Discussion:
repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
(too old to reply)
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 05:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Photograph: circa 1953



My grandfather holds me
on his lap; the open door
behind us is just a screen and,
I am only three, and I am
only wearing underwear:
I am pushing his rough
hands away from my
chest; I do not want
to take this photograph
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine,
and leftover orange soda
He does not talk to
me, but holds me
very still for the photo
And I do not
like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratching
my tender skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.


lm angel delsanto
october 27, 2003
repost
Colin Ward
2003-10-29 06:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: circa 1953
[boredom snip]

There really isn't a single poetic moment in this
rambling.

"What would make it poetry?" you might ask.

Well, consider for a moment these lines from Charles
Cornner's "Staring" (as recently posted to the Alsop Review)
on the exact same subject--a photograph of his grandfather:

...caught
expressionless, before smiles were
compulsory.

See 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.

His 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.

No such subtlety exists in this particular work
of yours, Angel. Nevertheless, this demonstrates why
novice poets such as yourself are well advised to READ
MORE POETRY. Doing so may make the point about the
sterility of your own work far better than any critic.
How can you know what bad is until you've seen good?


Best regards,

Colin
Texas Max King
2003-10-29 06:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Ward
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: 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 Ward
There 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 . . .
your little five and dime liners you call 'figurative imagery' poetry
are 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 and yours ain't it.
Am 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 Ward
Well, 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 . . . and I personally think the line
'before smiles were compulsory' is stuffy and forced.
Charles writes like Charles from Charles experiences
and Angel writes like Angel from Angel's experiences.
How hard is that for you nookies to understand?
Post by Colin Ward
See 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.
Post by Colin Ward
His 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.
The 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.
Post by Colin Ward
No 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.
Post by Colin Ward
Nevertheless, 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.
Post by Colin Ward
Doing 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 . . .
than I think most of us would agree,
we don't want to be great writers like you.

(I even used a comma their to make you happy,
what a nice guy I am, huh?)
Post by Colin Ward
How 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 that 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. The meat of the poem is all right there.
But 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).

-Max (is it the French influences, maybe? rude little fuckers)
Post by Colin Ward
Best regards,
Colin
Stuart Leichter
2003-10-29 07:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: 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 Ward
There 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 . . .
your little five and dime liners you call 'figurative imagery' poetry
are 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 and yours ain't it.
Am 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 Ward
Well, 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 . . . and I personally think the line
'before smiles were compulsory' is stuffy and forced.
Charles writes like Charles from Charles experiences
and Angel writes like Angel from Angel's experiences.
How hard is that for you nookies to understand?
Post by Colin Ward
See 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.
Post by Colin Ward
His 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.
The 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.
Post by Colin Ward
No 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.
Post by Colin Ward
Nevertheless, 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.
Post by Colin Ward
Doing 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 . . .
than I think most of us would agree,
we don't want to be great writers like you.
(I even used a comma their to make you happy,
what a nice guy I am, huh?)
Post by Colin Ward
How 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 that 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. The meat of the poem is all right there.
But 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).
-Max (is it the French influences, maybe? rude little fuckers)
Post by Colin Ward
Best regards,
Colin
Hey Max (is any of your names your real names?), Colin's crit has its
place, but it's far away. He should read more criticism, esp. the crits of
Angel's original post of this piece at

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.22178.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_uauthors%3Dlmdelsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
sheila miguez
2003-10-29 12:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Leichter
Hey Max (is any of your names your real names?), Colin's crit has its
place, but it's far away. He should read more criticism, esp. the crits of
Angel's original post of this piece at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.2217
8.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa
%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_
uauthors%3Dlmdelsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
for the url-wrapped challenged: http://tinyurl.com/su06

Most of the posts were accolades, not critique.
--
sheila
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 15:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Sheila. I was so proud because I did get those "accolades"


Angel
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 7:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Stuart Leichter
Hey Max (is any of your names your real names?), Colin's crit has its
place, but it's far away. He should read more criticism, esp. the crits of
Angel's original post of this piece at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.2217
8.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa
%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_
Post by Stuart Leichter
uauthors%3Dlmdelsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
for the url-wrapped challenged: http://tinyurl.com/su06
Most of the posts were accolades, not critique.
--
sheila
Stuart Leichter
2003-10-30 07:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Stuart Leichter
Hey Max (is any of your names your real names?), Colin's crit has its
place, but it's far away. He should read more criticism, esp. the crits of
Angel's original post of this piece at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.2217
8.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa
%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Stuart Leichter
uauthors%3Dlmdelsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
for the url-wrapped challenged: http://tinyurl.com/su06
Most of the posts were accolades, not critique.
--
sheila
Sheila--2003 MVP. I can't imagine anyone disputing it.
Julie
2003-10-29 12:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: 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 Ward
There 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 . . .
Post by Texas Max King
you have little room to talk . . .
your little five and dime liners you call 'figurative imagery' poetry
are 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 and yours ain't it.
Am 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 Ward
Well, 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 . . . and I personally think the line
'before smiles were compulsory' is stuffy and forced.
Charles writes like Charles from Charles experiences
and Angel writes like Angel from Angel's experiences.
How hard is that for you nookies to understand?
Post by Colin Ward
See 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.
Post by Colin Ward
His 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.
The 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.
Post by Colin Ward
No 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.
Post by Colin Ward
Nevertheless, 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.
Post by Colin Ward
Doing 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 . . .
than I think most of us would agree,
we don't want to be great writers like you.
(I even used a comma their to make you happy,
what a nice guy I am, huh?)
Post by Colin Ward
How 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 that 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 . . .
Post by Texas Max King
it's a few basic grammatical and punctuation errors that are easily
fixed. Technicalities. The meat of the poem is all right there.
But 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).
-Max (is it the French influences, maybe? rude little
fuckers)
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Best regards,
Colin
Hey Max (is any of your names your real names?), Colin's crit has its
place, but it's far away. He should read more criticism, esp. the crits of
Angel's original post of this piece at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.22178.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_uauthors%3Dlmdelsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
Thanks for posting the google search. It was real interesting to read THOSE
critiques which seemed to be mostly about the punctuation which Angel chooses
not change. <shrug>

-- Julie
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 15:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Julie. Again, I was very proud of composing that...

Angel
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 7:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: 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 Ward
There 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 . . .
Post by Texas Max King
you have little room to talk . . .
your little five and dime liners you call 'figurative imagery' poetry
are 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 and yours ain't it.
Am 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 Ward
Well, 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 . . . and I personally think the line
'before smiles were compulsory' is stuffy and forced.
Charles writes like Charles from Charles experiences
and Angel writes like Angel from Angel's experiences.
How hard is that for you nookies to understand?
Post by Colin Ward
See 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.
Post by Colin Ward
His 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.
The 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.
Post by Colin Ward
No 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.
Post by Colin Ward
Nevertheless, 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.
Post by Colin Ward
Doing 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 . . .
than I think most of us would agree,
we don't want to be great writers like you.
(I even used a comma their to make you happy,
what a nice guy I am, huh?)
Post by Colin Ward
How 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 that 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 . . .
Post by Texas Max King
it's a few basic grammatical and punctuation errors that are easily
fixed. Technicalities. The meat of the poem is all right there.
But 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).
-Max (is it the French influences, maybe? rude little
fuckers)
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Best regards,
Colin
Hey Max (is any of your names your real names?), Colin's crit has its
place, but it's far away. He should read more criticism, esp. the crits of
Angel's original post of this piece at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=2002032423385
5.22178.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph
%2520circa%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.ar
ts.poems%26as_uauthors%3Dlmd
elsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
Thanks for posting the google search. It was real interesting to read THOSE
critiques which seemed to be mostly about the punctuation which Angel chooses
not change. <shrug>
-- Julie
Stuart Leichter
2003-10-29 17:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Leichter
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.22178.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_uauthors%3Dlmdelsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
Thanks for posting the google search. It was real interesting to read THOSE
critiques which seemed to be mostly about the punctuation which Angel chooses
not change. <shrug>
-- Julie
She also chooses elsewhere not to spell mayonnaise right despite
reminders. I give her the benefit of the doubt and suppose she never got
the info with her aol reader/browser.
Julie
2003-10-29 19:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Leichter
Post by Stuart Leichter
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.22178.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_uauthors%3Dlmdelsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
Thanks for posting the google search. It was real interesting to read THOSE
critiques which seemed to be mostly about the punctuation which Angel chooses
not change. <shrug>
-- Julie
She also chooses elsewhere not to spell mayonnaise right despite
reminders. I give her the benefit of the doubt and suppose she never got
the info with her aol reader/browser.
Perhaps so, Stuart. Most people don't even take their OWN advice, let alone that
of someone else. The advice being, if you don't like what I type here, don't
read it -- or FOAD. :)

-- Julie
Peter J Ross
2003-10-29 21:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julie
Post by Stuart Leichter
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.22178.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_uauthors%3Dlmdelsanto%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
Thanks for posting the google search. It was real interesting to read THOSE
critiques which seemed to be mostly about the punctuation which Angel chooses
not change. <shrug>
I thought it was probably the best poem of Angel's I'd seen. For once,
her usual lack of poetic devices, together with her usual awkward
linebreaks, suited the theme perfectly. A very skilful writer would
have had to try hard to produce the same frighteningly naïve effect.

However, after being invited to "nit-pick", I received the following
sarcastic response:

"There. Now do you feel better? Was it good for you?
:)
Here, take a puff of my cigarette."

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020321203242.29990.00002532%40mb-cq.aol.com>

I learned from that thread that even the gentlest criticism makes
Angel's hackles rise, but unfortunately I forgot and subsequently
wasted more of my time, just as I've done with Kenny Chaffin and Tom
Bishop, among others. If I next start writing detailed critiques for
Ying or Sammy or Will, will somebody please slap me?
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Texas Max King
2003-10-30 03:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
"There. Now do you feel better? Was it good for you?
:)
Here, take a puff of my cigarette."
ROTFL

i love it!!!!
Texas Max King
2003-10-29 16:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Leichter
Hey Max (is any of your names your real names?), Colin's crit has its
place, but it's far away. He should read more criticism, esp. the crits of
Angel's original post of this piece at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20020324233855.22178.00000592%40mb-mk.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%
3Fas_epq%3Dphotograph%2520circa%25201953%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.arts.poems%26as_uauthors%3Dlmdel
santo%2540aol.com%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den

Max is the only name I've used here, Stuart. And thanks for pointing the link out to us.
It only proves I'm not alone in this universe or in my tastes in poetry.

-Max
Colin Ward
2003-10-29 08:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: 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 Ward
There 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 King
your 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 King
are 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. :(
Post by Texas Max King
and yours ain't it.
I never said it was. I can understand your need for
a distraction, though.
Post by Texas Max King
Am 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 Ward
Well, 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 King
and 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 King
Post by Colin Ward
See 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 King
Post by Colin Ward
His 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 King
The 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 King
Post by Colin Ward
No 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 King
Post by Colin Ward
Nevertheless, 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 King
Post by Colin Ward
Doing 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 King
than 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 King
Post by Colin Ward
How 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 King
that 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 King
The meat of the poem is all right there.
...rotting and maggot infested.
Post by Texas Max King
But 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?
Texas Max King
2003-10-29 16:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Ward
What does MY poetry have to do with this?
little or nothing. I enjoy Angels' poetry much more
than your dribble.
Post by Colin Ward
Once you learn
the difference between personal taste and intrinsic quality we
can discuss this further, Max.
. . . yes, and once you learn the differences
we might even have a discussion.
Post by Colin Ward
Hell, had you been capable of using "there" instead
of "their" I'd be doing cartwheels.
. . . how thoughtful of you.
Proofreading and diligently pointing them out.
there, their, your, you're sure to feel better sooner or later.
don't hurt yourself.
Post by Colin Ward
The point of the critique, which you deftly missed,
was that the "poem" itself was a mistake.
to you maybe, not to others.
so get off your high horse and ride on . . .
Post by Colin Ward
Both I and Gary Gamble have been here on RAP years
before you arrived and will likely be here decades after
you are gone.
being here once and contributing recently
are mutually exclusive.
Gary came back to play with chuckies
pee pee . . . what's your excuse?
Colin Ward
2003-10-29 18:02:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:22:37 GMT, r.a.p.'s resident MaxiPad,
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
What does MY poetry have to do with this?
little or nothing.
Then why did you bring it up? Oh, I know. Because
you really DON'T know the difference between WRITING and
CRITIQUING poetry. Let us know if/when you figure it out,
Max. If you ever do (hey, I can dream, can't I?), try
your hand at critiquing this work:

===================================

He mentioned past glories
(draculan leaders) and a stillborn
future shrouded
in bread line banners.

