The President Driving a Plane into a Skyscraper

[WolfLarsen]

The President of the United States Driving a Plane into a Skyscraper
A poem by Wolf Larsen

Jump off the blue sky and land in a hurried world where your face is growing out of everything you see, touch each word and watch all the words growing into ghetto arsons that touch and tease and excite your naked skin, climb aboard an insect and fly it through hallucination after hallucination and then fall up a light ray and find yourself walking on a sun that exists so far away so long ago, now throw the suns all about the universe and everyone runs away from the earth except you and you sink into the ground and you watch the ants and worms and flies eat you and devour you until you are the dust I fling about with my hand
Copyright 2004 by Wolf Larsen

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't get it.

[Jerrybaldy]

Just a single crap.

[AuntShecky]

Two words: line breaks

[WolfLarsen]

Two words: prose poetry

[Jerrybaldy]

one word. Twat.

[Delta40]

I think driving is restricted to vehicles. Flying a plane might be a better term. The only part I like about this piece of writing is:

until you are the dust I fling about with my hand

which has a 'there is nothing new under the sun' effect.

[hillwalker]

One word - garbage

[WolfLarsen]

I would like to welcome the traditionalists who hate this piece so much to the 20th-century.

I would also like to invite the traditionalists to act as if they had some manners, instead of acting like a bunch of cyber bullies. They me feel very angry that someone chooses to be creative, but for those of us who choose to be creative that is our right to do so. Just as it is the right of these traditionalists not to read my works if they don't like them.

If something is garbage written in a conventional style the traditionalists generally do not engage in a bunch of cyber bullying against them. However, should somebody show some creativity the traditionalists seek to bully them into silence.

Observe the comments of some of the traditionalists here . Not all the above comments are ignorant, but observe the bullying behavior of some of them. And observe something else: they don't even know what prose poetry is, and prose poetry has been around for 100 years.

Once again, welcome to the 20th-century everybody. If you don't like the 20th-century then you don't have to click on my works. Nobody is forcing the traditionalists to read my works. But if the traditionalists choose to read my works, I ask them nicely not to engage in cyber bullying.

I ask the moderators of this site to please leave the above comments of the traditionalists as they are intact so that everyone can see for themselves how some of them act when faced with something different and new.

And best wishes for everyone! May those with decency and manners prevail - regardless of whether they are traditionalists or creative! Everybody both traditionalist and creative has the right to show their work on the Internet!

[Jerrybaldy]

that are a lot of words for a talentless **** to make himself feel cool by posting shyte. people look like what they are. I rest my case with you jailbate, sorry WOLFE. You are a dick. protest all you like. you just are.

different and new????
traditionalists??
lol you prick

you really believe you are new and exciting american meathead. soppy ****

[WolfLarsen]

one word: ignorant

one word: ignorant

But have a nice day anyway! Ha-ha

[IceM]

I would like to welcome the traditionalists who hate this piece so much to the 20th-century.

I would also like to invite the traditionalists to act as if they had some manners, instead of acting like a bunch of cyber bullies. They me feel very angry that someone chooses to be creative, but for those of us who choose to be creative that is our right to do so. Just as it is the right of these traditionalists not to read my works if they don't like them.

If something is garbage written in a conventional style the traditionalists generally do not engage in a bunch of cyber bullying against them. However, should somebody show some creativity the traditionalists seek to bully them into silence.
Observe the comments of some of the traditionalists here . Not all the above comments are ignorant, but observe the bullying behavior of some of them. And observe something else: they don't even know what prose poetry is, and prose poetry has been around for 100 years.

Once again, welcome to the 20th-century everybody. If you don't like the 20th-century then you don't have to click on my works. Nobody is forcing the traditionalists to read my works. But if the traditionalists choose to read my works, I ask them nicely not to engage in cyber bullying.

I ask the moderators of this site to please leave the above comments of the traditionalists as they are intact so that everyone can see for themselves how some of them act when faced with something different and new.

And best wishes for everyone! May those with decency and manners prevail - regardless of whether they are traditionalists or creative! Everybody both traditionalist and creative has the right to show their work on the Internet!

