On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
>
> > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.

That's absurd.

> Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
> > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.
> > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> (1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
> (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
>
> Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.
> > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
>
> > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
> > 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.
> Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.
> > 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"
>
>
>
> > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> > >
> > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
>
> > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
>
> > You are wrong.
>
> No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.
> > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> > Nonsense.
>
> So you haven't looked at the text of either work.
> > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > > >
> > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > Alfred Austin
> > > > Personages:
> > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > > Protagonists:
> > > > Love- Religion-
> > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > > >
> > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles.. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
>
> > Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.
> Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.

....

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
>
> > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
>

What's with the name-calling, George?

I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).

> > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:

Your alleged "thank you" was of the back-handed variety, as it was given along with a patronizing attempt to misrepresent NancyGene's familiarity with literary terms.

Why couldn't you have just thanked her, corrected your blog, and moved on?

Was you ego threatened by her correction?

> > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.
> > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> (1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
> (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
>
> Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.

No, George.

NancyGene corrected the date you'd mistakenly attributed to the edition of Mr. Austin's poem that you'd published an excerpt from. This is the sort of thing that literary scholars do.

You returned her correction with a back-handed "thank you" and a patronizing attempt to explain the meaning of "tragedy."

You've also hurled your usual childish names and Jim (who is no longer here) and myself (although I have been addressing you by your name).

You claim that your interactions here are dictated by your "system of ethics" commonly known as "Tit for Tat," yet you persist in launching unprovoked attacks on others, simply because you choose to see them as "enemies."

> > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
>
> > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
>

You have *nothing* to base this accusation on, George.

As a casual reader of "Penny's Pages," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.

If "Penny's Pages" is meant to be a scholarly tool for those interested in obscure and forgotten poetry, you would devote the necessary time to ensure that such mistakes do not occur.

> > 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.
> Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.

Again, you have no basis for making this accusation. You remind me of a spiteful child who refuses to own up to his mistakes.

> > 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"
>
>
>
> > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> > >
> > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
>
> > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
>

NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George. She corrected an error on your blog.

Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.

Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.

> > You are wrong.
>
> No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.

She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."

I have cited passages from Mr. Austin's biography (at All Poetry) and from the Preface of the 1879 and 1889 editions of his poem that support this conclusion.

Tellingly, you have ignored both of the posts in which I'd mentioned these.

> > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> > Nonsense.
>
> So you haven't looked at the text of either work.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J.. Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
>> > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
>> > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
>> > > > > > [...]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > #pennyspoems
>> > > >
>> > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
>> > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
>> > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
>> We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.

>> If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.

> Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.

>> > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
>> > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.

>> George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?

> Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
>> > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.

>> You continually deflect from the original problem.
> NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> (1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
> (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.

> Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.

>> > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?

>> > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
>> 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.

> Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.

>> 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.

> Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.

>> 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.

>> 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"

>> > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
>> >
>> > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
>> > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.

>> Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."

> That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?

>> You are wrong.

> No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.

>> > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
>> > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.

>> > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
>> Nonsense.

> So you haven't looked at the text of either work.

>> > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
>> > >
>> > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
>> > > by Alfred Austin
>> > > Alfred Austin
>> > > Personages:
>> > > Gilbert- Miriam-
>> > > Olympia- Godfrid.
>> > > Protagonists:
>> > > Love- Religion-
>> > > Patriotism- Humanity.
>> > > Place: Rome-Paris.
>> > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
>> > >
>> > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
>> > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.

>> Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.

> Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.

Again, well put.

😃

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:55:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J.. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play..
> > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> >
> > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
Maybe you should just have deleted the poem and started over? However, since we did point out your mistake, which lead to your "change," we are responsible for your changing the version and the date. You would not have done that if we had not looked more closely into your posting.

You put Michael and Jim's poetry on one of your sites and refused to removed it, including refusing to remove Jim's picture. Do you give "anyone" credit on your blaarrggg except for yourself? We would love to read one of your research papers.

> >
> What's with the name-calling, George?
That is George Dance's method of dealing with being wrong.
>
> I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
Jim is waiting for Dockery's demise, which cannot come soon enough.

> > > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> > Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> > Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
> Your alleged "thank you" was of the back-handed variety, as it was given along with a patronizing attempt to misrepresent NancyGene's familiarity with literary terms.
Yes, his thank you might as well have been accompanied by a spit on the ground. George Dance tries to belittle others in order to build himself up, and that is particularly apparent when he is criticized.
>
> Why couldn't you have just thanked her, corrected your blog, and moved on?
"Thank you, NancyGene, for catching that error. I'll change it on the site--much appreciated." (George Dance never said that.)
>
> Was your ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.
> > > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> > NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
To George Dance, his "fixing it" means that it "never" existed.

> > (1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
> > (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> > (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
> >
> > Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.
> No, George.
>
> NancyGene corrected the date you'd mistakenly attributed to the edition of Mr. Austin's poem that you'd published an excerpt from. This is the sort of thing that literary scholars do.
George Dance seems to have limited his vocabulary to "troll" and "lying," no matter the circumstance.
>
> You returned her correction with a back-handed "thank you" and a patronizing attempt to explain the meaning of "tragedy."
If George Dance understood so much about Austin's work, why didn't he accompany the original posting with a commentary?
>
> You've also hurled your usual childish names and Jim (who is no longer here) and myself (although I have been addressing you by your name).
Big brains are supposed to have big thoughts.
>
> You claim that your interactions here are dictated by your "system of ethics" commonly known as "Tit for Tat," yet you persist in launching unprovoked attacks on others, simply because you choose to see them as "enemies."
> > > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> >
> > > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> > Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
> >
> You have *nothing* to base this accusation on, George.
George Dance could have no way of knowing if we visit his blaarrrgg or not. As we said, we don't often visit that site(s), and if we do it is for a purpose.
>
> As a casual reader of "Penny's Pages," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
It would be more valuable to poetry readers to have an in-depth analysis of the poem rather than excerpts from 20 poems that just happen to have the season in one line.
>
> If "Penny's Pages" is meant to be a scholarly tool for those interested in obscure and forgotten poetry, you would devote the necessary time to ensure that such mistakes do not occur.