There is no word
for the present
tense of "to be"
in Russian.

==================================

In order to preserve the integrity of this test, I won't
identify the author or the title (which might make the author's
identity a dead giveaway). No need for me to insist that you
not Google it, Max; given your inability to access any of Gary
Gamble's copious works, it is obvious that Googling, too, is
beyond your abilities.

Best of luck in learning about grammar, spelling, syntax,
punctuation and all those other "advanced" (for you) but "trivial"
(to you) aspects of writing, Max.

the other Colin
Peter J Ross
2003-10-29 22:28:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:02:30 -0600, Colin Ward wrote in
Post by Colin Ward
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:22:37 GMT, r.a.p.'s resident MaxiPad,
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
What does MY poetry have to do with this?
little or nothing.
Then why did you bring it up? Oh, I know. Because
you really DON'T know the difference between WRITING and
CRITIQUING poetry. Let us know if/when you figure it out,
Max. If you ever do (hey, I can dream, can't I?), try
===================================
He mentioned past glories
(draculan leaders) and a stillborn
future shrouded
in bread line banners.
There is no word
for the present
tense of "to be"
in Russian.
I'll play the critique game. I'm going to leave a big blank space
here, in case Max reads my comments by accident.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
Post by Colin Ward
He mentioned past glories
"Past glories" is a cliché.

"Mentioned" is a big word where a little word would do.
Post by Colin Ward
(draculan leaders) and a stillborn
The adjective "draculan" seems slightly clumsy to me. It's correctly
formed - like Sullan from Sulla or Agrippan from Agrippa - but those
two look odd too, and are rarely used except by the most unpoetical of
scholars. And the parenthesis seems pointless: why thus subordinate a
striking image when it could simply be part of the list? Besides, the
first line and a half clearly refer to the book _Dracula_ (where
Dracula *does* talk about his glorious career as a military leader,
and is vaguely identified with Vlad Drakul), and then the image is
just dropped.
Post by Colin Ward
future shrouded
"Future shrouded in [whatever]" is clichéd, almost like a politician's
evasion. "Stillborn" and "shrouded" might go well together to make an
image if the big abstraction didn't spoil both of them. But why not a
simple word like "wrapped" or a more military one like "furled"?
Post by Colin Ward
in bread line banners.
OK. Needs a hyphen.
Post by Colin Ward
There is no word
for the present
tense of "to be"
in Russian.
These four lines consist of uneconomical prose, and Dracula was
Wallachian, not Russian. Since the only way of making the poem
coherent is by finding at least an oblique reference to the beginning
in the end, "Russian" needs to be changed to something accurate.

This would in any case be far more powerful without the last line: the
reader would have to *think* instead of just being told a curious
fact.

I like line four. I like what I guess might have been the author's
intention.

I'd suggest it might have been written by Auden on a bad day if it had
a more regular shape. The shape and the sudden transitions suggest
Geoffrey Hill, but I can't imagine him writing anything as empty as
the last four lines. Anyway, it isn't in Google, so you'll have to
tell me which famous poet I'm committing lèse-majesté against this
time.

Instant rewrite to illustrate the above points:

Dracula
-------

He speaks of glory,
Slavonic crusades,
past and future
stillborn, wrapped
in bread-line banners.
He has no present
tense of "to be".

But that's just what *I'd* do with the material, and I'd still call it
a rough draft.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Texas Max King
2003-10-30 03:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
I'll play the critique game. I'm going to leave a big blank space
here, in case Max reads my comments by accident.
I'll leave a big blank space here and pretend I didn't.

-

-


-


-


-


-


-


-



-



-



-



-



-
y***@yahoo.com
2003-10-30 05:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:02:30 -0600, Colin Ward wrote in
Post by Colin Ward
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:22:37 GMT, r.a.p.'s resident MaxiPad,
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
What does MY poetry have to do with this?
little or nothing.
Then why did you bring it up? Oh, I know. Because
you really DON'T know the difference between WRITING and
CRITIQUING poetry. Let us know if/when you figure it out,
Max. If you ever do (hey, I can dream, can't I?), try
===================================
He mentioned past glories
(draculan leaders) and a stillborn
future shrouded
in bread line banners.
There is no word
for the present
tense of "to be"
in Russian.
I'll play the critique game. I'm going to leave a big blank space
here, in case Max reads my comments by accident.
Let me fill in the blank with one of your poem-rewrite

hide your mouth cover you teeth
grey and kooked, like a vampaire
you'll soon be dead, babe, move to GGGrave
help feed the trees and grass
worms n snails awhile rotten and
frees your smelle

like plasticsurgeries fooling people
so sure there's enough hair to cover
you know that shapeless cheeks worth
and you will not
and you will not let
and you will not let others
and you will not let others see
your ulgy ass

do you like that? c&c please

ying
Post by Peter J Ross
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Post by Colin Ward
He mentioned past glories
"Past glories" is a cliché.
"Mentioned" is a big word where a little word would do.
Post by Colin Ward
(draculan leaders) and a stillborn
The adjective "draculan" seems slightly clumsy to me. It's correctly
formed - like Sullan from Sulla or Agrippan from Agrippa - but those
two look odd too, and are rarely used except by the most unpoetical of
scholars. And the parenthesis seems pointless: why thus subordinate a
striking image when it could simply be part of the list? Besides, the
first line and a half clearly refer to the book _Dracula_ (where
Dracula *does* talk about his glorious career as a military leader,
and is vaguely identified with Vlad Drakul), and then the image is
just dropped.
Post by Colin Ward
future shrouded
"Future shrouded in [whatever]" is clichéd, almost like a politician's
evasion. "Stillborn" and "shrouded" might go well together to make an
image if the big abstraction didn't spoil both of them. But why not a
simple word like "wrapped" or a more military one like "furled"?
Post by Colin Ward
in bread line banners.
OK. Needs a hyphen.
Post by Colin Ward
There is no word
for the present
tense of "to be"
in Russian.
These four lines consist of uneconomical prose, and Dracula was
Wallachian, not Russian. Since the only way of making the poem
coherent is by finding at least an oblique reference to the beginning
in the end, "Russian" needs to be changed to something accurate.
This would in any case be far more powerful without the last line: the
reader would have to *think* instead of just being told a curious
fact.
I like line four. I like what I guess might have been the author's
intention.
I'd suggest it might have been written by Auden on a bad day if it had
a more regular shape. The shape and the sudden transitions suggest
Geoffrey Hill, but I can't imagine him writing anything as empty as
the last four lines. Anyway, it isn't in Google, so you'll have to
tell me which famous poet I'm committing lèse-majesté against this
time.
Dracula
-------
He speaks of glory,
Slavonic crusades,
past and future
stillborn, wrapped
in bread-line banners.
He has no present
tense of "to be".
But that's just what *I'd* do with the material, and I'd still call it
a rough draft.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
ggamble
2003-10-30 05:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@yahoo.com
Let me fill in the blank with one of your poem-rewrite
hide your mouth cover you teeth
grey and kooked, like a vampaire
you'll soon be dead, babe, move to GGGrave
help feed the trees and grass
worms n snails awhile rotten and
frees your smelle
like plasticsurgeries fooling people
so sure there's enough hair to cover
you know that shapeless cheeks worth
and you will not
and you will not let
and you will not let others
and you will not let others see
your ulgy ass
do you like that? c&c please
ying
Ok, so I'm not the only one to get a bottle of absinthe in the mail
yesterday. Whoa.


""Seek and you shall find" whatever it is you are looking for and most
often than not you will normally see in the other person they kind of
person you personally are."
Tony De Vito
Peter J Ross
2003-10-30 08:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ggamble
Post by y***@yahoo.com
Let me fill in the blank with one of your poem-rewrite
hide your mouth cover you teeth
grey and kooked, like a vampaire
you'll soon be dead, babe, move to GGGrave
help feed the trees and grass
worms n snails awhile rotten and
frees your smelle
like plasticsurgeries fooling people
so sure there's enough hair to cover
you know that shapeless cheeks worth
and you will not
and you will not let
and you will not let others
and you will not let others see
your ulgy ass
do you like that? c&c please
ying
Ok, so I'm not the only one to get a bottle of absinthe in the mail
yesterday. Whoa.
Stirring opium-weighted black into it might not have been a good idea.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
y***@yahoo.com
2003-11-01 02:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by ggamble
Post by y***@yahoo.com
Let me fill in the blank with one of your poem-rewrite
hide your mouth cover you teeth
grey and kooked, like a vampaire
you'll soon be dead, babe, move to GGGrave
help feed the trees and grass
worms n snails awhile rotten and
frees your smelle
like plasticsurgeries fooling people
so sure there's enough hair to cover
you know that shapeless cheeks worth
and you will not
and you will not let
and you will not let others
and you will not let others see
your ulgy ass
do you like that? c&c please
ying
Ok, so I'm not the only one to get a bottle of absinthe in the mail
yesterday. Whoa.
cheers
Post by Peter J Ross
Stirring opium-weighted black into it might not have been a good idea.
pjr, this sounded humorous. but you think that's a good argument too?

ying
Post by Peter J Ross
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Stuart Leichter
2003-10-31 02:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@yahoo.com
Post by Peter J Ross
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:02:30 -0600, Colin Ward wrote in
Post by Colin Ward
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:22:37 GMT, r.a.p.'s resident MaxiPad,
do you like that? c&c please
Found sig on some ng:

Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
Colin Ward
2003-11-07 18:33:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:28:48 GMT, Peter J Ross
Post by Peter J Ross
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:02:30 -0600, Colin Ward wrote in
Post by Colin Ward
===================================
He mentioned past glories
(draculan leaders) and a stillborn
future shrouded
in bread line banners.
There is no word
for the present
tense of "to be"
in Russian.
I'll play the critique game. I'm going to leave a big blank space
here, in case Max reads my comments by accident.
Post by Colin Ward
He mentioned past glories
"Past glories" is a cliché.
"Mentioned" is a big word where a little word would do.
Post by Colin Ward
(draculan leaders) and a stillborn
The adjective "draculan" seems slightly clumsy to me. It's correctly
formed - like Sullan from Sulla or Agrippan from Agrippa - but those
two look odd too, and are rarely used except by the most unpoetical of
scholars. And the parenthesis seems pointless: why thus subordinate a
striking image when it could simply be part of the list? Besides, the
first line and a half clearly refer to the book _Dracula_ (where
Dracula *does* talk about his glorious career as a military leader,
and is vaguely identified with Vlad Drakul), and then the image is
just dropped.
Post by Colin Ward
future shrouded
"Future shrouded in [whatever]" is clichéd, almost like a politician's
evasion. "Stillborn" and "shrouded" might go well together to make an
image if the big abstraction didn't spoil both of them. But why not a
simple word like "wrapped" or a more military one like "furled"?
Post by Colin Ward
in bread line banners.
OK. Needs a hyphen.
Post by Colin Ward
There is no word
for the present
tense of "to be"
in Russian.
These four lines consist of uneconomical prose, and Dracula was
Wallachian, not Russian. Since the only way of making the poem
coherent is by finding at least an oblique reference to the beginning
in the end, "Russian" needs to be changed to something accurate.
This would in any case be far more powerful without the last line: the
reader would have to *think* instead of just being told a curious
fact.
I like line four. I like what I guess might have been the author's
intention.
I'd suggest it might have been written by Auden on a bad day if it had
a more regular shape. The shape and the sudden transitions suggest
Geoffrey Hill, but I can't imagine him writing anything as empty as
the last four lines. Anyway, it isn't in Google, so you'll have to
tell me which famous poet I'm committing lèse-majesté against this
time.
Dracula
-------
He speaks of glory,
Slavonic crusades,
past and future
stillborn, wrapped
in bread-line banners.
He has no present
tense of "to be".
But that's just what *I'd* do with the material, and I'd still call it
a rough draft.
An excellent critique, Peter. And, yes, it was a first
draft which, IIRC, the poet wrote on a napkin at a restaurant.
One of the points that I was attempting to make is that poetry
*usually* isn't written in five minutes, nor are three of them
written in a day or a week. As the story goes, weeks later--yes,
Max, *weeks later*--the same poet produced a second (but not
final) draft. At the risk of revealing the identity of the
author (it not always being polite to look over a painter's
shoulder before the work is done) I will include the title this
time. C&C would be interesting.