First, allow me to say this poem is certainly less grotesque than your CIA poem.

I bolded one paragraph because I think you're misconstruing their criticisms. Their attacks on your poetry relate to the pedigree of what you produced, not the medium through which you choose to voice them. Even Shecky's comment regarding line breaks doesn't represent a tradionalist approach, your poem would really be more coherent with line breaks. It reads like a series of run-ons, which, considering the vast majority of people who read poetry are accustomed to grammar and coherent syntax, is difficult.

I wouldn't consider any posters here ignorant of prose poetry, there just lacks a general poetic quality to your work. The latter idea is what many of the posters probably feel. Prose poetry is a legitimate genre. Your work, following the genre, isn't as strong. That is the general complaint against your work.

[qimissung]

I like it, even the word driving, which gives it kind of a magical realism feel.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Jerrybaldy and hillwalker are really out of line. Pay them no mind.

I read it again, and I still don't get it. I just can't really decipher any meaning. I like it, though, kind of, just for its weirdness. Reminds me of lyrics to a Mars Volta song.

And I know what prose poetry is, as I think most here do. I've never been a fan, really. Prose, or poetry, pick a side! :)

[hillwalker]

Jerrybaldy and hillwalker are really out of line. Pay them no mind.

Unreserved apologies for last night's late response. I had been out all day at a local book festival and spent the evening listening to some cutting edge poets entertain and challenge their audience - so to pop onto here and read this puerile attempt at being 'non-traditionalist' made me feel so frustrated that I gave a knee-jerk reaction.

Calling me a traditionalist is laughable - and that's exactly the problem I have with your efforts. You call it prose poetry but in my opinion there's not one iota of poetry - Delta and Qim managed to find some resonance in the way the words were strung together - but surely 'a kind of magic realism feel' is way too old-hat for you. And in Delta's case there were 10 words she found intriguing - but I'm guessing you don't want your reader to actually enjoy any of this. You would rather they throw their arms up in the air and marvel at your novel technique and the way you have destroyed conventions.

Unfortunately all I'm seeing are the emperor's new clothes. You give your prose poem a title that actually promises us something new - then fail to deliver. This is the poetical equivalent of ringing the doorbell then running away.

H

[Riesa]

there is no poem

how is Wolf Larsen still here?

i am so not surprised that you are still allowed to post here, it's the same old thing, and sadly, some intelligent minds attempt to disagree or agree, to no avail jeez,

[Delta40]

And in Delta's case there were 10 words she found intriguing - but I'm guessing you don't want your reader to actually enjoy any of this. You would rather they throw their arms up in the air and marvel at your novel technique and the way you have destroyed conventions.

Unfortunately all I'm seeing are the emperor's new clothes. You give your prose poem a title that actually promises us something new - then fail to deliver. This is the poetical equivalent of ringing the doorbell then running away.

H

I agree that the purpose is defeated by writing in this fashion. One can be a writer without an audience but to what end? How will this self-belief of one's talent be appreciated by others when it is constantly rejected? I can only assume that the number of rejections serve to prove the writers point about their own genius.

[qimissung]

You know, I don't care that you dislike the poem, Reisa, Hillwalker, Jerry, and anyone else who reads this, but I do dislike how you have addressed the issue. You have personalized it and disparaged it, and that is not the same thing as critiquing it, at all.

If you have a personal problem with his presence I suggest you take that to the moderators.

I appreciate, Hillwalker, that you clarified your response.

It's not really our job to enlighten Wolf as to his true poetic abilities. We can gently guide him in a particular direction. The rest is up to him. Or not, as he sees fit.

[hillwalker]

It's not really our job to enlighten Wolf as to his true poetic abilities. We can gently guide him in a particular direction. The rest is up to him. Or not, as he sees fit.

If you have read his rather delusional responses to feedback on an earlier posting (ref the CIA) you might notice he is under the impression that he is re-inventing poetry (having become disillusioned with traditional literature).

The fact that very few on here believe that's what he is actually doing - trying to replace an art form with something 'different' - is the reason why much of the dialogue has been so negative and heart-felt.

