new poems

[Senna Jawa]

Re: Re: new poems of 7/20/03

Like haiku, these kind of art gives one a chance to understand art, the issues present themselves in a clear-cut way, like under laboratory conditions. And there is not much point in talking high about art when abc is not understood, when one doesn't even have a clue. A poem may be minuscule but it may have more artistic elements than a long one which may have next to none.

It's so characteristic of Literotica and this board. My poem already has two votes: 2 & 3. The voters simply grade themselves   .

 

[Guest]

SJ: reading your self-quote above, before one 'grades' your lower cases do you mean for the focus to be on pedagogy, aesthetics, ideololgy, lit. theory, You-name-it?

seriously, Perdita

 

[RazzRajen]

Re: new poems of 7/20/03

Today we have 13 new works .....



Thanks Rybka for the mention....


Razz

 

[Senna Jawa]

SJ: reading your self-quote above, before one 'grades' your lower cases do you mean for the focus to be on pedagogy, aesthetics, ideololgy, lit. theory, You-name-it?

seriously, Perdita

Hey, perdita-baby, take it easy, what are you serious about?

 

[Senna Jawa]

SJ: [...] before one 'grades' [...]

seriously, Perdita

There are already three 'grades' in: 3   2   2,   for a   2.33   average. This poem is already among my most voted on poems, hey!

 

[Guest]

Hey, perdita-baby, take it easy, what are you serious about?

OK, Sen; I'm easy. You sounded too serious though. Are we even? Noooooo, I like off kilter things, and poetic oddities.

Alegría a usted, Perdita

 

[Senna Jawa]

Are we even?

  ??   (Why this notion "even", what about? Never mind, forget it, nothing here).

Alegría a usted, Perdita

Allergen not used, Senna Jawa

 

[Maria2394]

voting

There are already three 'grades' in: 3   2   2,   for a   2.33   average. This poem is already among my most voted on poems, hey!

Hi SJ,
just wanted to say that I always vote on everything I read unless its something that I just dont get immediatly, and if that is the case, I never rush to judgement and give a low score. I will come back and read it again and again if necessary until I think I understand what the writer intended. Also, I am curious as to how the assignment of the little green E's affect voting, as mine are among the lowest scored poems I have...
I also do not agree with you when you say that we the readers are merely judging ourselves, if that were the case, then we would not bother to vote and give ourselves a low score unless we are all just masochists. And if your thinking is correct, then wouldnt you be getting tons of high votes?

Just wondering, have a lovely day, maria

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: voting

Hi SJ,

Oh, hi Maria, nice to meet you.

just wanted to say that I always vote on everything I read unless its something that I just dont get immediatly, and if that is the case, I never rush to judgement and give a low score. I will come back and read it again and again if necessary until I think I understand what the writer intended.

That's very nice of you. I don't vote, I stopped a very long time ago, just after a couple of weeks after joining Literotica. Well, I voted sporadically perhaps a few times more, just a few friendly fives , still a long time ago.

Also, I am curious as to how the assignment of the little green E's affect voting, as mine are among the lowest scored poems I have...

Any kind of additional exposure may cause some readers to vote who otherwise would not. Also, some readers are mean, hence they will strike down a "successful" poem. On the other hand the great majority of Literotica "successful" poems are simply awful(!!!), and perhaps some naive readers feel that they should do justice (while once again they would not bother under routine circumstances).

I also do not agree with you when you say that we the readers are merely judging ourselves,

In a sense, always. When a poem is really good then the grade for the reader is the grade which this reader gave to the poem. And when a poem is lousy then the grade for the reader is given by the formula:

        grade for the reader = 6 - grade for the poem

E.g. when terrible "poems", which should be voted 1 or worse are cheerfully praised here and voted 5, then the cheerful reader deserves 6 - 5 = 1; the grade for the reader is 1.

