On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A Work of Art
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> - gjd
> >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, definitely.
> >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> >>>
> >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> >>> find evidence of readers.
> >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> >>
> >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> >>
> >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> >
> > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
>
> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
>
> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
>
> One can even take courses on it:
> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing

Jack Kerouac swore by it.

Charles Bukowski and Allen Ginsberg often used spontaneous methods of poetry writing as well.

And, I confess... so have I, quote often.

🙂

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A Work of Art
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> - gjd
> >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, definitely.
> >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> >>>
> >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> >>> find evidence of readers.
> >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> >>
> >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> >>
> >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> >
> > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
>
> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
>
> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
>
> One can even take courses on it:
> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing

I don’t think spontaneous writing is the same
thing as extemporaneous writing though, is it?
Don’t the words mean or suggest different things?

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
>> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> >>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
>> >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> A Work of Art
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
>> >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
>> >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
>> >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
>> >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
>> >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
>> >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
>> >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
>> >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> - gjd
>> >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, definitely.
>> >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
>> >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
>> >>> find evidence of readers.
>> >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
>> >>
>> >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
>> >>
>> >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
>> >
>> > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
>> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
>>
>> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
>>
>> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
>> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
>> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
>> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
>>
>> One can even take courses on it:

https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing

Jack Kerouac swore by it.

Charles Bukowski and Allen Ginsberg often used spontaneous methods of poetry writing as well.

And, I confess... so have I, quite often.

(Typo corrected)

🙂

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 11:53:09 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:15:21 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
> > >> >
> > >> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
> > >>
> > >> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?
> >
> > > Because George was making a joke, it was a parody of a well known Usenet poet.
> >
> > > HTH and HAND.
> > No names please... we have a truce....!
> Pendragon's calling it a cease fire, if that counts.

Not with you, Donkey.

As far as you're concerned, it's open season!

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> > I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
>> >
>> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
>>
>> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work. Did you read the poem?

> Because George was making a joke, it was a parody of a well known Usenet poet.

> HTH and HAND.

Quite easy to see who, also....!

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>
>>> >>>>>> A Work of Art
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
>>> >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
>>> >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
>>> >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
>>> >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
>>> >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
>>> >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
>>> >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
>>> >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> - gjd
>>> >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Yes, definitely.
>>> >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
>>> >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
>>> >>> find evidence of readers.
>>> >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
>>> >>
>>> >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
>>> >>
>>> >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
>>> >>
>>> >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
>>> >
>>> > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
>>> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
>>>
>>> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
>>>
>>> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
>>> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
>>> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
>>> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
>>>
>>> One can even take courses on it:

> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing

> Jack Kerouac swore by it.

> Charles Bukowski and Allen Ginsberg often used spontaneous methods of poetry writing as well.

> And, I confess... so have I, quite often.

> (Typo corrected)

> 🙂

Well put....!

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 11:53:09 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:15:21 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 6:18:20 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I'll grant you, it does fizzle out some near me end.
> > > >> >
> > > >> Most things would die if they were near your rear end.
> > > >>
> > > >> That said, why didn't you make that comment in the first place, instead of seconding that it was excellent? It isn't excellent and needs work.. Did you read the poem?
> > >
> > > > Because George was making a joke, it was a parody of a well known Usenet poet.
> > >
> > > > HTH and HAND.
> > > No names please... we have a truce....!
> > Pendragon's calling it a cease fire, if that counts.
> Not with you,

I don't expect it to be, Pendragon, you shit slinging little monkey.

🙂

On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>>> A Work of Art
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
>>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
>>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
>>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
>>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
>>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
>>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
>>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
>>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - gjd
>>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
>>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
>>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
>>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
>>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
>>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
>>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***
>>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
>>>> Poems by computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
>>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
>>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
>>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
>>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
>>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
>>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
>>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
>>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
>>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
>>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
>> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
>

I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
effort.

Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote.

> “I tried to write this work of art,

I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
(failed) "work of art" itself.

> put to pen my passionate heart

In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
more poetic garb.

> with no idea of how to say
> what all I wanted to convey.

I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
(1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
thought;
(2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.

> My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”

Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
(plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
there was only one plan (to write the work of art).

I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
readers) think of Burns's line. I didn't want to hit them over the head
with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.

I would say that making the line a separate sentence makes it sound more
portentous, more significant than in the original.

> “It really wasn't very smart
> to make this trek without a chart:

The only change I see here is "take" to "make". I see that as not just
no improvement, but a not an improvement -- "take this trek" had a fine
double consonance. It was a nice "poetic" detail, probably the best one
in the work. It wasn't there just to be poetic, either; it was there to
draw attention to the one and only image in the thing: to have the
reader imagine going on a journey without a map. And that's presented as
an image, because that's how one communicates in a poem, and what I
wanted to communicate here is the argument (by analogy) for the next
lines. (That's still there, of course, just dressed down.)

> Spontaneous writing's fine for play,
> but one cannot make art this way.

Changing "that" to "this" reinforces the idea that this poem is the
(failed) work of art the speaker/poet set out to write, and he set out
to write it using "spontaneous writing" -- he admits it's not what he
promised (in L1), and the fault is his for using an untested method that
failed, but too bad, reader: that's what you got. I'm not even sure I
like this poet/speaker or or understand his motives.