He is perfectly free to post his work on here and defend his right to do so in his particular way - as we all are. But disparaging readers for being incapable of making head nor tail of his work or too straight-laced to appreciate his style is perhaps inviting exactly the response he is now getting.

H

[wessexgirl]

This is the 21st century, so perhaps Wolf's work is old hat now.

[qimissung]

I saw it. :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'd suggest to all the people who don't like his poetry to stop reading it. He has every right to post his poetry here no matter what you think of it. And I read through his CIA poem thread, and, although I got a chuckle out of Wolf's self-appreciation, I never saw anything that warranted such malicious responses. And, if he does think he's a groundbreaking poet, he has every right to say so.

[Jack of Hearts]

The piece fails because it utilises no appreciable technique and appears to crutch on an implied subject matter to garner interest. There doesn't seem to be a 'meaning' to it. The lack of technique makes it difficult to get any impression from what appears to be extraneous and non-related imagery.

To want to innovate is admirable but isn't enough. A better execution of fundamental writing skill would make for a more formidable attempt. As it stands, this is nothing but erratic and basic brush strokes labeled 'post-modern' in the familiar, sad way.





J

[AuntShecky]

I am sorry I was so terse and brusque with a two word response, but it was really intended as a criticism and not a slam. I would like to tell the original poster that at least I will try to read everything he posts here, if he wishes to continue doing so.

One of the rules on the LitNet is that when a member posts original work he understands (or should) that other members can provide critiques and comments. Of course, we're not allowed to make personal cracks, I know that.

Please don't write off hillwalker, as in my opinion, he is one of the best critics on this site. I also believe the comment by Jack of Hearts (the reply directly above this one) is a thoughtful one.

I hope you won't mind some general advice, Wolf, as follows:
1. Before you post again, read this important essay (http://amb.cult.bg/british/5/eliot/trad.htm) ASAP.
It addresses many of the issues that you've brought up yourself.

2. Read as many contemporary (2lst century) poetry as you can. Here are two good sites (in addition to this one) to get you started:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/

This next one has plenty of avant-garde works to offer. If you wish, you can subscribe to "Poem-a-day" and they'll send you a free poem every day in your inbox, no strings
or spam attached:
http://www.poets.org/


Okay? Hope you and I can call a ceasefire now.

Auntie

[Jerrybaldy]

I stick with my original appraisal.

[Cunninglinguist]

I don't think vituperating would really get us anywhere... but my reactions to this piece are about the same as my reactions to the CIA poem. As suggested by Jack, it fails as art because it fails to effectively express anything. The audience doesn't really know what to make of your piece or how they are supposed to walk away from it. Is it serious or disingenuous? It could be either, it could be neither...and, in any case, the audience just becomes confused. Art is, in a nutshell, about producing an intended effect and, unless your intention was to utterly confuse us, I don't think you've achieved any masterpiece here.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I stick with my original appraisal.
Good call. You wouldn't want to remedy lookjg like a jerk.

[Alexander III]

Irrespective of the quality of the poem (and lets face it if every bad poem on this site were to get a simillar reaction hardly anyone would be able to post)

I found peoples reaction to this appalling, instead of offering any criticism or logical reasoning and respect people just bashed it and used personal insults, wow! Seriously had even John Asbury come on this site and said some of the remarks here I would have lost complete respect for him...

But atleast some people apologized and attempted to right their wrongs, so I thank them for returning to a normal mode of discourse which should be the standard on the site.

As for the poem, I quite liked some of the imagery. However my major criticism would be that it lacks control and precision. In a the pantheon that is a poem, each word should be a god. In this poem it seems that the pantheon is littered with mortals and thus can no longer be seen as a pantheon due to it being a melting post of gods and humans, no longer an image of perfection but one of the common.

For those who criticize prose poetry, it is a genre which has been around fro roughly 150 years and it has been used by some of the greatest poets such as Baudelaire, Rimbaud and Neruda.

And I know this will be an unpopular sentiment, but it seems to me that on this forum there is forming a certain cliche or club of individuals who for a gang and attempt to set a status quo whereby you are either with them or against them...

[hillwalker]

For those who criticize prose poetry, it is a genre which has been around fro roughly 150 years and it has been used by some of the greatest poets such as Baudelaire, Rimbaud and Neruda.

