Members Who Read Most Number Of Poems

Live Scores

Click here to see the rest of the list

Poetics and Poetry Discussion

Post a message
  • Allan James Saywell (5/23/2005 1:50:00 AM) Post reply

    WHO HAS THE POWER, WHO HAS THE WEALTH WE DO WILDERBEAST YOUR JUST A LITTLE ISLAND
    PUNY LITTLE ISLAND

  • Allan James Saywell (5/22/2005 10:53:00 PM) Post reply

    ERWIN BAXTER NEVER HEARD OF YOU, DO YOU WRITE UNDER YOUR REAL NAME

  • Allan James Saywell (5/22/2005 8:23:00 PM) Post reply | Read 1 reply

    english lesson for lamont, i dont ever post poems, not never

    Replies for this message:
    • Andy Konisberg (5/22/2005 10:19:00 PM) Post reply

      You're in no position to hand out English lessons, Al. You can only spell your own name because it's on a label sewn inside all your clothes.

  • Andy Konisberg (5/22/2005 1:41:00 PM) Post reply

    some interesting posts from earlier:

    #

    Lamont Palmer (5/22/2005 11: 56: 00 AM) Post reply

    Raynette, you said a MOUTHFUL. Finally someone gets me!

    #

    Raynette Eitel (5/22/2005 11: 52: 00 AM) Post reply

    Sometimes prose can be musical. Check out As It Is In Heaven, a novel by Niall Williams (who seems to write in the language of a poet.) Also try Ava's Man, by pulitzer winning reporter, Rick Bragg. No doubt about the music in their prose. But then some so-called poets write in dull, empty phrases and, like the Emperor's New Clothes, they have a following who think they can see the poetry in it. It isn't a matter of the new poetry and the old poetry. It is a matter of knowing the craft of poetry, it's intricacies and its mastery of language. A poet has a full pallete of words and paints his/her canvas with mastery. The musical flow of words comes from the soul as well as knowledge of the way words and phrases flow musically. Sharon needs to read more masters before she throws words at the paper.

    #

    Lamont Palmer (5/22/2005 11: 11: 00 AM) Post reply | Read 2 replies

    When I talk of music I dont mean metaphor...they're 2 different things. Let me try to show what I mean by music. Which line is more musical? I'll keep it simple.

    A. I love you
    like I love the stars
    because the stars have
    a warm glow and you also
    have a warm glow which I feel
    when I'm close to you.

    B. I love you like I love the stars,
    they have a warm glow like you;
    I feel it when I'm close to you.

    You'd have to say B has better music. Why? Because its TIGHTER. I took out certain words. 'A' is more like prose. 'B' sounds more like poetry...albeit, cornball poetry but that isnt the point. Its tighter, thus sounding more musical. Now I'll sit back and wait to be either understood or torn to shreds. (smile)

  • Raynette Eitel (5/22/2005 11:52:00 AM) Post reply | Read 1 reply

    Sometimes prose can be musical. Check out As It Is In Heaven, a novel by Niall Williams (who seems to write in the language of a poet.) Also try Ava's Man, by pulitzer winning reporter, Rick Bragg. No doubt about the music in their prose. But then some so-called poets write in dull, empty phrases and, like the Emperor's New Clothes, they have a following who think they can see the poetry in it. It isn't a matter of the new poetry and the old poetry. It is a matter of knowing the craft of poetry, it's intricacies and its mastery of language. A poet has a full pallete of words and paints his/her canvas with mastery. The musical flow of words comes from the soul as well as knowledge of the way words and phrases flow musically. Sharon needs to read more masters before she throws words at the paper.

    Replies for this message:
  • Michael Shepherd (5/22/2005 10:08:00 AM) Post reply

    I love a bit of clever - but those who automatically criticize the 'elite' do raise the image of pots and kettles...? However, they do sharpen our our judgment. When Ken Tynan was Friday drama critic of the Evening Standard over here, thespian Sirs and Dames would be quaking in their buskins on Fridays...

    First time I read two putdowns in one phrase - 'He's not as good as the over-rated...' Double whammy.