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:31:00 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - gjd
> >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
> >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ***
> >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> >>>> Poems by computer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> >
>
> I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
> The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> effort.
>
> Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote..
>
> > “I tried to write this work of art,
>
> I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> (failed) "work of art" itself.
>
> > put to pen my passionate heart
>
> In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> more poetic garb.
>
> > with no idea of how to say
> > what all I wanted to convey.
>
> I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
> (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> thought;
> (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
>
> > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
>
> Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
>
> I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> readers) think of Burns's line. I didn't want to hit them over the head
> with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
>
> I would say that making the line a separate sentence makes it sound more
> portentous, more significant than in the original.
>
> > “It really wasn't very smart
> > to make this trek without a chart:
>
> The only change I see here is "take" to "make". I see that as not just
> no improvement, but a not an improvement -- "take this trek" had a fine
> double consonance. It was a nice "poetic" detail, probably the best one
> in the work. It wasn't there just to be poetic, either; it was there to
> draw attention to the one and only image in the thing: to have the
> reader imagine going on a journey without a map. And that's presented as
> an image, because that's how one communicates in a poem, and what I
> wanted to communicate here is the argument (by analogy) for the next
> lines. (That's still there, of course, just dressed down.)
>
> > Spontaneous writing's fine for play,
> > but one cannot make art this way.
>
> Changing "that" to "this" reinforces the idea that this poem is the
> (failed) work of art the speaker/poet set out to write, and he set out
> to write it using "spontaneous writing" -- he admits it's not what he
> promised (in L1), and the fault is his for using an untested method that
> failed, but too bad, reader: that's what you got. I'm not even sure I
> like this poet/speaker or or understand his motives.
>
> > I should have known that from the start.”
>
> As in S1, I think making the last line a stand-alone sentence separate
> from the rest draws more attention to it. And I'm not sure I like the
> new wording. The poet/speaker sounds like he's beating himself up for
> not knowing that "from the start". But why should he have? There was no
> reason for him to have "known" what would happen before trying, so
> there's no reason for him to have known the moment he started.
>
> OTOH, he should have "realized" what was happening earlier and cut his
> losses -- "at the start" is hyperbolic, but the earlier the better.

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:31:00 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - gjd
> >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
> >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ***
> >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> >>>> Poems by computer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> >
>
> I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
> The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> effort.
>
> Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote..
>
> > “I tried to write this work of art,
>
> I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> (failed) "work of art" itself.

That one word change changes the entire poem immediately.

>
> > put to pen my passionate heart
>
> In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> more poetic garb.
>
> > with no idea of how to say
> > what all I wanted to convey.
>
> I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
> (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> thought;
> (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
>
> > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
>
> Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
>
> I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> readers) think of Burns's line. I didn't want to hit them over the head
> with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
>
> I would say that making the line a separate sentence makes it sound more
> portentous, more significant than in the original.
>
> > “It really wasn't very smart
> > to make this trek without a chart:
>
> The only change I see here is "take" to "make". I see that as not just
> no improvement, but a not an improvement -- "take this trek" had a fine
> double consonance. It was a nice "poetic" detail, probably the best one
> in the work. It wasn't there just to be poetic, either; it was there to
> draw attention to the one and only image in the thing: to have the
> reader imagine going on a journey without a map. And that's presented as
> an image, because that's how one communicates in a poem, and what I
> wanted to communicate here is the argument (by analogy) for the next
> lines. (That's still there, of course, just dressed down.)
>
> > Spontaneous writing's fine for play,
> > but one cannot make art this way.
>
> Changing "that" to "this" reinforces the idea that this poem is the
> (failed) work of art the speaker/poet set out to write, and he set out
> to write it using "spontaneous writing" -- he admits it's not what he
> promised (in L1), and the fault is his for using an untested method that
> failed, but too bad, reader: that's what you got. I'm not even sure I
> like this poet/speaker or or understand his motives.
>
> > I should have known that from the start.”
>
> As in S1, I think making the last line a stand-alone sentence separate
> from the rest draws more attention to it. And I'm not sure I like the
> new wording. The poet/speaker sounds like he's beating himself up for
> not knowing that "from the start". But why should he have? There was no
> reason for him to have "known" what would happen before trying, so
> there's no reason for him to have known the moment he started.
>
> OTOH, he should have "realized" what was happening earlier and cut his
> losses -- "at the start" is hyperbolic, but the earlier the better.

