A letter

[Palba_Noruda]

in the early part of my uni course, we were taught that first you develop technical skill and when that has been absorbed the point it has become as automatic as holding a pencil, then that's when creativity really kicks in. I agree with bronzeage when he said, 'if you can't explain it, you don't understand it'.

Please, if you have time, could you share some of the exercises for learning technical skill? I am always interested to hear about that sort of thing. I have some exercises of my own, but I always like to hear about what is being taught out there.

Interesting discussion.

In order to write poetry well,

I realize that some poets are seeking other results from their poetry).

I am interested to know what it means to write poetry well?

Also, I am very glad to hear you say that poets write for a variety of reasons. Somewhere around this site is a list of reasons people pursue art. Why do you do it? Why do you think others do it? You mentioned art as therapy. Art there other reasons? I enjoy hearing from other people on this topic.

Close reading? Which is close to what I do.

What I'm saying is I don't want to hear that cop out, well I'm a writer...I'm too busy... bullshit. This place is very freewheeling..so you can get away with...I liked it, after a while you begin to see why, and you can comment further.

A poem is not complete without someone reading it. A mechanism is in place for communication i.e. a feedback loop. Trust me that is the only place you'll see me use that C-word in reference to poetry.

So when I see 10 poems by a person, and no comments by that person...really...why should I waste my time? So when I'm tromping over on new poems, from here on out, cut 'n' paste poem goes in the comment, take a look at YOURSELF, enjoy YOUR SELF.

1. Close reading. Did you know that close reading and the formal analysis and interpretation of literature, has only been around for a little over a hundred years. Writers would certainly write essays before that where they discussed the writing of others, but as an approach to working with literature in the formal academic sense, there were no literature departments in universities until the late 1800s. Some theorize that the industrial revolution necessitated a new kind of worker: the middle manager. And the middle manager needed a new kind of training, a watered down version of Rhetorics known as literary theory. The full rhetorical training was reserved for those bound for ministry, law, and real business leadership.

Something that bothers me about close reading and critical interpretation is that when you write it up, at least when I was in school, it had to be written up as rational argumentation. There is nothing wrong with rational argumentation, but it may not be particularly helpful in the composition of poetry, which is by definition NOT rational argumentation. There is overlap, of course, but when one is interested in embracing irrationality and paradox, why spend so much time writing rationally?

2. IN the bits of poetry thread, you say poetry "really shouldn't be" a form of communication. And you say poetry "doesn't really function well as communication."

But now you're saying poetry MUST be a form of communication? Why?

Do you think there has been poetry written that has never been read? Is it still not poetry? Might it not be poetry done well? Might it have been worthwhile to whoever wrote it?

Why would you insist that poetry must be in a feedback loop with others? If you insist on a feedback loop, why must it be verbal between at least two people? What if a poet posts a poem here on this website, watches the hit count go up, but gets zero comments. Might there not be a change in the poet, still, just by virtue of having posted it?

3. Indeed it comes around to another important question. Why do people read poetry at all? I think that is a thread around here somewhere. Why do you do it?

Sorry to ask so many questions.

Damn, I like you.

You must be able to justify every word. If you can't, you made a mistake. If you can justify every word, and it doesn't go over well...

well that one's tough to sort out

Who do you have to justify your words to?

"It's just prose, broken into lines of poetry."

What the fuck does that mean?

I think it means they didn't get what you were trying to do.

[/B]
if he's relying on peripheral vision and having hallucinations as his sight breaks down... then we have to question the presence of the snake. of course, if the snake's real, wasting time questioning its presence might see you well and truly *starredandbleeped*

LOL

 

[twelveoone]

Please, if you have time, could you share some of the exercises for learning technical skill? I am always interested to hear about that sort of thing. I have some exercises of my own, but I always like to hear about what is being taught out there.



I am interested to know what it means to write poetry well?

Also, I am very glad to hear you say that poets write for a variety of reasons. Somewhere around this site is a list of reasons people pursue art. Why do you do it? Why do you think others do it? You mentioned art as therapy. Art there other reasons? I enjoy hearing from other people on this topic.



1. Close reading. Did you know that close reading and the formal analysis and interpretation of literature, has only been around for a little over a hundred years. Writers would certainly write essays before that where they discussed the writing of others, but as an approach to working with literature in the formal academic sense, there were no literature departments in universities until the late 1800s. Some theorize that the industrial revolution necessitated a new kind of worker: the middle manager. And the middle manager needed a new kind of training, a watered down version of Rhetorics known as literary theory. The full rhetorical training was reserved for those bound for ministry, law, and real business leadership.