And we will not always point out the errors.

> > > 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.
> > Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.
> Again, you have no basis for making this accusation. You remind me of a spiteful child who refuses to own up to his mistakes.

We don't read every George Dance post. However, George Dance SHOULD check every date in his postings.

> > > 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.
> > > 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"
> >
> > > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >
> > > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> > That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
> >
> NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George. She corrected an error on your blog.
George Dance considers any correction to be an attack.
>
> Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
It's his attempt to cover his insecurities. He know that you and we are much superior to him intellectually. He is barely hanging onto the ledge.
>
> Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem.." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
Absolutely, which is why we said "play" above.
> > > You are wrong.
> >
> > No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.
> She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
Mr. Austin was attempting to produce something similar in form to those works (and Shakespeare's). We will have to read the full poem/play/work.
>
> I have cited passages from Mr. Austin's biography (at All Poetry) and from the Preface of the 1879 and 1889 editions of his poem that support this conclusion.
>
> Tellingly, you have ignored both of the posts in which I'd mentioned these.
That doesn't jibe with George Dance's thoughts of being omnipotent.

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
>
> > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
> > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.
> > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> (1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
> (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
>
> Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.
> > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
>
> > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
> > 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.
> Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.
> > 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"
>
>
>
> > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> > >
> > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
>
> > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
>
> > You are wrong.
>
> No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.
> > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
> > Nonsense.
>
> So you haven't looked at the text of either work.
> > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > > >
> > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > Alfred Austin
> > > > Personages:
> > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > > Protagonists:
> > > > Love- Religion-
> > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > > >
> > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles.. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
>
> > Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.
> Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.

You nailed it G.D.

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:52:34 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J.. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > >
> > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> >
> > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >
> We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so.

Indeed, no one was talking about Will or anyone like him until you mentioned him -- and your only reason for mentioning him seems to be to open up this thread to name-calling. So be it; your doing that provides both an opportunity and another reason to ask the perennial question:
WTF is wrong with you, Michael Monkey?
> > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [must] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.

By the same token, "Manfred" is a play.

> > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > >
> > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > by Alfred Austin
> > > Alfred Austin
> > > Personages:
> > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > Protagonists:
> > > Love- Religion-
> > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > >
> > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
> >
> Imagine the narrator as delivering a monologue.
>

While all the other actors are running hither and yon pantomiming the story? That was ludicrous enough, but it got even more so when the characters spoke. For instance, lines like this in Act I:

CXXIII
She leaned away, she hung athwart the ledge
Of the young torrent, and with quivering lips,
"Don't," she cried, "don't! My pledge! my sacred pledge!"

CXXIV
And when the spell of silence was uncharmed,
" Let us go home," she said ; "'tis better so.'
But they who fight with love are soon disarmed,
And bare their breast in striking the first blow.

CXXX
Halting and bending forward his tall frame,
To peer within, "What a sweet nook !" he cried.
"Who trained these branches was not much to blame.
Shall we not use their shade, and see, unseen,
The yellowing Autumn trench on Summer's green?"

Through this part of the poem, there are only two "personages" speaking, Gotfrid and Olive. But every time one of them speaks, up pops the imaginary narrator to interject "he said", "she said," etc.

This might work as a short Monty Python or Bonzo Dog Band skit; but it's no way to to write a play. Austin wrote some plays, so presumably he knows that.

> Yes, the text of the poem doesn't *look* like a play.

.... or read like one.

> And since none of us have read it (I feel safe including you), we cannot make unsupported hypotheses about it. We can only go by what few facts we have established.
>
> To wit:
>
> 1) The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play,

It's a narrative poem. If you think that requires a narrator other than the writer, then you can call it "narrated" as well; but there is no obvious narrator.

> 2) The poem is divided into "Acts," listing "Dramatis Personae" (in the 1889 ed.) and "Personages" and "Protagonists" (in the ed. quoted from above)..

No, Austin didn't use the term "Dramatis Personae" in this poem (though he did in at least one play). He added the Protagonists and the Places in 1876, when he renamed his cantos Acts, and added the Personages in 1889.
> Since we have to assume that Mr. Austin isn't a Donkey-level moron, we must conclude that he divided it into "Acts" for a reason.
>
> Your reason ("he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles") is speculative, and since you haven't read the poem, a wild guess.
I didn't say that I haven't read the poem. If that's what you want to believe, I don't see any reason to argue the point with you, but I will point out that's just something you made up on your own.