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 6:50:56 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:31:00 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> > >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> > >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> > >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
> > >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> > >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> > >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> > >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ***
> > >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> > >>>> Poems by computer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> > >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> > >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> > >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> > >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> > >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> > >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> > >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> > >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> > >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> > >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> > >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> > >
> >
> > I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> > straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> > give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> > my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> > figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
> > The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> > effort.
> >
> > Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote.
> >
> > > “I tried to write this work of art,
> >
> > I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> > was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> > and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> > one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> > (failed) "work of art" itself.
> That one word change changes the entire poem immediately.
> >
> > > put to pen my passionate heart
> >
> > In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> > excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> > something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> > valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> > his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> > trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> > more poetic garb.
> >
> > > with no idea of how to say
> > > what all I wanted to convey.
> >
> > I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
> > (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> > thought;
> > (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> > something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> > but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> > problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
> >
> > > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
> >
> > Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> > (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> > there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
> >
> > I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> > readers) think of Burns's line. I didn't want to hit them over the head
> > with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> > no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> > moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> > this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
> >
> > I would say that making the line a separate sentence makes it sound more
> > portentous, more significant than in the original.
> >
> > > “It really wasn't very smart
> > > to make this trek without a chart:
> >
> > The only change I see here is "take" to "make". I see that as not just
> > no improvement, but a not an improvement -- "take this trek" had a fine
> > double consonance. It was a nice "poetic" detail, probably the best one
> > in the work. It wasn't there just to be poetic, either; it was there to
> > draw attention to the one and only image in the thing: to have the
> > reader imagine going on a journey without a map. And that's presented as
> > an image, because that's how one communicates in a poem, and what I
> > wanted to communicate here is the argument (by analogy) for the next
> > lines. (That's still there, of course, just dressed down.)
> >
> > > Spontaneous writing's fine for play,
> > > but one cannot make art this way.
> >
> > Changing "that" to "this" reinforces the idea that this poem is the
> > (failed) work of art the speaker/poet set out to write, and he set out
> > to write it using "spontaneous writing" -- he admits it's not what he
> > promised (in L1), and the fault is his for using an untested method that
> > failed, but too bad, reader: that's what you got. I'm not even sure I
> > like this poet/speaker or or understand his motives.
> >
> > > I should have known that from the start.”
> >
> > As in S1, I think making the last line a stand-alone sentence separate
> > from the rest draws more attention to it. And I'm not sure I like the
> > new wording. The poet/speaker sounds like he's beating himself up for
> > not knowing that "from the start". But why should he have? There was no
> > reason for him to have "known" what would happen before trying, so
> > there's no reason for him to have known the moment he started.
> >
> > OTOH, he should have "realized" what was happening earlier and cut his
> > losses -- "at the start" is hyperbolic, but the earlier the better.
> ...

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 7:02:09 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 6:50:56 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:31:00 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > > >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> > > >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> > > >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> > > >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
> > > >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> > > >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> > > >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> > > >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> ***
> > > >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> > > >>>> Poems by computer.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> > > >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> > > >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> > > >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> > > >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> > > >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> > > >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> > > >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> > > >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> > > >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> > > >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> > > >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> > > straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> > > give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> > > my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> > > figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
> > > The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> > > effort.
> > >
> > > Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote.
> > >
> > > > “I tried to write this work of art,
> > >
> > > I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> > > was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> > > and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> > > one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> > > (failed) "work of art" itself.
> > That one word change changes the entire poem immediately.
> > >
> > > > put to pen my passionate heart
> > >
> > > In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> > > excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> > > something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> > > valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> > > his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> > > trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> > > more poetic garb.
> > >
> > > > with no idea of how to say
> > > > what all I wanted to convey.
> > >
> > > I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
> > > (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> > > thought;
> > > (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> > > something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> > > but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> > > problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
> > >
> > > > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
> > >
> > > Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> > > (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> > > there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
> > >
> > > I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> > > readers) think of Burns's line. I didn't want to hit them over the head
> > > with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> > > no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> > > moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> > > this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
> > >
> > > I would say that making the line a separate sentence makes it sound more
> > > portentous, more significant than in the original.
> > >
> > > > “It really wasn't very smart
> > > > to make this trek without a chart:
> > >
> > > The only change I see here is "take" to "make". I see that as not just
> > > no improvement, but a not an improvement -- "take this trek" had a fine
> > > double consonance. It was a nice "poetic" detail, probably the best one
> > > in the work. It wasn't there just to be poetic, either; it was there to
> > > draw attention to the one and only image in the thing: to have the
> > > reader imagine going on a journey without a map. And that's presented as
> > > an image, because that's how one communicates in a poem, and what I
> > > wanted to communicate here is the argument (by analogy) for the next
> > > lines. (That's still there, of course, just dressed down.)
> > >
> > > > Spontaneous writing's fine for play,
> > > > but one cannot make art this way.
> > >
> > > Changing "that" to "this" reinforces the idea that this poem is the
> > > (failed) work of art the speaker/poet set out to write, and he set out
> > > to write it using "spontaneous writing" -- he admits it's not what he
> > > promised (in L1), and the fault is his for using an untested method that
> > > failed, but too bad, reader: that's what you got. I'm not even sure I
> > > like this poet/speaker or or understand his motives.
> > >
> > > > I should have known that from the start.”
> > >
> > > As in S1, I think making the last line a stand-alone sentence separate
> > > from the rest draws more attention to it. And I'm not sure I like the
> > > new wording. The poet/speaker sounds like he's beating himself up for
> > > not knowing that "from the start". But why should he have? There was no
> > > reason for him to have "known" what would happen before trying, so
> > > there's no reason for him to have known the moment he started.
> > >
> > > OTOH, he should have "realized" what was happening earlier and cut his
> > > losses -- "at the start" is hyperbolic, but the earlier the better.
> > ...
> Exactly. It presents a completely first person perspective on ‘A Work of Art’, and the making thereof.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> A Work of Art
>
> I tried to write a work of art
> With all my passion, all my heart,
> But no idea of what to say
> Or what I wanted to convey;
> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>
> It really wasn't very smart
> To take this trek without a chart:
> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> But one cannot make art that way,
> I should have realized from the start.
>
> - gjd

The first line states that the speaker /tried/ to create art, not that the poem /is/ art.

