Mysterium tremendum, mysterium fascinans.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Removed for editting

[~Sophia~]

Here is another example of what I mean when I say I don't think you take any risks in writing. Here we see the risk firefangled took in writing that incredible line (did you check with him before posting it on the www?) we even see that John Sexton takes a risk in his belief that you can get closer to God through baseball but the rest of it, I can read in wikipedia (and did). Where is the YOU in this. Other than what you wrote about Sexton and ff, this reads as another observation of a not too obscure philosophy.

Sure... it's got nice words in it but, other than a platform for a catchy last line, what did you risk in writing it?

[Virgil]

This is outstanding Prince. This may be one of your most complex poems. It works wonderfully. I love this. Is it me or are you getting more religious in your old age? :wink5:

I particularly liked how you stopped the flow of the poem to
insert what appears the central core: "There is starvation of the body/and of the soul." And that is a marvelous openning with the baseball analogy. I think this poem is great.

And now that I've read Sophia's comment, I have to say she's completely wrong. I hope she's being tongue-in-cheek and that it's going over my head because this poem definitely takes on a huge risk.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Here is another example of what I mean when I say I don't think you take any risks in writing. Here we see the risk firefangled took in writing that incredible line (did you check with him before posting it on the www?) we even see that John Sexton takes a risk in his belief that you can get closer to God through baseball but the rest of it, I can read in wikipedia (and did). Where is the YOU in this. Other than what you wrote about Sexton and ff, this reads as another observation of a not too obscure philosophy.

Sure... it's got nice words in it but, other than a platform for a catchy last line, what did you risk in writing it?

You weren't much (or at all) moved by the poem: fine. You saw nothing new or intriguing in it: also fine. And yes, of course, anyone who chose to could look up numinous on Wikipedia - but would they do so unless someone or something brought it to their attention?

But this crusade you are on vis a vis risk, that baffles me. Must every poem involve "risk" and is the only risk worthy of respect that which has to do with a broken heart? Or what are you saying?

I took the "risk" in this poem (although I didn't consider the issue of risk) of expressing my deep-felt admiration for John Sexton and what he espoused. Some people, especially those of my anti-belief school, might have thought that treachery on my part. And I tried my best to develop a line of metaphysical argument, which I suppose might have exposed me to intellectual scorn.


This is outstanding Prince. This may be one of your most complex poems. It works wonderfully. I love this. Is it me or are you getting more religious in your old age? :wink5:

God works in mysterious ways... But perhaps not so much in my old age as in your middle age!




I particularly liked how you stopped the flow of the poem to
insert what appears the central core: "There is starvation of the body/and of the soul." And that is a marvelous openning with the baseball analogy. I think this poem is great.

Alas if you and millions of others did not see last night's broadcast of the soon to be ended "Bill Moyers' Journal," where he had a lengthy conversation with John Sexton, head of NYU and a devout follower of baseball and of the RC Church. Sexton is one of if not the only head of a university who has never stopped conducting classes, and to see him in one of his "Baseball & Religion" classes was to miss an example of education at its best and as it all too seldom is, where he provoked some of the most wonderful, thoughtful responses from his students.


And now that I've read Sophia's comment, I have to say she's completely wrong. I hope she's being tongue-in-cheek and that it's going over my head because this poem definitely takes on a huge risk.

Frankly, I don't think she intended any irony at all, but as you can see from my response to her, I didn't agree with her at all.

[Virgil]

Alas if you and millions of others did not see last night's broadcast of the soon to be ended "Bill Moyers' Journal," where he had a lengthy conversation with John Sexton, head of NYU and a devout follower of baseball and of the RC Church. Sexton is one of if not the only head of a university who has never stopped conducting classes, and to see him in one of his "Baseball & Religion" classes was to miss an example of education at its best and as it all too seldom is, where he provoked some of the most wonderful, thoughtful responses from his students.

Actually I didn't know the reference, but I picked up the drift from the context. It is an interesting analogy. And baseball does have a structured ritual much like a Catholic mass. I didn't see that show, but if I should come across it in a repeat I will definitely watch it.

[~Sophia~]

You weren't much (or at all) moved by the poem: fine. You saw nothing new or intriguing in it: also fine. And yes, of course, anyone who chose to could look up numinous on Wikipedia - but would they do so unless someone or something brought it to their attention?

