PDA

View Full Version : how I hate modern poetry


Kory
29-07-2004, 23:59:13
I read the other day
in a magazine I am

accustomed to taking in
quarterly

a set of words purporting
to be a poem

looking like this

and I thought to myself
Jesus H

Christ

If that's a poem
then i am

a monkey's uncle.

I suppose I could
get published

if I had no
integrity

and wrote stupid
sentences that

had random line breaks
in.

Luckily for
all of you

I will never
do this

again.

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 00:19:07
hey...

You can always write it in Russian or Japanese, and THEN translate it to English.

Scabrous Birdseed
30-07-2004, 06:15:01
You're amazingly adept at writing incredibly bad modern poetry. Considering it's much harder than the old, "count the syllables" kind, I suppose it's only to be expected.

Still, a purported novelist who doesn't understand the value of language rhythm, style and imagery obviously has quite a lot to worry about...

fp
30-07-2004, 07:41:50
Yes, because Kory thinks that modern abstract poetry is over-rated obviously means that she has no appreciation of style and imagery. :rolleyes:

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 07:48:54
I'm with FP on this one.

When did disliking bad word clusters being passed off as poetry make someone a "moron"? I must have missed that memo.

Scabrous Birdseed
30-07-2004, 08:11:57
Originally posted by fp
Yes, because Kory thinks that modern abstract poetry is over-rated obviously means that she has no appreciation of style and imagery. :rolleyes:

What? If she did she'd see its value.

Darkstar, I don't think it's fair for you to call me a "self-serving hitler-loving crayfish".

fp
30-07-2004, 08:37:04
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
What? If she did she'd see its value.


Last time I looked, failing to recognise the value of poetry didn't automatically disqualify somebody from being a good novelist.

Besides, I don't think Kory is aiming to win the Nobel Prize or anything. Writing is an art form, but that doesn't mean that one has to be an aesthete to practise it.

fp
30-07-2004, 08:40:56
For the record, I like poetry of the kind that Kory parodies in the first post. However, it's certainly true that many pseudo-intellectuals try and pass themselves off as poets by writing abstract prose, removing all the punctuation and adding in random line breaks.

It's a form of poetry that's exceptionally easy to fake, since you don't have to even pretend to keep a regular metre and find rhymes. Done well it's a valuable form of art, of course, but it's done well very rarely.

Scabrous Birdseed
30-07-2004, 08:50:14
Whereas the other kind is always done well? :)

Since modern poetry is a superior form of writing to mere dull prose, I think anyone who practices the latter would be well advised to admire and understand the former. Kory's first post demonstrates admirably that she doesn't.

Scabrous Birdseed
30-07-2004, 08:51:18
And I disagree anyone who writes with no sense for language is inevitably going to be lacking as a writer.

King_Ghidra
30-07-2004, 14:15:24
i'm on scabby's side, after all the alternative is that anything that rhymes is somehow automatically better; as though rhyming was some kind of incredible skill - in which case the major poetic work of the century would be '101 great limericks'

i would say modern poetry (and whether modern is really meaningful in this sense, given the precedent for this kind of expression stretches back several hundred or more years - consider something along the lines of haiku or other non-rhyming poetry) is capable of expressing something in its structure that the fetters of rhyme do not permit.

Sometimes the medium is the message - anyone who says poetry has to be this or that format is denying their fellow artists a simple right of expression.

protein
30-07-2004, 14:25:44
There's a night in Reading called "Bohemian Night at the Three Bs". Anyone can get up and showcase their guitar playing, poetry or comic skills. The poets all have this habit of saying one word and pausing for ages. I guess you are supposed to appreciate how important each word is.

It'e usually along the lines of:

Liar...

Liar...

Liar she called...

Me? A Liar?

She took...

The Book.

And threw it at me.

so here alone I rot...

rot...

here in my private hell

My private cell

lost...

alone...

alone and lost

alone...

like a dog...

without a mobile phone...

with only the book she threw...

at me...

for company.

:vom:

fp
30-07-2004, 15:29:17
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed

Since modern poetry is a superior form of writing to mere dull prose

You say that as if it is an established fact. I'm tempted to point out that somebody who fails to recognise the style, imagery and beauty of well-written prose shouldn't presume to criticise somebody else's artistic taste, but obviously there is no point in continuing this conversation with you.

Kory
30-07-2004, 15:32:18
Scabrous & K_G, I think modern prose poetry and so-called avant garde styles are shite. With very, very rare exceptions. That doesn't mean I "don't understand" it. It means I think it fails as poetry.

What makes poetry poetry and not prose is use of patterns and/or poetic imagery. Prose poetry rarely uses either, and avant garde styles are even less prone to it. Avant garde styles purport to break the rules, but the fact is, most of the writers of those so-called poems never learned the rules to begin with.

Meter (whether standard accentual-syllabic metrical forms, syllabic emphasis, or some use of straight syllable count in a pattern), rhyme (whether in a classical pattern of end rhymes or in some sort of internal or slanted rhymes), the re-use of phrases or similar phrasings, a pattern of any sort... these are things I expect in my poetry. When the poem lacks these things, I do not say, "Oh, I must be too stupid to understand". I say, "This is a poet who has not learned to be poetic."

You are free to disagree, of course, but the conclusion you jump to is erroneous. I not only understand poetry, I write it and I've taught it. Including good free verse. Which that sort of shit is not.

-- Kory (Restrict this.)

fp
30-07-2004, 15:36:00
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
i'm on scabby's side, after all the alternative is that anything that rhymes is somehow automatically better; as though rhyming was some kind of incredible skill - in which case the major poetic work of the century would be '101 great limericks'

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it has to be one thing or the other. The only alternative statement to "god there's a lot of crap modern abstract poetry" is clearly not "all rhyming poetry with a regular metre is superior" and I didn't say that it was.

And rhyming well is an incredible skill, as is writing poetry of any form or style so that it doesn't sound like utter bollocks. I didn't want this thread to turn into a rhyming.vs.not-rhyming debate, because such debates are fruitless. Good poetry can be of any form or style and the beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I simply take exception to Scabby's usual reponse of implying that everyone who doesn't share his taste in art is some kind of culturally-bankrupt philistine.

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 15:57:24
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
What? If she did she'd see its value.

Darkstar, I don't think it's fair for you to call me a "self-serving hitler-loving crayfish".

I didn't interpret her complaint to be that the actual poetry/prose style as bad. Merely that she finds it over-used by laminated posers who want to appear as if they are genuine, artistic, expressful poets.

I didn't call you that. But I was certainly thinking it. How did you know? Although Hilter crayfish make some good eatin, when done Cajun style!

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 16:06:31
Originally posted by Kory
Scabrous & K_G, I think modern prose poetry and so-called avant garde styles are shite. With very, very rare exceptions. That doesn't mean I "don't understand" it. It means I think it fails as poetry.