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-4, Rocky Stoneberg wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> >>> >>>>>> A Work of Art
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >>> >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >>> >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >>> >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >>> >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >>> >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >>> >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >>> >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >>> >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> - gjd
> >>> >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Yes, definitely.
> >>> >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> >>> >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> >>> >>> find evidence of readers.
> >>> >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> >>> >
> >>> > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> >>> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> >>>
> >>> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> >>>
> >>> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> >>> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> >>> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> >>> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> >>>
> >>> One can even take courses on it:
>
> > https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
>
> > Jack Kerouac swore by it.
>
> > Charles Bukowski and Allen Ginsberg often used spontaneous methods of poetry writing as well.
>
> > And, I confess... so have I, quite often.
>
> > (Typo corrected)
>
>
> Well put....!

As you probably know, I have written some songs directly into the microphone as the tape rolled.

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:31:00 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - gjd
> >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
> >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ***
> >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> >>>> Poems by computer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> >
>
> I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
> The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> effort.

Unfortunately, HC only used his own edit in his "final" version. Other suggestions, from Michael and us, were better in some instances.
>
> Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote..
>
> > “I tried to write this work of art,
>
> I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> (failed) "work of art" itself.
>
> > put to pen my passionate heart
We don't like that. Stick a pen in your heart and see if there is automatic writing?
>
> In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> more poetic garb.
>
> > with no idea of how to say
> > what all I wanted to convey.
>
> I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
Not hard to scroll up and see that it came from HC.

> (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> thought;
"What all" would be a Southernism. We would not use that.

> (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
Our suggestion was better.
>
> > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
>
> Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
>
> I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> readers) think of Burns's line.
We didn't, as it would have been too obscure of a reference. There should have been something that preceded "plans" that also referenced Burns. Something about a mouse?

> I didn't want to hit them over the head
> with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
Agreed, that would have been too much and also a cliche. However, with the Burns' analogy, the writing of something as a work of art doesn't "work." What plans were laid? "Try" is not a plan. "Do, there is no try." - Yoda

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:31:00 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> > >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> > >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> > >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
> > >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> > >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> > >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> > >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ***
> > >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> > >>>> Poems by computer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> > >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> > >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> > >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> > >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> > >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> > >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> > >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> > >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> > >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> > >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> > >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> > >
> >
> > I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> > straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> > give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> > my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> > figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
> > The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> > effort.
> Unfortunately, HC only used his own edit in his "final" version. Other suggestions, from Michael and us, were better in some instances.
> >
> > Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote.
> >
> > > “I tried to write this work of art,
> >
> > I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> > was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> > and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> > one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> > (failed) "work of art" itself.
> >
> > > put to pen my passionate heart
> We don't like that. Stick a pen in your heart and see if there is automatic writing?
> >
> > In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> > excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> > something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> > valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> > his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> > trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> > more poetic garb.
> >
> > > with no idea of how to say
> > > what all I wanted to convey.
> >
> > I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
> Not hard to scroll up and see that it came from HC.
> > (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> > thought;
> "What all" would be a Southernism. We would not use that.
> > (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> > something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> > but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> > problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
> Our suggestion was better.
> >
> > > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
> >
> > Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> > (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> > there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
> >
> > I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> > readers) think of Burns's line.
> We didn't, as it would have been too obscure of a reference. There should have been something that preceded "plans" that also referenced Burns. Something about a mouse?
> > I didn't want to hit them over the head
> > with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> > no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> > moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> > this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
> Agreed, that would have been too much and also a cliche. However, with the Burns' analogy, the writing of something as a work of art doesn't "work." What plans were laid? "Try" is not a plan. "Do, there is no try." - Yoda
> >
> > I would say that making the line a separate sentence makes it sound more
> > portentous, more significant than in the original.
> >
> > > “It really wasn't very smart
> > > to make this trek without a chart:
> >
> > The only change I see here is "take" to "make". I see that as not just
> > no improvement, but a not an improvement -- "take this trek" had a fine
> > double consonance. It was a nice "poetic" detail, probably the best one
> > in the work. It wasn't there just to be poetic, either; it was there to
> > draw attention to the one and only image in the thing: to have the
> > reader imagine going on a journey without a map. And that's presented as
> > an image, because that's how one communicates in a poem, and what I
> > wanted to communicate here is the argument (by analogy) for the next
> > lines. (That's still there, of course, just dressed down.)
> >
> > > Spontaneous writing's fine for play,
> > > but one cannot make art this way.
> >
> > Changing "that" to "this" reinforces the idea that this poem is the
> > (failed) work of art the speaker/poet set out to write, and he set out
> > to write it using "spontaneous writing" -- he admits it's not what he
> > promised (in L1), and the fault is his for using an untested method that
> > failed, but too bad, reader: that's what you got. I'm not even sure I
> > like this poet/speaker or or understand his motives.
> >
> > > I should have known that from the start.”
> >
> > As in S1, I think making the last line a stand-alone sentence separate
> > from the rest draws more attention to it. And I'm not sure I like the
> > new wording. The poet/speaker sounds like he's beating himself up for
> > not knowing that "from the start". But why should he have? There was no
> > reason for him to have "known" what would happen before trying, so
> > there's no reason for him to have known the moment he started.
> >
> > OTOH, he should have "realized" what was happening earlier and cut his
> > losses -- "at the start" is hyperbolic, but the earlier the better.
> "Realized" is still in HC's version of the poem, and that doesn't work, meter-wise.
>
> Start over.