Something that bothers me about close reading and critical interpretation is that when you write it up, at least when I was in school, it had to be written up as rational argumentation. There is nothing wrong with rational argumentation, but it may not be particularly helpful in the composition of poetry, which is by definition NOT rational argumentation. There is overlap, of course, but when one is interested in embracing irrationality and paradox, why spend so much time writing rationally?

2. IN the bits of poetry thread, you say poetry "really shouldn't be" a form of communication. And you say poetry "doesn't really function well as communication."

But now you're saying poetry MUST be a form of communication? Why?

Do you think there has been poetry written that has never been read? Is it still not poetry? Might it not be poetry done well? Might it have been worthwhile to whoever wrote it?

Why would you insist that poetry must be in a feedback loop with others? If you insist on a feedback loop, why must it be verbal between at least two people? What if a poet posts a poem here on this website, watches the hit count go up, but gets zero comments. Might there not be a change in the poet, still, just by virtue of having posted it?

3. Indeed it comes around to another important question. Why do people read poetry at all? I think that is a thread around here somewhere. Why do you do it?

Sorry to ask so many questions.




Who do you have to justify your words to?



I think it means they didn't get what you were trying to do.




LOL

Well, Pabla. What I said was comments form a feedback loop. As these threads do also. This is communication. A poem in and of itself isn't.
What a writer should do is write something that someone can relate to or have fun with.
The function of critical analysis is to discern the inner logic of a poem. The inner logic often is not rational, and when you think about it writing and reading poetry isn't very rational unless you make a living from it.

"I am interested to know what it means to write poetry well?"
That is where you have to begin to justify every word, it must support that inner logic and give an expected audience something to relate to/ to have fun with. Some of that fun may be the joy of discovery.
That joy of discovery should be why am relating to this how did the writer get me to relate to this what tricks of the trade is he using to get me to relate to this. What am I not seeing? What in the fuck is this devil up to?
Which leads us back to some form of analysis, doesn't it?

"Do you think there has been poetry written that has never been read?"
No, a reconstruction has to take place, otherwise it is just an advanced form of noodling, that is just my opinion.

 

[ninianne]

liked what you said, except there are no rules, there are tools that are free to use.

or chose to ignore them, it just makes it harder, on the writer and the reader

so to paraphrase ...
In order to write poetry well, I think we have to understand the assumptions behind it.

You have a point. I was hesitant as I wrote for that very reason--those assumptions are hard to define. I think I went with the word "rules" because of something else that kept running through my head that has been brought up as I've workshopped pieces with people. "You have to understand the rules in order to break them."

As I see them, the rules (or assumptions if you'd rather) that a poet comes to (or maybe leaves--I'm never certain what the poem will be until I have written it, the editing process can clarify my thought into poetry) a poem with are simple: knowledge of who she's writing for, knowledge of what she wants the poem to say and knowledge how to say it (here is the toolbox of literary figures).

I try not to post a poem as a finished product unless I can answer those three questions to my own satisfation. Sometimes I'm wrong--and when that happens the poem can't stand on its own. I find myself apologizing for it as I post or having to explain myself to a reader.

Sometimes the answers I have are not the same ones that speak to a reader. I don't really mind that. It's good for a poem to say many things.

 

[ninianne]

I am interested to know what it means to write poetry well?

Also, I am very glad to hear you say that poets write for a variety of reasons. Somewhere around this site is a list of reasons people pursue art. Why do you do it? Why do you think others do it? You mentioned art as therapy. Art there other reasons? I enjoy hearing from other people on this topic.

Ah, one of those subjective questions. Cool. My answer would be a well written poem speaks to a reader (making them think or feel depending on what the writer wants) without further clarification by the poet. A poem should say something. At the end of the poem, the reader should need a pause to react somehow. It should be complete in itself. A well wrtten poem can be hard to write. I'm not sure I've ever written a poem that I was completely satisfied with (but I've read some).

There's probably something I'm forgetting.

Why do I write poetry? That's actually a circular question. I write poetry because I can. A lot of the time it's the challenge of it--can I fit my thoughts into a form? Can I convey the feelings behind an image that has been preying on my mind?

