"To keep the review thread clean..."

[hmmnmm]

Maybe it should stay a "what if."

I think so too. Brings out the Inner Detective though, if nothing else.

 

[sassynyc]

Thank you for the review LadynSt, and all who left comments.

 

[WickedEve]

"To keep the review thread clean..." and other chitchat has been split in half. And other chitchat is now its own thread, with a group of posts from the last couple of days to start it off right! So chat away and have fun.

This thread is more for thanking reviewers and those who leave feedback, talking about the poems, etc. Pretty much what it's always been but without the overkill of nonstop chat. And other chitchat is for chatting! Cyberflirting, etc. I hope some of you will also move your cyberflirting from the blog thread. It's hard to find blog entries with all the cyberflirting.

 

[WickedEve]

The only reason those were not included in my review yesterday is because the poet doesn't want comments. I want to respect his wishes.

I agree. If someone has comments turned off, then I try not to comment on the poem in my reviews. If it's a really good poem, I might mention that you read it, but I don't offer any other comments about it.

 

[WickedEve]

You read poems early this morning, Ange! Thanks for comments on those two of mine. I think they need more editing. I didn't do much with them. They're pretty close to the original versions. I almost sent them to you for help but remembered you had an editing job!

 

[Angeline]

You read poems early this morning, Ange! Thanks for comments on those two of mine. I think they need more editing. I didn't do much with them. They're pretty close to the original versions. I almost sent them to you for help but remembered you had an editing job!

I handed off the manuscript to the author Saturday, so I have a week or so before he brings me revisions. I'll look at them again.

I got up early because it's freezing here lol. My landlady hasn't turned on the heat yet. eagleyez is wrapped in a blanket, watching the news on tv. All I can see is his nose and his coffee mug.

 

[lorencino]

The only reason those were not included in my review yesterday is because the poet doesn't want comments. I want to respect his wishes.

I agree. If someone has comments turned off, then I try not to comment on the poem in my reviews. If it's a really good poem, I might mention that you read it, but I don't offer any other comments about it.

An interesting issue. To my mind, publishing your art for public consumption is an act of letting go. You send your work off into the unknown and no longer have control of it's meaning even. Your poems, once published have a relationship with each of its readers (or listeners) that you no longer have any control over. It is perfectly legitimate for a reader to understand a poem in ways that the author never intended or even was incapable of conceiving.

When you decide to turn comments on or off you are controlling the way in which the poem appears to the reader. My experience of the poem is very different depending on whether it is followed by remarks or not right there on the page where I can see them as I finish the first reading. I can decide that my poems will not appear in an anthology but only in a book devoted solely to my own poems or I can publish in the Farmers Almanac amidst the advice on drying fruit and collecting rainwater. What I cannot control however is public response or the lack of it. If, for example, I published a poem in1965 and re-publish an edited version in 2008 with the claim that this is now what I consider my preferred version, A poetry teacher is within her rights to say: "I prefer the first version and that is the one I shall continue to use in my class."

I don't know why Pygia decided to turn off the comments facility on his poems, but while he has every right to do that, he has no right to control my response or who I chose to share my responses to his art with, private or public. He lost that right when he published. His work has entered the marketplace of ideas and it is perfectly legitimate for his work to be discussed in a poetry forum. If I had begun a public discussion on the contents of his private, unpublished work, I would deserve banishment from all public forums. If I try to stop a newspaper from writing a critique on my published work, they will laugh me out of court.

As it is, it is my opinion that his publicly available poetry is far too important to ignore and I have written about it so obsessively lately precisely because of those characteristics of the work that drive people off before they have had time to realize its value. As that lovely soul, Angeline, said in her review this morning:

I have overlooked this poet in the past because his subject matter isn't my thing, but he's really good.

Angeline, try to imagine how gratifying it is to know that you, in particular, have understood what I am saying about the value of Pyglia. Now on to the next astonishing and somewhat embarassing coincidence.

