[continued from previous message]
>>>>> How do the possibilities justify our lives if they are decreased to
>>>>> irrelevancy by years?
>>>>
>>>> GD: As I already explained: they're restored in the next generation.
>>>>
>>>> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