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-4, Rocky Stoneberg wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > >
> > >>> >>>>>> A Work of Art
> > >>> >>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > >>> >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > >>> >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > >>> >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > >>> >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > >>> >>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > >>> >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > >>> >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > >>> >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > >>> >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > >>> >>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>> - gjd
> > >>> >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> Yes, definitely.
> > >>> >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> > >>> >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> > >>> >>> find evidence of readers.
> > >>> >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> > >>> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> > >>> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> > >>> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> > >>> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> > >>>
> > >>> One can even take courses on it:
> >
> > > https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
> >
> > > Jack Kerouac swore by it.
> >
> > > Charles Bukowski and Allen Ginsberg often used spontaneous methods of poetry writing as well.
> >
> > > And, I confess... so have I, quite often.
> >
> > > (Typo corrected)
> >
> >
> > Well put....!
> As you probably know, I have written some songs directly into the microphone as the tape rolled.

OMG!1! No I didn't know you were so kind of miracle worker, a magician that can write into microphones! How did you do that, I must know your secret for it may allow me to write again!!!

May this heathen that you claim superiority over, may he offer some help? It could have been written better with quotes around the written:
** .. I have "written" some songs ..**
As for the rest of the sentence, I don't think even professional could help with ,,,

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 7:51:02 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-4, Rocky Stoneberg wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> >>>>>> A Work of Art
> > > >>> >>>>>
> > > >>> >>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > > >>> >>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > > >>> >>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > > >>> >>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > > >>> >>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > > >>> >>>>>
> > > >>> >>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > > >>> >>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > > >>> >>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > > >>> >>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > > >>> >>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > > >>> >>>>>
> > > >>> >>>>>> - gjd
> > > >>> >>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> > > >>> >>>>
> > > >>> >>>> Yes, definitely.
> > > >>> >>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> > > >>> >>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> > > >>> >>> find evidence of readers.
> > > >>> >> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> > > >>> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> > > >>> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> > > >>> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> > > >>> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> > > >>>
> > > >>> One can even take courses on it:
> > >
> > > > https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
> > >
> > > > Jack Kerouac swore by it.
> > >
> > > > Charles Bukowski and Allen Ginsberg often used spontaneous methods of poetry writing as well.
> > >
> > > > And, I confess... so have I, quite often.
> > >
> > > > (Typo corrected)
> > >
> > >
> > > Well put....!
> > As you probably know, I have written some songs directly into the microphone as the tape rolled.
> OMG!1! No I didn't know you were so kind of miracle worker, a magician that can write into microphones! How did you do that, I must know your secret for it may allow me to write again!!!
>
> May this heathen that you claim superiority over, may he offer some help? It could have been written better with quotes around the written:
> ** .. I have "written" some songs ..**
> As for the rest of the sentence, I don't think even professional could help with ,,,

Speaking = writing.

HTH and HAND.