And I know this will be an unpopular sentiment, but it seems to me that on this forum there is forming a certain cliche or club of individuals who for a gang and attempt to set a status quo whereby you are either with them or against them...

I'm not aware that anyone was criticising prose poetry - just this particular attempt at it.

As for your closing paragraph - there are cliques on LitNet no doubt. But this wasn't an en masse territorial attack on one lone wolf - it was a response to the OP's inflated opinion of his artistic abilities on an earlier posting - his ludicrous assumption that by disliking his poem we were condoning CIA attrocities and his wholesale dismissal of 'refined poetry' as being rather jaded compared to his creative output.

H

[Jerrybaldy]

Good call. You wouldn't want to remedy lookjg like a jerk.
That's the spirit Mutatis-Mutandi :) Without wanting to quote the bleeding obvious, your ying and yang thing is mammoth in it's pretentiousness. That is the kind of truth talking you would prefer not see on here. Nobody said wolf can't post here, but apparently a right to reply with a spade being a spade is not appreciated by either ying or ummm yang.

[WolfLarsen]

Look - I write poetry. If you don't like my poetry don't read it.

Some posters say my poetry is bad. But there's lots of bad poetry everywhere. In fact, most poetry is bad. So why react so strongly?

Some of the traditionalists (in my opinion that's what they are) are obsessed with my poems. They can't stop commenting on them! Perhaps the reason is that they feel threatened by non-traditionalist poetry.

I never said I was a great poet. I never said I was the only non-traditionalist poet. Thank goodness that there are other poets who are non-traditionalist, otherwise poetry would be boring. And you can bet that there are others out there writing stuff that's way more out there than my stuff, at least I hope there are! And you can bet that the traditionalists will hate their work even more than they hate mine. I'm not interested in myself, I'm interested in literature, I'm obsessed with art, and I'm excited by the world around me. I only like conventional literature when it's exciting to read, like Spike Walker's Working on the Edge or some novel I read a few years ago about a child soldier in Africa. But what I hate is when some writer bores me.

One of the traditionalists even wants me banned because he doesn't like my poetry. It reeks of censorship! It's absolutely disgusting!

To explain this poem: it is written to the fast-paced rhythm of Afro Brazilian drums (Bahia) and house music. Some other influences in the rhythms of this poem are free jazz and 20 century classical music along with the crazy fast insane rhythm of a cab ride through Lima Peru (I was living in Peru at the time I wrote this). Also perhaps a mild earthquake or trembler occurred just before the poem was written. I think that you can feel a sensation of being in a falling building - and of being cremated in the air. Probably, the poem was not originally written for 9/11, but the feeling of the poem - that feeling of falling about - brought the title. The poem also has influences from surrealism and the whole stream of conscious thing. There is also a strong element of abstraction.

This is a very 20th-century poem. It has very strong 20 century influences. I do not believe that it is a 21st-century poem. 21st century poems will probably not be a two-dimensional experience. With the way technology is developing 21st century poetry may very well be a three-dimensional 360° experience of the written word, sound, and imagery.

In the 21st century books will become extinct. And soon even kindle devices will become obsolete antiques.

[Delta40]

I don't have a problem with you posting Wolf. I'm often challenged to consider a piece more deeply as I have a habit of skimming. Your work is complex and easily lost among the horrors that you depict. I also trust the integrity of my physical/emotional reaction to it. If I didn't then how can I comment on anything if I must second guess myself and then presume the writers motives?

Are you critiquing other Lit-Nutters. May I urge you to do so?

[Cunninglinguist]

Look - I write poetry. If you don't like my poetry don't read it.

In keeping with your philosophy, Look - we write responses. If you don't like our responses don't read them.


Some of the traditionalists (in my opinion that's what they are) are obsessed with my poems. They can't stop commenting on them! Perhaps the reason is that they feel threatened by non-traditionalist poetry.