{snip}

You are free to disagree, of course, but the conclusion you jump to is erroneous. I not only understand poetry, I write it and I've taught it. Including good free verse. Which that sort of shit is not.

-- Kory

Well, looks like she is a bit prejudiced against it. Oh well.

Ah. There's the problem, Scabs. She's *taught* it. As we all know, anyone who teaches something obviously knows nothing about it and cannot actually do it. I mean, the only way she could know less about poetry was if she was a literary journalist who is paid to review and critic others literary and poetic works. Right?

King_Ghidra
30-07-2004, 16:32:04
fp: fair enough, i made the point about rhyming to show the other extreme - i totally agree with you about any styles or form being acceptable

DS: you're parodying your own straw man arguments now

anyone who thinks that the validity of an argument on principle is dependant on the personal experience of the arguer is an idiot

and certainly i don't gve a fuck if kory or anyone else has taught poetry, written poetry, or had poetry tattoed on his or her ass, it doesn't affect my opinion of his or her arguments

Kory
30-07-2004, 16:41:05
Why don't you try addressing my arguments, then, K_G?

My assertions above about what constitutes poetry have yet to be addressed.

And the fact is, yes, my experience as a poet has bearing. The idea that if I read something and don't like it I must just not understand it is a direct assertion about my ability to comprehend poetry. My inclusion of the information is a direct refutation.

-- Kory (Bring it.)

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 16:44:50
I was purposely doing that, KG. To head off the classic "teacher" arguments that would be just too easy to dig on in Kory's statement.

I believe we've debated "What is Art" multiple times in this community. Wasn't the agreed upon conclusion that "Art is whatever you connect with"? It seems obvious to me that Kory doesn't connect with the majority of modern poetic prose. So, it's all dog doo to her. No biggie, right?

I found Scab's set of presumptions to be over the top. Turns out he was completely correct about her not liking the form. Points for him. But that doesn't mean that just cause she hates that particular form or family of form that she is a talentless hack novelist either. You can hate country or rock or jazz music, and still be a great musician. Isn't that the exact same thing?

King_Ghidra@home
30-07-2004, 18:18:28
kory i don't agree with your assertions, i have implicitly stated that by stating that i believe all forms of poetry are valid. The only thing i care about is the quality of the resulting art.

you may want rhyme, meter, patterns, whatever, i don't think any of those components are required to make good poetry. If such things were true then any robot could write a good poem.

All works of art must be judged on their individual merit. You yourself have stated that you think there are exceptional pieces of modern and avant garde poetry which you do not dislike, so i am really not sure what your argument is...

Kory
30-07-2004, 19:13:49
I can't see how you can call something without rhyme, meter, patterns, etc. poetry, let alone good poetry. That's what poetry is.

Some modern prose poetry manages to encompass noticeable patterns. That's the difference for me. But most of the poetry I've come across that's been written in the last 20-30 years would be better served as prose.

Avant garde poetry is occasionally meritorious because it uses poetic symbolism in an accessible fashion, and even avant garde poetry sometimes encompasses a recognizable pattern.

Note that I come firmly down on the side of the line that says it is the author's job to write in a way people understand, not the reader's job to learn to understand what the author has written.

So, my argument is: the majority of the types of poetry I dislike are absent of all poetic convention and basically therefore fails as poetry. It might be art, but it's presented as prose qua poetry and I can't help but judge it that way, and the majority of the output is actually by people imitating a style that wasn't terribly poetic on average to begin with.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go read some William Carlos Williams.

-- Kory (Formalists of the World Unite)

Lazarus and the Gimp
30-07-2004, 19:16:04
In an inadvertant moment of comedy I read the "poem" in Kory's first post and genuinely enjoyed it.

Read it with an open mind and you'll see what I mean. The structure forces the reader to take each part as a self-contained image or statement- which is them promptly punctured by the next one. And again, relentlessly. The comic timing is really good.

No- I'm not taking the piss. I genuinely liked it.

Kory
30-07-2004, 19:37:07
I have to go shower now.

-- Kory (Can't. Get. Stains. Off.)

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 19:41:03
Well, since Laz has broached the subject...

...I thought that it would make some fine lyrics for certain kind of song styles. But I didn't want Kory reaching through the Internet and bitch slapping me back to 1974...

Kory
30-07-2004, 19:53:24
Okay, but, see, although song lyrics could arguably be called a form of poetry, the difference is that they're meant to be sung, not read (as a rule), and while some lyrics are not, erm, lyrical in the classical sense, the rhythm is provided by the audible expression and the backup of instrumentation, not by the word patterns themselves. So, that's different.

-- Kory (Or so I assert.)

Darkstar
30-07-2004, 20:00:01
So... if that's your view... then how can you tell when "prose" is not actually "song lyrics" when printed?

For that matter... if it's "poetry" when "performed" by musicians, then it would seem that you could have "poetry" (lyrics) that is meant to be performed purely via a spoken reading (voice as instrument sort of thing)... yes? And from there, it's a short step (to attempting) to do the same for just reading it, isn't it? Or is that too many dots and closely related matters?

Just curious...

BigGameHunter
30-07-2004, 20:21:01
It's interesting to me that there seems to be a general derision of free verse these days, with the occasional vocal fans. Having edited a lot of literary journals, I've seen the spectrum and pretty much respond to what I like and dislike, regardless of the form.

The earliest free verse poet in the English language is probably Abraham Cowley (mid 1600's), so it is not necessarily a new construct in this language. Milton toyed with it a bit, but I think Walt Whitman knocked the door down to be followed closely by T.S. Eliot, WC Williams and others. So it has a historical base and is not necessarily a new crap style--however, I think what we are seeing in its dislike is the natural craving for the next format, whatever that is.(Probably some audio/visual/text fusion if I had to guess). We're in need of the next form, I think. Not because standard free verse is crap, per se, but probably moreso that we've reached a saturation point among modern readers.
I think that's how structured, metered verse gave way to free verse in the first place.
If I were to write rhyming verse with a formulaic, standard beat patter and alternating last syllable matches now, no matter how good it was, it would probably appear antiquated and trite.
No matter how good a musician I am, if I start playing Dixieland Jazz, you're probably going to be bored and think I'm a cornball. Why? Because it has given way to different forms, and, for whatever reason, these new forms resonate more with the majority of modern perceivers.
I think I'm ready for the next step...seems Kory would rather go back to one of the previous forms and KG, fp et al are comfortable with the current one.

BigGameHunter
30-07-2004, 20:30:28
Oh, and for any lover of poetry I cannot recommend enough the recently deceased William Stafford, a famed Oregon poet, conscientious objector in WWII and wonderful, eloquent observer of life. I had the extreme good fortune to hear him read once and he was incredible. His poetry is awesome...try "The Darkness around us is Deep" for starters.
And, if you can find him, my writing mentor in college, Lawson Inada, is another superior regional modern poet. He was a Japanese internment camp child here in the U.S. and quite an incredible observer from that standpoint.