When I wrote that long-winded piece about Pyglia instead of resting in bed in the wee hours of this morning, the two Paglia poems and one other were the only three poems appearing under new poetry. I wrote about the last two days of Pyglia's contributions, not to preempt the daily reviewer but to make my point about the particular poet. Little did I know that my silly nonsense, which I submitted about two weeks ago, had not been rejected, but was destined to appear today.

It should have been submitted under Essays or more pertinantly, under Humour rather than Erotic Poetry. [Perhaps if humour were treated like poetry that is divided into erotic and non-erotic, this could have been allocated to Failed Humour rather than Funny Humour.] Seriously, though, perhaps that whole entry belonged on a thread in this forum. [Talk about the poet trying to control the readers experience.]

Bottom line: Prompted by today's review, I looked at "A Cock, it's Me 2" and, Angeline, your suggestion about substituting adjectives for adverbs is like magic. In all but one instance the meaning seems constant, but the verse breaks free from its mundane restraints. You can look forward to "Cock 3" at some future date.

And thank you for being so sweet about pointing out what a lummox I can be.

Now off to read the other poets of the day.

 

[Liar]

I'm curious to know why you used the adverb "brutally" to modify "autobiographic." I'm fascinated by both Cal Y. Pygia's contributions and other peoples reactions to him. He is certainly a most unusual poet besides being a very accomplished one.

Hi. Sorry, must have missed this post.

What I meant is that autobiographic poems, books and whatnot are often somewhat distanced, or smooth around the edges, of you like. There's no attempt here to cushion the exposure of self, it's unusually straightforward.

So yeah, brutally autobiographic suits it pretty well, methinks.

 

[Angeline]

An interesting issue. To my mind, publishing your art for public consumption is an act of letting go. You send your work off into the unknown and no longer have control of it's meaning even. Your poems, once published have a relationship with each of its readers (or listeners) that you no longer have any control over. It is perfectly legitimate for a reader to understand a poem in ways that the author never intended or even was incapable of conceiving.

When you decide to turn comments on or off you are controlling the way in which the poem appears to the reader. My experience of the poem is very different depending on whether it is followed by remarks or not right there on the page where I can see them as I finish the first reading. I can decide that my poems will not appear in an anthology but only in a book devoted solely to my own poems or I can publish in the Farmers Almanac amidst the advice on drying fruit and collecting rainwater. What I cannot control however is public response or the lack of it. If, for example, I published a poem in1965 and re-publish an edited version in 2008 with the claim that this is now what I consider my preferred version, A poetry teacher is within her rights to say: "I prefer the first version and that is the one I shall continue to use in my class."

I don't know why Pygia decided to turn off the comments facility on his poems, but while he has every right to do that, he has no right to control my response or who I chose to share my responses to his art with, private or public. He lost that right when he published. His work has entered the marketplace of ideas and it is perfectly legitimate for his work to be discussed in a poetry forum. If I had begun a public discussion on the contents of his private, unpublished work, I would deserve banishment from all public forums. If I try to stop a newspaper from writing a critique on my published work, they will laugh me out of court.

As it is, it is my opinion that his publicly available poetry is far too important to ignore and I have written about it so obsessively lately precisely because of those characteristics of the work that drive people off before they have had time to realize its value. As that lovely soul, Angeline, said in her review this morning:

Angeline, try to imagine how gratifying it is to know that you, in particular, have understood what I am saying about the value of Pyglia. Now on to the next astonishing and somewhat embarassing coincidence.

When I wrote that long-winded piece about Pyglia instead of resting in bed in the wee hours of this morning, the two Paglia poems and one other were the only three poems appearing under new poetry. I wrote about the last two days of Pyglia's contributions, not to preempt the daily reviewer but to make my point about the particular poet. Little did I know that my silly nonsense, which I submitted about two weeks ago, had not been rejected, but was destined to appear today.