Why do other people write poetry? I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are people who write poetry. Ultimately, a poem is written to be read. The question then becomes by whom?

A poem can be written for the writer to read. These poems are very difficult to critique because they tend to be intimate. They tend to express personal feelings and may not appeal to a more general audience. A mother writing about how she feels about a new baby, a person writing to get a load off their chest, therapy writing, things like that. If a person writes a poem for themselves, often an outside reader will find it sentimental or trite. A writer who shares a poem like this often becomes defensive because a critique of the poem feels like a critique of the emotional landscape that inspired the poem.

A poem can be written for a specific reader. Depending on the reader, these also may be difficult to critique. Here we find love poems, poems about specific occasions (for example, I wrote a poem on the occasion of my nephew's blessing that was for his mother and father), and really most poems that were written for a specific challenge or contest or teacher. Because these poems were written with a specific audience in mind, the poet might include inside jokes or rememberings that a more general audience would not appreciate. Poems that were written with a specific goal in mind (as in a contest or a classroom assignment) take into consideration the goal (an A? winning?) and the audience (teacher? judge?). One of my first poems was for a contest (back in elementary school--I won the contest btw) that the school had after the death of our school janitor. I was writing to people who had known him, his family, his friends. The poem in question would not have the same emotional impact to someone who did not know him.

A poem can be written for a general audience. Most of my poems tend to be of this variety. Even in general audience, there are some differentiations. A poem written for children would be different from one written to teens/young adults, even if the subject matter was the same. TS Eliot wrote for a different audience than Billy Collins does, even though they both write to adults.

After consideration of who the audience is comes the consideration of what the poet wants the audience to take away at the end of the poem. This can be a feeling, an image, a thought, a physical response. Depending on the poem, I want my reader to laugh, think, wonder, reflect, sigh, go "oh, how sweet", get off . . . but I never want the reader to shrug and go on to the next poem. I think that other poets want that response too.

 

[bronzeage]

There is no workable definition of poetry which wouldn't exclude some work which could be held up to prove the definition to be incomplete.

We are left to say, "Yes, it's a poem, but not very poetic," and instead of arguing about poetry, we debate the meaning of poetic.

 

[Angeline]

Here is an exercise that I may have heard from Senna Jawa or maybe I read it. But I think it gets at the "justify every word" argument.

Write a poem or take one you've already written. It can be as long or as short as you like but shorter is probably better the first few times you try this. The exercise is to take words out. First take out every word you think you don't really need. Then go back and take out more words: reduce your poem by one quarter or one third or one half. Keep taking words out until you believe that losing even one word more would change the essential meaning of your poem. See what you think of what you have left. If you do this frequently, you will get better and better at editing your poems. You will get better at seeing whether the words you do choose support what you're trying to say. Most folks doing this will recognize that we overdecorate our poems or miss the point because we chose the wrong words.

 

[bronzeage]

Here is an exercise that I may have heard from Senna Jawa or maybe I read it. But I think it gets at the "justify every word" argument.

Write a poem or take one you've already written. It can be as long or as short as you like but shorter is probably better the first few times you try this. The exercise is to take words out. First take out every word you think you don't really need. Then go back and take out more words: reduce your poem by one quarter or one third or one half. Keep taking words out until you believe that losing even one word more would change the essential meaning of your poem. See what you think of what you have left. If you do this frequently, you will get better and better at editing your poems. You will get better at seeing whether the words you do choose support what you're trying to say. Most folks doing this will recognize that we overdecorate our poems or miss the point because we chose the wrong words.

This is what I have always thought the real purpose of haiku and tanka to be.

There is no reason to limit the number of syllables on any line, other than to force oneself to find a way to express the thought after dismissing the words which do not fit the formula.

 

[Angeline]

This is what I have always thought the real purpose of haiku and tanka to be.

There is no reason to limit the number of syllables on any line, other than to force oneself to find a way to express the thought after dismissing the words which do not fit the formula.

Well as I said I am pretty sure I got that exercise from Senna Jawa and those forms were his primary (or initial) interest for poetry. It makes sense he would suggest it.

And yes one of the things I learned from writing lots of sonnets (and form in general) is that when I'd force words to fit form or line requirements, I'd generally screw up the poem.

I've also practiced writing poems where every word starts with the same letter or follows the progression of the alphabet (got that one from Wicked Eve). They seem like dumb exercises and in a way they are but you learn from practicing the craft that way. I am a firm believer that poetry is a combination of art and craft. With no art, the poem is doa. With no craft unless you get very lucky, the art is lost in a morass of words.