Kory
30-07-2004, 21:49:25
Darkstar: some poetry is meant to be performed vocally, it's true. But the point is, then it shouldn't be being published in magazines and chapbooks and full-length books. If it's not meant to be written, it shouldn't be presented solely or primarily in a written format.

BGH: I like well-done free verse. Or I wouldn't like William Carlos Williams. Or Carl Sandberg. (Or, for that matter, Walt Whitman, or a whole lot of other people.) This isn't about free vs formal for me, although I admit to preferring formal on average. This is about two specific modern free verse variants.

However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that metrical rhyming poetry has to appear or feel dated. (I also don't think Dixieland jazz is outdated.) In fact, I strongly disagree with the idea that for art to remain valid it should always be mutating. I don't inherently disagree with the idea of finding new ways to do things, but I don't think that there's anything wrong with re-using old ways, either. My main problem with avant garde stems from this: it's breaking the rules for the sake of breaking the rules, generally executed by people who had no idea what the rules were or how to work within them to begin with.

I think one real problem about structured poetry and how it's received is most people have only been introduced to two, perhaps three, types of structured poetry: the Elizabethan sonnet, which frankly I was bored with 10 years ago, heroic couplets, and possibly standard ballad forms. At last count, I have something like three dozen formalist styles on my cheat sheet -- not all of which are accentual-syllabic, metrical rhyming forms, but some of which are.

Which isn't to say I'm against free verse in concept. But good free verse has structure developed on the fly, i.e., instead of sitting down and saying "Let's write 14 lines in iambic pentameter", the poet will find ways to incorporate accentual-syllabic, or accentual meters or ascending or descending syllable count or a repeat of syllable counts or the re-use of phrases or phrase types or rhyme, etc. etc. etc. as they write.

Going back to Whitman, "Oh Captain, My Captain!" is undeniably free verse, but it's got rhyme, rhythm, and re-use of phraseology, and is a damn good poem. For something a little less obvious in structure, "I Sing the Body Electric" uses both repeating phrases and repeating phrasing -- that is, where identical phrases aren't used, the same manner of description is repeated. It's looser of structure than "Oh Captain, My Captain" by far, but it's still got rhythm and structure in a way modern prose poetry rarely captures. It also manages to capture that elusive poetic phrasing; it's not simply telling you things, it's showing them to you. That's another element I find missing in most modern poetry.

And now I really, really have to get back to work, but I'll be back.

-- Kory (See, now you've gotten me started.)

BigGameHunter
30-07-2004, 21:52:23
Ha ha...it's all good...nice to see we have some true literates here.

Here's a bit of Stafford for us all...

At the Bomb Testing Site
William Stafford

At noon in the desert a panting lizard
waited for history, its elbows tense,
watching the curve of a particular road
as if something might happen.

It was looking for something farther off
than people could see, an important scene
acted in stone for little selves
at the flute end of consequences.

There was just a continent without much on it
under a sky that never cared less.
Ready for a change, the elbows waited.
The hands gripped hard on the desert

Scabrous Birdseed
01-08-2004, 16:56:53
I tend to take a rather Heideggerean view of poetry as the discloser of truth, and the highest form of art. By paying attention (more than any other form) to language itself, the words and sentences, and their meanings and uses and sounds, it is able to penetrate beneath the merely written and become a sort of meta-literary tool that is able to shape language and our understanding of the world.

That single-word line is there because it is integral to the meaning of the poem. It reshapes the familiar sentence into something which sounds and feels different. It brings attention to the word and challenges the reader to think about its significance, about the sound it makes, and the connection between the two. It makes the reader reconsider his world and his understanding of it. In short, it's art.

Whereas free structure and imagery distinctly adds to the meaning of a poem, traditional structure genereally does nothing of the sort (a few specific forms always excepted - Haikus and Rondos spring to mind). The meaning, rather than stemming from the structure, is forced onto it, forced to be uneconomical, over-clever, lyrically sing-song and undramatic. The Ottavo Rima of Byron's Don Juan shows of his humour and language skill admirably, but it does absolutely nothing that can be considered art, and indeed it is not integral to the ultimate meaning of the poem at all.

Now I suppose rhyme could be used to associate and dissociate terms with each other, and make users think of the two rhymed words' connection. But that appears to be outside the conventional poets mindset. As does making the reader think of the conventional structure itself. It becomes like prose, just a form to adhere to rather than a form that modifies the meaning of both the words and indeed itself as it goes along.

The best thing I can say in structured poetry's favour is that it encourages rethinking the way language is used and unconventional word choice. Which is good for the poet although a skilled poet is able to use good language in a free poem as well. "Oooh, that's a clever rhyme" is nice in the way Limericks are nice enjoyable but not particularly deep. It's unsurpricing that many conventional poets were clever Limerick writers as well Was it Auden or Tennysson who came up with the classic about the young girl from aberystwyth (who took her grain to the miss to be grist with)?

Lazarus and the Gimp
01-08-2004, 19:04:44
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Whereas free structure and imagery distinctly adds to the meaning of a poem, traditional structure genereally does nothing of the sort (a few specific forms always excepted - Haikus and Rondos spring to mind). The meaning, rather than stemming from the structure, is forced onto it, forced to be uneconomical, over-clever, lyrically sing-song and undramatic. The Ottavo Rima of Byron's Don Juan shows of his humour and language skill admirably, but it does absolutely nothing that can be considered art, and indeed it is not integral to the ultimate meaning of the poem at all.

The best thing I can say in structured poetry's favour is that it encourages rethinking the way language is used and unconventional word choice. Which is good for the poet although a skilled poet is able to use good language in a free poem as well. "Oooh, that's a clever rhyme" is nice in the way Limericks are nice enjoyable but not particularly deep. It's unsurpricing that many conventional poets were clever Limerick writers as well Was it Auden or Tennysson who came up with the classic about the young girl from aberystwyth (who took her grain to the miss to be grist with)?


A thing of intricate design and beauty, like the workings of a Swiss watch, is never a waste. Here's an example from the greatest technical stylist of 20th century English poetry- Louis MacNeice.



The sunlight on the garden
Hardens and grows cold,
We cannot cage the minute
Within its nets of gold;
When all is told
We cannot beg for pardon.

Our freedom as free lances
Advances towards its end;
The earth compels, upon it
Sonnets and birds descend;
And soon, my friend,
We shall have no time for dances.

The sky was good for flying
Defying the church bells
And every evil iron
Siren and what it tells:
The earth compels,
We are dying, Egypt, dying

And not expecting pardon,
Hardened in heart anew,
But glad to have sat under
Thunder and rain with you,
And grateful too
For sunlight on the garden.

Lazarus and the Gimp
01-08-2004, 19:08:37
That's an ABCBBA rhyme, with the addition of the openings of the 2nd and 4th lines rhyming with the closures of the preceding lines. The bloke was unbelieveable.

