[continued from previous message]
>>> MMP: And as I've already explained, the next generation's possibilities
>>> are as limited as those of their forebears. Since time and circumstance
>>> will *always* conspire to decrease their possibilities by the time they
>>> 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.
>>>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