Evidently you don't read many of the poems posted by some of your critics. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm really the only 'critic' who qualifies as a wholesale 'traditionalist' (as a renaissance revivalist). And I wouldn't call myself 'obsessed' with your poems; moreover I certainly don't hate your work; in fact, I quite like most of mysterymystery's poems, which are often far more "out there" in form and content than your work.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's the spirit Mutatis-Mutandi :) Without wanting to quote the bleeding obvious, your ying and yang thing is mammoth in it's pretentiousness. That is the kind of truth talking you would prefer not see on here. Nobody said wolf can't post here, but apparently a right to reply with a spade being a spade is not appreciated by either ying or ummm yang.
How is my avatar pretentious, exactly? I know what the symbol means and happens to agree with the philosophy it represents. I would be pretentious if this wasn't true, and I'm not sure how you would know if it is or not.

Though, I do know it's "yin," not "ying."

[NikolaiI]

How is my avatar pretentious, exactly? I know what the symbol means and happens to agree with the philosophy it represents. I would be pretentious if this wasn't true, and I'm not sure how you would know if it is or not.

Though, I do know it's "yin," not "ying."

Um - Jesus!

Thanks Mutatis. :) (For your earlier post)

And your avatar is very nice. :)

Cheers!


Irrespective of the quality of the poem (and lets face it if every bad poem on this site were to get a simillar reaction hardly anyone would be able to post)

I found peoples reaction to this appalling, instead of offering any criticism or logical reasoning and respect people just bashed it and used personal insults, wow! Seriously had even John Asbury come on this site and said some of the remarks here I would have lost complete respect for him...

But atleast some people apologized and attempted to right their wrongs, so I thank them for returning to a normal mode of discourse which should be the standard on the site.

As for the poem, I quite liked some of the imagery. However my major criticism would be that it lacks control and precision. In a the pantheon that is a poem, each word should be a god. In this poem it seems that the pantheon is littered with mortals and thus can no longer be seen as a pantheon due to it being a melting post of gods and humans, no longer an image of perfection but one of the common.

For those who criticize prose poetry, it is a genre which has been around fro roughly 150 years and it has been used by some of the greatest poets such as Baudelaire, Rimbaud and Neruda.

And I know this will be an unpopular sentiment, but it seems to me that on this forum there is forming a certain cliche or club of individuals who for a gang and attempt to set a status quo whereby you are either with them or against them...

Just glanced at this - as well as a couple other posts briefly -{edit}Thanks for standing up for civil decency, Alexander. I don't know how likely it is that I'll go back over the rest of this thread or not, but I may or may not.

[Delta40]

If nothing else it would seem some of us need a thread to blow off steam :mad5:.

It is a shame that a member gets targetted. I suggest if anyone wants to go a few rounds, Lit-Net should supply a boxing ring thread :boxing_smiley:

Leave the rest of us to enjoy, appraise and critique each others contributions in relative peace. :cheers2:

[NikolaiI]

If nothing else it would seem some of us need a thread to blow off steam :mad5:.

It is a shame that a member gets targetted. I suggest if anyone wants to go a few rounds, Lit-Net should supply a boxing ring thread :boxing_smiley:

Leave the rest of us to enjoy, appraise and critique each others contributions in relative peace. :cheers2:

I think people should learn to blow off steam in other ways ; may I suggest - petting dogs relieves stress, walking them is incredibly good for you - yoga is wonderful, meditation too, working out helps, breathing exercises are good!! - drinking - once in a long while, wine is great, helps to relieve stress. do a million things that are positive, and forget all your negativity --- uh, boxing on lit-net... probably not such a healthy thing.

See, if you do all these things, then you'll be happier than you've ever been, and you won't find any need to target people and attack them.

Really!!!!!

(Spend time in nature!!!!!!!!!!)

[BienvenuJDC]

I really found that the title was rather unrelated to the piece. It seemed to try to throw some political jabs, which is unnecessary and borderline to breaking the rules... Otherwise, I didn't find this piece to be thought provoking, entertaining, or of any value. So...keep trying to write for your own purpose. If you please your own purpose, then I guess you've succeeded at your goal. If you don't like criticism, then keep your poetry in your spiral notebook just for yourself.

[Scheherazade]

~

This thread is now closed due to obvious reasons.

However, those who do not find the reasons obvious enough can always PM me or read the Forum rules for a change.

~