Scabrous Birdseed
01-08-2004, 19:14:35
Structured poetry is like baroque music or classical balet it may be pretty but it's not by any stretch of the imagination art.

Lazarus and the Gimp
01-08-2004, 19:29:23
Balls. All three are art.

Lazarus and the Gimp
01-08-2004, 19:32:06
Take the MacNeice example- the poem is all about echoes. Remembering things from the past and drawing comfort from them- but like an echo, the comfort slowly fades with each reptition. Mirroring and emphasising the theme, the poem is packed with echoes and counterechoes.

It's art. It's also genius.

Lazarus and the Gimp
01-08-2004, 19:34:19
This is also art.


Barely a twelvemonth after
The seven days war that put the world to sleep,
Late in the evening the strange horses came.
By then we had made our covenant with silence,
But in the first few days it was so still
We listened to our breathing and were afraid.
On the second day
The radios failed; we turned the knobs, no answer.
On the third day a warship passed us, headed north,
Dead bodies piled on the deck. On the sixth day
A plane plunged over us into the sea. Thereafter
Nothing. The radios dumb;
And still they stand in corners of our kitchens,
And stand, perhaps, turned on, in a million rooms
All over the world. But now if they should speak,
If on a sudden they should speak again,
If on the stroke of noon a voice should speak,
We would not listen, we would not let it bring
That old bad world that swallowed its children quick
At one great gulp. We would not have it again.
Sometimes we think of the nations lying asleep,
Curled blindly in impenetrable sorrow,
And then the thought confounds us with its strangeness.
The tractors lie about our fields; at evening
They look like dank sea-monsters crouched and waiting.
We leave them where they are and let them rust:
"They'll molder away and be like other loam."
We make our oxen drag our rusty plows,
Long laid aside. We have gone back
Far past our fathers' land.
And then, that evening
Late in the summer the strange horses came.
We heard a distant tapping on the road,
A deepening drumming; it stopped, went on again
And at the corner changed to hollow thunder.
We saw the heads
Like a wild wave charging and were afraid.
We had sold our horses in our fathers' time
To buy new tractors. Now they were strange to us
As fabulous steeds set on an ancient shield
Or illustrations in a book of knights.
We did not dare go near them. Yet they waited,
Stubborn and shy, as if they had been sent
By an old command to find our whereabouts
And that long-lost archaic companionship.
In the first moment we had never a thought
That they were creatures to be owned and used.
Among them were some half a dozen colts
Dropped in some wilderness of the broken world,
Yet new as if they had come from their own Eden.
Since then they have pulled our plows and borne our loads,
But that free servitude still can pierce our hearts.
Our life is changed; their coming our beginning.


"The Horses" by Edwin Muir. Told very differently, because it's representing the thoughts of a lost everyman- but still poetry.

Scabrous Birdseed
01-08-2004, 20:22:35
Yeah you're right.

Fuck.

BigGameHunter
02-08-2004, 17:00:30
Uh...what exactly is the point in reference to the current debate?
That Muir's is also art though it is not a classically structured piece?

That is a great poem...

I've never thought that poetry had to be this or that or all that. I took a watercolor class and simply could not reproduce the basic techniques being taught. My colors were all very heavy and bright and looked more like oils. However, the class liked mine the best.

If it's good, it's good...if not...well...one person's trash and all that.

Lazarus and the Gimp
02-08-2004, 17:09:47
Originally posted by BigGameHunter

I've never thought that poetry had to be this or that or all that. I took a watercolor class and simply could not reproduce the basic techniques being taught. My colors were all very heavy and bright and looked more like oils. However, the class liked mine the best.


They thought you'd accidentally wandered in from the Art Therapy session for spastics.

Kory
02-08-2004, 17:13:57
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Structured poetry is like baroque music or classical balet it may be pretty but it's not by any stretch of the imagination art.

Wow, who appionted you arbiter of art? Do you get to wear a funny hat?

But I get it now. You are one of those people who confuse structure with rigidity, and assume that any imposed structure keeps things from being beautiful. The laws of physics and I will be over here when you change your mind.

-- Kory (On a planet where structure is merely framework and canvas.)

Scabrous Birdseed
02-08-2004, 18:19:06
Yes, conveniently jump on the statement I posted when tired and later retracted. :rolleyes:

I realise that making structure a meaningless canvas is good for your arguement but it's pretty silly, especially as both me and (inadvertantly) Laz have provided plentiful examples to the contrary.

Kory
02-08-2004, 19:51:18
No. No, you really haven't.

Scabrous Birdseed
02-08-2004, 20:34:11
Oh come on. There are shitloads of really simple examples. Laz's echo thing where the rhyming of the text reflects the subject matter. The single-word line in the freeform poem whereby the word takes on a higher significance or gets emphasised or gets broken off or becomes a title or whatever. Or (and we're reaching middle-school level here) the poem about pyramids in the shape of a pyramid. All examples where the structure is part of the meaning rather than being just a totally unconnected "canvas".

Kory
02-08-2004, 22:05:17
But that doesn't support your point at all. It supports mine. My point is that poetry should contain some structure, and that most examples of modern prose poetry and avant garde poetry do not. My list of types of structure was not meant to be exhaustive; one cannot possibly be.

Most of the poetry -- not all, simply most -- that I have read in the last 20-25 years by contemporary poets that falls either into the 'prose poetry' or 'avant garde' categories basically has a random feel to it. That is my point. That is why I don't like it. Because I don't feel that there is anything poetic about it, I also claim that most of it isn't poetry by any metric (pun not intended) I can think of. You may still call it art, you may still enjoy it, I don't really care. I'm not out to tell you you shouldn't like it. I am boggled you can consider it poetry when it does not meet the 'has structure of some sort' metric, but hey, if you really want to, that's fine. I'm done trying to explain my point. And you want to know why? Here's why:

You started out with an ad hominem argument: if I don't like the style, I must suck as a writer. You've gone downhill from there. You've almost entirely ignored what I've said, and tried to declaim that obviously what I do like isn't art, even if you did backpedal afterwards. You have basically attacked me and my preferences and my ability rather than addressing a single one of my points, except to dismiss them.

So, to hell with it. Just remember, when I'm published, to not pick up any of my books or poetry, and we'll both be fine.

-- Kory (Going to write a villanelle now.)

Kory
03-08-2004, 13:58:07
By the way, you dolt, a canvas is never unconnected to its art. It's the foundation. Foundations are, by definition, connected. They're the underpinnings. You may not actually see the foundation, but it's got to be there, or the whole thing collapses.

-- Kory (But like I said; me and the laws of physics will just be over here...)