> I'm not pretending that my own conclusion is definitive by any stretch of the imagination. I'm saying that when confronted with a poem that is divided into "Acts," and lists "Dramatis Personae" and "Setting," should be considered to partake of both forms (poem and play, a.k.a., "Dramatic Verse") until its form has been determined.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:17:50 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:52:34 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> > >
> > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so.
> Indeed, no one was talking about Will or anyone like him until you mentioned him -- and your only reason for mentioning him seems to be to open up this thread to name-calling. So be it; your doing that provides both an opportunity and another reason to ask the perennial question:
> WTF is wrong with you, Michael Monkey?
> > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [must] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
>
> By the same token, "Manfred" is a play.
> > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > > >
> > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > Alfred Austin
> > > > Personages:
> > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > > Protagonists:
> > > > Love- Religion-
> > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > > >
> > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles.. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
> > >
> > Imagine the narrator as delivering a monologue.
> >
> While all the other actors are running hither and yon pantomiming the story? That was ludicrous enough, but it got even more so when the characters spoke. For instance, lines like this in Act I:
>
> CXXIII
> She leaned away, she hung athwart the ledge
> Of the young torrent, and with quivering lips,
> "Don't," she cried, "don't! My pledge! my sacred pledge!"
>
> CXXIV
> And when the spell of silence was uncharmed,
> " Let us go home," she said ; "'tis better so.'
> But they who fight with love are soon disarmed,
> And bare their breast in striking the first blow.
>
> CXXX
> Halting and bending forward his tall frame,
> To peer within, "What a sweet nook !" he cried.
> "Who trained these branches was not much to blame.
> Shall we not use their shade, and see, unseen,
> The yellowing Autumn trench on Summer's green?"
>
> Through this part of the poem, there are only two "personages" speaking, Gotfrid and Olive. But every time one of them speaks, up pops the imaginary narrator to interject "he said", "she said," etc.
>
> This might work as a short Monty Python or Bonzo Dog Band skit; but it's no way to to write a play. Austin wrote some plays, so presumably he knows that.
> > Yes, the text of the poem doesn't *look* like a play.
> ... or read like one.
> > And since none of us have read it (I feel safe including you), we cannot make unsupported hypotheses about it. We can only go by what few facts we have established.
> >
> > To wit:
> >
> > 1) The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play,
> It's a narrative poem. If you think that requires a narrator other than the writer, then you can call it "narrated" as well; but there is no obvious narrator.
> > 2) The poem is divided into "Acts," listing "Dramatis Personae" (in the 1889 ed.) and "Personages" and "Protagonists" (in the ed. quoted from above).
> No, Austin didn't use the term "Dramatis Personae" in this poem (though he did in at least one play). He added the Protagonists and the Places in 1876, when he renamed his cantos Acts, and added the Personages in 1889.
> > Since we have to assume that Mr. Austin isn't a Donkey-level moron, we must conclude that he divided it into "Acts" for a reason.
> >
> > Your reason ("he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles") is speculative, and since you haven't read the poem, a wild guess.
> I didn't say that I haven't read the poem. If that's what you want to believe, I don't see any reason to argue the point with you, but I will point out that's just something you made up on your own.
> > I'm not pretending that my own conclusion is definitive by any stretch of the imagination. I'm saying that when confronted with a poem that is divided into "Acts," and lists "Dramatis Personae" and "Setting," should be considered to partake of both forms (poem and play, a.k.a., "Dramatic Verse") until its form has been determined.

Well put G.D.

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J.. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play..
> > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> >
> > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> >
> What's with the name-calling, George?
>
> I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).

Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?

> > > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> > Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> > Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
> > > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.

> Your alleged "thank you" was of the back-handed variety, as it was given along with a patronizing attempt to misrepresent NancyGene's familiarity with literary terms.
Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.

> Why couldn't you have just thanked her, corrected your blog, and moved on?

Exactly what I did. NG has since been insisting that /The Human Tragedy/ was, too, a play, so we moved on to that.

> Was you ego threatened by her correction?

Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?

> > > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> > NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> > (1) you claimed I'd used ["the wrong version here of the lines" *], and I thanked you for telling me that.
[* Edited for accuracy]
> > (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> > (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
> >
> > Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.
> No, George.
>
> NancyGene corrected the date you'd mistakenly attributed to the edition of Mr. Austin's poem that you'd published an excerpt from.

No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.

> This is the sort of thing that literary scholars do.
>
> You returned her correction with a back-handed "thank you" and a patronizing attempt to explain the meaning of "tragedy."

Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> You've also hurled your usual childish names and Jim (who is no longer here) and myself (although I have been addressing you by your name).
As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.

> You claim that your interactions here are dictated by your "system of ethics" commonly known as "Tit for Tat," yet you persist in launching unprovoked attacks on others, simply because you choose to see them as "enemies."
> > > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> >
> > > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> > Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
> >
> You have *nothing* to base this accusation on, George.
>

Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?

> As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.

Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything. It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> If "Penny's Pages" is meant to be a scholarly tool for those interested in obscure and forgotten poetry, you would devote the necessary time to ensure that such mistakes do not occur.

> >
> > > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.

I've since tracked down the two earlier versions; neither of them were "plays" either.

> > > >
> > > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >
> > > Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."
> > That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?
> >
> NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:17:50 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:52:34 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > >
> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
> > >
> > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
> > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so.
> Indeed, no one was talking about Will or anyone like him until you mentioned him -- and your only reason for mentioning him seems to be to open up this thread to name-calling. So be it; your doing that provides both an opportunity and another reason to ask the perennial question:
> WTF is wrong with you, Michael Monkey?

I was under the impression that your "system of ethics," otherwise known as "Tit for Tat," only applied to direct attacks on one's person. When you call people by childish names for having made fun of one of your friend, you're defeating the (supposedly) positive results of its application.

In short, I am now obligated under the rules of Tit for Tat to call you "Mr.. Dunce" in return.

And yet another temporary cease fire is brought to a close.

> > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
> > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
> > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [must] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
>
> By the same token, "Manfred" is a play.
> > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
> > > >
> > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
> > > > by Alfred Austin
> > > > Alfred Austin
> > > > Personages:
> > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
> > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
> > > > Protagonists:
> > > > Love- Religion-
> > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
> > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
> > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
> > > >
> > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
> > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles.. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
> > >
> > Imagine the narrator as delivering a monologue.
> >
> While all the other actors are running hither and yon pantomiming the story? That was ludicrous enough, but it got even more so when the characters spoke. For instance, lines like this in Act I:
>
> CXXIII
> She leaned away, she hung athwart the ledge
> Of the young torrent, and with quivering lips,
> "Don't," she cried, "don't! My pledge! my sacred pledge!"
>
> CXXIV
> And when the spell of silence was uncharmed,
> " Let us go home," she said ; "'tis better so.'
> But they who fight with love are soon disarmed,
> And bare their breast in striking the first blow.
>
> CXXX
> Halting and bending forward his tall frame,
> To peer within, "What a sweet nook !" he cried.
> "Who trained these branches was not much to blame.
> Shall we not use their shade, and see, unseen,
> The yellowing Autumn trench on Summer's green?"
>
> Through this part of the poem, there are only two "personages" speaking, Gotfrid and Olive. But every time one of them speaks, up pops the imaginary narrator to interject "he said", "she said," etc.
>
> This might work as a short Monty Python or Bonzo Dog Band skit; but it's no way to to write a play. Austin wrote some plays, so presumably he knows that.

What part of "The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play," are you failing to understand?

> > Yes, the text of the poem doesn't *look* like a play.
> ... or read like one.
> > And since none of us have read it (I feel safe including you), we cannot make unsupported hypotheses about it. We can only go by what few facts we have established.
> >
> > To wit:
> >
> > 1) The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play,
> It's a narrative poem. If you think that requires a narrator other than the writer, then you can call it "narrated" as well; but there is no obvious narrator.

My suspicion is that "Love," "Humanity," & co. is narrating it. But as I said, I haven't read it, so that's just a suspicion.

> > 2) The poem is divided into "Acts," listing "Dramatis Personae" (in the 1889 ed.) and "Personages" and "Protagonists" (in the ed. quoted from above).
> No, Austin didn't use the term "Dramatis Personae" in this poem (though he did in at least one play). He added the Protagonists and the Places in 1876, when he renamed his cantos Acts, and added the Personages in 1889.
> > Since we have to assume that Mr. Austin isn't a Donkey-level moron, we must conclude that he divided it into "Acts" for a reason.
> >
> > Your reason ("he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles") is speculative, and since you haven't read the poem, a wild guess.
> I didn't say that I haven't read the poem. If that's what you want to believe, I don't see any reason to argue the point with you, but I will point out that's just something you made up on your own.
>

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > >
> > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > >
> > What's with the name-calling, George?
> >
> > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?

This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.

> > > > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
> > > > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> > > Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> > > * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.
> > > > George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?
> > > Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
> > > > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.
> > Your alleged "thank you" was of the back-handed variety, as it was given along with a patronizing attempt to misrepresent NancyGene's familiarity with literary terms.
> Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.

I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."

> > Why couldn't you have just thanked her, corrected your blog, and moved on?
> Exactly what I did. NG has since been insisting that /The Human Tragedy/ was, too, a play, so we moved on to that.

"Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.

> > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
>

Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.

> > > > You continually deflect from the original problem.
> > > NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> > > (1) you claimed I'd used ["the wrong version here of the lines" *], and I thanked you for telling me that.
> [* Edited for accuracy]
> > > (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> > > (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.
> > >
> > > Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.
> > No, George.
> >
> > NancyGene corrected the date you'd mistakenly attributed to the edition of Mr. Austin's poem that you'd published an excerpt from.
> No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.

I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.

> > This is the sort of thing that literary scholars do.
> >
> > You returned her correction with a back-handed "thank you" and a patronizing attempt to explain the meaning of "tragedy."
> Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
>

And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.

> > You've also hurled your usual childish names and Jim (who is no longer here) and myself (although I have been addressing you by your name).
> As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
>

That never happened, George.

> > You claim that your interactions here are dictated by your "system of ethics" commonly known as "Tit for Tat," yet you persist in launching unprovoked attacks on others, simply because you choose to see them as "enemies."
> > > > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
> > >
> > > > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
> > > > 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.
> > > Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.
> > >
> > You have *nothing* to base this accusation on, George.
> >
> Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?

I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.

> > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
>
> Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
>