Come-Cometas
************

The gloried past:
draculan dragoons,
blood energy sucked
into gaol drains.

Eyes leaking starfire,
he shills a stillborn
future enshrouded
in bread line banners.

While Spanish has two,
no word exists for the present
tense of "to be"
in Russian.

===========================================================

And, no, the correct answer is not "Charles Shultz". :)
Texas Max King
2003-11-08 05:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Ward
One of the points that I was attempting to make is that poetry
*usually* isn't written in five minutes, nor are three of them
written in a day or a week.
The three poems I wrote which you refer to were written
in 2001.
I like to write a poem in one sitting. Which does not mean I think it is perfect.
And it does not mean I write in two minutes. I'll grapple with a poem
for hours or days or weeks sometimes. But I always get to a point where I set it
aside for review and revision later on. Sometimes I'll post it to RAP,
even if I'm not happy with it. Later . . . sometimes a week, sometimes
years, I'll go back and refine it once again with a fresh outlook on it.
Then I might repost it to RAP again. In the case of the three poems
I posted earlier this week, and most of the poems I have posted in the
past few weeks, this is the case. They are revisions of poems I wrote
years earlier. And I'll probably work on them some more and
maybe even repost them again a year from now.
I have 'hot spells' where I write many poems in a short time
(the last time was 1998, 'Summer Songs'). Other times I will go
weeks without writing a poem because there is nothing inspiring me
or I don't find anything I want to write about.
I have no control of the Muse.
Post by Colin Ward
As the story goes, weeks later--yes,
Max, *weeks later*--the same poet produced a second (but not
final) draft.
Why would you think I find this 'unusual'?

You know Colin, sometimes I think you and Gary
are pissing in my cheerios because you have nothing better
to do and you can't find another scapegoat.
I just happen to be one of the poets here posting my work,
so I am an easy target.
But that's OK, I am an easy going dude and I have
always been able to accept societies shortcomings . . .
although I most always don't sit back and do nothing.
My only advice is, that any or all of you would do better
by discussing poetic topics 'with others' here instead of
trying to instigate against the grain as you are so accustomed to in AAPC.
It's a different group, Colin. We don't have the same dynamics.
Although criticism is welcomed, it is does not have the same
regulatory mandate that it does in AAPC. I personally feel
we are much more open to discussions here (but again
this is only my opinion). I also feel we are more open to
poems here that do not necessarily abide by strict literary standards.
I know you will misinterpret that last line to mean
'we can post shit here and it doesn't matter'. That's not it.
AAPC has strict standards on what they consider a 'poem'.
We are much more flexible to poems that may seem experimental
or different or not really great but possessing some hope for the
writer. Again I'm sure you'll take this the wrong way . . . so I'm not
sure why I'm wasting my time on you. I'm also sure you and
your cohorts will find plenty of material to insult my ideas
and opinions. But again that's OK . . . because I'm not
defending anything or anyone. I am merely stating opinions that
I am on record here presenting throughout the years.
And I also know I am not the only writer that feels this way
(beyond Marg and Angel), so I don't think I'm stating anything that
would be considered novel.
They are opinions I have about writing and as such are open
to discussion. If this is the case, then I am willing to discuss.
But if your intentions are merely to mock my writings and opinions,
then I'm afraid I will have to treat you as I would anyone else
who insists on playing games and being the class clown
at the expense of others. Your choice.

-Max

Texas Max King
2003-10-30 03:17:22 UTC
Permalink
let's not and say we did, eh?
Peter J Ross
2003-11-01 12:56:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:17:22 GMT, Texas Max King wrote in
Post by Texas Max King
let's not and say we did, eh?
How predictable.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Stuart Leichter
2003-10-29 16:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Ward
Both I and Gary Gamble have been here on RAP years
before you arrived and will likely be here decades after
you are gone.
I never professed good. Fact is, I wouldn't be here if I was any good.
Bad Marxism, those. Groucho said (this school) was here long before you
got here, and it will be here long before you leave, and, I'd never belong
to a club that would accept me as a member.
pandora
2003-10-29 17:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Saddest part about your weak critique is that you failed to point
out to her where in the poem she actually made mistakes that 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. The meat of the poem is all right there.
But with your eyes wide shut . . . well . . . you know the rest.
What these *poseurs* don't understand is that critique should *help* a poet,
not merely be an opportunity to condemn them.
Post by Texas Max King
Again, kindly fuck off and go back to AAPC where they nurture
your kind of 'critique' (again I use the term loosely).
:-) It isn't critique in any way/shape/form that I'm aware of. It's merely
insults and attempts to demean. I say, if they don't like what is posted,
don't read it or go somewhere (aapc) where they are appreciated, apparently.
Post by Texas Max King
-Max (is it the French influences, maybe? rude little fuckers)
Don't blame gary's behavior on the French. Even *they* wouldn't have him.

Marg
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Best regards,
Colin
Texas Max King
2003-10-30 03:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
:-) It isn't critique in any way/shape/form that I'm aware of. It's merely
insults and attempts to demean. I say, if they don't like what is posted,
don't read it or go somewhere (aapc) where they are appreciated, apparently.
no, it isn't really critique, you're right.
fact is, I called both Gary and Colin on their
cheap shots and they didn't like it. So they rant on
about my ideas on emotions and my poems.
It's no different than any other juvenile whine.

Gary has so far compared me to chuckie, Kenny,
Sharon and a few I don't even remember.
They've both thrown postpoems.com and
National Library of Poetry at me.
They've called me an amateur, a beginner, a novice . . .
they've slammed me for my speeling, my punkchewashun,
my sintax, my grammar, my rhyme, my meter, my abstractions,
my cliches, my inversions, my subject matter, language, etc., etc.

Making me out to be a really 'bad guy' here on RAP . . .
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
Even though I am legendary in some parts, these guys
are doing a great job of expanding on my fame and reputation.

So to cover their asses . . . they begin to list all the 'great'
poets of RAP past (they jumped on a reply I made to Renay
and JR when they mentioned Robert Maughan).
The thing about RM was that he'd tell you straight out that
you were a fucking asshole and he'd set you straight in short time.
Most of us are a little more polite and patient and
that may be to our detriment.
Neither Gary, nor Colin, nor Peter, nor Dennis
intimidate me. I have my personal opinons of them
as they do of me . . . and c'est la vie.

I'll continue writing and posting and they can continue
their slams. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

-Max
ggamble
2003-10-30 04:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Post by pandora
:-) It isn't critique in any way/shape/form that I'm aware of. It's merely
insults and attempts to demean. I say, if they don't like what is posted,
don't read it or go somewhere (aapc) where they are appreciated, apparently.
no, it isn't really critique, you're right.
fact is, I called both Gary and Colin on their
cheap shots and they didn't like it. So they rant on
about my ideas on emotions and my poems.
It's no different than any other juvenile whine.
Gary has so far compared me to chuckie, Kenny,
Sharon and a few I don't even remember.
They've both thrown postpoems.com and
National Library of Poetry at me.
They've called me an amateur, a beginner, a novice . . .
they've slammed me for my speeling, my punkchewashun,
my sintax, my grammar, my rhyme, my meter, my abstractions,
my cliches, my inversions, my subject matter, language, etc., etc.
You should thank us.

If you didn't write like a novice, I wouldn't assume you were one.
Post by Texas Max King
Making me out to be a really 'bad guy' here on RAP . . .
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
Even though I am legendary in some parts, these guys
are doing a great job of expanding on my fame and reputation.
It appears as if you are prone to chuckles-like flights of delusion.


llusions you say?
Yes, I guess to you my Jesus Christ qualities
are an illusion.
~Sharon McElroy~
pandora
2003-10-30 07:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Post by pandora
:-) It isn't critique in any way/shape/form that I'm aware of. It's merely
insults and attempts to demean. I say, if they don't like what is posted,
don't read it or go somewhere (aapc) where they are appreciated, apparently.
no, it isn't really critique, you're right.
Thank you! I know that I am now and then. :-)
Post by Texas Max King
fact is, I called both Gary and Colin on their
cheap shots and they didn't like it. So they rant on
about my ideas on emotions and my poems.
If writing poetry isn't an *emotion*, then I don't know what it is. They
are merely reaching in order to insult and not doing a very good job of it.
Post by Texas Max King
It's no different than any other juvenile whine.
Agreed.
Post by Texas Max King
Gary has so far compared me to chuckie, Kenny,
Sharon and a few I don't even remember.
They've both thrown postpoems.com and
National Library of Poetry at me.
They've called me an amateur, a beginner, a novice . . .
they've slammed me for my speeling, my punkchewashun,
my sintax, my grammar, my rhyme, my meter, my abstractions,
my cliches, my inversions, my subject matter, language, etc., etc.
Making me out to be a really 'bad guy' here on RAP . . .
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
I think so too. They wish to be the arbiters of what is a poem. They're
wrong but they aren't even smart enough to realize that.
Post by Texas Max King
Even though I am legendary in some parts, these guys
are doing a great job of expanding on my fame and reputation.
So to cover their asses . . . they begin to list all the 'great'
poets of RAP past
There have been many *great* poets on rap. They aren't here now. It's too
bad that they don't appreciate the ones who are here. Oh well.

(they jumped on a reply I made to Renay
Post by Texas Max King
and JR when they mentioned Robert Maughan).
The thing about RM was that he'd tell you straight out that
you were a fucking asshole and he'd set you straight in short time.
That's for sure.
Post by Texas Max King
Most of us are a little more polite and patient and
that may be to our detriment.
I don't think so. I think that everyone who posts deserves a modicum of
courtesy. If you hate their poetry, shut up. If you think it has some
promise, make your comments but it's only of some value if the comments are
of a constructive nature. Telling someone they are lousy poets isn't worth
anything, IMO. Unless, of course, one wishes to chase them away.
Post by Texas Max King
Neither Gary, nor Colin, nor Peter, nor Dennis
intimidate me. I have my personal opinons of them
as they do of me . . . and c'est la vie.
I'm not about to be chased away. I considered leaving rap but changed my
mind. RAP is what we make of it and we can make it worthwhile in spite of
those you mention.
Post by Texas Max King
I'll continue writing and posting and they can continue
their slams. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
I agree.

Marg
Post by Texas Max King
-Max
ggamble
2003-10-30 14:54:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:25:05 -0800, "pandora" <***@peak.org>
wrote:


"If writing poetry isn't an *emotion*, then I don't know what it is."

Marg/pandora,
finally admitting
what we knew all along.


"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."

Texas Max King,
attempting to express something
but betraying a monumental ignorance instead

llusions you say?
Yes, I guess to you my Jesus Christ qualities
are an illusion.
~Sharon McElroy~
sheila miguez
2003-10-30 13:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
--
sheila
sheila miguez
2003-10-30 14:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).

Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?

