replying on The True Fate of Humpty Dumpty by Joe-joe
25 Jan 2006, 7:09 AM
Very constructive comments ecargo. You're absolutely right about the NR coming out of nowhere... I actually wrote the last 4 lines first while sitting at my desk this morning. Don't ask me why but the Humpty Dumpty and Three Blind Mice thing just popped into my mind...that's kind of how it is with most of what I write. Interesting image but I felt myself straining to fit it within the context of a story...another common occurrence with regard to my writing. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. Joe
on Sunlighting by ALChemy
5 Jan 2006, 5:45 AM
Al,
Very nice. I love the way you flip traditional perception in the first line. It sets the tone for the balance of the poem which creatively describes the dawning of day while playfully personifying the relationship between moon and sun...at least that's the way I read it. Joe
Very nice. I love the way you flip traditional perception in the first line. It sets the tone for the balance of the poem which creatively describes the dawning of day while playfully personifying the relationship between moon and sun...at least that's the way I read it. Joe
replying on Schoolyard Walls by Joe-joe
4 Jan 2006, 5:50 AM
No. I told the dud that I was a professor at the prestigious New School for Social Research in NYC. I gave him clues about my identity and had him search for me in the NS website. All of this after he repeatedly accused me of being intellectually challenged. The irony of it all was quite amusing to me. Heâs chomping at the bit as we speak.
replying on Schoolyard Walls by Joe-joe
4 Jan 2006, 5:42 AM
Al,
I'm only kidding too. The Humbert Humbert reference was actually pretty funny. Didn't Peter Sellers and James mason star in the film (Lolita, early to mid 60's)??? I think we're both showing our age here!!!
I'm only kidding too. The Humbert Humbert reference was actually pretty funny. Didn't Peter Sellers and James mason star in the film (Lolita, early to mid 60's)??? I think we're both showing our age here!!!
replying on Schoolyard Walls by Joe-joe
3 Jan 2006, 3:24 PM
I'm not worried...he stopped talking to me about a year ago after I sent him on a wild goose chase...made him look quite silly...long story.
replying on Schoolyard Walls by Joe-joe
3 Jan 2006, 3:17 PM
I'm happy to hear that you flunked out...that makes you at very least a decent person. Be well.
replying on Schoolyard Walls by Joe-joe
3 Jan 2006, 3:11 PM
Ah, I see you're a graduate of the Zodiac school of higher criticism. Could have made the correction right off the bat and saved the silly sarcasm for another occasion.
replying on Schoolyard Walls by Joe-joe
3 Jan 2006, 2:42 PM
Perhaps or maybe there is a special Lolita in your life that has finally gotten the best of you.
replying on Construction Lot (edit) by zodiac
3 Jan 2006, 1:47 PM
...of course the first part of my comment only makes sense if one has not taken the time to read the title of the poem. I stand by the second point. By the way, it's clear to me that you were never a real "city dweller"....any kid from a big city will tell you that construction sites always make for the best playgrounds.
on This Is Me by PoeticXTC
3 Jan 2006, 1:41 PM
A bit too much on your subject's physical features. I thought you were going to contrast the strong and self-assured outward appearance of your subject with an ego more fragile than most would think. Having said that I thought the last line was really good...although I would say that vanity is higher on the sin chain than envy.
on Construction Lot (edit) by zodiac
3 Jan 2006, 1:32 PM
The city kids must have moved to the suburbs because a "fence" could never keep one of us out of our favorite play grounds. On one hand you suggest that something was built on the lot, on the other you paint a picture of an empty lot surrounded by a fence. Which one is it? The last paragraph is vague at very best. Are you attempting to highlight the common man's powerlessness in the face of âprogressâ or your own sense of indifference?
replying on Schoolyard Walls by Joe-joe
3 Jan 2006, 1:13 PM
Before your time...I guess.
on Untitled by http://mulberryfairy
29 Apr 2005, 2:01 AM
Hello Mulberry. I hope all is well with you. Why the orientation change? Why not just find another man?
on I have Learned to Let Go by Joe-joe
24 Dec 2004, 6:08 AM
Hey Zodie, lighten up...or are you still upset about that little wild goose chase I sent you on a while back... you can attack my writing all you'd like but the fact of the matter is that I could sell you ice in the North Pole if I so desired. I wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year!!
Peace
Joe
Peace
Joe
on I have Learned to Let Go by Joe-joe
24 Dec 2004, 6:04 AM
After hours of pondering, I've opted for theory number 1. Yes, all poets are dim and all poetry is nonesense, some are just dimer and more nonsensical than others.
replying on I have Learned to Let Go by Joe-joe
22 Dec 2004, 12:57 PM
It really is a shame that you are as sick as you are. You have a gifted mind that could probably accomplish great things if it were properly aimed. I must admit however, that while I do pity you I also find you quite amusing.
replying on I have Learned to Let Go by Joe-joe
22 Dec 2004, 12:49 PM
mmm, give me some time to think about it...I'll get back to you as soon as I decide.
replying on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning
6 May 2004, 4:25 AM
"Source of the poets vision: Language, one can never hope to use language to (literally!) match the physical. One can make representations, study relationships" No. The poet uses language to portray images and ideas. Language is the means not the end. The sculpter uses rock and metal tools to create images. Do you suggest that rock and tools are the source of his/her vision? He/she starts with an idea or is sponaneously moved/inspired in a way that leads to a unique and persoanl form of expression. Where does the idea come from? What is the source of his/her inspiration?
I'm not really sure what you mean by "using language to match the physical" but it seems to me that if you reject all metaphysical explanations of the poets vision and inspiration, you must be able explain every aspect of them in physical terms. I assume this would be done much in the same way one would explain how a computer works.....use of binary code to generate letters and symbols...memory storage....working memory...pre-programmed sets of instructions , etc... But even this form of explanation runs you head first into an arguement for something beyond simple physical cause and effect becuase the computer does nothing without receiving stimuli from a source beyond its physical boundries, the human mind and body.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "using language to match the physical" but it seems to me that if you reject all metaphysical explanations of the poets vision and inspiration, you must be able explain every aspect of them in physical terms. I assume this would be done much in the same way one would explain how a computer works.....use of binary code to generate letters and symbols...memory storage....working memory...pre-programmed sets of instructions , etc... But even this form of explanation runs you head first into an arguement for something beyond simple physical cause and effect becuase the computer does nothing without receiving stimuli from a source beyond its physical boundries, the human mind and body.
"il o h ae f y rmln rtes
Yed t te ft o m tebig bohr." translated = yield(ed) to the fate of my trembling brothers...the guys in in office didn't catch the bouncing characters so I'm not so sure my little lettering play was detected here.