[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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   
   >> end print journal, is in deciding which of Jim's poems to leave out.   
   >   
   > Now, that's as adulatory as if the Chimp wrote it himself - and just as   
   > meaningful, I'm afraid. As I've said, and not just to MMP and his team:   
   >   
   > If a poet consistently praised his own and only his own work, that   
   > wouldn't be seen as a comment on the work but on the poet. Do you agree   
   > so far?   
   > If instead two poets considtently praised each other's, and only each   
   > other's, work, I wouldn't see that as any different.   
   >   
   >>> Actually, it's the readers who will make that decision, George.   
   >>   
   >> GD: Well, we can ask the readers who won this round: Michael's   
   >> adversary,   
   >> whose poem was edited by an illiterate; or Michael's ally, the   
   >> illiterate who did the editing.   
   >>   
   >> MMP: I think it abundantly clear that Mr. Rochester is the winner, since   
   >> his "edit" of your poem has weighed so heavily on your consciousness   
   >> that you felt compelled to address it a second time... nearly two years   
   >> after the fact.   
   >   
   > That should be "clear" to anyone. Rereading the thread and thinking of   
   > new things to say would be enough to explain why I'd comment again.   
   > There's no no reason to think that I'd thought of Mr. Chimp's edit in   
   > the intervening time, and I certainly can't say that I have. For   
   > another, I did not address his edit in my reply; I tried to keep the   
   > focus consistently on MMP's "third man" intervention into the flame war   
   > Mr. Chimp had begun; and the new points I made in that respect were   
   > enough to merit a new reply.   
   >   
   >> OTOH, I doubt Jim has given it a single thought.   
   >   
   > That's possibly true. It's questionable whether Mr. Chimp gives anything   
   > he does much thought.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)