Scabrous Birdseed
03-08-2004, 15:28:13
Fuck you, miss pot. I've tried, patiently, to demonstrate that meter and structure are not the same thing, that the majority of rigid structures and meters dull imagery and contain no intrinsic meaning within themselves (whereas free one often do), that there are ways of concieving of poetry that don't include "lyricality" as a criterion. If you claim that free verse is "random" then you de facto do not understand it; if you don't see the value of being able to use language sound, sentence structure, line breaks to change the meaning of what is written then you're also a bad poet.

What the fuck do you expect me to do, sit by and watch you spew ill-informed bile over my favourite form of art? Fuck you.

Debaser
03-08-2004, 16:31:23
Arguing
on the internet
is
like being in
the
special
Olympics.

etc

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-08-2004, 16:40:39
If you two were hardcore, you'd argue in haiku. I'm most unimpressed.

Kory
03-08-2004, 17:01:38
dear scabby birdseed
you really need to learn to
read what is written

meter and structure
are not the same thing at all
i never claimed so

go back and re-read
my notes again for context
you fucking dolt

the unstructured poem
is the very thing that i
am railing against

of course these haiku
are actually pretty bad
syllables only

but anything for
dear lazarus and the gimp
are you impressed yet?

-- Kory (Arguing on the internet works better if someone is actually reading what you wrote and not what they imagined you wrote.)

Scabrous Birdseed
03-08-2004, 17:56:29
Ah! A third party
Enters the field of debate
The sun: at zenith

Cherry blossoms fall
on the eternal circle
Two in parallel

Reading is not a
one-sided activity
tracks lie in the snow

Count-only Haikus
prove the point that's made
the mosquito buzzes

The dumb scaffolding
Reflects in the muddy pond
Aimless is the fly

The canvas, when shaped
Can itself carry the goal
The square: in darkness

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-08-2004, 18:05:04
Now that's rather good.

Darkstar
03-08-2004, 19:29:41
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If you two were hardcore, you'd argue in haiku. I'm most unimpressed.

:lol:

*long golf clap*

Darkstar
03-08-2004, 19:39:30
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
What the fuck do you expect me to do, sit by and watch you spew ill-informed bile over me? Fuck you.

That's the justification
often used
to run

threads

past 500.



All these poems
sound like
Captain Kirk

performed

them live.

Kory
03-08-2004, 21:24:48
Justification through reiteration,
assertion, insistence and stubborn melee,
So-called rebuttals are just condemnation;
Concession, acceptance are just tossed away.
Affirmation without corroboration;
Bellerophon must have a new protege.
Narcissus and Echo at last have mated,
but what a crude monster they have created.

-- Kory (Ottava Rima girl)

Kory
03-08-2004, 22:02:50
(Although if you insist on Haiku, I just hate writing them in English, is all. But here:

omoimasu
kuso nioimasu
ukiagatta)

-- Kory (Baka!)

Debaser
03-08-2004, 22:11:33
New levels of
pretension have been reached.
Where will it end?

Scabrous Birdseed
03-08-2004, 22:35:14
Fuck poetry. It's a quarter to twelve at night and I've been at work since 4:30. I've decided to switch to badly written Socratic dialogue.

SOCRATES: Tell me, small slave boy, why does a poem have a structure?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Why, Socrates, to distinguish it from prose of course.

SOCRATES: Why does it need to be distinguished from prose?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Because, Socrates, otherwise it isn't poetry.

SOCRATES: So by your definition poetry is only poetry as long as it is metered or rhymed?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Yes. For were it not metered, it would be prose. With line breaks.

SOCRATES: So the meter and rhyme are only there to put it into a category of its own?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Yes, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Let me ask you this. I have here this poem which is perfectly suited for the haiku form. It contains a seasonal trigger word, it's got separate concrete statements that go together, it's even got the square-arc-circle thing going. Would this poem be as good if it was not in the haiku form?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: No, socrates. It wouldn't be as good. Because the haiku is a form that contains more than meter.

SOCRATES: Indeed it does. Now, would you say the choice of structure is meaningful?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: It'd be fair to say that, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Now would you say the form itself, with the things in it that are not mere meter, is meaningful?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Yes. Even if the poem would be different a meaning would be contained in the structure.

SOCRATES: But then the purpose of structure is not merely to distinguish it from prose, but also to carry meaning.

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: It... can be.

SOCRATES: Would you say a poem where the structure carries meaning is a better poem than one where it doesn't?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: I'm... not... sure...?

SOCRATES: But it's certainly not a bad thing?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: No, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Ponder that you've got prose. It is unmetered and unrhymed. It's also got lots of sentence fragments and stuff but let's ignore that. If poetry, of your metered kind, is made better if the structure is meaningful, would the prose, too, be made better by a meaningful poetic structure?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: I'm not sure. I think it would be made very strange, being stretched accross a meter.

SOCRATES: But ponder that that structure is "free" in that you can in fact create whatever lines and stanzas you like?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: That would not be poetry.

SOCRATES: But it would allow the writer control over the structures connotations and meaning? Say he placed a single word on a line, that would tell you something about the word would it not?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Yes.

SOCRATES: And say there was a really dramatic long sentence that suddenly stopped, would that tell you something?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Yes.

SOCRATES: So the structure carries meaning. Wouldn't it then be fair to call it poetry anyway? Just as if it were metered or rhymed, the structure is used by the poet is some way. It has a purpose in the writing.

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: It is used differently than if it were prose, I grant you. But, Socrates, I do not see how that makes it poetry.

SOCRATES: Did you not say the purpose of structure was to differentiate it from prose, and possibly also to add meaning?

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Oh bugger, I sure did.

SOCRATES: I submit to you that free verse is the best kind of poetry because its structure is always used in a way which can be construed as meaningful; the poet conciously acts when he decides his line breaks and word choices, and none of them are by necessity "empty" meter-fillers or rhyming words, so every structural element is seen by the observer as saying something in some way. Even an ill-thought-through poem will give the reader possibilities for connotation this way, and a good one is infinately better. There is nothing there which does not carry someone's meaning in some way.

SMALL, CRIPPLED SLAVE BOY: Oh Socrates, you're a brilliant mind and very sexy too. Would you come have anal sex with me in the gymnasium?

Kory
03-08-2004, 22:46:54
Scabrous, try reading this again:

I do not believe, did not assert, and never will believe or assert, that 'meter and rhyme' are the only forms of structure a poem has. I have repeatedly said this, but your skull is so fucking thick that it hasn't penetrated. I realize your ego forms a ginormous shield that nothing can penetrate, but you look like a total ass arguing against something I not only didn't say but have repeatedly clarified that I did not say.

I have repeatedly asserted that prose poetry and avant garde poetry mostly does not contain structure of any sort whether via 'meaning', rhyme, meter, rhythm, repeat of phrases, the use of monkey dicks up your ass, or anything else you can think of. That is my argument. I have also repeatedly said I think there are exceptions, and I also came out in favor of many types of free verse, including saying I like two rather famous free verse poets: Walt Whitman and William Carlos William.