But this crusade you are on vis a vis risk, that baffles me. Must every poem involve "risk" and is the only risk worthy of respect that which has to do with a broken heart? Or what are you saying?

I took the "risk" in this poem (although I didn't consider the issue of risk) of expressing my deep-felt admiration for John Sexton and what he espoused. Some people, especially those of my anti-belief school, might have thought that treachery on my part. And I tried my best to develop a line of metaphysical argument, which I suppose might have exposed me to intellectual scorn.

It's not a crusade but rather "my" observation of your writing. I have not made this comment to anyone else so I think crusade is a little over the top. I simply think you choose topics that avoid giving us insight into the real Prince. Risk does not solely mean writing about relationships. It means writing from the heart on whatever topic and not from a library source.
I think you've developed a formula that garners praise and, you're stuck in it. That's all.

________________________________

Virg... nope, no irony however, I can't be wrong... it's my subjective opinion on a literary work that was posted for viewing (and in LitNet's new spirits of workshop) review. You like it, I'm meh on it so neither of us is right or wrong. We just have a different opinion. Tomayto, tomatto. Cheers!

[PrinceMyshkin]

It's not a crusade but rather "my" observation of your writing. I have not made this comment to anyone else so I think crusade is a little over the top. I simply think you choose topics that avoid giving us insight into the real Prince. Risk does not solely mean writing about relationships. It means writing from the heart on whatever topic and not from a library source.
I think you've developed a formula that garners praise and, you're stuck in it. That's all.

________________________________

Virg... nope, no irony however, I can't be wrong... it's my subjective opinion on a literary work that was posted for viewing (and in LitNet's new spirits of workshop) review. You like it, I'm meh on it so neither of us is right or wrong. We just have a different opinion. Tomayto, tomatto. Cheers!

You're probably familiar with the oft-cited critical observation that in any piece of writing, there is "writer's work and reader's work," which I might borrow to say there is also writer's risk and reader's risk.

[firefangled]

Prince,

Out of respect for writers, you should not only ask their permission to quote their work in one of your own, you should also provide the context in which you will be using it, PRIOR to doing so!

I appreciate that you admired this line, I did too. However, over-admiration for one’s own work or others’ does not a poem make. More often than not, it results in stunting the growth of the artist because they can’t get beyond their own reflection in the pool. I appreciate admiration for a few minutes, but that is not the pay-off for me.

I had Lit-Net Administration remove that poem months ago, because I was going to submit it to several publications that would not accept poems that appear online. As it happens, I decided against including that last line and the poem is still under revision.

Had you requested to use the line and provided context, I would have declined your request for the above reason, as well as how it was used. My avatar on this site is not a professional name. Were I to have published this poem under my real name, by unauthorized and unanticipated quotation of my poem you would have created a substantial problem for me presently and in the future with that publisher. In addition, you use the line implying something of your own invention that was not my intention at all.

I do not subscribe to the mistaken defense that the reader and writer are co-writers of poems. So that is no excuse for a diversion from my intent. The excuse often given in this forum that poetry is up to the reader to deliver meaning is largely inaccurate and amateurish. I’ve said it before here that no one receives worthwhile recognition for accidental meaning. Though I may write a short poem that “comes to me intact,” it is very rare and I have never called a poem finished with out many revisions. None of the poems I have posted on this site have remained as they were originally posted. One poem of mine may undergo 20-30 revisions (or more) before it is “finished.” I did consider this a workshop when I was posting here.

I believe you used this quote to call attention to yourself. Your “poem” consists of largely epigraphs, quotations, paraphrase and allusion. Outside of that there are abstract references to those quotes and allusions, nothing the reader can touch or experience or make anything but abstract connections. Poetry is not philosophy! “Know thy better self…” could mean so many things to a reader that it ultimately means nothing. Using words or phrases from secondary languages does not make a poem complex. Allusions to complex ideas worked out by other writers or philosophers accomplishes nothing if you have nothing new to add to it.

