[continued from previous message]
>> reach adulthood, the seemingly unlimited possibilities at birth are
>> necessarily an illusion.
>
> Nonsense; people can and do realize possibilities in their lives,
> including those their ancestors never did. No one can do everything, of
> course, but plenty of people have done enough to justify their existence
> {many of whose ancestors did nothing to justify theirs, beyond - wait
> for it - having families).
>
>>> Roughly speaking (i.e., ignoring the incoherent pseudo-sentences),
>>
>> GD: I do hope we've spent enough time on Edward's pseudo-sentences.
>>
>> MMP: LOL! If Mr. Dance actually meant what he said, he wouldn't have
>> reopened a two-year old thread in order to bitch about Mr. Rochester's
>> "edits" to his poem a second time.
>
> LOL right back. I've already explained why I commented on the thread
> Will reopened. But I'm serious; we've advanced the debate. MMP has not
> disputed that all "illiteracy" he discovered was caused by Mr. Chimp,
> but he's sticking to his story that the poem is still "illiterate"
> anway, as per his editorial philosophy: "When [someone] is seen as an
> adversary, you assign a childish name to him and claim he can't write."
>
>>> your
>>> poem is saying that we are all born with unlimited potential, but that
>>> the years conspire (with circumstance) to undercut our ability to
>>> achieve it.
>
> What is "it"? No one realizes "unlimited" possibilites, but plenty of
> people realize some, including ones their parents failed to realize.
>
>>> As compensation for our wasted lives, we can always take
>>> solace in our families (ignoring the fact that our children's potential
>>> will be as unrealized as our own.
>>
>> GD: Nothing in the poem about "compensation" - the word I used was
>> "justification". A person who has children has not completely wasted his
>> or her own life, no matter how much he or she hasn't done.
>
>> MMP: Sentimental hogwash.
>
> Nothing sentimental about it. You or I have no idea what those children,
> or their children, or their children will do. That gives one a reason to
> value other people, to judge them to be at least worth not harming - but
> it's a reason based purely on self-interest, not sentiment.
>
>> I point to the example of "Joey"
> - and I'll snip it, because it looks like another attempt to flame Will
> and/or to change the subject. Instead, I'll give an example of my own.
>
> One justifies one's life by adding value to the world.
> Did Edgar Allan Poe add value to the world? I'd say yes, by his writing.
> Did John M. Poe add value to the world? I'm not aware of anything he
> did, but I'd say yes for him as well, because he was EAP's
> great-grandfather - without him, there'd have been no EAP.
>
>>> That's a good (if downbeat) topic for a poem. Unfortunately, your
>>> attempt to force it into triolet form at the sake of clarity undermines
>>> any possibilities ;-) it might have had.
>>
>> GD: It's sad that Michael's opinion of the poem (which, as noted, he
>> previously published in his "literary journal") has fallen so much since
>> he put me on his enemy's list. I'm sure that was just a coincidence,
>> though.
>
>> MMP: Again, Mr. Dance is confusing the purpose of The Sunday Sampler,
>> and A Year of Sundays which is its current incarnation.
>
>> A Year of Sundays was created to provide a showcase for the best poetry
>> of each of AAPC's members. My opinion regarding Mr. Dance's poem has not
>> changed: it is without doubt one of Mr. Dance's better works.
>
> Really? MMP claimed just days ago (in the post I'm replying to) that the
> poem was "illiterate". Now he's saying that he thought it was
> "illiterate" when he published it in AYOS? Why would he publish an
> "illiterate" poem? And why, FTM, what is holding him back from showing
> why he allegedly thought it was illiterate?
>
> (Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I think MMP is bullshitting,
> and that his stated opinions did change, when he switched me from
> potential ally to open adversary. But he is free to prove me wrong by
> supplying credible answers.)
>
>> Nor is Mr. Dance on my imaginary "enemies list."
>
> There is no need to even look for a quote. There is no other reason why
> MMP jumped into this discussion, two years ago or now, other than to
> protect Mr. Chimpfrom me? Or why his Mr. Chimp even started it? One
> that's better than this Team Monkey vs. Team Donkey thing you now claim
> to have no memory of?
>
>> *****Speaking of A Year of Sundays... I'm currently compiling our 2024
>> print volume, which features the work of such (usenet) AAPC favorites as
>> J.D. Senetto, NancyGene, Ash Wurthing, Kevin Fries, Bob Burrows,
>> Hieronymous Corey, Karen Tellefsen, Richard Oakley, Wenceslas Kabeba,
>> and my oh-so-humble self; along with FB AAPC favorites, Louise Charlton
>> Webster, Scott Thomas, Bruce Boston, Robert Payne Cabeen, Paul Cordeiro,
>> ruth housman, Trinity-memyandi Venter, Jefferson Carter, Joseph Danoski,
>> Stephen Brooke, & Devin Anderson.*****
>
> Congratulations; that's at least 19 people who'll buy a copy. Make that
> 20; I'll probably get one to see what Bruce Boston wrote.
>>
>> But I digress
>>
>> (backthread snipped)
>>
>>> 1) There is nothing particularly difficult about writing a poem in any
>>> given form. One doesn't even have to memorize the structure of a
>>> triolet. All one has to do is use a triolet for a model and copy the
>>> format.
>>
>> GD: It certainly seems to be too hard for some people.
>>
>> MMP: What a childish and petty thing to say!
>
> MMP and his Mr. Chimp may believe they can write really wonderful
> triolets if they felt like it. There is absolutely no reason for me to
> humor them, of course.
>
>>> 2) As previously noted, I don't like writing in pre-fabricated forms.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> If I write a sonnet, it's because my Muse dictated a 14-line poem to me.
>>> Poets who write from inspiration rather than formula don't limit
>>> themselves to someone else's rules.
>>
>> GD: The "Muse" is a charming idea, which I've heard of; but I don't
>> remember ever seeing Her invoked to evade responsibility for one's
>> writing until
>> now.
>>
>> MMP: Why do you lie so much, Mr. Dance?
>>
>> There is not even a hint of evading poetic responsibility in my
>> statement.
>
> It's clear here that MMP is saying no one can blame him or Mr. Chimp for
> what they write, because it's not their choice; their "muses" made them
> write it that way. You just take dictation.
>
>> Quite the contrary, it stresses the importance of *not*
>> sacrificing inspiration by forcing it into a preconceived format.
>
>
>
>>> 3) Jim is a far better poet than you. Jim's poems strike the reader as
>>> being real -- powerfully, emotionally raw, unadulterated reality.
>
> This is the other side of MMP's editorial philosophy: "When Jim is seen
> as a potential ally, you request his poetry." That's raw, unadulterated
> reality.
>
>>> Your
>>> poems, otoh, express time-worn, mundane thoughts in imitative formats.
>>
>> GD: Interestingly, MMP concludes by once again praising the work of
>> an
>> ally Jim ("Edward") while insulting the work of an adversary. If he were
>> still here, I'm sure he'd shrug that off as just a coincidence.
>>
>> MMP: J.D. Senetto is an exceptionally talented poet. In fact, my
>> greatest difficulty in selecting which poems to include in AYoS' year
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