You are so busy enjoying the sound of your own words that you are arguing with a completely illusory opponent. She must look an awful lot like me, but she is not me. You are so fucking hung up on meter and rhyme that I wonder if they raped you as a child. You were obviously dropped on your head repeatedly at some point so that your hearing and eyesight exclude anything that doesn't give you a chance to sound superior in your own mind.

I did say I like and prefer formalist styles, but that is not the same as saying I don't like anything else. Unlike you, I am open-minded enough to actually believe there is merit in all sorts of styles; I simply believe that most modern poetry does not conform to any sort of rule or structure, not necessarily meter or rhyme but any kind of structure and that most modern poets do not write things I find to be poetic.

So arguing that there are ways besides meter and rhyme to construct poetry is FUCKING STUPID, because that has nothing to do with my point. NOTHING. AT. ALL. YOU. FUCKING. DOLT.

-- Kory (How the hell can you deconstruct poetry when you clearly cannot read?)

BigGameHunter
04-08-2004, 01:03:53
There once was a forum for fun,
that oddly incited much fighting.
Though we deny it all night,
we thrill at the sight
of two soulmates at last joined as one.

Scabrous Birdseed
04-08-2004, 13:04:19
And I have repeatedly said that if you find Modern Poetry to be without structure you do not understand it.

I feel we're going in a circle here.

Let's make an attempt to get out of it, shall we? I believe we have radically different definitions of structure, and from my perspective the difference between "meter and rhyme" and "rhyme, meter, rhythm, repeat of phrases, the use of monkey dicks up your ass" is negligible. You've obviously not really got what I personally mean by "meaningful" and "structure" so I propose we drop both terms because we're obviously at odds over what they mean.

I'll put my perspective in a short paragraph without using the two words, you can do the same, and we can get on. Deal?

Snapcase: "Modern poetry is superior to other forms of poetry because everything contained within it is intentionally used by the poet to try to convey something. It is "pure" because there's no need for the poet to fulfil any criterion of meter or [loads of other element removed] and thus the poem is the naked expression of what the poet wants to say. At every word choice and every line break it is possible to ask: why did the poet chose to use this word or this line break? Or if you're writing the poem, should or shouldn't I chose to use this word or line break? What does it say? Thus modern poetry is both more difficult to read, more difficult to write, and deeper."

Kory
04-08-2004, 17:22:52
Most modern poetry in the forms of prose poetry and avant garde poetry do not contain poetic elements or use them badly, and therefore fail as poetry if not as written art.

Modern prose poetry on average puts in line breaks that appear to be random and without forethought. While it is possible to write prose poetry that contains such use of line breaks to convey emphasis, in most cases, the poet seems to have flung the line breaks around completely randomly without any thought at all. This is why I do not like most of it; it is not poetic to write prose and simply insert random line breaks, and I assert and maintain that is what most of it reads like.

Avant garde poetry attempts to break the rules it feels are too constrictive, however, it is usually written by people who had no clue what the rules were to begin with and no practice in using them. Trying to break a rule you don't understand is a good way to simply mess up. While sometimes deliberately ignoring the rules can produce some interesting results, overall, most of this so-called poetry is really not poetic.

Well thought-out free verse differs from both of these categories, but I have seen very, very little example of it in the last 20 years.

Formalist styles create good poetry in part because of the formalist style; the emphasis may be pre-determined but working within those rules is no more limiting to expression than working entirely in black and white for drawings or photography. What's more, the inherent strictures of formalist styles require one to choose one's words more carefully, which means more precise shades of meaning are likely to be conveyed.

On top of which, "harder to read" is not a qualification that makes something good written art. Although all people place individual interpretations on all art, the fact is, the artist has an obligation to make their art accessible. Snobbish avant garde artists who believe that people who can't understand their art are just stupid annoy me, because what they truly are are lazy artists who can't be arsed to make themselves clear.

On top of all of which: this argument is not about form, which you're still missing. This argument is about how that form is currently being expressed. I'm happy to oblige you by answering your assertions about form, but that's still not my point. My real point is: I don't like it, and all your noodling about how 'superior' it is doesn't make me like it any more -- if anything, it makes me like it less, because anytime someone gets snobbish about an art form, I find myself shying away from it.

I don't like it, and I don't think most of it as expressed currently by modern so-called poets really qualifies as poetry.

Also note that I am not claiming formalist styles are superior. They can be executed just as poorly. I am claiming that what is being published is inferior, in part because so many people jumped on the "oh, isn't that cool and MODREN" bandwagon that most of them don't know what they're doing.

Also, you are incorrect about a few other things. I don't "not understand" the message being conveyed. I dislike the way they're being conveyed. I don't misunderstand what you mean by meaning and structure; the opposite is true: you don't understand what I mean by it. Because you keep asserting your type of structure is somehow superior, where I keep asserting that I'm including your type of structure, and yet somehow you haven't gotten that.

If you get the impression I'm saying here that you're thick, you're right. You are so caught up in being the arbiter of what is cool and superior that you've forgotten that ultimately art is all about opinions, and that some people not only have ones radically different than yours but are entitled to them. No one is going to wipe out prose poetry from the face of the earth just because I don't like it. So why you had to jump all over me on the first place I really don't get. I don't agree it's poetic, and I don't like it, and so fucking what? Why do I have to like what you like and dislike what you dislike? I don't WANT to be a Scabby Clone. One of you is quite enough.

I am going to continue to loathe the random-line-break approach to poetry no matter how many times you tell me how stupid I am for not appreciating it. But every time you open your mouth to give out your little condescending attitude, you just push people further away from what you like. The way to win people over to your point of view is not to belittle them and tell them how wrong they are to like what they like. It's to demonstrate and illustrate -- neither of which you've really done, by the way; your arguments, as I've stated elsewhere, are all via assertion -- what you like in an approachable manner so as to woo people over.

However, since you don't understand that, I think you'll make a fine critic.

-- Kory (But I've come to expect the I'm Always Right attitude from people in their early 20s, so I shouldn't really be surprised.)

BigGameHunter
04-08-2004, 18:36:32
Next Week's Debate Topic:
Threadcount in early 19th Century Tea Cozies: Too much or too little?

Scabrous Birdseed
04-08-2004, 19:02:52
*sigh*

We both claim we understand what the other is on about but the other doesn't understand what we're on about. Both of us have asserted this, but to demonstrate this suppsed understanding is apparently a covert way of admitting we're at fault because as I've read it neither of us have made an attempt to do so. It's a bit like all debates really I can't accept what you think of as structure (or whatever) any more than I can accept the libertarian's definition of freedom, and if I try to describe the other's definition using my own perspective as a guide the other undoubtedly will distance himself from that description. Because that, in turn, would be an acceptance of my terms.