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 1:29:33 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:31:00 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > > >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> > > >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> > > >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> > > >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line.
> > > >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> > > >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> > > >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> > > >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> ***
> > > >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> > > >>>> Poems by computer.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> > > >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> > > >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> > > >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> > > >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> > > >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> > > >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> > > >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> > > >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> > > >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> > > >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> > > >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> > > straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> > > give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> > > my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> > > figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board.)
> > > The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> > > effort.
> > Unfortunately, HC only used his own edit in his "final" version. Other suggestions, from Michael and us, were better in some instances.
> > >
> > > Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote.
> > >
> > > > “I tried to write this work of art,
> > >
> > > I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> > > was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> > > and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> > > one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> > > (failed) "work of art" itself.
> > >
> > > > put to pen my passionate heart
> > We don't like that. Stick a pen in your heart and see if there is automatic writing?
> > >
> > > In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> > > excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> > > something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> > > valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> > > his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> > > trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> > > more poetic garb.
> > >
> > > > with no idea of how to say
> > > > what all I wanted to convey.
> > >
> > > I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
> > Not hard to scroll up and see that it came from HC.
> > > (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> > > thought;
> > "What all" would be a Southernism. We would not use that.
> > > (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> > > something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> > > but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> > > problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
> > Our suggestion was better.
> > >
> > > > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
> > >
> > > Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> > > (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> > > there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
> > >
> > > I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> > > readers) think of Burns's line.
> > We didn't, as it would have been too obscure of a reference. There should have been something that preceded "plans" that also referenced Burns. Something about a mouse?
> > > I didn't want to hit them over the head
> > > with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> > > no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> > > moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> > > this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
> > Agreed, that would have been too much and also a cliche. However, with the Burns' analogy, the writing of something as a work of art doesn't "work.." What plans were laid? "Try" is not a plan. "Do, there is no try." - Yoda
> > >
> > > I would say that making the line a separate sentence makes it sound more
> > > portentous, more significant than in the original.
> > >
> > > > “It really wasn't very smart
> > > > to make this trek without a chart:
> > >
> > > The only change I see here is "take" to "make". I see that as not just
> > > no improvement, but a not an improvement -- "take this trek" had a fine
> > > double consonance. It was a nice "poetic" detail, probably the best one
> > > in the work. It wasn't there just to be poetic, either; it was there to
> > > draw attention to the one and only image in the thing: to have the
> > > reader imagine going on a journey without a map. And that's presented as
> > > an image, because that's how one communicates in a poem, and what I
> > > wanted to communicate here is the argument (by analogy) for the next
> > > lines. (That's still there, of course, just dressed down.)
> > >
> > > > Spontaneous writing's fine for play,
> > > > but one cannot make art this way.
> > >
> > > Changing "that" to "this" reinforces the idea that this poem is the
> > > (failed) work of art the speaker/poet set out to write, and he set out
> > > to write it using "spontaneous writing" -- he admits it's not what he
> > > promised (in L1), and the fault is his for using an untested method that
> > > failed, but too bad, reader: that's what you got. I'm not even sure I
> > > like this poet/speaker or or understand his motives.
> > >
> > > > I should have known that from the start.”
> > >
> > > As in S1, I think making the last line a stand-alone sentence separate
> > > from the rest draws more attention to it. And I'm not sure I like the
> > > new wording. The poet/speaker sounds like he's beating himself up for
> > > not knowing that "from the start". But why should he have? There was no
> > > reason for him to have "known" what would happen before trying, so
> > > there's no reason for him to have known the moment he started.
> > >
> > > OTOH, he should have "realized" what was happening earlier and cut his
> > > losses -- "at the start" is hyperbolic, but the earlier the better.
> > "Realized" is still in HC's version of the poem, and that doesn't work, meter-wise.
> >
> > Start over.
> Correction: Realized is not in my version of the poem. Thanks.
Our apologies--we saw that George Dance mentioned "realized" again at the last and did not check to see if you had included that in your version.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Work of Art
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - gjd
>>>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, definitely.
>>>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
>>>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
>>>> find evidence of readers.
>>> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
>>>
>>> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
>>>
>>> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
>>
>> I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?

> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)

> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:

> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/

> One can even take courses on it:
> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing

Back in the 1990s the young folks called it "freestyle".