Under the primitive Literotica circumstances my statement is astonishingly correct, as witnessed by this thread.

if that were the case, then we would not bother to vote and give ourselves a low score unless we are all just masochists. And if your thinking is correct, then wouldnt you be getting tons of high votes?

All this voting is a sheer nonsense but I still love trivia . Actually, I am getting my share of fives. Recently I had just four votes, all 5s, for one poem, and three votes , all 5s, for other two poems (plus my usual sixty or so poems with average 5.00 mostly due to a single vote per poem). This was a fluke (and it didn't last long). Most of the time I have just 3-5 poems which have two 5s and no other votes, and otherwise I have about 60 poems which have exactly one vote, which is 5-- thus I have about 35% poems which have perfect average vote 5.00 (but based mostly on a single vote, with a few exceptions based on two votes only).

Until a few weeks ago I had surprisingly few votes below 4. This has changed once this board got into its mean action, which is fine with me and fun. Now the number of low votes for my poems went quite a bit up. It happens every time, you may bank on it, when righteous people here decide that this board belongs to them, that they are more equal.

My, and perhaps most everybody's votes have improved when a silly Literotica "fraud fighting" algorithm kicked in (until then my average voting scores were very low). The algorithm somehow removes a lot of votes under some idiotic assumptions. Somehow it causes the average vote to go up. Sure, it removes a lot of 5s too. The great majority of my poems had actually average 5.00 at one moment or another--partly thanks to that silly algorithm, since it leaves very few votes in place. But then it removes also those 5s, even all of them for any given poem. Then lower votes may appear. And average 5. (or any 5 for the poem) is but a reminiscence.

I still can't squeeze much of any kind of sense out of votes, hence they are not my favorite trivia. But still, trivia is trivia is trivia... It's better than no trivia. That's all

Just wondering, have a lovely day, maria

And you too, maria,

Senna Jawa

PS. Strictly speaking it is not the algorithm but the very idea of such an algorithm, which is idiotic. Such an algorithm cannot be good, period. It's even very questionable if any voting scheme can be any good, I doubt it, but that's where one should direct one's thinking if one cares about the idea of voting.

 

[Senna Jawa]

There are already three 'grades' in: 3   2   2,   for a   2.33   average. This poem is already among my most voted on poems, hey!

The last moment fresh from the press news: the average went up, it did, it went up, now it is 2.50 due to a soooo generous vote 3. The total sequence of votes, in the chronological order (I mean in the historical order), has been

                    3   2   2   3

Wow, you guys are so great! The crop of the cheerleaders and conscientious high school students. You have turned into Literotica adults just fine. Your aunt and uncle is proud of you.

 

[OT]

Re: voting

Also, I am curious as to how the assignment of the little green E's affect voting, as mine are among the lowest scored poems I have...

Maria:
I'd attribute the lower scoring E-poems to unmet expectations.

Reader's, unaware that the E simply means that one person (who happens to be the editor) liked the poem, click on the decorated submission expecting to read perfection. If it's not perfect or special they attempt to restore order to a world gone amuck and vote towards the unspecial end of the spectrum.

 

[WickedEve]

OT, I believe you came up with the perfect answer.

 

[Senna Jawa]

[...] the average [...] is 2.50 [...] The total sequence of votes, in the chronological order [...] has been

                    3   2   2   3

An update:

                    3   2   2   3   5

The average of these five votes for the   1-word poem   is   3.00

Five votes the very first day -- that has never happened to any of my poems in the past. After a previous "skirmish" one my poem was voted 4 or even 5 times but not the very first day, I don't think so.

 

[Rybka]

An update:

                    3   2   2   3   5

The average of these five votes for the   1-word poem   is   3.00

Five votes the very first day -- that has never happened to any of my poems in the past. After a previous "skirmish" one my poem was voted 4 or even 5 times but not the very first day, I don't think so.

A 3 was what I thought it worth and that is what I gave it. It at best average for the work of yours that I have seen. I am glad the average is returning to average.

