[continued from previous message]   
      
   specific form of your choosing?   
      
   You were demanding that a free verse, "diary entry" poet should pit his   
   poetic skills against yours by composing a triolet.   
      
   I hope this "challenge" now seems as ridiculous to you as it does to me.   
      
   > A poet does not have to write in rhyme or meter, or use imagery or   
   > sonics,   
   > but IMO he should at least know how. And every poet, regardless of how   
   > they   
   > write, should be able to impartially judge their own work, and revise as   
   > necessary, fixing the bad lines and inappropriate words that   
   > inevitably mar a first draft. Jim doesn't do any of that - not because   
   > he can't, but because he thinks all his work is just perfect when he   
   > spews   
   > it out. Which is why I would say he doesn't write poems; he write first   
   > drafts   
   > and stops there.   
      
      
   Again, see above.   
      
      
   I should also note that when sorting through the submissions to this   
   year's AYoS print volume, I found that Jim had reposted several of his   
   poems in slightly different versions (some with different titles).   
      
   I don't think it's a matter of not revising his poetry -- he obviously   
   does.  It's a matter of keeping his poetry in an organized system of   
   files.   
      
      
   >> Jim excels at free verse.  In fact, the more prosaic Jim's poems are,   
   >> the better they actually read.  Jim's power as a writer is in his   
   >> ability to capture a sense of reality in his words.   
   >   
   >> Why should he be   
   >> expected to change his form and or style to suit your whim?   
   >   
   > Why indeed should he learn to write poetry, when you slurp him like   
   > this no matter what he writes? Why should he try to improve, when   
   > you tell him his work is perfect already?   
   >   
   > I used to challenge him to do better, as you know, but why   
   > should he listen to criticism when you've convinced him that   
   > anyone who offers criticism of his work is attacking or belittling him?   
      
   I've never convinced him of anything of the sort.   
      
   If you look back through the Sampler records, you'll see that I've   
   accused him of using "tarzanspeak," "tacking on unnecessary morals,"   
   using a "sledgehammer" to drive his moral home; corrected numerous   
   errors regarding consistency, tenses, and of course corrected those   
   pesky little apostrphes.   
      
   You'll also see that Jim has invariably thanked me for my corrections.   
      
   If Jim is no longer interested in taking suggestions/corrections from   
   you, it is only because he sees you as a... um... that is to say, he   
   sees your corrections as a petty attempt of hostility (for which *you*   
   are entirely to blame).   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)