Faraway Star wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:17:50 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:52:34 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
>> > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
>> > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
>> > > > > > > [...]
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > #pennyspoems
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
>> > > > > Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
>> > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
>> > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
>> > > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
>> > > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
>> > > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?
>> > > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
>> > > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
>> > >
>> > > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
>> > > Not as a rule. Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
>> > >
>> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so.
>> Indeed, no one was talking about Will or anyone like him until you mentioned him -- and your only reason for mentioning him seems to be to open up this thread to name-calling. So be it; your doing that provides both an opportunity and another reason to ask the perennial question:
>> WTF is wrong with you, Michael Monkey?
>> > > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
>> > > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.
>> > > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [must] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
>>
>> By the same token, "Manfred" is a play.
>> > > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
>> > > >
>> > > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
>> > > > by Alfred Austin
>> > > > Alfred Austin
>> > > > Personages:
>> > > > Gilbert- Miriam-
>> > > > Olympia- Godfrid.
>> > > > Protagonists:
>> > > > Love- Religion-
>> > > > Patriotism- Humanity.
>> > > > Place: Rome-Paris.
>> > > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
>> > > >
>> > > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
>> > > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles.. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.
>> > >
>> > Imagine the narrator as delivering a monologue.
>> >
>> While all the other actors are running hither and yon pantomiming the story? That was ludicrous enough, but it got even more so when the characters spoke. For instance, lines like this in Act I:
>>
>> CXXIII
>> She leaned away, she hung athwart the ledge
>> Of the young torrent, and with quivering lips,
>> "Don't," she cried, "don't! My pledge! my sacred pledge!"
>>
>> CXXIV
>> And when the spell of silence was uncharmed,
>> " Let us go home," she said ; "'tis better so.'
>> But they who fight with love are soon disarmed,
>> And bare their breast in striking the first blow.
>>
>> CXXX
>> Halting and bending forward his tall frame,
>> To peer within, "What a sweet nook !" he cried.
>> "Who trained these branches was not much to blame.
>> Shall we not use their shade, and see, unseen,
>> The yellowing Autumn trench on Summer's green?"
>>
>> Through this part of the poem, there are only two "personages" speaking, Gotfrid and Olive. But every time one of them speaks, up pops the imaginary narrator to interject "he said", "she said," etc.
>>
>> This might work as a short Monty Python or Bonzo Dog Band skit; but it's no way to to write a play. Austin wrote some plays, so presumably he knows that.
>> > Yes, the text of the poem doesn't *look* like a play.
>> ... or read like one.
>> > And since none of us have read it (I feel safe including you), we cannot make unsupported hypotheses about it. We can only go by what few facts we have established.
>> >
>> > To wit:
>> >
>> > 1) The form appears to be that of a narrated poem rather than a play,
>> It's a narrative poem. If you think that requires a narrator other than the writer, then you can call it "narrated" as well; but there is no obvious narrator.
>> > 2) The poem is divided into "Acts," listing "Dramatis Personae" (in the 1889 ed.) and "Personages" and "Protagonists" (in the ed. quoted from above).
>> No, Austin didn't use the term "Dramatis Personae" in this poem (though he did in at least one play). He added the Protagonists and the Places in 1876, when he renamed his cantos Acts, and added the Personages in 1889.
>> > Since we have to assume that Mr. Austin isn't a Donkey-level moron, we must conclude that he divided it into "Acts" for a reason.
>> >
>> > Your reason ("he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles") is speculative, and since you haven't read the poem, a wild guess.
>> I didn't say that I haven't read the poem. If that's what you want to believe, I don't see any reason to argue the point with you, but I will point out that's just something you made up on your own.
>> > I'm not pretending that my own conclusion is definitive by any stretch of the imagination. I'm saying that when confronted with a poem that is divided into "Acts," and lists "Dramatis Personae" and "Setting," should be considered to partake of both forms (poem and play, a.k.a., "Dramatic Verse") until its form has been determined.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>
>> > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
>> >
>> > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
>> > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
>> > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
>> >
>> > #pennyspoems

>> George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.

> Well, thank you for letting me know. I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.

> BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.

Again, nailed it.

😃

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > >
> > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > >
> > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > >
> > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.

The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:

<quote>
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >
> We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
</q>

- and here's your Asstroll:
<quote>
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
</q>

Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

> > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."

I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

> "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.

As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.

> > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> >
> Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.

No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.

> > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.

NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.

> > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> >
> And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.

And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."

> > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> >
> That never happened, George.

Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.

Once again, here's you:

<quote>
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> >
> We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
</q>

- and here's your Asstroll:
<quote>
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
</q>

We're back to name-calling, by your choice.

> > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.

Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.

> > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> >
> > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> >
> I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> Grant me some credit, George.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J.. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > >
> > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > >
> > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct.. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
>
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> </q>
>
> - and here's your Asstroll:
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> </q>
>
> Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > >
> > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > >
> > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > >
> > That never happened, George.
> Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
>
> Once again, here's you:
>
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> </q>
>
> - and here's your Asstroll:
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> </q>
>
> We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > >
> > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > >
> > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much..
> > Grant me some credit, George.
> It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
>
> The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
>
> > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
>
> (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
>
> ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > No, George, I'm not.
> >
> > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> >
> > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > Wrong.
> No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
>
> snip
George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so." If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one), what was his reason for using "Acts?" By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:00:22 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J.. Dance wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > >
> > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > >
> > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct.. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
>
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> </q>
>
> - and here's your Asstroll:
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> </q>
>
> Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > >
> > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > >
> > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > >
> > That never happened, George.
> Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
>
> Once again, here's you:
>
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> </q>
>
> - and here's your Asstroll:
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> </q>
>
> We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > >
> > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > >
> > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much..
> > Grant me some credit, George.
> It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
>
> The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
>
> > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
>
> (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
>
> ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > No, George, I'm not.
> >
> > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> >
> > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > Wrong.
> No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
>
> snip

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:00:22 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J.. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > >
> > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > >
> > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct.. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
>
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > >
> > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> </q>
>
> - and here's your Asstroll:
> <quote>
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> </q>
>
> Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

Where have I called you anything other than "George" in the above?

Goebbels notwithstanding, repeating a lie does *not* make people believe it.. It shows them just how big a liar you actually are.

> > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

I posted it on 10/23/2023 in this thread (see above).

And just so you can't lie about it again, here it is:

"[Austin] saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."

https://www.poemhunter.com/alfred-austin/biography/#google_vignette

> > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.

No, Dunce, it is not.

"Written in 1816-1817 by the British poet Lord George Gordon Byron, Manfred is a closet drama, meaning that Byron never intended it to be produced onstage despite writing it in the style of a play in verse, with dialogue parts for various characters."

https://www.supersummary.com/manfred/summary/

> > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > >
> > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.

Despite it's being presented as a play?

When discussing a literary work, you *cannot* ignore such things as the author's having separated it into "Acts," provided a cast of Characters, and a Setting.

The author *intended* it to be read as a play (a "closet drama").

His motivation for doing so may be surmised from the poemhunter biographical note quoted above.

> > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
>

Again, Lying Dunce, I did not say that NancyGene's *correction* wasn't in this thread. We are all aware that NancyGene corrected you *here" -- just as we are all aware that the error had appeared *in your blog.*

You made an error on your blog.
NancyGene corrected your error (in this thread).
You've been throwing an epic hissyfit ever since.

> > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > >
> > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."

"[Austin] saw narrative and dramatic verse as the height of poetic expression, and believed that Shakespeare and Milton were exemplars of these styles and worthy of imitation."

https://www.poemhunter.com/alfred-austin/biography/#google_vignette

If you believe that PoemHunter is mistaken, I suggest that you read *all* of Mr. Austin's essays and (if no instance of "dramatic verse" occurs), that you take it up with them.

> > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > >
> > That never happened, George.
> Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
>
> Once again, here's you:

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done..
> > > > > >
> > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> >
> > <quote>
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > >
> > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > </q>
> >
> > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > <quote>
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > </q>
> >
> > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > >
> > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > >
> > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > >
> > > That never happened, George.
> > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> >
> > Once again, here's you:
> >
> > <quote>
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > >
> > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > </q>
> >
> > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > <quote>
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > </q>
> >
> > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > >
> > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > >
> > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> >
> > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> >
> > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> >
> > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> >
> > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > No, George, I'm not.
> > >
> > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > >
> > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > Wrong.
> > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> >
> > snip

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > >
> > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > <quote>
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > >
> > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > >
> > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > >
> > > > That never happened, George.
> > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > >
> > > Once again, here's you:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > >
> > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > <quote>
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > >
> > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > >
> > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > >
> > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > >
> > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > >
> > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > >
> > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > Wrong.
> > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > >
> > > snip
>
> > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
>

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > >
> > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > <quote>
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > >
> > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > >
> > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > >
> > > > That never happened, George.
> > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > >
> > > Once again, here's you:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > >
> > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > <quote>
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > </q>
> > >
> > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > >
> > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > >
> > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > >
> > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > >
> > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > >
> > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > >
> > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > Wrong.
> > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > >
> > > snip
>
> > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
>
> Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
>
> Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:29:46 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > >
> > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > >
> > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > >
> > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > >
> > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > >
> > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > Wrong.
> > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > >
> > > > snip
> >
> > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> >
> > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> >
> > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> As usual, if Michael Pendragon is typing, he's probably lying.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:29:46 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > >
> > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > >
> > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > >
> > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > >
> > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > >
> > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > Wrong.
> > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > >
> > > > snip
> >
> > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> >
> > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> >
> > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> As usual, if Michael Pendragon is typing, he's probably lying.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > >
> > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > >
> > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > <quote>
> > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > </q>
> > > >
> > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > >
> > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > >
> > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > >
> > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > >
> > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > Wrong.
> > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > >
> > > > snip
> >
> > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> >
> Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
>
> As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> >
> Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
>
> Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> >
> And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
>
> One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
>
> Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
>
> As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> >
> The only name I called you in the passage you'd quoted is "George."
>
> Does you Tit for Tat system of "ethics" justify attacking others because they're involved in a fight with one of your friends? If so, does it allow you to attack others for having insulted a politician, political party, or political issue that you support?

NancyGene wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>
>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
>>
>> In the slant sunlight of the young October,
>> Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
>> Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
>> [...]
>>
>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
>>
>> #pennyspoems

> George Dance, you have the wrong version

Either way, the poem is quite splendid..!

That is all.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:00:20 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:22 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:24:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > > >
> > > > > <quote>
> > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > </q>
> > > > >
> > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > <quote>
> > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > </q>
> > > > >
> > > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread.. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael.. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > > >
> > > > > <quote>
> > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > </q>
> > > > >
> > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > <quote>
> > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > </q>
> > > > >
> > > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly..
> > > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one.
> > > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > > >
> > > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP.. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > > >
> > > > > snip
> > >
> > > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > >
> > Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
> >
> > As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> > Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> > If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> > >
> > Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
> >
> > Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> > >
> > And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
> >
> > One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
> >
> > Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
> >
> > As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
> > >
> > The only name I called you in the passage you'd quoted is "George."
> >
> > Does you Tit for Tat system of "ethics" justify attacking others because they're involved in a fight with one of your friends? If so, does it allow you to attack others for having insulted a politician, political party, or political issue that you support?
> I've tried to tell them why their tit for tat would embroil them in an endless spat from which they will not extract themselves:
> Blind idiots, always they talk so simple minded about gangs and leaders, ignorant to the fact that this strife is a complex web of individual struggles interwoven in fighting.
> So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle and there's no way to sort out what's self defense, what's solely or justly provoked or what's actual uncalled for trolling. Nor is there probably any stopping it now. This has gone on too long, people are now too entrenched and embittered, so not to be provoked and not to go overboard.
>