I'm sure you'll disagree with the above paragraph, by the way. :)

I do, however, have one question to ask you. If art is about opinions, why did you make this thread? If you didn't want debate about those opinions, why did you bring up the subject, nastily caricature other people's favourite artform, practically troll forward a response?

I remember that thread a few months ago where you listed bad things that happened to you and claimed you didn't want sympathy. Whose psychology are you having trouble understanding, ours or your own? Obviously you're either wildly mistaken about what the response will be to your threads, or you're lying. Either to us or to youself.

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-08-2004, 19:41:16
There was a young man from Devizes
whose balls were of differing sizes
one was so small
it was no ball at all
but the other won several prizes.

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-08-2004, 19:43:23
Did the "random line break" poetry start with "The Waste Land"? I'm trying to think if anyone preceded Eliot, but can't think of any.

Incidentally, that's no slur on Eliot. I think he was brilliant.

BigGameHunter
04-08-2004, 20:16:40
Laz, you should look into "Verse Libre" the French free verse movement that influenced the likes of Eliot, Pound, et. al.

Darkstar
04-08-2004, 21:34:54
Humm...

(longish) Thread replay:

Kory: <vent> I hate these so called modern poems being published! Why can't they at least publish some good poetry?

Scabby: <Descending from Mount Olympus> If you do not like modern poetry, you must have less artistic appreciation then a worm, and are doomed as a miserable failure forever at any attempt at Art.

Kory: <Ramping up> Blah blah blah Modern poetry is blah blah blah

Scabby: <cleaning under his fingernails> Modern poetry is the only Art that is written.

Kory: <Ramping up more> Blah blah blah Poetry blah blah blah Form.

Scabby: <Expression of interest on his face> Aha! Modern Poetry's form and structure emerges purely from the Modern Poet's writing, not from a template! Pure Art!

Kory: <Spits>But all the masses doing it are crap! Their attempts are bad, and only a monkey on LSD will see any form emerge from these plasticized, laminated, conforming non-conformist posing as Poets or true Artists! <Stamps her foot hard, cracks run out for half a mile, hole forms, hell fire shoots out to the heavens>

Scabby: <Disappointed> What? So you cannot see what they mean? <Shakes head sadly> You must be a talentless hack stuck in the old ways to not see what they mean.

Kory: <Spits napalm> What? Most of them just suck!

Scabby: <Lacquering his nails with clear polish> So you admit you are the idiot who cannot understand Art. Tsk tsk...

Kory: <Launches nuclear attack>

(End thread replay)

I think that about covers it...
Scabby, your primary points seem to be:
* Structure and form are emergent
* Kory is a soulless hack.

Kory, your primary points seem to be:
* the masses of modern poet writers suck, and need to learn about life, Art, and expression
* you don't like being told you are a soulless hack.

Kory seems to be saying she understands that real free-form/modern/avante garde poetry's structure, patterns, themes, etc are emergent. She just doesn't feel that the majority are in any way writing anything that is poetic Art, just hunks of dog doo.

Humm... Scabs, isn't that your basic opinion on the Music world? That the majority doing it aren't really "good"... most are conformists or trying to follow the masses or just suck and need to learn/get better? If I'm wrong, I apologize, but... why are you presuming that the majority of people getting published in poetry are better Artists then you do about the majority of Musicians who get something published?

I think the two of you could have had an interesting debate if it hadn't been for Scabby informing Kory that anyone that does not understand what Modern Poetry is and how it works, is obviously a soulless hack.

Well, enough of my nosing in on something I know completely nothing about in this thread. Time to find other threads to spread my ignorance in.

Kory
04-08-2004, 21:50:58
WTF? When in doubt, bring up some totally unrelated post?
Yeah, that's a winning critical tactic.

Anyhow, Darkstar, from my POV, you have summarized me accurately.

-- Kory (Again, not that it really matters.)

Scabrous Birdseed
04-08-2004, 22:25:55
Er, I think Kory and me are both in perfect agreement that most poetry, whether modern or ancient, freeform or formalist, well-respected or unknown is rubbish. Now if that's not a basis to be a critic off then I don't know what. :beer:

Darkstar, it's not surprising that you take Kory's side in the argument. You tend to. From my perspective the argument went something like this:

<Kory:> Your view of the world is pitiful, stupid and needs to be scrapped.

<Scabby:> Fuck you.

<Kory:> Interesting you should say that. Your view of the world is pitiful, stupid and needs to be scrapped.

<Scabby:> Fuck you. [Explains world view, in hope of Kory getting his point of view.]

<Kory:> You don't get it. You haven't read what I wrote. Your view of the world is pitiful, stupid and needs to be scrapped.

(repeat ad infinitum)

Scabrous Birdseed
04-08-2004, 22:29:44
BTW, I was just responding in kind. I (very occasionally) write the kind of poetry Kory rubbishes, and I don't take kindly to people calling me a "moron".

(;))

BigGameHunter
04-08-2004, 22:31:06
*DING DING*
Round 4!

Darkstar
04-08-2004, 22:56:43
Scab... glad to see you two really do have a basis for understanding. :D

Well, I probably missed it. You know how dense I generally am. But it seemed that it was your opening comment of "if you don't understand this..." that really set off the matter between the two of you. I am probably missing something, but in essence, it seems to me that you are both in agreement about the what the modern forms are. You two seem to differ in that you saying you prefer it, and Kory says she doesn't. Maybe I've missed the bigger concept in this performance piece of fArt? ;) Or, to put it in console Gamer terms, is this really an argument that the PS2 is a better playstation then the X-Box?

I fight with Kory just as much as I agree with her. Although we haven't really locked horns with each other within the last two returns of hers to CG. I think she still just rolling her eyes at screen and letting my ignorance go at this time. If she sticks around long enough though, I'm sure she'll break out her horn polish and start trying to ram some sense into me again. She's always such an optimist. ;)

Kory
04-08-2004, 23:04:50
Scab, your VERY FIRST POST TO ME told me I was a moron who couldn't write, and you expected me to be POLITE?

Get real.

-- Kory (I even tried the first couple posts.)

BigGameHunter
04-08-2004, 23:10:16
I'd like to think that this tops my own "most stupid and horrendous thing to argue about" list, but, alas, I had a much longer and nastier fight on the internet...the topic? Foreskin.

The shame...

fp
05-08-2004, 10:55:21
That foreskin one was an all-star level flamefest.

Scabrous Birdseed
05-08-2004, 15:12:14
Originally posted by Kory
Scab, your VERY FIRST POST TO ME told me I was a moron who couldn't write, and you expected me to be POLITE?

Get real.

-- Kory (I even tried the first couple posts.)

I think you'll find there was an opening post before I started insulting you.

BigGameHunter
05-08-2004, 16:17:54
Originally posted by fp
That foreskin one was an all-star level flamefest.
I'd like to see Asher, Kory, Scabrous B., TCO and Darkstar in a Counterglow Texas Cage Match.
The topic could be about cars or computers or something...