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 3:01:38 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 1:29:33 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 8:31:00 AM UTC, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On 2022-06-22 2:54 p.m., HC wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > >> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:11 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > > > >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:09:48 PM UTC, HC wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:39 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > > > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > > > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > > > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > > > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > > > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > > > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > > > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > > > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> > > > >>>>>>> In the penultimate line, “that way” should read
> > > > >>>>>>> ‘this way’ to maintain agreement with “this trek”,
> > > > >>>>>>> and I agree with NG’s suggestion for the final line..
> > > > >>>>>> IMO the "that" is part of a separate thought: "Spontaneous writing's fine for play, but one cannot make art that way."
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I would keep "that" in; as "this way" makes the statement relate specifically to the speaker's trek (attempt); whereas "that way" makes the statement read more like a universal truism.
> > > > >>>> We agree with the "that," since it is in the past. While we are dissecting the poem, we think that the third line in the first stanza needs a "with" before the "no," although the line would have to be reworked. Alternately, it could just start with "With." We disagree with the semi-colon at the end of the 4th line, first stanza. If George Dance were to put a period at the end of the second line, start the third line with "With," then put a comma at the end of the penultimate line in the first stanza, it would read better. Also, no comma between "doomed" and "and."
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Speaking of "trek," I would lose it altogether. As a metaphor, it doesn't really apply to such a short poem. It this were an epic, "trek" would work perfectly... but here it just feels odd.
> > > > >>>> It brings images of "Star Trek." Is writing a work of art a "trek?" Maybe a journey or path? However, "chart" brings thoughts of celestial navigation, since the author does not say "map." Is writing a voyage?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> And, of course, I agree with NancyGene's thoughts on strengthening the final line.
> > > > >>>> It just does not fit when the poem is read aloud.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> ***
> > > > >>>>>> Content-wise, I have to voice my profound disagreement. I believe that art is created by the spontaneous approach, as this (theoretically) puts the writer in direct contact with his subconscious -- thereby partaking of both the symbolic content of the subconscious and the mythmaking archetypes of the unconscious.
> > > > >>>> Poems by computer.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Writing poetry from a preconceived plan tends to create formulaic, uninspired work that slavishly adheres to formality and offers little of interest.
> > > > >>>> There has to be a spark, an inspiration, that starts the poem flowing in the poet's mind.
> > > > >>>>> The colon rather than a period at the end of the previous line,
> > > > >>>>> and the premise of the poem, suggests that the whole stanza
> > > > >>>>> is one fluid thought, rather than a separation of different thoughts.
> > > > >>>>> Content-wise, I enjoyed it, and whatever I may or may not believe
> > > > >>>>> about art didn't diminish my appreciation. This was a fun read.
> > > > >>>> It just needs some reworking in the details.
> > > > >>> I’d like to see something other than but, but disagree with beginning line three with with,
> > > > >>> because line two already starts with with, and starting both lines two and three with with
> > > > >>> would look worse than with but, but I can’t think of a better suggestion to replace but with.
> > > > >> Maybe "Stirred all my passion" instead of "With all my passion?" That frees "with" for the next line.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate all the effort; but it's hard to keep all the details
> > > > straight; which is why I appreciate even more what you did here, and
> > > > give me this rewrite that summarizes them. (The analogy that popped into
> > > > my head is that between reading a series of chess moves, and trying to
> > > > figure out the new board, vs. looking at a picture of the new board..)
> > > > The latter is far easier to take in, and I appreciate your making the
> > > > effort.
> > > Unfortunately, HC only used his own edit in his "final" version. Other suggestions, from Michael and us, were better in some instances.
> > > >
> > > > Let me go over it line-by-line, and compare it to what I originally wrote.
> > > >
> > > > > “I tried to write this work of art,
> > > >
> > > > I don't like the change from "a work" to "this work". The original idea
> > > > was that the "work of art" the speaker tried to write never got written;
> > > > and this is just a bit of light verse about not writing it. With that
> > > > one word change, this 10-line bit of light verses is presented as the
> > > > (failed) "work of art" itself.
> > > >
> > > > > put to pen my passionate heart
> > > We don't like that. Stick a pen in your heart and see if there is automatic writing?
> > > >
> > > > In at least one way, this line is far better: the alliteration is
> > > > excellent, eg. But it's such an artificial voice; it's hyper-Romantic,
> > > > something I wouldn't expect to see these days except maybe on a
> > > > valentine card. Maybe it's meant to be ironic, the poet making fun of
> > > > his lofty ambitions, but it looks to me like costuming; like the poet
> > > > trying to turn this light verse into "art" just by dressing it up in
> > > > more poetic garb.
> > > >
> > > > > with no idea of how to say
> > > > > what all I wanted to convey.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know who's responsible for the rewrite of those two lines, but:
> > > Not hard to scroll up and see that it came from HC.
> > > > (1) "to say / what all I wanted" does not sound like natural speech or
> > > > thought;
> > > "What all" would be a Southernism. We would not use that.
> > > > (2) the meaning of the lines is inverted. This poet/speaker has
> > > > something to say, probably a lot to say (that's what I get from "all"),
> > > > but just doesn't have the tools to express it. Whereas my poet/speaker's
> > > > problem was that he had the tools, but there was nothing he had to say.
> > > Our suggestion was better.
> > > >
> > > > > My plan was doomed, and fell apart.”
> > > >
> > > > Again, just a one-word change. All you changed was "plans" to "plan"
> > > > (plus the verb agreement) -- and technically that's more accurate, since
> > > > there was only one plan (to write the work of art).
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to use "plans" because the word made me (and, I'm hoping, other
> > > > readers) think of Burns's line.
> > > We didn't, as it would have been too obscure of a reference. There should have been something that preceded "plans" that also referenced Burns. Something about a mouse?
> > > > I didn't want to hit them over the head
> > > > with that -- I could have worked "best-laid plans" into the line, but
> > > > no, that would have been too much -- but just get them to remember his
> > > > moral (shit happens) somewhere back in their minds. The idea being that
> > > > this is's not really the tragedy that "doomed" suggests.
> > > Agreed, that would have been too much and also a cliche. However, with the Burns' analogy, the writing of something as a work of art doesn't "work." What plans were laid? "Try" is not a plan. "Do, there is no try." - Yoda
> > > >
> > > > I would say that making the line a separate sentence makes it sound more
> > > > portentous, more significant than in the original.
> > > >
> > > > > “It really wasn't very smart
> > > > > to make this trek without a chart:
> > > >
> > > > The only change I see here is "take" to "make". I see that as not just
> > > > no improvement, but a not an improvement -- "take this trek" had a fine
> > > > double consonance. It was a nice "poetic" detail, probably the best one
> > > > in the work. It wasn't there just to be poetic, either; it was there to
> > > > draw attention to the one and only image in the thing: to have the
> > > > reader imagine going on a journey without a map. And that's presented as
> > > > an image, because that's how one communicates in a poem, and what I
> > > > wanted to communicate here is the argument (by analogy) for the next
> > > > lines. (That's still there, of course, just dressed down.)
> > > >
> > > > > Spontaneous writing's fine for play,
> > > > > but one cannot make art this way.
> > > >
> > > > Changing "that" to "this" reinforces the idea that this poem is the
> > > > (failed) work of art the speaker/poet set out to write, and he set out
> > > > to write it using "spontaneous writing" -- he admits it's not what he
> > > > promised (in L1), and the fault is his for using an untested method that
> > > > failed, but too bad, reader: that's what you got. I'm not even sure I
> > > > like this poet/speaker or or understand his motives.
> > > >
> > > > > I should have known that from the start.”
> > > >
> > > > As in S1, I think making the last line a stand-alone sentence separate
> > > > from the rest draws more attention to it. And I'm not sure I like the
> > > > new wording. The poet/speaker sounds like he's beating himself up for
> > > > not knowing that "from the start". But why should he have? There was no
> > > > reason for him to have "known" what would happen before trying, so
> > > > there's no reason for him to have known the moment he started.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, he should have "realized" what was happening earlier and cut his
> > > > losses -- "at the start" is hyperbolic, but the earlier the better.
> > > "Realized" is still in HC's version of the poem, and that doesn't work, meter-wise.
> > >
> > > Start over.
> > Correction: Realized is not in my version of the poem. Thanks.
> Our apologies--we saw that George Dance mentioned "realized" again at the last and did not check to see if you had included that in your version.