 

[bronzeage]

Well as I said I am pretty sure I got that exercise from Senna Jawa and those forms were his primary (or initial) interest for poetry. It makes sense he would suggest it.

And yes one of the things I learned from writing lots of sonnets (and form in general) is that when I'd force words to fit form or line requirements, I'd generally screw up the poem.

I've also practiced writing poems where every word starts with the same letter or follows the progression of the alphabet (got that one from Wicked Eve). They seem like dumb exercises and in a way they are but you learn from practicing the craft that way. I am a firm believer that poetry is a combination of art and craft. With no art, the poem is doa. With no craft unless you get very lucky, the art is lost in a morass of words.

A craft, whether it is poetry or basket weaving requires skills and skills must be learned and practiced. Some people take saxophone lessons and never get past the first scales. It is work to learn a new skill. Few people have the patience.

This is where I have a problem with the people who want poetry to be a free flowing stream of words from their subconscious. That's fine if it helps one sleep better, but the most of the poetry is shit.

 

[Angeline]

A craft, whether it is poetry or basket weaving requires skills and skills must be learned and practiced. Some people take saxophone lessons and never get past the first scales. It is work to learn a new skill. Few people have the patience.

This is where I have a problem with the people who want poetry to be a free flowing stream of words from their subconscious. That's fine if it helps one sleep better, but the most of the poetry is shit.

Yes. I try to be kind but the I don't edit because this is my art argument tends to piss me off right quick. When someone says that to me I'm no longer interested in reading their poems because I know the mind is closed.

 

[serpentwrap]

Methinks good poetry these days is only 30% inspiration. 70% is perspiration. That means knowing the craft. As Bronzeage said, the more you use the craft to weave a basket, the more instinctive the weaving process becomes. The inspiration is in what shape you want the basket to be, but its impeccable execution requires skills in honing the craft of weaving.

It may not hold true for some who could be born geniuses. Like few of the troubadours of teh past who only recited folk poetry. Never wrote it down. But they too must have practised the skill - how the words felt loud, if the metre was right, the rhyming, the syllables, etc. So there is no shortcut to the craft of poetry writing. The art of it is what the audience needs to experience. More diligent the craft, better the audience's appreciation of the art

 

[twelveoone]

Here is an exercise that I may have heard from Senna Jawa or maybe I read it. But I think it gets at the "justify every word" argument.

Write a poem or take one you've already written. It can be as long or as short as you like but shorter is probably better the first few times you try this. The exercise is to take words out. First take out every word you think you don't really need. Then go back and take out more words: reduce your poem by one quarter or one third or one half. Keep taking words out until you believe that losing even one word more would change the essential meaning of your poem. See what you think of what you have left. If you do this frequently, you will get better and better at editing your poems. You will get better at seeing whether the words you do choose support what you're trying to say. Most folks doing this will recognize that we overdecorate our poems or miss the point because we chose the wrong words.

Somehow, when you say it....I find myself agreeing with the old buzzard. I hope he is doing well.
He has been a real inspiration to me in at least two of my poems
...and guess who's up next, when I spin the "E"'s

"justify every word" is a registered trademark, you can't use it without the mention of 1201

 

[twelveoone]

Methinks good poetry these days is only 30% inspiration. 70% is perspiration. That means knowing the craft. As Bronzeage said, the more you use the craft to weave a basket, the more instinctive the weaving process becomes. The inspiration is in what shape you want the basket to be, but its impeccable execution requires skills in honing the craft of weaving.

It may not hold true for some who could be born geniuses. Like few of the troubadours of teh past who only recited folk poetry. Never wrote it down. But they too must have practised the skill - how the words felt loud, if the metre was right, the rhyming, the syllables, etc. So there is no shortcut to the craft of poetry writing. The art of it is what the audience needs to experience. More diligent the craft, better the audience's appreciation of the art

I once boldy announced "I'm a fucking genius" hoping I would be challenged.

Yeh, in the same way Thomas Edison was. Trial and Error, Sweat. Most of you missed the sickening <inspiration>, that this place has yet to recover from.

Now, since we all pretty much agree, heh, heh,heh
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=508480

byfridayam

Go practise your critical skills on this, because it is a shame something like that should only have one comment.