  • Poetry Hound (5/22/2005 8:01:00 AM) Post reply

    Michael, we don’t need to invite Schneider to be a guest critic. We’ve already got Lamont, who is a secret Schneider emissary! ! ! But seriously, I don’t think Schneider is “a bit” of a curmudgeon. I think he’s a HUGE curmudgeon. He writes colorfully and I enjoy that, and it’s always fun to read a good rant. Even though I disagree with him about Sharon Olds, it’s amusing to read his harangue about her. I actually find it kind of funny – you’d think she dumped him as a boyfriend the way he’s so dismissive of her. But as I get older, I’m less attracted to blunt force trauma in either poetry or poetic criticism. I’m more attracted to subtlety and nuance. I don’t perceive Schneider being “kept on the fringes” of poetic criticism by “the powers that be.” That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. If there truly are “powers that be” in poetic criticism, they sure are keeping quiet about it because I don’t even know who they are. I think Schneider is just one voice, a shrill one, but just one. And I imagine there are others like me who prefer more dimensionality in both the poetry and poetic criticism they read.

  • Michael Shepherd (5/22/2005 6:38:00 AM) Post reply

    (half an hour later, gasping...) wow, if you enjoy a good demolition job that goes into extra time (who's telling her she goes on too long, huh?) , then SnideySchneider's Twin Towers on Sharon Olds and her tiptoe reviewers is a Krispy Kreemy orgy of destruction. Now I know where you're coming from, Lamont.
    Does the guy love poetry so much that he hates it? Interesting thought. Dean Swift perhaps? Voltaire? I guess the Olds poem on this site are a charitable selection...
    The curious defect in Schneider is that his makeover versions are ineffective, for me. But I've just started reading wife Jessica on Plath, and for me she's a more creative destroyer, so to speak. Who suggested we invite Schneider as Poemhunter Guest Critic for a week...? Ouch.

  • Robert Rorabeck (5/21/2005 9:54:00 PM) Post reply

    I'd like to chime in on my thoughts of Poetry Hound's tastes- In my opinion, he obviously recognizes good poetry- this is his passion and he is very vocal about it. He's mentioned some poets I hadn't read yet and I've checked them out and loved them, though I have to say after reading a book of Jim Morrison poetry, he isn't all that great, at least for a poet.... Because PH has such refined tastes, however, I think he often dislikes some really good stuff that's out there, especially personal experience poetry which PH seems to put down for some reason- Bukowski is the every man poet for a reason- because he's accessible and often good (and often not) - he tells the truth, though, and doesn't try to ham things up. I like Sharon Olds stuff very much too, though she's not one of my very favorites. So, I think PH's tastes are legitimate, though not the end all of great or even good poetry. As for the idea that there's too much poetry being published in America, this is ridiculous- Where is it? Maybe in certain circles but certainly not in the mainstream- I go on ebay to get poetry books cheap and 8 out of the 10 poetry books being sold are from the UK or overseas- Poetry is very much ignored in America- hardly anybody reads it.

  • Poetry Hound (5/21/2005 7:50:00 PM) Post reply

    Come on Lamont, you remind me of the people in the fifties who complained that the stuff Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie were playing wasn’t music. Jazz artists pretty much ignored definitions of what constituted music and we’re better off for it. Likewise, impressionist painters ignored the definitions of what constituted art. Contemporary poets should not be bound by old definitions of poetry. I don’t want to read poetry by people who try to write like Dickinson or Whitman any more than I want to see paintings by people who try to paint like Van Gogh or Seurat. Being influenced by them is fine, but to say that contemporary poetry must employ the techniques of the old masters means that we’ll be left with poetry that is derivative and phony and doesn’t push the limits. Ultimately, trying to come up with a definition of what is and isn’t poetry is an exercise in mental masturbation. I think the definition will always remain elusive and you just have to be comfortable with the elusiveness. On thing is for sure: Whether someone writes in phrases or sentences is irrelevant to the definition. You’ve already lost that battle. It’s been accepted for some time now that poetry can employ full sentences and I don’t think there’s any going back now.

[Hata Bildir]