It should have been submitted under Essays or more pertinantly, under Humour rather than Erotic Poetry. [Perhaps if humour were treated like poetry that is divided into erotic and non-erotic, this could have been allocated to Failed Humour rather than Funny Humour.] Seriously, though, perhaps that whole entry belonged on a thread in this forum. [Talk about the poet trying to control the readers experience.]

Bottom line: Prompted by today's review, I looked at "A Cock, it's Me 2" and, Angeline, your suggestion about substituting adjectives for adverbs is like magic. In all but one instance the meaning seems constant, but the verse breaks free from its mundane restraints. You can look forward to "Cock 3" at some future date.

And thank you for being so sweet about pointing out what a lummox I can be.

Now off to read the other poets of the day.

My dear man, I never mind your reviews in the new poems review thread. I love to hear what other poets recommend, and in Pygia's case, I would not have noticed how good he is had you not focused my attention on it. So please, carry on! And as far as Cock 3, well I've never been one to argue against more cock.

 

[Liar]

I wouldn't dream of skipping a poem just because it has the comment function turned off. What I write in the the review thread, is reviews. I mention poems that I think you, the readers of the NPR thread, should not miss.

Am I doing it wrong?

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

I don't know why Pygia decided to turn off the comments facility on his poems, but while he has every right to do that, he has no right to control my response or who I chose to share my responses to his art with, private or public. He lost that right when he published. His work has entered the marketplace of ideas and it is perfectly legitimate for his work to be discussed in a poetry forum.

You aren't incorrect. Once artists put their art on display, they no longer retain much control over how people discuss their work. However, Literotica gives writers the control of whether or not they receive public comments.

Being that the New Poems Review is an organized form of public comments on new poems, I prefer to concede to the poet's choice. That does not mean that you can't discuss Pygia's poems here or elsewhere.


ETA: Liar, I don't think you are doing it wrong. This is just my choice of how to handle it.

 

[lorencino]

. . .

Being that the New Poems Review is an organized form of public comments on new poems, I prefer to concede to the poet's choice. That does not mean that you can't discuss Pygia's poems here or elsewhere.


ETA: Liar, I don't think you are doing it wrong. This is just my choice of how to handle it.

I respect your choice of how and under what circumstances you show respect to others and I also appreciate your tolerance for those that see it differently.

Please believe that I was not criticizing you nor suggesting that you were being negligent when I mentioned that the poem was from the previous day (your review day). I was merely acknowledging that I was bringing up a poem that was not from today's crop to supplement what I was saying about two of today's poems and the writer in general. The four poems by Pyglia from today and yesterday seemed a well-rounded representation of what I was talking about.

As to this issue of respecting the poet's wishes, I have a very different perspective that I hope is not offensive to you for it certainly does not imply a disregard for you sensitivities.

I see the nature of the New Poems Reviews thread and the comment facility attached to the published work as quite distinct in the sense that the comments, while public, are specifically addressed to the author, whereas the New Poems Reviews is a statement addressed to all people interested in poetry. The review introduces the new poems to the poetry appreciating community and often initiates discussion on the poem. The poet can refuse to have readers communicating with him, but has no say in what others say about his published work. A rock star does not have to acknowledge her fan club but she has no say in it's existence if it's activities are legal.

 

[lorencino]

We need you

I wouldn't dream of skipping a poem just because it has the comment function turned off. What I write in the the review thread, is reviews. I mention poems that I think you, the readers of the NPR thread, should not miss.

Am I doing it wrong?

You're doing a great job. Don't stop.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I respect your choice of how and under what circumstances you show respect to others and I also appreciate your tolerance for those that see it differently.

Please believe that I was not criticizing you nor suggesting that you were being negligent when I mentioned that the poem was from the previous day (your review day). I was merely acknowledging that I was bringing up a poem that was not from today's crop to supplement what I was saying about two of today's poems and the writer in general. The four poems by Pyglia from today and yesterday seemed a well-rounded representation of what I was talking about.

