XPost: alt.arts.poetry.comments   
   From: sword@no-dennis.net   
      
   On 2005-02-28 Karla (karlark@sbcglobal.net) said:   
      
      > Dennis Hammes' Sword wrote:   
      >   
      > > It's all in the archives.  You could look it up.   
      >   
      > I am in the archives.  Circa 1997 to present.  Same name.  Have   
      > a look and then come back and plead your case for Renay trauma   
      > to the group.   
      
   Heh.  No one -- least of all me -- alleged "...Renay trauma to   
   the group."  What I wrote was:   
      
   >>> Early on, Renay aligned herself with The Cabal, and -- like   
   >>> a dutiful Cabal-slurping lemming -- she jumped on the 'Bash-   
   >>> Will-Dockery-and-his-poetry' bandwagon.   
      
   So any "trauma" to "the group" (actually, to Dockery) was perpe-   
   trated by The Cabal with its 'Bash Dockery' mindset.  Renay was   
   just one of the mindless "monkey-see, monkey-do"-ers who was   
   along for the bandwagon ride.   
      
   And what she's now experiencing from Dockery is merely a matter   
   of "What goes around, comes around."   
      
   Hope this clears things up.   
      
   You obviously read my original post, since you quoted it, but   
   you seem to have run it through some kind of internal Karla   
   filter which nulled the content, and replaced it with your own   
   conception of its content.   
      
   You're free to do that, of course, but I can't be responsible   
   for the result.   
      
      > The fact is, she doesn't post as much as I'd like.  The   
      > Cabal wants more Renay posts. She disappoints us all.   
      
   You're speaking for The Cabal now, Karla?  You're very much a   
   'joiner,' aren't you.  Indeed, one might postulate that -- in   
   your own way -- you need acceptance and approval as much as   
   Mr. Dockery does.   
      
      > Here's some free writing advice.  Know who your reader is.   
      
   Are you the same 'Karla' who's known for poetry books targetted   
   at the youth market?   
      
   If so, I turn your advice back on you.  You're not writing for   
   4-to-8-year-olds when you write in these newsgroups.   
      
   But if you're not that 'Karla,' then I have no idea who you are.   
   And you have no idea who I am.   
      
      > Could it be, alas, that I'm writing in hopes that someone might   
      > finally feel the hammer on the nail head?  Could that be why Cabal   
      > Evans writes?  Or Senor Ross?   
      
   Not a chance.  My personal perception is that PeeJay has always   
   been a troll.  Yes, for awhile, he went through an incarnation   
   in which he played the self-styled 'poetry expert,' because he   
   found it amusing to do so.   
      
   For awhile.  Ultimately, he reverted to type.   
      
   In my opinion, PeeJay was always a poseur.  Ironically, the ad hoc   
   Cabal took his 'critiques' OOOOooooh so seriously.  Hardly any   
   'regulars' ever saw through the facade.   
      
   A few did, though.  And you'll notice that most of them have de-   
   parted for greener, less disingenuous pastures.   
      
      > (Since this is a serious post, I won't suggest that Mr. Sherman   
      > writes purely to inform.  Surely, I'll gain some credibility for   
      > that!)   
      
   Not really.  No one with a lick o'sense and an I.Q. over 50   
   could POSSIBLY take Junior Sherman's posts, or his 'poetry,'   
   seriously.   
      
      > I'd consider it a good day, a successful day if just one anonymous   
      > soul (inserted for Renay *lick*) waded through this abyss and   
      > realized that one can evaluate poetry based on some pretty sound   
      > notions set down in books, taught in classes, linked on websites,   
      > etc.  That taking the time to *think* about someone else's poem -   
      > the use of figurative language, allusion, meaning, idea, tone,   
      > musical devices, rhythm, meter, pattern - might improve the   
      > writer's own attempts at poetry but is also a rewarding end in   
      > itself. Yes, I may be replying to something you posted, but I   
      > always know who my readers are and I'm just confident enough to   
      > think it ain't just you.   
      >   
      > Karla   
      
   Good thing, too.  If MY readership of your posts were the defining   
   factor, you'd be pretty much alone.  And, as we've already speculated,   
   that's probably not a place where you can stand to be.   
      
   Naturally, you're free to advocate a read-books/take-classes/visit-   
   websites approach to writing poetry.   
      
   My quibble with such a socialized 'group-think' approach is that it   
   too often results in:   
      
      1. 'Poetry' that may be acceptable on a technical basis, but   
         which is aesthetically barren; lacking the artistic je ne   
         sais quoi that connects with the reader, and often precip-   
         itates an involuntary "Ahh!" of recognition and/or under-   
         standing.   
      
      2. 'Poets' who end up writing for each other (peer approval),   
         and neglect the general audience.   
      
   An example which simultaneously illustrates both 1 and 2 (above)   
   was posted here last year:   
      
          pale bees   
          like little pigs   
          touch her flesh   
      
          two white   
          deer on the road   
          which is perfumed.   
      
          a nerve   
          in its ashtray   
          swept by searchlights.   
      
                      - dmh   
      
   Martijn Benders thought this was great.  Duhhh!   
      
   As far as Renay's 'poetry' is concerned, I think she has some   
   raw, relatively undisciplined talent.  She's got a good eye, and   
   I like some of her down-in-the-dirt realistic takes on things.   
      
   That said, her writing is not up to the usual pseudo-'arty'   
   standards required by The Cabal...so its acceptance of her work   
   is obvious based on something other than merit; probably some   
   kind of 'social' relationship (as your mention of meeting her   
   at a gathering would tend to confirm).   
      
   Not that I give a rat's fuzzy patoot about The Cabal's alleged   
   'standards.'  Clearly, I don't.   
      
   But I'd like to see Renay move beyond the personalized self-   
   absorption of her past prosy work, and beyond needing peer   
   approval.  Right now, she's a bud, packed into a cultivated   
   acre that's crowded with thousands of other buds.  I wanna see   
   a free-standing flower.   
      
   The potential is there, but as yet unrealized.   
      
   As always, your mileage will undoubtedly vary.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)