'Most' of Gary's critiques are good. His comment about not taking an
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on. He didn't
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.

Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)

Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")

Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?

Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.

Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
Stuart Leichter
2003-10-30 17:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good. His comment about not taking an
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on. He didn't
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
But the MVP nomination for 2003 was and is sincere, irrevocable and googly
immutable.
pandora
2003-10-30 17:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good.
In YOUR opinion, of course. However, he hasn't made brutal comments about
your work (and now, probably never will.)

His comment about not taking an
Post by sheila miguez
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on.
Thank you for your opinion. You ARE entitled to that. However, just as you
are able to agree with gary's brutishness, so are others able to disagree
with it.

Marg

He didn't
Post by sheila miguez
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
Stuart Leichter
2003-10-30 19:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good.
In YOUR opinion, of course. However, he hasn't made brutal comments about
your work (and now, probably never will.)
His comment about not taking an
Post by sheila miguez
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on.
Thank you for your opinion. You ARE entitled to that. However, just as you
are able to agree with gary's brutishness, so are others able to disagree
with it.
Marg
He didn't
Post by sheila miguez
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
A lot of crit is anachronism, text-based and paper-scarce based, when
publishing also meant worthwhile. A lot of crit is priestly & academic
about keys to the kingdom. Writers discover who's valuable, sometimes even
egos do too. As a stage medium, iambic pentameter made sense and money in
its day. But it won't fit on my mp3 player's screen and make sense. And an
mp3 is already metaphor, intuitively grasped. The title of this poem is
line breaks if you wondered.
y***@yahoo.com
2003-10-31 02:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Leichter
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good.
In YOUR opinion, of course. However, he hasn't made brutal comments about
your work (and now, probably never will.)
His comment about not taking an
Post by sheila miguez
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on.
Thank you for your opinion. You ARE entitled to that. However, just as you
are able to agree with gary's brutishness, so are others able to disagree
with it.
Marg
He didn't
Post by sheila miguez
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
A lot of crit is anachronism, text-based and paper-scarce based, when
publishing also meant worthwhile. A lot of crit is priestly & academic
about keys to the kingdom. Writers discover who's valuable, sometimes even
egos do too. As a stage medium, iambic pentameter made sense and money in
its day. But it won't fit on my mp3 player's screen and make sense. And an
mp3 is already metaphor, intuitively grasped. The title of this poem is
line breaks if you wondered.
have you tried wma in 384kpbs stream?

ying
Colin Ward
2003-10-30 19:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good.
In YOUR opinion, of course. However, he hasn't made brutal comments about
your work (and now, probably never will.)
Has it ever occurred to you, Marg, that this just
*might* be because Sheila is a better poet than you are?

Now, I know that you and some others are currently
suffering from the delusion that there is no such thing
as "better"; that this is all merely a matter of personal
taste. This would mean that you consider MY work--or yours
or those found on the Pink Palace of Poetitude--on a par
with Shakespeare's, Cohen's, de Lorca's, Yeats', Keats'
and/or Frost's.

Ahem. Well, while I am flattered by this comparison,
I must state in no uncertain terms that there is a WORLD
of difference between my works (or yours) and those of
the greats. It's true! And, no, this isn't false modesty!
There really IS a difference! What is more, this difference
is tangible, palpable, obvious AND demonstrable.

But don't take my word for this. Feel free to take my
best work (or yours) and compare it to ANY of the greats'
WORST works and those here will be more than pleased to show
you the qualitative difference. Free of charge, no less!
Now, where will you get a better offer than THAT?

Incidentally, and for what it is worth, Gary HAS
savaged a number of my works--and FAR worse than his
treatment of yours. Did I whine, troll and carry on
like a ignorant newbie? Actually, yes, I did, but in
my own defence I'd like to point out two things:

1. I *was* an ignorant newbie at the time!

2. I got over it.

Given that you cannot offer #1 as an excuse, I'd
suggest that you pay particular attention to #2. We
have enough Will Dockerys, Chuck Lysahts and Texas Maxs
(your new friends--fine company you are keeping!) here.
We really don't need to create more of them by converting
previously respected regulars into them. Have you at
least noticed that J.R. Sherman hasn't sported his Gold
Star since your meltdown? Gone the way of the Iron Cross,
I suppose. :(

In short, "your pain has no credentials here", Marg.

But wouldn't you secretly LOVE to create a poem which
would silence your critics? If so, wouldn't this be better
achieved by practicing your craft than attacking those who
take the time to point out its current deficiencies? Or
worrying about how gaudy the wrapper around that gift is?

On the other hand, if improvement is not your goal,
why are you here? To hear a refugee from www.postpoems.com
tell you how "moving" your work is?

Oh, and in case you missed it, Gary and PJR still
haven't exactly raved about any of my works. But they
HAVE taught this thickheaded amateur the most fundamental
rule of poetry and critique: Just as the "customer is
always right", in poetry the READER (a qualification
which excludes only the subliterate, such as Tom Bishop)
is ALWAYS RIGHT. Period. Until one understands and
embraces this very simple and fundamental precept one
simply cannot hope to improve, Marg.


Best regards,

the other Colin
Texas Max King
2003-10-31 03:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Ward
Has it ever occurred to you, Marg, that this just
*might* be because Sheila is a better poet than you are?
Judgment is folly.
Post by Colin Ward
Now, I know that you and some others are currently
suffering from the delusion that there is no such thing
as "better"; that this is all merely a matter of personal
taste. This would mean that you consider MY work--or yours
or those found on the Pink Palace of Poetitude--on a par
with Shakespeare's, Cohen's, de Lorca's, Yeats', Keats'
and/or Frost's.
you're still lost. Are you referring to individual works or
a comprehensive evaluation? On the individual scale,
some are, some are not. On the comprehensive scale,
yes, all of the revered writers of the past were much
better than you and most of us.
Post by Colin Ward
Ahem. Well, while I am flattered by this comparison,
I must state in no uncertain terms that there is a WORLD
of difference between my works (or yours) and those of
the greats. It's true! And, no, this isn't false modesty!
There really IS a difference! What is more, this difference
is tangible, palpable, obvious AND demonstrable.
brilliant deduction, Watson.
Post by Colin Ward
But don't take my word for this. Feel free to take my
best work (or yours) and compare it to ANY of the greats'
WORST works and those here will be more than pleased to show
you the qualitative difference. Free of charge, no less!
Now, where will you get a better offer than THAT?
. . . from that guy selling timeshares in Iraq, for sure.
Post by Colin Ward
Incidentally, and for what it is worth, Gary HAS
savaged a number of my works--and FAR worse than his
treatment of yours. Did I whine, troll and carry on
like a ignorant newbie? Actually, yes, I did, but in
1. I *was* an ignorant newbie at the time!
my assumption here is that you've matured, literally.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Post by Colin Ward
2. I got over it.
we've noticed.
Post by Colin Ward
Given that you cannot offer #1 as an excuse, I'd
suggest that you pay particular attention to #2. We
have enough Will Dockerys, Chuck Lysahts and Texas Maxs
(your new friends--fine company you are keeping!) here.
Whoa, the new Hall of Fame . . .
hear that Chuckle and Will?
You guys should be proud to be in my company.
Line up for roll call sharp at 0600 hours . . .
first assignment how not to steal poetry or write
sappy crap. I'll have you two in shape in no time at all.
You'll both be writing like Billy Shakespeare in a weeks time.
Make sure and send the check.
Post by Colin Ward
We really don't need to create more of them by converting
previously respected regulars into them.
baiting for converts now, eh? I knew you
reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition for some reason.
Post by Colin Ward
Have you at least noticed that J.R. Sherman hasn't sported his Gold
Star since your meltdown? Gone the way of the Iron Cross,
I suppose. :(
In short, "your pain has no credentials here", Marg.
yes it does, her pain has much more credence than your callousness
or your credibility or your sincerity, for that matter . . .
at least with me. I only speak for myself.
Post by Colin Ward
But wouldn't you secretly LOVE to create a poem which
would silence your critics? If so, wouldn't this be better
achieved by practicing your craft than attacking those who
take the time to point out its current deficiencies? Or
worrying about how gaudy the wrapper around that gift is?
I really worry about gaudy wrappers, though.
Sometimes the gaudy wrapping makes me puke and
I don't even want to know what's inside.
Post by Colin Ward
On the other hand, if improvement is not your goal,
why are you here? To hear a refugee from www.postpoems.com
tell you how "moving" your work is?
Instead of pontificating the strengths of postpoems
and N L of poetry, where millions of poor wannabe poems
loose their spirit from those that care little about them or
their poetry . . . here's a link that will actually be 'helpful' . . . .

http://www.poetrymagic.co.uk

unlike your one-sided approach to poetry, it can provide
valuable advice from all sides and will also enlighten
on differing styles and methods of critique.
Highly recommended.
Post by Colin Ward
Oh, and in case you missed it, Gary and PJR still
haven't exactly raved about any of my works. But they
HAVE taught this thickheaded amateur the most fundamental
rule of poetry and critique: Just as the "customer is
always right", in poetry the READER (a qualification
which excludes only the subliterate, such as Tom Bishop)
is ALWAYS RIGHT. Period. Until one understands and
embraces this very simple and fundamental precept one
simply cannot hope to improve, Marg.
Unfortunately, Colin, I also disagree with this notion that in poetry the
reader is always right. It all depends on who you are writing for.
If you write for the reader, well fine, but as Abe said ' you can please some
your readers some of the time, but you can't please all of your readers
all of the time'. So this kinda pisses your theory down the tubes in one stroke.
If you write for yourself (as I do) and for your personal enjoyment,
and consider the reader either an extension of self or an ever-changing
and unpredictable extension of the writing . . . then again your
'please the reader at all costs' is full of big elephant sized holes.

Be confident, but not assured.

-Max
Post by Colin Ward
Best regards,
the other Colin
pandora
2003-10-31 09:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Has it ever occurred to you, Marg, that this just
*might* be because Sheila is a better poet than you are?
Judgment is folly.
Post by Colin Ward
Now, I know that you and some others are currently
suffering from the delusion that there is no such thing
as "better"; that this is all merely a matter of personal
taste. This would mean that you consider MY work--or yours
or those found on the Pink Palace of Poetitude--on a par
with Shakespeare's, Cohen's, de Lorca's, Yeats', Keats'
and/or Frost's.
you're still lost. Are you referring to individual works or
a comprehensive evaluation? On the individual scale,
some are, some are not. On the comprehensive scale,
yes, all of the revered writers of the past were much
better than you and most of us.
Post by Colin Ward
Ahem. Well, while I am flattered by this comparison,
I must state in no uncertain terms that there is a WORLD
of difference between my works (or yours) and those of
the greats. It's true! And, no, this isn't false modesty!
There really IS a difference! What is more, this difference
is tangible, palpable, obvious AND demonstrable.
brilliant deduction, Watson.
Post by Colin Ward
But don't take my word for this. Feel free to take my
best work (or yours) and compare it to ANY of the greats'
WORST works and those here will be more than pleased to show
you the qualitative difference. Free of charge, no less!
Now, where will you get a better offer than THAT?
. . . from that guy selling timeshares in Iraq, for sure.
Post by Colin Ward
Incidentally, and for what it is worth, Gary HAS
savaged a number of my works--and FAR worse than his
treatment of yours. Did I whine, troll and carry on
like a ignorant newbie? Actually, yes, I did, but in
1. I *was* an ignorant newbie at the time!
my assumption here is that you've matured, literally.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Post by Colin Ward
2. I got over it.
we've noticed.
Post by Colin Ward
Given that you cannot offer #1 as an excuse, I'd
suggest that you pay particular attention to #2. We
have enough Will Dockerys, Chuck Lysahts and Texas Maxs
(your new friends--fine company you are keeping!) here.
Whoa, the new Hall of Fame . . .
hear that Chuckle and Will?
You guys should be proud to be in my company.
And mine, I guess. I'm glad that I killfiled Colin as I didn't really wish
to see this crap he's written. Talk about a pompous arrogant asshole.
Post by Texas Max King
Line up for roll call sharp at 0600 hours . . .
first assignment how not to steal poetry or write
sappy crap. I'll have you two in shape in no time at all.
I guess now Colin is accusing me not only of bad writing but of stealing the
poetry of others as well. Oh well, one makes friends where one finds them.