Will Dockery wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:

>> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Work of Art
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
>>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
>>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
>>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
>>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
>>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
>>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
>>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
>>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - gjd
>>>>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, definitely.
>>>>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
>>>>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
>>>>> find evidence of readers.
>>>> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
>>>
>>> I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?

>> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)

>> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:

>> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
>> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
>> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
>> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/

>> One can even take courses on it:
>> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing

> Back in the 1990s the young folks called it "freestyle".

Indeed....

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:10:19 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > George J. Dance wrote:
>
> >> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - gjd
> >>>>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, definitely.
> >>>>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> >>>>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> >>>>> find evidence of readers.
> >>>> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> >>>
> >>> I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
>
> >> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
>
> >> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
>
> >> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> >> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> >> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> >> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
>
> >> One can even take courses on it:
> >> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
>
>
> > Back in the 1990s the young folks called it "freestyle".
> Indeed....

A part of the Hip Hop culture, so no wonder Senetto is clueless about it.

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:27:59 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:10:19 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> >
> > > George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> > >> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
> > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
> > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
> > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
> > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
> > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
> > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
> > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
> > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - gjd
> > >>>>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yes, definitely.
> > >>>>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
> > >>>>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
> > >>>>> find evidence of readers.
> > >>>> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
> > >>>
> > >>> I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
> >
> > >> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
> >
> > >> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
> >
> > >> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
> > >> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
> > >> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
> > >> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
> >
> > >> One can even take courses on it:
> > >> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
> >
> >
> > > Back in the 1990s the young folks called it "freestyle".
> > Indeed....
> A part of the Hip Hop culture, so no wonder Senetto is clueless about it.

Is that all you really have?

I'm in New York, not shitkickerville.

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 9:27:59 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:10:19 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Will Dockery wrote:
>> >
>> > > George J. Dance wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On 2022-06-23 4:03 p.m., HC wrote:
>> > >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 3:32:17 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > >>>>> On 2022-06-22 12:00 a.m., Ilya Shambat wrote:
>> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:15:19 AM UTC+10, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> A Work of Art
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> I tried to write a work of art
>> > >>>>>>>> With all my passion, all my heart,
>> > >>>>>>>> But no idea of what to say
>> > >>>>>>>> Or what I wanted to convey;
>> > >>>>>>>> My plans were doomed, and fell apart.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> It really wasn't very smart
>> > >>>>>>>> To take this trek without a chart:
>> > >>>>>>>> Spontaneous writing's fine for play
>> > >>>>>>>> But one cannot make art that way,
>> > >>>>>>>> I should have realized from the start.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> - gjd
>> > >>>>>>> Quite an excellent short poem....
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Yes, definitely.
>> > >>>>> Thanks, Zod and Ilya.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> I'm glad you're reading, Ilya. There's been a dearth of poetry on the
>> > >>>>> group lately, which I'm trying to do something about; and I'm glad to
>> > >>>>> find evidence of readers.
>> > >>>> I wouldn't say that there's been a dearth of poetry of late -- you just have to know where to look. The AYoS threads contain a great deal of AAPC member poetry -- much of it brand new/never before posted.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> That said, I do appreciate your efforts to bring AAPC's focus back to poetry.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Unfortunately, you're effort to engage Ilya in a conversation is both futile and... strange... considering how H.C. and NancyGene have (unlike Ilya) actually shared some constructive criticism with you.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Hopefully we can get a discussion going between them and yourself.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I’d like to discuss use of the word spontaneous. Wouldn’t extemporaneous be more appropriate?
>> >
>> > >> Perhaps, but it would be much harder to scan :)
>> >
>> > >> Spontaneous writing, under whatever name, is definitely a thing these days:
>> >
>> > >> "Intuitive writing, automatic writing, free-writing, stream of
>> > >> consciousness, whatever you call it, spontaneous writing can be a very
>> > >> powerful exercise in your writing practice."
>> > >> "https://matadornetwork.com/notebook/write-spontaneously-to-unleash-your-inner-creativity/
>> >
>> > >> One can even take courses on it:
>> > >> https://bartleysec.moe.edu.sg/information/parents/spontaneous-writing
>> >
>> >
>> > > Back in the 1990s the young folks called it "freestyle".
>> > Indeed....
>> A part of the Hip Hop culture, so no wonder Senetto is clueless about it.

> Is that all you really have?

Of course not, my feeble minded friend.

🙂