Regards,                     Rybka

 

[WickedEve]

An update:

                    3   2   2   3   5

The average of these five votes for the   1-word poem   is   3.00

Five votes the very first day -- that has never happened to any of my poems in the past. After a previous "skirmish" one my poem was voted 4 or even 5 times but not the very first day, I don't think so.

I gave you the 5 just to see what would happen. By the way, have you explained what the poem means, yet?

 

[OT]

Senna Jawa:

A five feels (a bit) generous for a poem comprised of a single (made-up) word.
It's amusing enough that a one would seem harsh. That leaves 2,3 or 4.

Subtract a bit for using a made up word and add a bit for cleverness.
The votes you mentioned don't seem unreasonable.

So you are treating us to voting play-by-play because ... ?

 

[Maria2394]

Re: Re: voting

Maria:
I'd attribute the lower scoring E-poems to unmet expectations.

Reader's, unaware that the E simply means that one person (who happens to be the editor) liked the poem, click on the decorated submission expecting to read perfection. If it's not perfect or special they attempt to restore order to a world gone amuck and vote towards the unspecial end of the spectrum.

Thanks for your explanation, OT, which seems very reasonable. I am glad I dont have to feel amuck anymore I have encountered that very "thing" on several occasions with E rates stories

******* Senna, how can you not appreciate the delicious irony of what you call a typo on your "grrrr" poem ?I think it actually accentuates what you were trying to say...

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: Re: Re: voting

******* Senna, how can you not appreciate the delicious irony of what you call a typo on your "grrrr" poem ?I think it actually accentuates what you were trying to say...

I am not impressed because such things are too common. (Something similar has happened to another my poem a few weeks ago, and that time it was mentioned here by a participant too). It is just too easy to make associations between the two levels: the thing (say the subject of the poem, its semantics) and the meta-thing (say the poem as a material bunch of ascii codes).

On a different poetry board, where they put down poor texts without any qualms, they use phrases from the poem as a part of their comment (that's not quoting) to make fun of the poem. They think that it is funny. I don't like it. I find it too easy and cheap. BTW, this is just an association, and not a remark related to your amusement.

When you deal with such two-level fenomena for long years you take them in stride, they don't make you smile anymore. Perhaps it is a good place to mention that the two interpretations of an object, say of a text, are at the roots of life. John von Neumann got this very fundamental idea but he didn't want to say that it is not the case of reproduction of just "universal cellular automata" but of all living. He was too careful for that, too honest as a scientist. On the contrary, while this his idea of life is very suggestive, he carefully stated that he didn't show anything like this. That came only when DNA was discovered. (In real life things get more complicated though). Even earlier, this mixing of a level and its meta-level was done very carefully by Kurt Godel, with a smashing effect (which a posteriori feels natural). In a sense he proved that we are to be humble, that certain fundamental, intelectual things are beyond our reach.

When something is new to you then it tends to be funny. When you deal with such things day in and day out for years then the funny effect evaporates. (Certain constructions in mathematics feel to amateurs like magic. But after a short while you take them for granted, you work with them constantly).

Regards,

                Senna Jawa

 

[Senna Jawa]

Senna Jawa:

A five feels (a bit) generous for a poem comprised of a single (made-up) word.

You should be in the business of buying and selling sand, groceries... by pound. Your statement clearly proves that art is not for you.

Subtract a bit for using a made up word and add a bit for cleverness.
The votes you mentioned don't seem unreasonable.

It's so funny that you feel obliged to voice you opinion

Isn't it something that any monkey can sound in his mind like a professor?! (If you had any brains you would try to learn something instead of being so full of ..it).

So you are treating us to voting play-by-play because ... ?

To give you, OT, something to chew on.

 

[Senna Jawa]

the profound versus the trivial

The best possible response to a silly argument going on at a neighbour thread comes from Maria2394. I'm not even going to give you the title of the poem, because that's the joy of this pearl of wisedom. click me!