Marg
Post by Texas Max King
You'll both be writing like Billy Shakespeare in a weeks time.
Make sure and send the check.
Post by Colin Ward
We really don't need to create more of them by converting
previously respected regulars into them.
baiting for converts now, eh? I knew you
reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition for some reason.
Post by Colin Ward
Have you at least noticed that J.R. Sherman hasn't sported his Gold
Star since your meltdown? Gone the way of the Iron Cross,
I suppose. :(
In short, "your pain has no credentials here", Marg.
yes it does, her pain has much more credence than your callousness
or your credibility or your sincerity, for that matter . . .
at least with me. I only speak for myself.
Post by Colin Ward
But wouldn't you secretly LOVE to create a poem which
would silence your critics? If so, wouldn't this be better
achieved by practicing your craft than attacking those who
take the time to point out its current deficiencies? Or
worrying about how gaudy the wrapper around that gift is?
I really worry about gaudy wrappers, though.
Sometimes the gaudy wrapping makes me puke and
I don't even want to know what's inside.
Post by Colin Ward
On the other hand, if improvement is not your goal,
why are you here? To hear a refugee from www.postpoems.com
tell you how "moving" your work is?
Instead of pontificating the strengths of postpoems
and N L of poetry, where millions of poor wannabe poems
loose their spirit from those that care little about them or
their poetry . . . here's a link that will actually be 'helpful' . . . .
http://www.poetrymagic.co.uk
unlike your one-sided approach to poetry, it can provide
valuable advice from all sides and will also enlighten
on differing styles and methods of critique.
Highly recommended.
Post by Colin Ward
Oh, and in case you missed it, Gary and PJR still
haven't exactly raved about any of my works. But they
HAVE taught this thickheaded amateur the most fundamental
rule of poetry and critique: Just as the "customer is
always right", in poetry the READER (a qualification
which excludes only the subliterate, such as Tom Bishop)
is ALWAYS RIGHT. Period. Until one understands and
embraces this very simple and fundamental precept one
simply cannot hope to improve, Marg.
Unfortunately, Colin, I also disagree with this notion that in poetry the
reader is always right. It all depends on who you are writing for.
If you write for the reader, well fine, but as Abe said ' you can please some
your readers some of the time, but you can't please all of your readers
all of the time'. So this kinda pisses your theory down the tubes in one stroke.
If you write for yourself (as I do) and for your personal enjoyment,
and consider the reader either an extension of self or an ever-changing
and unpredictable extension of the writing . . . then again your
'please the reader at all costs' is full of big elephant sized holes.
Be confident, but not assured.
-Max
Post by Colin Ward
Best regards,
the other Colin
Dennis M. Hammes
2003-10-31 21:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Has it ever occurred to you, Marg, that this just
*might* be because Sheila is a better poet than you are?
Judgment is folly.
Post by Colin Ward
Now, I know that you and some others are currently
suffering from the delusion that there is no such thing
as "better"; that this is all merely a matter of personal
taste. This would mean that you consider MY work--or yours
or those found on the Pink Palace of Poetitude--on a par
with Shakespeare's, Cohen's, de Lorca's, Yeats', Keats'
and/or Frost's.
you're still lost. Are you referring to individual works or
a comprehensive evaluation? On the individual scale,
some are, some are not. On the comprehensive scale,
yes, all of the revered writers of the past were much
better than you and most of us.
Post by Colin Ward
Ahem. Well, while I am flattered by this comparison,
I must state in no uncertain terms that there is a WORLD
of difference between my works (or yours) and those of
the greats. It's true! And, no, this isn't false modesty!
There really IS a difference! What is more, this difference
is tangible, palpable, obvious AND demonstrable.
brilliant deduction, Watson.
Post by Colin Ward
But don't take my word for this. Feel free to take my
best work (or yours) and compare it to ANY of the greats'
WORST works and those here will be more than pleased to show
you the qualitative difference. Free of charge, no less!
Now, where will you get a better offer than THAT?
. . . from that guy selling timeshares in Iraq, for sure.
Post by Colin Ward
Incidentally, and for what it is worth, Gary HAS
savaged a number of my works--and FAR worse than his
treatment of yours. Did I whine, troll and carry on
like a ignorant newbie? Actually, yes, I did, but in
1. I *was* an ignorant newbie at the time!
my assumption here is that you've matured, literally.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Post by Colin Ward
2. I got over it.
we've noticed.
Post by Colin Ward
Given that you cannot offer #1 as an excuse, I'd
suggest that you pay particular attention to #2. We
have enough Will Dockerys, Chuck Lysahts and Texas Maxs
(your new friends--fine company you are keeping!) here.
Whoa, the new Hall of Fame . . .
hear that Chuckle and Will?
You guys should be proud to be in my company.
And mine, I guess. I'm glad that I killfiled Colin as I didn't really wish
to see this crap he's written. Talk about a pompous arrogant asshole.
Is thanking for you you're *opinion*.
Post by pandora
Post by Texas Max King
Line up for roll call sharp at 0600 hours . . .
first assignment how not to steal poetry or write
sappy crap. I'll have you two in shape in no time at all.
I guess now Colin is accusing me not only of bad writing but of stealing the
poetry of others as well. Oh well, one makes friends where one finds them.
Marg
Unliking chuckles thing you stealing it thing only few at a time
words.
Evident not remembering more than that many okay.
Post by pandora
Post by Texas Max King
You'll both be writing like Billy Shakespeare in a weeks time.
Make sure and send the check.
Post by Colin Ward
We really don't need to create more of them by converting
previously respected regulars into them.
baiting for converts now, eh? I knew you
reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition for some reason.
Post by Colin Ward
Have you at least noticed that J.R. Sherman hasn't sported his Gold
Star since your meltdown? Gone the way of the Iron Cross,
I suppose. :(
In short, "your pain has no credentials here", Marg.
yes it does, her pain has much more credence than your callousness
or your credibility or your sincerity, for that matter . . .
at least with me. I only speak for myself.
Post by Colin Ward
But wouldn't you secretly LOVE to create a poem which
would silence your critics? If so, wouldn't this be better
achieved by practicing your craft than attacking those who
take the time to point out its current deficiencies? Or
worrying about how gaudy the wrapper around that gift is?
I really worry about gaudy wrappers, though.
Sometimes the gaudy wrapping makes me puke and
I don't even want to know what's inside.
Post by Colin Ward
On the other hand, if improvement is not your goal,
why are you here? To hear a refugee from www.postpoems.com
tell you how "moving" your work is?
Instead of pontificating the strengths of postpoems
and N L of poetry, where millions of poor wannabe poems
loose their spirit from those that care little about them or
their poetry . . . here's a link that will actually be 'helpful' . . .
.
Post by Texas Max King
http://www.poetrymagic.co.uk
unlike your one-sided approach to poetry, it can provide
valuable advice from all sides and will also enlighten
on differing styles and methods of critique.
Highly recommended.
Post by Colin Ward
Oh, and in case you missed it, Gary and PJR still
haven't exactly raved about any of my works. But they
HAVE taught this thickheaded amateur the most fundamental
rule of poetry and critique: Just as the "customer is
always right", in poetry the READER (a qualification
which excludes only the subliterate, such as Tom Bishop)
is ALWAYS RIGHT. Period. Until one understands and
embraces this very simple and fundamental precept one
simply cannot hope to improve, Marg.
Unfortunately, Colin, I also disagree with this notion that in poetry
the
Post by Texas Max King
reader is always right. It all depends on who you are writing for.
If you write for the reader, well fine, but as Abe said ' you can
please some
Post by Texas Max King
your readers some of the time, but you can't please all of your
readers
Post by Texas Max King
all of the time'. So this kinda pisses your theory down the tubes in
one stroke.
Post by Texas Max King
If you write for yourself (as I do) and for your personal enjoyment,
and consider the reader either an extension of self or an ever-changing
and unpredictable extension of the writing . . . then again your
'please the reader at all costs' is full of big elephant sized holes.
Be confident, but not assured.
-Max
Post by Colin Ward
Best regards,
the other Colin
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
A designer knows he has achieved perfection
not when there is nothing left to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away. -- Saint-Exupéry
http://scrawlmark.org
pandora
2003-10-31 10:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
Have you at least noticed that J.R. Sherman hasn't sported his Gold
Star
Ah, so now we have the glimmerings of the reason for Colin's diatribes.
He's jealous. Poor wee thing.

since your meltdown? Gone the way of the Iron Cross,
Post by Texas Max King
Post by Colin Ward
I suppose. :(
In short, "your pain has no credentials here", Marg.
yes it does, her pain has much more credence than your callousness
or your credibility or your sincerity, for that matter . . .
at least with me. I only speak for myself.
What pain? I see only idiots and arrogance. One does not get pain from
idiots and the arrogant. Perhaps they would like to *believe* they have
caused me pain (why is anyone's guess except that they may get perverse joy
from believing they have caused such, whatever), but there is no pain here.
There isn't even any interest in what they have to say as far as I'm
concerned. Their comments are irrelevant and they are killfiled. They can
just go bother someone else with their so-called *critiques*.

Marg
Renay St. James
2003-10-31 00:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good.
In YOUR opinion, of course. However, he hasn't made brutal comments about
your work (and now, probably never will.)
*****I don't think this is true. he seems like the type
who will give his honest opinion, no matter who it's
to. I appreciate that. it's what I'd want from you or
him or anyone else. the language used isn't as
important to me as the point, if that makes sense.
tell me with lots of fucks and sucks and this is craps
if you think it is.

Renay
Post by pandora
His comment about not taking an
Post by sheila miguez
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on.
Thank you for your opinion. You ARE entitled to that. However, just as you
are able to agree with gary's brutishness, so are others able to disagree
with it.
Marg
He didn't
Post by sheila miguez
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
pandora
2003-10-31 01:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renay St. James
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good.
In YOUR opinion, of course. However, he hasn't made brutal comments about
your work (and now, probably never will.)
*****I don't think this is true. he seems like the type
who will give his honest opinion, no matter who it's
to.
I respecfully disagree.

I appreciate that. it's what I'd want from you or
Post by Renay St. James
him or anyone else. the language used isn't as
important to me as the point, if that makes sense.
It isn't the language to me so much as the overbearing comments that are not
helpful in any way. If gg thinks I'm going to stop writing just because he
despises my poetry, he can think again. His comments have not been of any
help to me.
Post by Renay St. James
tell me with lots of fucks and sucks and this is craps
if you think it is.
I certainly don't see that as constructive, but I understand your point.
I'll wait and see.