Back in the old days (6 years ago), there were giants here. Involvement. Freewheeling knockdown drag outs. Nobody got killed. What it failed to do was kill was the idea that <inspiration> makes the poetry.

 

[Angeline]

Somehow, when you say it....I find myself agreeing with the old buzzard. I hope he is doing well.
He has been a real inspiration to me in at least two of my poems
...and guess who's up next, when I spin the "E"'s

"justify every word" is a registered trademark, you can't use it without the mention of 1201:rolleyes:

I'll give you credit though I may have to borrow it sometimes. I agree strongly that one needs to have a reason for each word in a poem. Words that can't be justified don't belong there!

Haven't talked to SJ for a long time but I see him posting on Facebook occasionally.

 

[bronzeage]

I once boldy announced "I'm a fucking genius" hoping I would be challenged.

Yeh, in the same way Thomas Edison was. Trial and Error, Sweat. Most of you missed the sickening <inspiration>, that this place has yet to recover from.

Now, since we all pretty much agree, heh, heh,heh
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=508480

byfridayam

Go practise your critical skills on this, because it is a shame something like that should only have one comment.

Back in the old days (6 years ago), there were giants here. Involvement. Freewheeling knockdown drag outs. Nobody got killed. What it failed to do was kill was the idea that <inspiration> makes the poetry.

If only that was all that was needed.

 

[twelveoone]

I'll give you credit though I may have to borrow it sometimes. I agree strongly that one needs to have a reason for each word in a poem. Words that can't be justified don't belong there!

Haven't talked to SJ for a long time but I see him posting on Facebook occasionally.

Great! I don't know if he was pulling our leg when he said he was over 100.
I just took a walk in New Poems circa 2004-2005. jd4george, pat, bogus, some new cad Tzara. Ryb's reviews - he liked Senna.

mem-o-ries
sings to himself...
so off key
so discordantly

Thing is; it can be like it was.

 

[CharleyH]

Here is an exercise that I may have heard from Senna Jawa or maybe I read it. But I think it gets at the "justify every word" argument.

Write a poem or take one you've already written. It can be as long or as short as you like but shorter is probably better the first few times you try this. The exercise is to take words out. First take out every word you think you don't really need. Then go back and take out more words: reduce your poem by one quarter or one third or one half. Keep taking words out until you believe that losing even one word more would change the essential meaning of your poem. See what you think of what you have left. If you do this frequently, you will get better and better at editing your poems. You will get better at seeing whether the words you do choose support what you're trying to say. Most folks doing this will recognize that we overdecorate our poems or miss the point because we chose the wrong words.

I like this a lot, Ang. It's helpful to me at least, even if self-editing my work is no problem. My difficulty as a writer is actually finishing without being bogged down by thoughts, semiotics and another cup of procrastination.

 

[twelveoone]

I like this a lot, Ang. It's helpful to me at least, even if self-editing my work is no problem. My difficulty as a writer is actually finishing without being bogged down by thoughts, semiotics and another cup of procrastination.

Signs are not proof, since anyone can produce false or ambiguous signs.-Barthes (or at least an English translation thereof.)

 

[twelveoone]

Yes. I try to be kind but the I don't edit because this is my art argument tends to piss me off right quick. When someone says that to me I'm no longer interested in reading their poems because I know the mind is closed.

I like this slip into the demotic

 

[CharleyH]

Signs are not proof, since anyone can produce false or ambiguous signs.-Barthes (or at least an English translation thereof.)

Enh. I'm sure Barthes stole that line from Saussure's beginner book.

 

[Palba_Noruda]

Ah, one of those subjective questions. Cool. My answer would be a well written poem speaks to a reader (making them think or feel depending on what the writer wants) without further clarification by the poet. A poem should say something. At the end of the poem, the reader should need a pause to react somehow. It should be complete in itself. A well wrtten poem can be hard to write. I'm not sure I've ever written a poem that I was completely satisfied with (but I've read some).

There's probably something I'm forgetting.

Why do I write poetry? That's actually a circular question. I write poetry because I can. A lot of the time it's the challenge of it--can I fit my thoughts into a form? Can I convey the feelings behind an image that has been preying on my mind?

Why do other people write poetry? I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are people who write poetry. Ultimately, a poem is written to be read. The question then becomes by whom?

