From: gadfly@NOSPAMmeow.org
On Wednesday 02 March, Karla wrote in rec.arts.poems:
> On 2 Mar 2005 11:41:45 -0800, "Will Dockery" wrote:
>>Jane Asher's Vagina wrote:
>>> On 2 Mar 2005 09:07:09 -0800, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>
>>> > Jane Asher's Vagina wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:20:40 GMT, Karla wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Caring for Others
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Vestibule smelling of old potpourri,
>>> >>> coat hooks above a mash of rubber,
>>> >>> and in one corner, a tumbled umbrella.
>>> >>> Flocked wallpaper, deep blue,
>>> >>> electric candle sconces along the walls,
>>> >>> shadow couch and shadow pillows. The nameless
>>> >>
>>> >> Nameless? Let me help. Pure CatShit.
>>> >
>>> > Karla's poem, while it had some interesting and sometimes
>>disturbing
>>> > moments, is basically a convoluted mess.
>>> >
>>> > She desperately need to focus, and *edit*.
>>> >
>>> > As it is, *catshit* works as a one word critique: bad, over-written
>>> > "poetry".
>>>
>>> She has, again, marred the wart known as the Cabal. Slurpette
>>Obnoxious,
>>> rip a stripe of your sleeve.
>>
>>Heh. Kabol's lack of commentary on this very flawed poem noted.
> I didn't post this to alt.arts.poetry.comments OR alt.poetry. Why did you
> publish this to other groups?
Apparently, Dockery's newsgroup software doesn't allow him to post to
fewer than three groups.
> Also, it's hard to respond to your comments. You sit on the fence. In your
> opinion, there are "interesting and sometimes disturbing moments" - comments
> which refer to the narrative only. Later, you tag onto Jane Asher's Vagina's
> (a usenet handle which remains unchallenged by you; who's in a clique?)
> comments and stamp this draft catshit. I don't know about you, but I scoop
> and dump my catshit. Help me out here! I'm the dumb one, remember? Do I
> dump the whole lot or do I redeem the "interesting and sometimes disturbing
> moments"? And if I keep those, what are they? Help! I "desperately need to
> focus, and *edit*".
You count the adjectives in the first strophe and wonder whether the
adjective/noun ratio suits the methods of a poet who isn't Horace or
Spenser (nor, presumably, would wish to be). Potpourri is old by
definition: those petals are ex-petals; they have gawn to meet their
maker. Whether the blue is deep or not can be left to the reader's
imagination, if (unlike Dockery) he or she has one. And any reader who
really wants to know whether the wallpaper is flocked or not needs to
get out more.
If "shadow" is a verb, the comma after "walls" is wrong. If it's a
noun used as an adjective, I wonder what a shadow couch or a shadow
pillow might look like. Shadowy, I suppose, but not interesting enough
to be talked about twice.
"Tumbled umbrella" has excellent sounds, but they're rather speedy
sounds for something that's lying unmoving on the floor. If you really
must use so many adjective, consider the sounds of "torn umbrella",
with a long, passive vowel to set the scene. (Then find a better word
than "torn".)
In line 3, either a comma after "and" or no comma after corner would
be logical.
In general, conventional sentence structure may not be a bad thing, ya
know?
I haven't yet read what's already been snipped.
I'll be posting a LIST of people who agree with this critique of the
leisurely beginning of your draft as soon as they've received the usual
bribes. (Jim, I've temporarily run out of 18-yo virgins. Will a
natural blonde 20-yo do, just this once?)
PJR :-)
--
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQ:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/
To reply by email, remove "NOSPAM".]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