Marg
Post by Renay St. James
Renay
Post by pandora
His comment about not taking an
Post by sheila miguez
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on.
Thank you for your opinion. You ARE entitled to that. However, just as
you
Post by pandora
are able to agree with gary's brutishness, so are others able to disagree
with it.
Marg
He didn't
Post by sheila miguez
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
Dennis M. Hammes
2003-10-31 21:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by sheila miguez
King
Post by Renay St. James
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard
place?
Post by Renay St. James
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good.
In YOUR opinion, of course. However, he hasn't made brutal comments
about
Post by Renay St. James
Post by pandora
your work (and now, probably never will.)
*****I don't think this is true. he seems like the type
who will give his honest opinion, no matter who it's
to.
I respecfully disagree.
I appreciate that. it's what I'd want from you or
Post by Renay St. James
him or anyone else. the language used isn't as
important to me as the point, if that makes sense.
It isn't the language to me so much as the overbearing comments that are not
helpful in any way. If gg thinks I'm going to stop writing just because he
despises my poetry, he can think again. His comments have not been of any
help to me.
It not being nice thing when subject overbearing at when Princess
speaking.
Causing failuah to Communicate *feelings* in Real Poetrying thing.
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Renay St. James
tell me with lots of fucks and sucks and this is craps
if you think it is.
I certainly don't see that as constructive, but I understand your point.
I'll wait and see.
Marg
Post by Renay St. James
Renay
Post by pandora
His comment about not taking an
Post by sheila miguez
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on.
Thank you for your opinion. You ARE entitled to that. However, just as
you
Post by pandora
are able to agree with gary's brutishness, so are others able to
disagree
Post by Renay St. James
Post by pandora
with it.
Marg
He didn't
Post by sheila miguez
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It
fits
Post by Renay St. James
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that
way.
Post by Renay St. James
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this
amount
Post by Renay St. James
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
to?
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
A designer knows he has achieved perfection
not when there is nothing left to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away. -- Saint-Exupéry
http://scrawlmark.org
Dennis M. Hammes
2003-10-31 01:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good.
In YOUR opinion, of course. However, he hasn't made brutal comments about
your work (and now, probably never will.)
Was that an *emotion* or a *poetry*?
Oh. They're the same thing.
I forgot.
Carry on.
Oh.
I forgot.
You are.
Post by pandora
His comment about not taking an
Post by sheila miguez
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on.
Thank you for your opinion. You ARE entitled to that. However, just as you
are able to agree with gary's brutishness, so are others able to disagree
with it.
Marg
He didn't
Post by sheila miguez
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
A designer knows he has achieved perfection
not when there is nothing left to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away. -- Saint-Exupéry
http://scrawlmark.org
Texas Max King
2003-10-31 02:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by sheila miguez
Post by sheila miguez
Post by Texas Max King
as much as I appreciate the infamy . . . I think their
little game is clear and evident to most.
who are you calling most?
I'm irritable, and I'm going to follow up to my own post (I have
recessive kookiness controlled by medication).
Before someone tells me what I meant by that, am I most or a hard place?
'Most' of Gary's critiques are good. His comment about not taking an
critique of a poem as an attack on the author is spot on. He didn't
teach me that, someone else did. Maybe it was my therapist.
Critique is not neccessarily a bad thing, Sheila.
In a few places Gary and Colin might provide valuable
insight. My peave isn't with critique, it's with the style
of critique. When I was involved with critique groups there
were always variation of critics. First, there was the critic that always
wanted you to write the poem the way they would write it. Generally,
their critiques involved mandates and dictates. Others would
give fluffy opinions that were relatively worthless. And then there
were the rare few that would actually give you informative input
yet keep it positive by pointing out what you were doing right as well.
As I said they were rare and I haven't seen too many that
know how to critique well since.
Post by sheila miguez
Colin Ward's critiques aren't bad either, but I disagree with his more
often. I don't usually post follow ups because other people do, and
with better assessments than I make. (e.g. I disagreed with his
critique of 'got' in Angel's poem about Manny and the waitress. It fits
the character. It's not a stupid stereotype. Real people talk that way.
I talked that way once. Stuart followed up to it. Or maybe his sarcasm
went over my head.)
Asking people to justify their critical skills by such statements as,
"Who died and left you king" is bullshit. (apologies in advance for
stating my "that's only your opinion, not the facts")
Yeah, no one actually said that, but what does "english teacher,"
"published," "what have *you* written," and other crap like this amount
to?
not much, agreed . . . as I stated, it's not the critique I have a problem with,
it's the style. You don't have to be harsh or condescending to help
someone with their writing. It's easy to judge someone's attitude
toward a writer by what they write. Beyond the technical parameters
critiques are mostly subjective. You can't critique objectively because when
it comes to poetry there are some things that do not have a clear line
between right and wrong. It doesn't matter what experimental poem
anyone posts, there will be some that will not accept it as poetry
no matter what . . . to others it is. If you can't keep an open mind to differing styles
then you are pigeonholed by your ideas and beliefs. This does not mean that
what others write is not poetry.
And to judge a poet by one poem is also a mistake. Which is why I try to post
two or three at a time that differ in topic and style. I have no doubt, some of them
suck and sometimes I don't even like them. But they all have a life of their own and
I have been known to salvage poems I thought had no merit.
I remember once I took some gibberish one of our now deceased RAP diseases
posted a few years back, and I turned it into a short poem that I thought was groovy.
Which brings me to another point the 'new breed' of RAP critics seem to overlook. . .
When a poet puts the pen to paper and captures the moments thoughts and
ideas . . it is like freezing a moment of time. As potent as a still photograph
or a great chord progression. But the poem and the chord progression,
unlike the still photograph can be revised and improved.
My attitude has always been (and maybe I'm wrong) . . . to get it down on
paper immediately. Screw the technicalities of grammar, punctuation and
exact word choices. I'm sure you've written poems before when you know
you know the exact word you want but it completely escapes you
at that moment. I don't know about you, but I keep going and later return
to fill in the blanks. This is where I differentiate between context and
technical skill. For all the technical skill in the world, if the poem does not
have a powerful content . . . it is worthless.
I'll use Gary's poem as an example. To some it is about a bee sting and linguini.
But actually it is about his wife overcoming her fear of the outdoors
because of bee stings from the past. He ties it together using the
thematic context of nature and the appreciation of nature versus the
cruelty and pain that nature can also inflict. My point here is that
if a poem has content, many times (not always) it can be skillfully carved
into a technically sound work of poetry. To minimize the poets thoughts and ideas
by saying that the poem is crap, does not help any one.
Which is not to say there aren't examples out there of poems that are
so superfluous in content that they really are crap.

-Max
Post by sheila miguez
Having academic credentials doesn't mean anything when Sokal can spoof
your journal. Duh? Doesn't everyone already know this? Why ask, "What
gives you the right to," if you insist that nothing gives the right?
Don't give me a line about being ironic. You don't parse ironic.
Oh, wait. I have no epaulets to justify myself.
--
sheila
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 15:00:47 UTC
Permalink
I never professed good. Fact is, I wouldn't be here if I was any good.

Sorry I couldn't meet to your standards Colin, or anyone else on here that
throws me to the wind.... I will have to consult with Maya Angelou on the
etiquette and netiquette of being.

The whole lot of you guys are starting to sound like the very character you
drive out of here when things aren't to your liking.



Angel
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 1:08 AM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: circa 1953
[boredom snip]
There really isn't a single poetic moment in this
rambling.
"What would make it poetry?" you might ask.
Well, consider for a moment these lines from Charles
Cornner's "Staring" (as recently posted to the Alsop Review)
...caught
expressionless, before smiles were
compulsory.
See 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.
His 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.
No such subtlety exists in this particular work
of yours, Angel. Nevertheless, this demonstrates why
novice poets such as yourself are well advised to READ
MORE POETRY. Doing so may make the point about the
sterility of your own work far better than any critic.
How can you know what bad is until you've seen good?
Best regards,
Colin
Colin Ward
2003-10-29 17:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
I never professed good.
Despite my low expectations, Angel, your work as improved
significantly since arriving. You still need to work on the
fundamentals of communication: grammar, syntax, punctuation.
Then, as I said, you need to address the fundamentals of ARTISTIC
communication (poetry in this case): technique, form, subtlety,
brevity and clarity. IMHO, this particular work of yours was
notable only for the latter.
Post by Lmdelsanto
Fact is, I wouldn't be here if I was any good.
Fair enough. But there are many who remain here despite
being very good. Indeed, in the past, r.a.p. has been graced
with some of the finest poets alive. Many of these have left
not because they had gotten everything they could out of
this forum but because of the distractions (e.g. trolls and
uneducated idiots). You'll find many of these better poets
on the "boards" (e.g. Gazebo, Poetry Free-For-All, etc.) now.
Post by Lmdelsanto
Sorry I couldn't meet to your standards Colin,
Not to worry about it. As a developing novice, you
will set your own standards, but you must raise them every
so often to avoid becoming a "perennial novice". As you
have seen, Angel, there are enough of those around here
already.

As for my standards, I'm spoiled. Familiarity with
Cornner's piece and others on this same subject has made
me so. Reading a lot of poetry will do that to you. :)

Take what you will from Cornner's illustrative
example. Leave the rest.

Good luck, Angel.

Colin
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 18:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Colin. I do appreciate, not only what you have to say, but what I
learn from you, and all the rest in here, no matter how bold or brazen.

:)


Angel
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 12:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Lmdelsanto
I never professed good.
Despite my low expectations, Angel, your work as improved
significantly since arriving. You still need to work on the
fundamentals of communication: grammar, syntax, punctuation.
Then, as I said, you need to address the fundamentals of ARTISTIC
communication (poetry in this case): technique, form, subtlety,
brevity and clarity. IMHO, this particular work of yours was
notable only for the latter.
Post by Lmdelsanto
Fact is, I wouldn't be here if I was any good.
Fair enough. But there are many who remain here despite
being very good. Indeed, in the past, r.a.p. has been graced
with some of the finest poets alive. Many of these have left
not because they had gotten everything they could out of
this forum but because of the distractions (e.g. trolls and
uneducated idiots). You'll find many of these better poets
on the "boards" (e.g. Gazebo, Poetry Free-For-All, etc.) now.
Post by Lmdelsanto
Sorry I couldn't meet to your standards Colin,
Not to worry about it. As a developing novice, you
will set your own standards, but you must raise them every
so often to avoid becoming a "perennial novice". As you
have seen, Angel, there are enough of those around here
already.
As for my standards, I'm spoiled. Familiarity with
Cornner's piece and others on this same subject has made
me so. Reading a lot of poetry will do that to you. :)
Take what you will from Cornner's illustrative
example. Leave the rest.
Good luck, Angel.
Colin
pandora
2003-10-29 18:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
I never professed good. Fact is, I wouldn't be here if I was any good.
Apparently gary is here to *save* us all. :-)
Post by Lmdelsanto
Sorry I couldn't meet to your standards Colin, or anyone else on here that
throws me to the wind.... I will have to consult with Maya Angelou on the
etiquette and netiquette of being.
The whole lot of you guys are starting to sound like the very character you
drive out of here when things aren't to your liking.
I respectfully disagree. At least none of them has stolen the work of
another as far as I know and they don't threaten to beat up or kill people
or their families. However, they may have been tainted, a bit, by the enemy
they fight/fought. You aren't the enemy and some need to realize that.

Marg
Post by Lmdelsanto
Angel
Texas Max King
2003-10-29 07:20:15 UTC
Permalink
unlike the other boneheads that plague us lately,
I'll give you a few suggestions that I think might help.
It's a powerful poem unto itself and the 'child's voice'
comes through clearly. My only suggestions deal with punctuation.
I don't know if these clowns influenced you, but only use the
semi-colon when appropriate. You might want to research this
because there are differing opinions (contrary to popular belief).
Good job.
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: circa 1953
My grandfather holds me
on his lap; the open door *period after 'lap', makes the first line commanding.
behind us is just a screen and, *skip the 'and' and the comma. It moves to the next line fine.
I am only three, and I am *again I'd skip the comma, and delete 'and I am'
only wearing underwear: *change to 'wearing only underwear. Use a period.
I am pushing his rough Only use a colon when you are listing.
hands away from my
chest; I do not want *I'd put a period after 'chest' and start a new stanza.
to take this photograph * period after 'photograph'.
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine, *'cigars, wine and . . . '
and leftover orange soda *period
He does not talk to
me, but holds me
very still for the photo *period
And I do not *new stanza, delete the 'And'.
like the way it feels; *get rid of the semi-colon, it moves to the next line fine.
thumbnails scratching
my tender skin, *period.
And I am not comfortable *delete the 'And'.
being without my shirt.
As you can see my suggestions were mostly technical
dealing with punctuation and stanza breaks.
The short single lines work well for a 'childs voice'.
Children generally think in simple one line terms.
You use the word 'and' way too much. Lines should connect with each
other simply by continuing the thought.
It's powerful and I liked it (even without simile : ))
Breaking into three stanzas I think would would give the reader time to digest
the impact. The last line says it distinctly.

best,
Max
Post by Lmdelsanto
lm angel delsanto
october 27, 2003
repost
Renay St. James
2003-10-29 09:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: circa 1953
My grandfather holds me
on his lap; the open door
behind us is just a screen and,
I am only three, and I am
I am pushing his rough
hands away from my
chest; I do not want
to take this photograph
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine,
and leftover orange soda
He does not talk to
me, but holds me
very still for the photo
And I do not
like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratching
my tender skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.
lm angel delsanto
october 27, 2003
repost
*****hey, I remember this! did I comment the first time?
I liked it then, like it now. (a couple too many ands, but
whatEVer) what? you want a technical critique? heh.
I like it because I damn well DO!