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #pennyspoems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> > > > > > > > > > I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.
> > > > > > > > > > Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What's with the name-calling, George?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been addressing (and referring to) you as "George Dance," and Jim hasn't posted here in two months (approx.).
> > > > > > > > Both you and your Asstroll began name-calling in this thread the previous day. (Oct. 23). Did you forget that?
> > > > > > > This thread appears to have forgotten it as well. I just checked my Oct. 23 posts, and cannot find any trace of the alleged offense.
> > > > > > The archives never forget, Michael. Here's you:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > </q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > </q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > Your friend made an incorrect statement (that Austin's /Human Tragedy/ was a "play") and I corrected them.
> > > > > > > I don't believe that her statement was incorrect, George. As previously noted, there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Austin wished his poem to be considered "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > I've read some of Austin's poetics, and don't remember him ever using the term "Dramatic Verse." Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
> > > > > > > "Dramatic Verse" is, as the name suggests, both a play and a poem (as per "Manfred" or "Night Magick"). As such, it can be referred to as either a play or a poem.
> > > > > > As I've previously noted, Manfred is a play. I don't know anything about that other one.
> > > > > > > > > Was you ego threatened by her correction?
> > > > > > > > Let's see: your friend attempted to correct the poem, and (though it was correct) got a thank you. I corrected your friend's misuse of the language, and got post after post ranting that "George Dance was wrong.." Whose ego can't handle being corrected?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yours, apparently... since you're unable to admit that NancyGene was correct.
> > > > > > No, NG was not correct. Despite the name and the "Acts" /The Human Tragedy/ is not a play.
> > > > > > > > No, Lying Michael; NG did not correct any date in this thread. NG did not even claim that a date needed to be corrected. I had to discover all that on my own.
> > > > > > > I didn't say that your error was in this thread, George. We are all aware that it was made in your blog.
> > > > > > NG's purported *correction* was in this thread, Dishonest Michael. But, as I said, it was not a "correction" but a claim that something was wrong on the blog. That something was *not* the date. NG did not "correct' any dates, Lying Michael; please stop spreading that lie.
> > > > > > > > Once again: I corrected your friend when they incorrectly called /The Human Tragedy/ a "play". Apparently they don't like being corrected, nor do you. That's not my problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And, once again, I believe that Mr. Austin considered it to be an example of "Dramatic Verse." And since "Dramatic Verse" is a term he applied to "Romeo & Juliet," one can conclude that his use of it included plays.
> > > > > > And once again, I don't remember Austin ever using the term, "Dramatic Verse."
> > > > > > > > As noted; you and your Asstroll ("Jim's" replacement) had begun the name-calling on my thread here the previous day. Stop crying when others follow your lead. As I've told you guys before: if you can't stand the heat, stop starting fires.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That never happened, George.
> > > > > > Wow! Earlier in your message, you were claiming only that you couldn't find the quotes; now you're claiming that they never existed. You've crossed the line into lying again, Lying Michael.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once again, here's you:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:40:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > Divisions in long poems are usually called "cantos." But a poet can call the divisions in his poem whatever he wants: acts (as in a play), chapters (as in a novel), scenes (as in a movie) or whatever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George.
> > > > > > </q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - and here's your Asstroll:
> > > > > > <quote>
> > > > > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > Don't be so full of yourself Donkey :)
> > > > > > </q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We're back to name-calling, by your choice.
> > > > > > > > Are you pretending that you haven't seen the troll-threads NG has opened on each of those poems? Or that you forgot them? Do I really have to find the urls for your?
> > > > > > > I have seen NancyGene offer corrections to several of the poems on your blog. I don't see how offering corrections to someone can be considered trolling.
> > > > > > Sounds to me like you just haven't thought about it. To give you one example: "Offering corrections" when there's nothing to correct (like NG did in this thread, when they claimed there I'd used "the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play") is obvious trolling; just meant to waste one's time.
> > > > > > > > > As a casual reader of "Penny's [Poetry Blog]," it is clear that you don't research the poems you post any further than their copyright status. You also don't check the copy/pasted text for errors.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Previously you've claimed that you never go to the blog at all, which is more likely: After all, it's a blog for poetry readers, not for those who claim to have already read everything.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I used to go to your blog (although I cannot access it from my work computer). These days, I only visit Penny's pages when NancyGene brings them to your attention.
> > > > > > > > It's likely that you're just "choosing to believe your colleague" (NG) again. You realize that, if so, your opinion of the blog isn't worth much.
> > > > > > > Grant me some credit, George.
> > > > > > It's what you do, Michael. Not just that one time, but repeatedly.
> > > > > > "I am happy to accept NancyGene's statement -- and, barring evidence to the contrary, shall continue to do so."
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/U2vSKjlqTS8/m/fWQJLOzIAAAJ?hl=en
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only reason you think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play, for instance, is because your buffoon colleague called it one.
> > > > > > > If NancyGene points out an error on your blog, you can be certain that I visit your blog to check it prior to responding.
> > > > > > No, I cannot. You've made too many contradictory statements about whether you visit the blog or not. Last month (when NG tried to make screenshot of an alleged "error on the blog" but copied something else instead) you were claiming that you didn't even know what the blog looked like!
> > > > > > > > > NancyGene doesn't have a "case," George.
> > > > > > > > Not much of one, admittedly. There's no indication Austin thought he'd written a "play" and no evidence in the text itself that he'd written one in fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have presented what I believe to be a compelling argument for his thinking it a play (or, at least, an example of "Dramatic Verse") based on the Preface to the 1889 ed. of his poem, and his bio on AllPoetry.com
> > > > > > There you go again. Whether or not Austin thought /The Human Tragedy/ was a play is a question of historical fact, and questions of fact cannot be answered by 'argument'. They're answered by research: by discovering the facts. Let's review them:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) fact: Austin wrote plays, both staged dramas and closet dramas
