"Let's Hear It for Homos" - 20.1%

"Why Can't I Ejaculate?" only gets 10.2%.

What was your title?

http://www.lulu.com/titlescorer/index.php

Yeah, I didn't actually mean the Matthew passage to come into this discussion. I just thought it was cute.

I also didn't mean Greek used the same word for spirit/ghost/breath; I meant Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic do.

Paul was writing in a tradition where spirit, ghost, and breath were the same word. In Greek, 'spirit' is most commonly translated πνεύμα (pneuma), which you might recognize from some other interesting words.

'When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.'

I sort of see it. In any event, you'd have to say "hold a foundation as truth"; you couldn't only say "hold a foundation" any more than you could say "hold a truth".

Even then, it would be better to say you hold a bunch of things to be true, thereby making a foundation (that holds you.)

Foundations hold people, not vice versa. That's their only purpose.

Thanks. It's poemranker's truest communal poem, I think. Feel free to contribute. I might even get around to reposting with the new verses someday - though I would love seeing it at the top of the Top 20.

I'm playing with the idea that there are more arenas in poetry than I've previously imagined. There's the hymnal, religious, family-oriented arena (amanda's); the poetic song lyric arena (like wilco's); the publication in Big Name journals arena (mine); the deeply personal arena; the writer's-pleasure-only arena, probably; and who knows how many others (SLAM!, California wackiness, goth, poop.)

Amanda's poems would not be successful in my arena, yes. Neither would mine be suitable for hers. But in our own arenas, we're both aces. To be sure, the very best poetry is the best because it suits more than one crowd or idea of poetry - Frost comes to mind for being personal and big name; Donne for being lyrical, big-name, and devotional. And so on.

Should I insist on judging amanda's work by how well it would fit in, say, Atlantic Quarterly? Or an L.A. SLAM! reading? Doesn't that discount a lot of popular, enduring writing that's well-suited to its place?

Feel free to disagree. I can see why anyone would.

Leaving out "the"

We were tempted to give an example of what we're talking about but decided against it. There's enough examples of this kind of writing on the poetry newsgroups. Someone, somewhere, decided that leaving out the "the" articles in poems somehow made them sound more heartfelt and meaningful. It doesn't. All it does is make every piece written this way sound exactly like every other piece. It isn't clever, it isn't creative. It isn't even original. It's merely another sign of bad poetry.

- Bob Charles

A recent competition on The Gazebo was to use as many of some done-to-death words as possible in a single poem. The list included heart, soul, mortality/immortality, morn, beautiful, hallowed, awaken, lament, wholly, anguish, dwell, futile, void, abyss, ablaze, cherish, longing, and yearning.

- Bob Charles, editor of The Gazebo

Sure, he's single. I had to marry one to get what I want.

Don't - but blame readers, not publishers. That's harder, isn't it? Readers are like us. What are you reading now?