Renay
pandora
2003-10-29 17:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renay St. James
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: circa 1953
My grandfather holds me
on his lap; the open door
behind us is just a screen and,
I am only three, and I am
I am pushing his rough
hands away from my
chest; I do not want
to take this photograph
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine,
and leftover orange soda
He does not talk to
me, but holds me
very still for the photo
And I do not
like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratching
my tender skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.
lm angel delsanto
october 27, 2003
repost
*****hey, I remember this! did I comment the first time?
I liked it then, like it now. (a couple too many ands, but
whatEVer) what? you want a technical critique? heh.
I like it because I damn well DO!
Good for you! Yes, I like it as well and did before and I agree there are
too many ands. It could be *tightened* (if Angel wanted to do that), but as
is, I like it a lot. I could also comment on the punctuation but I usually
don't as *I* don't use any for just the reasons inherent in this poem; too
many opportunitites to misuse it. Not a biggie though as far as this poem
is concerned.

Marg
Post by Renay St. James
Renay
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 18:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Thank you Marg and Renay. I do tend to "and" alot, and I have to watch my
puncts. Welcome back. :)

Now get writing...:) both of you..

Angel
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 12:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Renay St. James
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: circa 1953
My grandfather holds me
on his lap; the open door
behind us is just a screen and,
I am only three, and I am
I am pushing his rough
hands away from my
chest; I do not want
to take this photograph
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine,
and leftover orange soda
He does not talk to
me, but holds me
very still for the photo
And I do not
like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratching
my tender skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.
lm angel delsanto
october 27, 2003
repost
*****hey, I remember this! did I comment the first time?
I liked it then, like it now. (a couple too many ands, but
whatEVer) what? you want a technical critique? heh.
I like it because I damn well DO!
Good for you! Yes, I like it as well and did before and I agree there are
too many ands. It could be *tightened* (if Angel wanted to do that), but as
is, I like it a lot. I could also comment on the punctuation but I usually
don't as *I* don't use any for just the reasons inherent in this poem; too
many opportunitites to misuse it. Not a biggie though as far as this poem
is concerned.
Marg
Post by Renay St. James
Renay
Renay St. James
2003-10-29 18:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by Renay St. James
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: circa 1953
My grandfather holds me
on his lap; the open door
behind us is just a screen and,
I am only three, and I am
I am pushing his rough
hands away from my
chest; I do not want
to take this photograph
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine,
and leftover orange soda
He does not talk to
me, but holds me
very still for the photo
And I do not
like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratching
my tender skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.
lm angel delsanto
october 27, 2003
repost
*****hey, I remember this! did I comment the first time?
I liked it then, like it now. (a couple too many ands, but
whatEVer) what? you want a technical critique? heh.
I like it because I damn well DO!
Good for you! Yes, I like it as well and did before and I agree there are
too many ands. It could be *tightened* (if Angel wanted to do that), but as
is, I like it a lot. I could also comment on the punctuation but I usually
don't as *I* don't use any for just the reasons inherent in this poem; too
many opportunitites to misuse it. Not a biggie though as far as this poem
is concerned.
Marg
*****punctuation is necessary (or not) depending on what it is I'm writing.
some rules I don't break (or try not to) ever. however, so much is
subjective.
truly one of the best things anyone ever said to me came from Emily (hey,
where the hell IS she, anyway? MLee, anyone heard from her recently?)
before she read me at some poetic gathering or other. "I like reading this
because it's got a comma where she wants you to pause and a period where
she wants you to stop." Marek is the Period King. once I asked him why
he did it. his answer was, "because you're supposed to stop there. duh."
I am aware that I do baaaaaad things to English on purpose. I don't,
however,
do it when I have a report to turn in and I try not to do it when I send a
letter
to Robert's mother.

Renay
Texas Max King
2003-10-30 03:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renay St. James
*****punctuation is necessary (or not) depending on what it is I'm writing.
some rules I don't break (or try not to) ever. however, so much is
subjective.
exactly
Post by Renay St. James
truly one of the best things anyone ever said to me came from Emily (hey,
where the hell IS she, anyway? MLee, anyone heard from her recently?)
I miss Miss Lee, she was the ultimate Ecyclopedia and the
ultimate sweetie.
Post by Renay St. James
before she read me at some poetic gathering or other. "I like reading this
because it's got a comma where she wants you to pause and a period where
she wants you to stop." Marek is the Period King. once I asked him why
he did it. his answer was, "because you're supposed to stop there. duh."
I am aware that I do baaaaaad things to English on purpose. I don't,
however,
do it when I have a report to turn in and I try not to do it when I send a
letter
to Robert's mother.
more good points. Periods, comma's and caps
are your perogative when you write poems.
When you write a business letter to your client . . .
it's a diffarant thang . . .

here come marching the traditionalists . . .
no, no, no you have to, you have to.

-Max (lighten up boys)
Post by Renay St. James
Renay
pandora
2003-10-30 07:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
here come marching the traditionalists . . .
no, no, no you have to, you have to.
Is that what they are? I thought they were merely little boys who don't
like anything their small minds can't comprehend. What they seem to be
lacking is the understanding that poets are all different. We each have our
own voice. Not everyone will like that voice but that doesn't negate the
voice in the first place.

Marg
Post by Texas Max King
-Max (lighten up boys)
Renay
ggamble
2003-10-30 14:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Is that what they are? I thought they were merely little boys who don't
like anything their small minds can't comprehend. What they seem to be
lacking is the understanding that poets are all different. We each have our
own voice. Not everyone will like that voice but that doesn't negate the
voice in the first place.
Marg
"If writing poetry isn't an *emotion*, then I don't know what it is."
Marg/pandora,

finally admitting
what we knew all along.
pandora
2003-10-30 07:07:51 UTC
Permalink
. I could also comment on the punctuation but I
Post by pandora
usually
Post by pandora
don't as *I* don't use any for just the reasons inherent in this poem; too
many opportunitites to misuse it. Not a biggie though as far as this poem
is concerned.
Marg
*****punctuation is necessary (or not) depending on what it is I'm writing.
some rules I don't break (or try not to) ever. however, so much is
subjective.
I agree.
Post by pandora
truly one of the best things anyone ever said to me came from Emily (hey,
where the hell IS she, anyway? MLee, anyone heard from her recently?)
before she read me at some poetic gathering or other. "I like reading this
because it's got a comma where she wants you to pause and a period where
she wants you to stop." Marek is the Period King. once I asked him why
he did it. his answer was, "because you're supposed to stop there. duh."
I understand what you're saying. Really I do. I, however, don't use
punctuation in my poetry. The line breaks say it all, to me. I realize
that others do it differently and I accept that. Writing poetry is a VERY
subjective thing, IMO.
Post by pandora
I am aware that I do baaaaaad things to English on purpose. I don't,
however,
do it when I have a report to turn in and I try not to do it when I send a
letter
to Robert's mother.
:-) I know the right times to use punctuation and I try to make use of it
when writing regular stuff. I don't use it in my poetry, however.

Marg
Post by pandora
Renay
ggamble
2003-10-30 05:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
I could also comment on the punctuation but I usually
don't as *I* don't use any for just the reasons inherent in this poem; too
many opportunitites to misuse it.
Translation from pandoraspeak:

I have no fucking clue how to properly punctuate, and I'm too lazy to
learn, so I don't bother. And if you mention it to me regarding my own
poems, I'll mention ee cummings before you can say *Sharon McElroy*.
Then I'll tell you to *fuck off and die*.
Michael Cook
2003-10-29 09:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
Photograph: circa 1953
My grandfather holds me
on his lap; the open door
behind us is just a screen and,
I am only three, and I am
I am pushing his rough
hands away from my
chest; I do not want
to take this photograph
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine,
and leftover orange soda
He does not talk to
me, but holds me
very still for the photo
And I do not
like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratching
my tender skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.
lm angel delsanto
october 27, 2003
repost
1
grandfather holds me on his lap
the open door behind us
is just a screen and, I am only three,
and I am only wearing underwear:
I am pushing his rough hands away
away from my chest
I do not want to take photographs
I do not like the smell of cigars and wine,
He does not talk to me
but holds me very still for the photo
I do not like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratch my tender skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.

2
grandfather holds me in his lap
the door behind us is just a screen
I am only three
only wearing underwear
I push his rough hands
away from my chest
I do not want to take this photograph
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine
He does not talk
but holds me very still
I do not like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratch my tender skin
and I am not comfortable
without my shirt.

3
he holds me on his lap
the closed door; just a screen
only three, only wearing underwear:
I push his hands away
I do not want to be photographed
I do not like the smell of cigars and wine,
of leftover orange soda
He does not speak but holds me
very still for the photo
I do not like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratching tender skin
I am not comfortable without my shirt.

4
Mothers father holds me on his lap
I am three, and only wearing underwear:
I push his rough hands away
I do not want to take a photograph
I do not like the smell of cigars and wine,
He does not talk but holds me very still
I do not like the way it feels
thumbnails scratching my skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.

Do five and replace the verbs with images
Or start with these words:

Holds
Open door
three
Underwear
pushing
hands
chest
photograph
smell
holds
feels
scratch
skin
shirt

what is "holds"?
"open door" why?
"three" how many ways are there to mark the passage of time?
"underwear" how would a three year old speak this poem?
mdc
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 12:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Gee. I posted this because I wanted to prove a point. How insensitive of those
characters that continually rally together and "bruise" a personality.

True professionals do not slam
a colleague for trying.

Angel
Subject: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 12:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
Photograph: circa 1953
My grandfather holds me
on his lap; the open door
behind us is just a screen and,
I am only three, and I am
I am pushing his rough
hands away from my
chest; I do not want
to take this photograph
I do not like the smell
of cigars and wine,
and leftover orange soda
He does not talk to
me, but holds me
very still for the photo
And I do not
like the way it feels;
thumbnails scratching
my tender skin,
And I am not comfortable
being without my shirt.
lm angel delsanto
october 27, 2003
repost
ggamble
2003-10-29 14:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
Gee. I posted this because I wanted to prove a point.
You certainly made a point.
Post by Lmdelsanto
How insensitive of those
characters that continually rally together and "bruise" a personality.
Absolutely! Shame on Max. I hope you castigate him the next time you
have a quiet moment together.
Post by Lmdelsanto
True professionals do not slam
a colleague for trying.
Angel
You're trying, in every sense of the word.

What else do *true professionals* do, Angel?
Do they do the same thing as *true poets* and *true artists*?

llusions you say?
Yes, I guess to you my Jesus Christ qualities
are an illusion.
~Sharon McElroy~
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 14:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Mr. Fary Gamble said,(whoops...typo there.

What else do *true professionals* do, Angel?
Do they do the same thing as *true poets* and *true artists*?


Enlighten us, Gary.

But it may force you to stand on two legs....



