poetry you personally like. To each their own, pal.
No one is denying you your right to read, write and enjoy
bad poetry. Indeed--and this can only surprise you--there is
quite a lot of GOOD poetry which I don't like. Once you learn
the difference between personal taste and intrinsic quality we
can discuss this further, Max.
Post by Texas Max KingPost by Colin WardDoing so may make the point about the
sterility of your own work far better than any critic.
The only sterility here is in your brain. . .
oh and of course your writing. If your writing
is the ultimate example of how great poetic writing should be . . .
Did I say it was? No? Then why are you using this
straw man argument?
Post by Texas Max Kingthan I think most of us would agree,
we don't want to be great writers like you.
That you don't even want to learn to be a writer is at
the heart of this issue. As for "great"? Let us concentrate
on the fundamentals for now. Small steps, Max.
Post by Texas Max King(I even used a comma their to make you happy,
what a nice guy I am, huh?)
Hell, had you been capable of using "there" instead
of "their" I'd be doing cartwheels.
Post by Texas Max KingPost by Colin WardHow can you know what bad is until you've seen good?
Saddest part about your weak critique is that you failed to point
out to her where in the poem she actually made mistakes
The point of the critique, which you deftly missed,
was that the "poem" itself was a mistake.
Post by Texas Max Kingthat would
easily improve the poem. And her mistakes are not in her language,
or her imagery, or her lack of simile, or her lack of figurative filler . . .
it's a few basic grammatical and punctuation errors that are easily
fixed. Technicalities.
Do writers make such errors? No. And if you think
that the only thing wrong with Angel's glorified laundry
list is "a few basic grammatical and punctuation errors"
then you know even less about this art form than I think
you do.
Post by Texas Max KingThe meat of the poem is all right there.
...rotting and maggot infested.
Post by Texas Max KingBut with your eyes wide shut . . . well . . . you know the rest.
Again, kindly fuck off and go back to AAPC where they nurture
your kind of 'critique' (again I use the term loosely).
Both I and Gary Gamble have been here on RAP years
before you arrived and will likely be here decades after
you are gone.
Post by Texas Max King-Max (is it the French influences, maybe? rude little fuckers)
Why is it that the stupid are ALWAYS racist/xenophobic
as well?