This may sound harsh, but you need harsh. Your piece references Rudolf Otto, John Sexton, Greek mythology, possibly Euripides and Pindar, Firefangled (and what would that mean to anyone outside of this small circle!?), and Socrates. I would think you would need a much longer piece to get in all these people and something substantial of your own. A short poem is a laser beam. Every word needs to point to the hot spot. I grew sick of my own playing with 3, 6, 8 word poems and the like. It’s like getting drunk when you’re a kid—after wasting so many days-after puking your guts out, you stop fooling yourself that it’s fun.

Using God, the Source, or any of those abstract terms in a poem depends on which God, which Source. You have to give a context for which God. God and all the other references to that entity are cultural constructs, even if you believe and even if that belief works for you, it’s cultural in nature. It derives from linguistic and experiential deep structures in our language, psychology, and biology. You must make a connection with that deep structure, which means you have to really think about what you’re saying and to whom you are saying it.

I mention all this because these are what I would consider in permitting someone use of a line of poetry that I created. To give this concept a physical presence, it’s the same principle as loaning my new car to someone. I would ask where are you going with it? If the answer was a demolition derby, or a place in which to look good while we get high on drugs, then I would decline.

I waited to respond to this until I cooled down a little; so, you can imagine what I would have written yesterday.

In answer to your PM question today for what you wrote yesterday, please remove the quote you used from my poem from your post.


Disappointed,

Fire

[PrinceMyshkin]

Firefangled: I've withdrawn the whole poem. I feel properly chastened for what I did. I hope whatever degree of friendship you may once have felt for me might be restored in time.

I do take exception to your generalization about short poems, although of course you may have meant this to be directed at my own shorter ones. I continue to believe that the short epigrammatic poem is a worthwhile genre, though my efforts in that form may have disappointed or might continue to disappoint you.

[firefangled]

Firefangled: I've withdrawn the whole poem. I feel properly chastened for what I did. I hope whatever degree of friendship you may once have felt for me might be restored in time.

I do take exception to your generalization about short poems, although of course you may have meant this to be directed at my own shorter ones. I continue to believe that the short epigrammatic poem is a worthwhile genre, though my efforts in that form may have disappointed or might continue to disappoint you.

Thank you. And if you posted this poem on any other websites, ANYWHERE, please remove the portion that is my creation.

I worked my a s s off on my own time to clean up a website that had posted unauthorized poetry from this site. You should have known from that endevour my feelings on the matter. This episode on the heels of the response to my modest request a month ago to remove an animated cartoon of a skeletal-like person beating a dead horse incessantly with blood spurting from each blow and being call fanatical and silly has left a bad taste in my mouth for which, in the privacy of my own space, I need to hock a good loogie, then I'll be fine. Peace-out




I do take exception to your generalization about short poems, although of course you may have meant this to be directed at my own shorter ones. I continue to believe that the short epigrammatic poem is a worthwhile genre, though my efforts in that form may have disappointed or might continue to disappoint you.

"A short poem is a laser beam. Every word needs to point to the hot spot. I grew sick of my own playing with 3, 6, 8 word poems and the like. It’s like getting drunk when you’re a kid—after wasting so many days-after puking your guts out, you stop fooling yourself that it’s fun."

Nothing above indicates that the statement is about you. If anyone, it is about me! I believe you need an adjustment to your ego. This is public because you put something of mine on a freaking cheap dating website! How self-centered can you be? Public begets public. I tire of being gracious. You mentioned Firefangled as you did here, but I don't want anything about me on something called "Plenty of Fish." It's derogatory and condescending for both men and women. I am very p i s s e d at you right now. You need to take it down a notch or three. I'm done with this now!

[stlukesguild]

It's not a crusade but rather "my" observation of your writing. I have not made this comment to anyone else so I think crusade is a little over the top. I simply think you choose topics that avoid giving us insight into the real Prince. Risk does not solely mean writing about relationships. It means writing from the heart on whatever topic and not from a library source.
I think you've developed a formula that garners praise and, you're stuck in it. That's all.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather sophomoric notion of what writing or poetry or any artistic creation is about. Not every artist is a tied-in-the-wool Romantic... spewing forth their raw emotions for all to see upon the page... the canvas... the music. As for "writing from the heart"... isn't that what every middle school girl does when writing in her diary? And yet its not something I would look forward to reading. Even the most Expressionistic/Romanticist art involves as much brain... if not more so... than heart.

[Scheherazade]

~

Since the OP has removed the poem that started this discussion, this thread will now be closed.

~