Angel
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 9:32 AM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Lmdelsanto
Gee. I posted this because I wanted to prove a point.
You certainly made a point.
Post by Lmdelsanto
How insensitive of those
characters that continually rally together and "bruise" a personality.
Absolutely! Shame on Max. I hope you castigate him the next time you
have a quiet moment together.
Post by Lmdelsanto
True professionals do not slam
a colleague for trying.
Angel
You're trying, in every sense of the word.
What else do *true professionals* do, Angel?
Do they do the same thing as *true poets* and *true artists*?
llusions you say?
Yes, I guess to you my Jesus Christ qualities
are an illusion.
~Sharon McElroy~
ggamble
2003-10-29 15:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
Enlighten us, Gary.
But it may force you to stand on two legs....
Oh, that's devastating, and so original.

I would never use the terms: true professional, true poet, true artist
etc. etc.
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 15:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 10:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
.Mr. Gary Gamble retro voiced:


'I would never use the terms: true professional, true poet, true artist"


Well, Gary....let me enlighten you:


A true artist will let his wife starve, his children go barefoot, his mother
drudge for his living at seventy, sooner than work at anything but his art.
George Bernard Shaw

The true poet is just such a fortunate creation as the elusive crab. He is born
wary and is frequently in retreat because he is a protector of the human
spirit.
~~Loren Eiseley (1907–1977), U.S. essayist, biologist. The Invisible Pyramid,
ch. 6, Scribner (1970).


He lives the poetry that he cannot write. The others write the poetry that they
dare not realise.

~Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

Poetry is when an emotion has found its thought and the thought has found
words.


~Robert Frost (1874-1963
etc. etc.
ggamble
2003-10-29 15:42:09 UTC
Permalink
On 29 Oct 2003 15:28:10 GMT, ***@aol.com (Lmdelsanto) wrote:

Christ.

llusions you say?
Yes, I guess to you my Jesus Christ qualities
are an illusion.
~Sharon McElroy~
Post by Lmdelsanto
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 10:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
'I would never use the terms: true professional, true poet, true artist"
A true artist will let his wife starve, his children go barefoot, his mother
drudge for his living at seventy, sooner than work at anything but his art.
George Bernard Shaw
The true poet is just such a fortunate creation as the elusive crab. He is born
wary and is frequently in retreat because he is a protector of the human
spirit.
~~Loren Eiseley (1907–1977), U.S. essayist, biologist. The Invisible Pyramid,
ch. 6, Scribner (1970).
He lives the poetry that he cannot write. The others write the poetry that they
dare not realise.
~Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Poetry is when an emotion has found its thought and the thought has found
words.
~Robert Frost (1874-1963
etc. etc.
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 16:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
"Christ."


Please do not swear at me, Gary.


Angel
Peter J Ross
2003-10-29 22:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
"Christ."
Please do not swear at me, Gary.
Unbefuckinglievable.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Michael Cook
2003-10-29 14:40:28 UTC
Permalink
"Gee. I posted this because I wanted to prove a point. How insensitive of
those
characters that continually rally together and "bruise" a personality.

True professionals do not slam
a colleague for trying."

Angel

Well, if that ain't a kick in the ass.
(I'm posting this to prove a point)
I was not in on the original nor do I "rally"
(unless it concerns chuck) and true "professionals"
are honest with their peers. I spent an hour on your poem
how much time have you spent on another's?
note:
I have NEVER disputed a critique I have received here.
In all the time I have been here (rap and aapc)
The 'meanest' most insensitive poets have never
disputed one of mine they just said "thanks for your time"
Now, that could be because I'm the member of an
exclusive clique, or because I'm that damn good,
but the reality is much different.
Recognizing that your goals or motive for taking up the
study of poetry are different from mine is an option not a perquisite
and is dependent on many factors both internal and external.
A charitable rendering of the facts would be: they were all
feeling helpful that day or maybe they read what the first few had to say
and that influenced their opinion or maybe we all suffer from a collective
heard mentality, who knows? The fact of the matter is the poem is badly
written,
Mr. Ward's comments were concise, insightful, and relevant.
I'll not spend another hour on one of yours, I can tell you that much!

Feeling rather used
Michael

"gee"
now haw
Lmdelsanto
2003-10-29 16:07:24 UTC
Permalink
MIchael, why are you so defensive? I never said anything derogatory to you.

Sorry you are having a bad day.


Angel
Subject: Re: repost/Photograph:circa 1953 * * * * *
Date: 10/29/2003 9:40 AM Eastern Standard Time
"Gee. I posted this because I wanted to prove a point. How insensitive of
those
characters that continually rally together and "bruise" a personality.
True professionals do not slam
a colleague for trying."
Angel
Well, if that ain't a kick in the ass.
(I'm posting this to prove a point)
I was not in on the original nor do I "rally"
(unless it concerns chuck) and true "professionals"
are honest with their peers. I spent an hour on your poem
how much time have you spent on another's?
I have NEVER disputed a critique I have received here.
In all the time I have been here (rap and aapc)
The 'meanest' most insensitive poets have never
disputed one of mine they just said "thanks for your time"
Now, that could be because I'm the member of an
exclusive clique, or because I'm that damn good,
but the reality is much different.
Recognizing that your goals or motive for taking up the
study of poetry are different from mine is an option not a perquisite
and is dependent on many factors both internal and external.
A charitable rendering of the facts would be: they were all
feeling helpful that day or maybe they read what the first few had to say
and that influenced their opinion or maybe we all suffer from a collective
heard mentality, who knows? The fact of the matter is the poem is badly
written,
Mr. Ward's comments were concise, insightful, and relevant.
I'll not spend another hour on one of yours, I can tell you that much!
Feeling rather used
Michael
"gee"
now haw
Michael Cook
2003-10-29 21:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
MIchael, why are you so defensive? I never said anything derogatory to you.
Sorry you are having a bad day.
Angel
As Mr. gamble has pointed out many a time this is a text-based medium
we are what we write, our words define who we are.
Your little experiment was flawed, biased in that the variables were
not defined , I have posted the same poems every year for two to four
and ALWAYS have gotten different comments, even from the same readers.
It proves nothing and if anything at all only that we are human.
Critiquing/criticism is a craft and not an easy thing to do well.
Pandora tells me that the rewriting of another's poem is a faux pas,
Maybe, maybe not, I cannot critique like Mr.'s Ward and gamble
I don't know how. My best approach, if I am serious, is to roll up my
sleeves
and have at it, break it down, word play, tune the sounds.
There are no short cuts to writing good poetry, none!
Nothing should, short of the ten commandments and even that is debatable,
be written in stone. Nothing is sacred, no stone should be left unturned.
I am "arrogant" that's a fact, but I believe, as I know you do, in the
things we write,
I believe in your poem. I believe shared success goes to the heart of
forums such as this,
'shared success' should be our goal.
Now this guy must be off to his three day a week college course where they
remind of just how little I know.
Take what ya need an leave the rest.

Still moving time
Michael Cook
pandora
2003-10-30 07:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Cook
Post by Lmdelsanto
MIchael, why are you so defensive? I never said anything derogatory to
you.
Post by Lmdelsanto
Sorry you are having a bad day.
Angel
As Mr. gamble has pointed out many a time this is a text-based medium
we are what we write, our words define who we are.
Your little experiment was flawed, biased in that the variables were
not defined , I have posted the same poems every year for two to four
and ALWAYS have gotten different comments, even from the same readers.
It proves nothing and if anything at all only that we are human.
Critiquing/criticism is a craft and not an easy thing to do well.
Pandora tells me that the rewriting of another's poem is a faux pas,
I consider it rude beyond belief. If you wish to do so, I can't stop you.
It's just MY opinion.
Post by Michael Cook
Maybe, maybe not, I cannot critique like Mr.'s Ward and gamble
I don't know how.
Good thing too, IMO. They aren't exactly the cat's meow.

My best approach, if I am serious, is to roll up my
Post by Michael Cook
sleeves
and have at it, break it down, word play, tune the sounds.
That's all fine and good but then, as I've mentioned before, it is no longer
the poem of the writer but yours.
Post by Michael Cook
There are no short cuts to writing good poetry, none!
Nothing should, short of the ten commandments and even that is debatable,
be written in stone. Nothing is sacred, no stone should be left unturned.
I am "arrogant" that's a fact, but I believe, as I know you do, in the
things we write,
I believe in your poem. I believe shared success goes to the heart of
forums such as this,
'shared success' should be our goal.
If only it were so.
Post by Michael Cook
Now this guy must be off to his three day a week college course where they
remind of just how little I know.
Take what ya need an leave the rest.
Good advice. Very good advice. Good luck with your class.

Marg
Post by Michael Cook
Still moving time
Michael Cook
Michael Cook
2003-10-29 22:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmdelsanto
MIchael, why are you so defensive? I never said anything derogatory to you.
Sorry you are having a bad day.
Angel
By "shared" I mean
Freely giving and taking of advice, suggestion and comment
pandora
2003-10-30 07:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Cook
Post by Lmdelsanto
MIchael, why are you so defensive? I never said anything derogatory to
you.
Post by Lmdelsanto
Sorry you are having a bad day.
Angel
By "shared" I mean
Freely giving and taking of advice, suggestion and comment
Suggestions are good, very good. So are comments and advice. Rewrites and
nastiness are not good. Take it to aapc.

Marg
Texas Max King
2003-10-30 07:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Take it to aapc.
Marg, I think we've finally discovered the new RAP mantra . . .
good job!

-Max
pandora
2003-10-30 08:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Post by pandora
Take it to aapc.
Marg, I think we've finally discovered the new RAP mantra . . .
good job!
Thank you! Takes a bow, respectfully. I consider it high praise coming
from you. RAP does indeed have its own personality and I think it's high
time it be recognized.
Post by Texas Max King
-Max
Marg
ggamble
2003-10-30 14:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Texas Max King
Marg, I think we've finally discovered the new RAP mantra . . .
good job!
-Max
"Poems express feelings. The writers feelings.
The words in a poem express feelings, the writers feelings."

Texas Max King,
attempting to express something
but betraying a monumental ignorance instead

"If writing poetry isn't an *emotion*, then I don't know what it is."
Marg/pandora,
finally admitting
what we knew all along.

"Sorry, but this poem means absolutely nothing to me."
Robert Barcus, referring to "Poem in October"
pandora
2003-10-29 18:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Cook
"Gee. I posted this because I wanted to prove a point. How insensitive of
those
characters that continually rally together and "bruise" a personality.
True professionals do not slam
a colleague for trying."
Angel
Well, if that ain't a kick in the ass.
(I'm posting this to prove a point)
I was not in on the original nor do I "rally"
(unless it concerns chuck) and true "professionals"
are honest with their peers. I spent an hour on your poem
how much time have you spent on another's?
I have NEVER disputed a critique I have received here.
In all the time I have been here (rap and aapc)
That may be half the problem right there. rap isn't aapc.
Post by Michael Cook
The 'meanest' most insensitive poets have never
disputed one of mine they just said "thanks for your time"
Now, that could be because I'm the member of an
exclusive clique, or because I'm that damn good,
but the reality is much different.
OR, your critique was a positive one. (By the way, here in rap, we don't
rewrite the poems of others. That is unless we wish to be seen as arrogant.
I know that aapc is different, but this isn't aapc.)
Post by Michael Cook
Recognizing that your goals or motive for taking up the
study of poetry are different from mine is an option not a perquisite
and is dependent on many factors both internal and external.
A charitable rendering of the facts would be: they were all
feeling helpful that day or maybe they read what the first few had to say
and that influenced their opinion or maybe we all suffer from a collective
heard mentality, who knows? The fact of the matter is the poem is badly
written,
No, it isn't. It has its flaws but who among us has written a perfect poem?
And if you're claiming that YOU Have, then you can join gg in my killfile.
Post by Michael Cook
Mr. Ward's comments were concise, insightful, and relevant.
No, they were not. They were his opinion and rather nastily done, IMO.
Post by Michael Cook
I'll not spend another hour on one of yours, I can tell you that much!
Your choice.
Post by Michael Cook
Feeling rather used
Michael
Well, you know, one doesn't get used unless one allows it, eh?

Marg
Post by Michael Cook
"gee"
now haw
Loading...