A poem can be written for the writer to read. These poems are very difficult to critique because they tend to be intimate. They tend to express personal feelings and may not appeal to a more general audience. A mother writing about how she feels about a new baby, a person writing to get a load off their chest, therapy writing, things like that. If a person writes a poem for themselves, often an outside reader will find it sentimental or trite. A writer who shares a poem like this often becomes defensive because a critique of the poem feels like a critique of the emotional landscape that inspired the poem.

Thanks for writing this, Ninianne. I'm glad you identify several different audiences a poet might have.

I would like to offer some thoughts on reasons a person might write poetry to himself.

I think some poets write as a way to cultivate and honor their personal identity.

Think of it as brushing your teeth. It is something you do to take care of yourself. You end up with clean teeth, decent breath, and a nice smile. You don't need constant feedback to know it's a good idea to take of yourself that way. And it's certainly not therapy.

Sort of like a person might pursue friendships and eat certain kinds of food and work in certain kinds of jobs and wear certain clothes and go to certain clubs, etc.

On another note, writing poetry to cultivate identity is something like acting. An actor recites lines that have already been written.

Humanity has already written the words the poet uses. We call them ideas, myths, cultural narratives, facts, theories, opinions, forms.

The actor uses her physiology and spirit to bring her lines to life. The poet uses her physiology and spirit, also, to compose. To some degree, the poems have already been written, but the poet, like the actor, puts her own spin on them.

Some poets want to explore how the language that has already been written works on the self, how it comes in and interacts with the self's physiology and spirit.

The process may result in emotional understanding; a feeling. The feeling can be one of satisfaction. It can be a feeling of being oneself, of being at home in the world. This is why I think writing poetry can be a way to honor one's identity.

The writing that comes out of all of this can be shared with others or not. It doesn't really matter.

And if it is shared, people can respond to it or not.

So for the poet who is writing for the self, the response of the audience is of secondary importance. The change that occurs within the poet when the poem is shared can be significant, but that can be understood to be just another part of the process.

In other words, the poet who writes for himself may pursue poetry as an activity so that he is able to cultivate relationships and is able to communicate with people outside of his specific poetry practice.

Though, for some, the hope is that the poetry practice in some ways pervades other activities and allows for some open-ness of spirit and some sort of poetic processing or poetic mindset be available to understand what is happening.


Personally, I feel some paradox when it comes to the relationship between writer and reader.

On one hand, I think if a person writes specifically to get a response, that person is, quite frankly, a bit needy. Probably for some reasons that don't have much to do with her poetry.

It's a bit like being in middle school hoping that cute boy in math class will notice me. Am I pretty enough? Is my poem good enough? Will he read it all the way through to the end? Will he leave a comment? Oh my god, he did! Blush blush giggle giggle. I AM pretty enough. Somebody else in the world NOTICED me and my life is complete now!

It all seems a bit undignified to me.

The paradox, of course, is that I do share intimate poems with people from time to time and I do experience some strong feelings when it happens. I don't recall ever having been defensive; I am mature, professional, and have a strong sense of self. I can be vulnerable from time to time, but I am not one to crumble upon being rejected by the boy in math class, so to speak. And I certainly don't need feedback to know when I've done something well. Positive feedback is a perk.

 

[Angeline]

I like this slip into the demotic

It's cultural. I live in the mountains of North Carolina now. I'm fixin to use fixin as a reflexive verb these days, too.

 

[bronzeage]

It's cultural. I live in the mountains of North Carolina now. I'm fixin to use fixin as a reflexive verb these days, too.

I was on the phone with a woman who lives in Canada and she starts to giggle,

"You really say fixin? That's so cute."

What?

"You say whuut, too. That's even better."

 

[greenmountaineer]

Yes. I try to be kind but the I don't edit because this is my art argument tends to piss me off right quick. When someone says that to me I'm no longer interested in reading their poems because I know the mind is closed.

I seem to recall that in a thread recently. I soon tired of "yes but I like it" posts when it clearly could have been improved.

 

[Angeline]

I was on the phone with a woman who lives in Canada and she starts to giggle,

"You really say fixin? That's so cute."

What?

"You say whuut, too. That's even better."

I may live here for the next thirty years--and I hope to because I love it here--but I doubt I'll ever be able to stop saying "cawfee." You can take the girl outta Joisey....

I seem to recall that in a thread recently. I soon tired of "yes but I like it" posts when it clearly could have been improved.

It represents an attitude so far from where I am I can't waste my time on it. I'd rather write my own stuff than fight with people to show them that "art" is even better when it's polished.