As to this issue of respecting the poet's wishes, I have a very different perspective that I hope is not offensive to you for it certainly does not imply a disregard for you sensitivities.

I see the nature of the New Poems Reviews thread and the comment facility attached to the published work as quite distinct in the sense that the comments, while public, are specifically addressed to the author, whereas the New Poems Reviews is a statement addressed to all people interested in poetry. The review introduces the new poems to the poetry appreciating community and often initiates discussion on the poem. The poet can refuse to have readers communicating with him, but has no say in what others say about his published work. A rock star does not have to acknowledge her fan club but she has no say in it's existence if it's activities are legal.

Well said. One thing to remember, as well, is that the poet needs to actively choose to have comments. the default is "no comments". If you are a ditz like me, it is easy to forget (and I think Pygia has allowed comments in the past).

 

[Angeline]

I wouldn't dream of skipping a poem just because it has the comment function turned off. What I write in the the review thread, is reviews. I mention poems that I think you, the readers of the NPR thread, should not miss.

Am I doing it wrong?

I don't think so. I've always thought that by posting a poem at Lit you tacitly agree to people reading and/or discussing your poem--whether you take comments or not. I don't vote and/or comment until after I read poems and do reviews, so I don't even know till after I've reviewed whether or not they accept comments...

 

[UnderYourSpell]

If folks don't want comments on the actual piece fair enough but if I read a poem that I thought was outstanding and had no other way I would go onto the appropriate thread and say so

 

[hmmnmm]

UYS, A, WE,
thank you for those sweet PCs.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

Thank you, hmmnmm, for the comment on Strawberries.

Eve, watch out for champ's ruler after leaving a comment like that on my ghazal! You're gonna fail her class.. and have welts to boot! LOL

 

[WickedEve]

Thank you, hmmnmm, for the comment on Strawberries.

Eve, watch out for champ's ruler after leaving a comment like that on my ghazal! You're gonna fail her class.. and have welts to boot! LOL

OH, damn! It's a ghazal. I'm such a dumb puss! Ignore my comment. It never happened. lol I need to go read carrie's ghazal thread...

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

Thank you guys for the comments on my poems today. SB, hmmnmm, lorencino, Eve, and LeBroz for the review-
(I hope I didn't forget anyone, but trust me, there are plenty of 's to go around.)

lorencino, if you really want to explore ghazal form, champ has been so kind as to instruct us in the sticky thread at the top of the forum.

 

[lorencino]

. . .
lorencino, if you really want to explore ghazal form, champ has been so kind as to instruct us in the sticky thread at the top of the forum.

thank you!l

 

[JakobMariaMierscheid]

Two Bitter Little Poems About Love by JakobMariaMierscheid are exactly as the title promises: but they are also excellent little poems. The imagery and idea of each is imaginative if harsh. They are not lovely or beautiful or any of those words—such words would be inappropriate the sentiment—yet they are honest and true. Well-written and beautiful are plain different things: some things ought not to be beautiful. I recommend these two bitter little poems.

Thank you, Equinoxe, for recommending my poem. Or poems. You may be mistaken about how "honest and true" they may be, but that was a pleasing comment, so I will not dispute it with you.

Your reviews are always gracious. Thank you for that too.

Yr humble servant,

JMM

 

[Angeline]

Thank you, Equinoxe, for recommending my poem. Or poems. You may be mistaken about how "honest and true" they may be, but that was a pleasing comment, so I will not dispute it with you.

Your reviews are always gracious. Thank you for that too.

Yr humble servant,

JMM

I'd like to add that I just read your ghazal and thought it was excellent.

 

[Equinoxe]

You may be mistaken about how "honest and true" they may be, but that was a pleasing comment, so I will not dispute it with you.

When it impresses the emotion, a poetic sentiment is always true. Especially the lies.

You're welcome.

 

[Liar]

Pardon the delay on the Sunday reviews, my home PC is genuinely fucked.