> > > > > > (2) inference: Austin knew what a play was and how to write one..
> > > > > > (3) fact: Austin did not write /The Human Tragedy/ as a play. He wrote it as an epic poem (divided into Cantos).
> > > > > > (4) fact: Austin later retitled his cantos "Acts" and added "Protagonists" (and even later, "Personages").
> > > > > > (5) inference: Austin did not think that turned his epic into a play (from 2).
> > > > > > (6) inference: Austin did not think /The Human Tragedy/ was a play.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ; so he certainly knew what a play was, and how to write one. Another fact is that he did not write one when he wrote /The Human Tragedy/; he wrote an epic poem divided into cantos.
> > > > > > > > And, despite their claims, I thanked them and we moved on. Then I corrected an error of theirs, and have since got uninterrupted whining about how I'd "attacked" them.
> > > > > > > As previously noted, your "thank you" was back-handed at best, and coupled with a false claim that NancyGene is unfamiliar with the literary meaning of "tragedy."
> > > > > > No, Lying Michael. I said that NG used the term "play" incorrectly, when they called /The Human Tragedy/ (1862 version) a play. Please don't misstate what I said.
> > > > > > > > > Your attempt to turn this into an attack on her is disgraceful.
> > > > > > > > Your friend's inability to handle a simple correction makes them deservedly a figure of ridicule.
> > > > > > > NancyGene is able to handle corrections -- on those extremely rare occasions where she's actually mistaken, however, such was not the case here.
> > > > > > The fact is that NG is "handling" this particular correction by playing victim and pretending it was an "attack" -- and the fact that NG's "colleague" is doing and saying the same thing doesn't change that fact.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.
> > > > > > > > I think you're mixing up "Dramatic verse" with "Verse drama". The latter are plays in verse; the former are verse, but not plays. I have an article on the subject on PPP; as you don't read that either, and it's essentially the Wikipedia article, here's a link to that site instead:
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_drama_and_dramatic_verse
> > > > > > > No, George, I'm not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the same mistake you made regarding NancyGene. We both choose our words very carefully, and check our sources to make sure that our use of them applies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am using "Dramatic Verse" precisely as Mr. Austin uses it in the Preface to his poem, where he cites "Romeo and Juliet" as an example.
> > > > > > Once again, I don't remember Austin ever using that phrase, "Dramatic Verse." It looks to me as if you can't even quote him correctly; why should anyone think you're interpreting his thoughts correctly?
> > > > > > > Your article on PPP does not take precedence over Mr. Austin's use of the term when discussing Mr. Austin's poem.
> > > > > > I believe I shall have explain Austin's theory (that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest form of poetry) over on PPP. It's an interesting theory, which obviously needs to be explained.
> > > > > > > > > She is correct. Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> > > > > > > > No. /Prometheus Unbound/ and /Manfred/ are both verse dramas: plays written in verse. /The Human Tragedy/ is not.
> > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > No, Michael. Your "colleague" is wrong and (whether you really think /The Human Tragedy/ is a play or whether you're just backing up your "colleague" regardless) so are you.
> > > > > > > They are not Verse Dramas, because they were never intended to be staged.
> > > > > > I've heard (just on aapc) that /Manfred/ has been staged. But that doesn't matter, as I've previously said. They're written as plays, and that's how reader should read them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > > George Dance, it would greatly help if you used complete quotations instead of using just what suits your argument. For instance, Michael actually said, "We're not talking about Will Donkey-type poets, George. If a real poet chooses to divide his poems into "Acts," you can be sure that he has a legitimate reason for doing so."
> > > > I quoted enough to show the refute his lie that his name-calling, and the Asstroll's, "never happened" in this thread. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that part of the discussion.
> > > >
> > > Except that in the quoted passage, the only name that I called you was "George."
> > >
> > > As PJR used to repeatedly ask, Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > If Mr. Austin was a real poet (although evidently not a very good one),
> > > > Show your evidence, NastyGoon. Catty remarks like that don't say anything about Austin (though they do say a good deal about you).
> > > The evidence was posted earlier in this thread, Dunce (courtesy of myself):
> > > Mr. Austin's reputation as a poet is exceptionally bad -- especially when one considers that he was Tennyson's successor as Poet Laureate. He also appears to have been a bit pretentions: "Wilfred Scawen Blunt wrote of him, 'He is an acute and ready reasoner, and is well read in theology and science. It is strange his poetry should be such poor stuff, and stranger still that he should imagine it immortal.'”
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Austin
> > > If you are unable to remember the previous posts in this discussion, it would be advantageous to you to review them prior to posting.
> > > > > what was his reason for using "Acts?"
> > > > You've already been given two answers. Michael's was that Austin added the "Acts" as a homage to Shakespeare, even though (according to MIT's Electronic Shakespeare Edition) "It is very doubtful that Shakespeare thought of his plays as having a five-act structure, or composed them in acts."
> > > > https://shea.mit.edu/ramparts/commentaryguides/what_is_a_folio/actscene/act-scene.htm#:~:text=Though%20modern%20editions%20nearly%20always,or%20composed%20them%20in%20acts.
> > > >
> > > Are you denying that Shakespeare's plays were performed on stage?
> > >
> > > Shakespeare didn't publish his plays, Dunce. They were collected and published 7 years after his death. Whether Shakespeare thought of his plays as having Acts is entirely unknown.
> > > > Mine was that he added them to suggest that his characters or personages were players in what he saw as /The Human Tragedy/ of his title. He was extending his metaphor.
> > > >
> > > And would not his extended the metaphor to pertain to the *entire poem* necessarily render it a "closet drama"?
> > > > Definitely not because years after he'd written the original poem, he suddenly thought he'd written a play instead. Austin knew what plays were and how to write them.
> > > Again, he wished his poem to be regarded as a "closet drama."
> > >
> > > One does not re-cast a poem in dramatic form extend a metaphor. Re-casting a poem in dramatic form *changes* the form from that of a poem to that of a drama.
> > >
> > > Austin wished his poem to be considered a "closet drama" like Byron's "Manfred" and Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound."
> > >
> > > As per PoemHunter, he was heavily influenced by Byron: "Although his writing was inspired and shaped by the works of Byron and Scott, Austin was actually a mediocre poet, and was the target of much derision."
> > > > > By truncating quotations, you are arguing to something that isn't there, which is dishonest.
> > > > OTC, NG, I was arguing to something that was there in the discussion and is still here in this thread: Michael Monkey's disingenuous complaint about my "name-calling" and his lie that his and his (and your) Asstroll's previous name-calling "never happened."
>
> > So much of this strife is caused by the viciousness of the self perpetuating flaming cycle