Dovina24 Dec 2004

You and I seem to have vastly differing concepts on both logic and romanticism. Your first paragraph says that not following the rules of logic is dim, thus eliminating romantic and emotional expressions from intellectual discussion. Your argument uses “a scientific paper” as an example. Obvious, a scientific paper must be logical, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? You then say that because I claim that a poem that ignors the restraints of logic is okay, that I am claiming it to be magical. For the second time, let me say that “magical,” in my opinion, refers only to well-written poems, logical or not.

Next, you say that what I seem to want is for the ideas expressed in poetry to be beyond reproach. How silly! I criticize ideas in poems posted here almost daily, and welcome criticism on mine. I wish to be examined on an “intellectual level,” as you say, and on other levels. And why would you say that I consider rhyming important when my poems seldom rhyme? I don’t get it. And will you now say I don’t get it because I am dim and write bow’ls?

Can we have a sensible discussion on this subject, or is it best to just call each other names and walk away?