To trivialize even the most profound is trivial, while the profound still stays profound, despite the ignorant smirks.

 

[Senna Jawa]

I gave you the 5 just to see what would happen.

I have already answered your question--the average went up back to 3. BTW, you are a nice experimenter, and the wisest person on this board.

By the way, have you explained what the poem means, yet?

Naeh, I am not going to discuss this poem here no more. The "discussion" around it and those "objective" votes stink too much. Just imagine that things were cozy. How drastically different it would all be. KarmaDog would never be so thoughtlessly rude, Rybka would slap not 3 but 5 and brag about it, pretending some understanding, several participants would thank for the after all very interesting link, etc etc etc etc etc Everybody, all the small hypocrites, would be saccharin sweet, as they are one to another all the time, all the time... VOMIT. Ugh.

And oh, Eve, meaning is but a fraction of what poetry is about. You know this, don't you?

Best regards,

Senna Jawa

PS. One vote got removed and one added, for a rating of 2.60. I can't tell the individual votes anymore. It is impossible to tell them from the insufficient information available to me. We can only wonder whose vote was "fraud"?

 

[Senna Jawa]

Originally posted by Senna Jawa PS. One vote got removed and one added, for a rating of 2.60. I can't tell the individual votes anymore. It is impossible to tell them from the insufficient information available to me. We can only wonder whose vote was "fraud"? [/B]

Of course the "fraud" was not a 2 but one of the 3s or 5.

 

[OT]

You should be in the business of buying and selling sand, groceries... by pound. Your statement clearly proves that art is not for you.It's so funny that you feel obliged to voice you opinion

Isn't it something that any monkey can sound in his mind like a professor?! (If you had any brains you would try to learn something instead of being so full of ..it).To give you, OT, something to chew on.

So I voiced an opinion on the writing, and you call me a brainless monkey full of shit ? Very mature, Senna Jawa. Very mature.

Trust me, I was not chewing on the poem. I was more wondering why you were being troll-ish and posting such mindless crap on the board. (The mindless crap being the vote play by play, not necesssarily the poem)

 

[darkmaas]

Belated Thanks.

I've been away and I see that I missed a tiff about ART and voting.

Thank you Angeline for your spinner review of "Wormwood", and Maria for your kind words. I have soft spot in my heart for Salome and that poem. Now I feel guilty 'cause I never delivered on my promise of a spinner a week ago.

Respectfully,

darkmaas

 

[darkmaas]

New Poems for Monday

A larger selection this week and I am grateful.


Lets start off with a pair of Angelines. It's tough reviewing poems by one's betters and I try to hold some of you to a higher standard. However even by Ange's standard, His Shadow Speaks, is a winner. I'm personally not a big fan of Peter Pan, but the sophistication of this poem still leaps off the page.

I am a fan of Mr. Zappa who makes a cameo appearance in Village Blues. For those of us of a certain age, this poem might be a very maudlin trip but the last line saves the poem from mere nostalgia.



Smithpeter gives us a draft of a poem unnamed poem :draft: which apart from a well deserved E is fine poetry. Read it first, then look at Palau's reduction of the draft to it’s minimal jingo state. Not an improvement imho but make up your own mind. However, he redeems himself later with derive pleasure as fits.



Enough of the regulars. I once knew a woman who kept the ashes of her step-father who had abused her and died penniless. None of his relatives wanted anything to do with his demise, so she had him cremated and kept him in a nice jar on her mantlepiece as a conversation stopper. I was therefore taken by Closer To Me Still by peacefulpoetess. It might be improved by a bit more ambiguity but that’s only my opinion.

A Fanned Affair by Grace Livingstone contains the lines:

She is a servile garden of vines, long
and inclined to wrap around me.

which are worth giving a quick look at this poem.


There are many other offerings today and none are dogs, so please read them all and don't forget to vote or better yet offer encouragement.

Respectfully,

darkmaas.