That would be epic.

Scabrous Birdseed
05-08-2004, 16:24:26
Angelhorns has to be in as well.

Debaser
05-08-2004, 16:33:30
And Chris.

Scabrous Birdseed
05-08-2004, 16:34:36
And MOBIUS.

BigGameHunter
05-08-2004, 17:59:05
Is Mobius a flamer?

Scabrous Birdseed
05-08-2004, 18:07:57
More than just about anyone, I think. Or at least used to be.

LOADS OF REALLY GLOATING PARAGRAPHS IN ALL CAPS. YOU FOOL!!!

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-08-2004, 19:19:49
I write both structured verse and free verse. Sometimes a poem has to be free verse- partcularly if I want to capture the feeling of confusion. However at other times I want to create something beautiful for beauty's sake, and I never feel limited or constrained while doing so.

It's like cutting a gemstone. Logically you have to follow certain lines, but the results are still massively variable and the results can be dazzling.

Darkstar
05-08-2004, 19:33:54
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
I'd like to think that this tops my own "most stupid and horrendous thing to argue about" list, but, alas, I had a much longer and nastier fight on the internet...the topic? Foreskin.

The shame...

:lol:

*Deep, belly breaking, Ajli just said something really super mega Captain Obvious, laughs*

Where... :lol:... Where... :lol: ...
Where did that happen? :lol:

Darkstar
05-08-2004, 19:37:06
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
I'd like to see Asher, Kory, Scabrous B., TCO and Darkstar in a Counterglow Texas Cage Match.
The topic could be about cars or computers or something...

That would be epic.

Been there. Done it. Wasn't very epic. Didn't even reach 200 posts.

You want length, you need to have Qweeg start it, let it simmer a bit in the "America is the evil empire" cooker, let someone drop a poor joke about women they've known in it, and let it go full blown of AngelHorns versus the world. That will generally get you about 400 posts then. 700 if she is bored...

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-08-2004, 19:42:58
Originally posted by Darkstar
:lol:

*Deep, belly breaking, Ajli just said something really super mega Captain Obvious, laughs*

Where... :lol:... Where... :lol: ...
Where did that happen? :lol:

Started on Poly. Finished here, after they'd both been banned. Asher v BGH. If I remember correctly.

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-08-2004, 19:45:23
I used to get in some real fights. Why don't I do that any more? I was evil, man. Evil.

But I only ever did it when I really meant it, and nobody seems to get me really angry any more.

Darkstar
05-08-2004, 20:06:16
That's true Laz. Let's see... what's changed between then and now? Is it the posting roster? Or the normal idiotic prejudices occasionally posted isn't centered on skin color anymore?

or maybe... you are just slowing down and getting... er.... how to say... less Venommy, spiteful, and evil? You know, if you don't use it, you lose it. ;)

BigGameHunter
05-08-2004, 21:14:29
Yes...it was on Poly.
It was a thread about circumcision, that arrived right as my son was being born..certain individuals inferred that to cicumsize was tantamount to torture. We managed to actually discuss things like HIV transmission studies, etc. before it turned into an ugly ugly scene with someone saying I was basically trailer trash and my wife too, etc. and me offering to rearrange someone's face and out him to his Dad in the process, etc.
Ironically, I believe I ended up having the last laugh on that one.
I believe my proponent, who had heretofore been "uncut" ended up having to go under the knife for that self same operation, after the fact.
Good times...good times. It went on for hundreds of posts. Very shameful. We've since shook hands over the whole thing...no hard feelings.
You could probably still get me going on family stuff, but God and country don't really piss me off too much anymore.

Darkstar
05-08-2004, 21:18:50
OH! I remember some small part of that over here. I hadn't realized that was part of the bigger flame war. Should have guessed I suppose, but then, I'm thicker then a brick.

I didn't know he had to go get a circumsision. As an adult, that sounds very odd. Bad infection from a piercing?

Scabrous Birdseed
05-08-2004, 21:29:09
Originally posted by Darkstar
Been there. Done it. Wasn't very epic. Didn't even reach 200 posts.


Six people is usually too much. Unless absoultely no-one else is on my side I tend to peter out after a while.

Darkstar
05-08-2004, 21:36:43
We do need a juicy topic that keeps baiting people back to bite again.

BigGameHunter
05-08-2004, 22:43:46
Sonnet war!

Darkstar
05-08-2004, 23:56:50
It would need to be Sonnet versus Avante Guarde... oh. Wait. We have that already. ;)

KrazyHorse@home
07-08-2004, 03:59:59
I hate all poetry.

Lazarus and the Gimp
07-08-2004, 16:55:10
Outside, bitch.

The Mad Monk
07-08-2004, 20:38:45
I

Hate all

Poetry

The Mad Monk
07-08-2004, 20:39:12
*bows*

King_Ghidra@home
07-08-2004, 21:58:46
CBeast!

:shoot:

Immortal Wombat
08-08-2004, 10:28:50
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
*bows* I preferred KrazyHorse's interpretation of the statement as poetry.

Darkstar
09-08-2004, 20:20:04
Mad Monk...

May I suggest a slight revision?

I think you'll find...



I

Hate

all Poetry


To be a better poem. Emphasis is extremely clear, and it forms a nice little expanding pyramid of expression and understanding, illuminating just how you feel, and how strongly you hate poetry. ;)

The Mad Monk
10-08-2004, 04:47:32
Possibly, but the syllable count "spoke" to me. :)

Darkstar
10-08-2004, 16:12:48
Humm... 1/2/3. I suppose I can see your point. If you like obvious patterns of syllable structure. ;)

Angelhorns
20-08-2004, 14:01:41
Hmmm, now I like free verse and traditional poetry. I think its a false argument, Scabby, to claim that free verse is more valuable because the artist decides where the breaks are etc. One could argue that makes it less valuable and less skilled than writing a traditional verse, although personally I wouldnt validate that. I've always liked traditional poetry because it takes such skill to create it- its like being a great ballerina- you know the steps and the routines but you have to claim them and make them your own. Tennyson was THE master at this form- read the Lady of Shallot, its tightly structured but the imagery is dazzlingly original. In fact as you read it it seems really free, like the river he writes about, it just flows right off your tongue and you forget its even a poem. I think he was probably the best British poet of any genre.
Both are valuable basically but practise totally different skills, and while most people have a preference I love both.

Asher
04-10-2004, 00:51:24
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
I believe my proponent, who had heretofore been "uncut" ended up having to go under the knife for that self same operation, after the fact.
I'm still all there, baby. :gasmaske:

BigGameHunter
09-10-2004, 12:08:33
Ah...a little penicillen cleared it up?
Still...I could swear you had some difficulties...hmmm.

Asher
10-10-2004, 22:10:38
It wasn't infected or anything.

BigGameHunter
12-10-2004, 01:08:48
It was just angry and required delicate surgery?