Well, you see a difference without even reading it. There's no spacing between the couplets. Unless that's an artifact of the cut and paste.
Printable View
Well, you see a difference without even reading it. There's no spacing between the couplets. Unless that's an artifact of the cut and paste.
I was wondering if I should post it in Spanish too. It's Eliot Weinberger.
No, the couplets are spaced in my Spanish version.
you guys know spanish?Cool...so im not alone
:p
What are you talking about, Virgil? He does feel something ‘towards’ religion. He feels that it's an overblown, worn out piece of useless nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
How on earth you can read that from his ‘tone’ is beyond me. Perhaps you want to believe something more positive, which is fine - but perhaps Larkin didn’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Larkin has long ceased looking for answers but you try to find some for him. Why do you assume that he wanted to change his life?
Why does he get drunk every night (the very first line), why is wretched, why is he in fear of the end. Why does he even mention religion if it is so meanless? This could have been written as a celebration of a life lived, even as an atheist, but he doesn't. To bring something up is not to dispell it in a poem of fifty lines. Just the opposite. It has nothing to do with my beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
bro·cade (br½-k³d“) n. A heavy fabric interwoven with a rich, raised design.
Does not "musical brocade" suggest it has an element of beauty and culture. Yes it is "moth-eaten" but he didn't have to call it a musical bracade. He could have said what you just said. But he didn't. I think you're the one projecting your views into the poem.
Are you serious? What difference does that make? Are you trying to reduce the poem to a nice, neat little morality tale, where the imbiber of the demon drink is punished for his own self-destructive foolishness? I’m sure the speaker, like the rest of us, has his reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Because that’s what life is to him. He doesn’t see things the way you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Come on, Virgil - he mentions it because it’s relevant to the poem he’s written. It’s a poem, not a philosophical tract.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
So what? That’s his right. He tells us how he feels. To criticise him for not having been more positive is to ask him to forget the reality of what he’s feeling and replace it with something you’d prefer. Do we have the right to ask that of any poet? I prefer authenticity and honesty in my poets, not a recital of John Boy Walton’s edifying philosophy. The fact that you write ‘even as an atheist’ implies that it would be unusual for an atheist to celebrate life. There’s that assumption again.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
What are you saying here? My take is that he ‘brought it up’ (if by ‘it’ you mean religion) to condemn it for what it is. He is considering death and one of the ways human beings come to terms with death is through religion. Surely, it’s only to be expected that he would consider the religious take on things? Are you suggesting that he did it to offer us the comfort and reassurance it was unable to provide him?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Absolutely, Virgil – this poem is a celebration of the beauty of religion, a religion which is "created to pretend we never die." Pretence is a vital quality in any religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
[QUOTE=The Unnamable]All your statements above are rediculous. Learn to read poetry. Not philosophical nonsense. Larkin is a poet, and I'm sure he's thinking like a poet. He's not a philosopher.Quote:
Are you serious? What difference does that make? Are you trying to reduce the poem to a nice, neat little morality tale, where the imbiber of the demon drink is punished for his own self-destructive foolishness? I’m sure the speaker, like the rest of us, has his reasons.
Because that’s what life is to him. He doesn’t see things the way you do.
Come on, Virgil - he mentions it because it’s relevant to the poem he’s written. It’s a poem, not a philosophical tract.
So what? That’s his right. He tells us how he feels. To criticise him for not having been more positive is to ask him to forget the reality of what he’s feeling and replace it with something you’d prefer. Do we have the right to ask that of any poet? I prefer authenticity and honesty in my poets, not a recital of John Boy Walton’s edifying philosophy. The fact that you write ‘even as an atheist’ implies that it would be unusual for an atheist to celebrate life. There’s that assumption again.
I would agree that Larkin is stating this. But good art has many layers. You don't address why Larkin calls religion a brocade, and then he doubles up on it as adds the adjetive "musical" brocade. Why?Quote:
Pretence is a vital quality in any religion.
It seems obvious that the phrase 'moth eaten musical brocade' is meant negatively. The sense of it as musical could be a way of referring to its non-rational mysticism, a pleasing rhythm that carries you along and overrides questions. It could be rather mocking.
I will try harder, oh master.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Isn’t that the point I was making? :confused: I'm not quite sure what "thinking like a poet" means here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Could you explain any of this, please? Why are all my comments ridiculous? I state that a poet is under no obligation to be positive (as you see it). Am I wrong?
He didn’t call it ‘a brocade’; he called it “That vast moth-eaten musical brocade/ Created to pretend we never die,”. It seems obvious to me that he is being negative (even in his use of the demonstrative adjective) but he is also being fair. Brocade is not at all common in recent usage; Larkin has chosen a rather old-fashioned word to describe an institution that belongs in the past. Its primary purpose is decorative. It looks and sounds nice. He presents religion in a way that is consistent with poems like Church Going and his comment, "The Bible is a load of balls of course - but very beautiful." He can recognise its fading splendour but still dismisses it as offering nothing more than a delusion. He is no less dismissive of rationalism. There was once and might still be a grandeur about religion but the force of the comment comes from Created and pretend. 'Created' does carry positive connotations but the blatant suggestion is that man, not God, has created religion. As for the music, it’s pretty much what blp suggests –it’s the seductive organ swell of hymns, carrying us along on a tide of religious sentiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The title of one of his anthologies is The Less Deceived. Time and again, this idea crops up in his poetry. The truth in this poem might be terrifying but it’s one he faces squarely.
This thread is for the discussion of poems chosen every week and if you have urging personal issues, feel free to deal with those through PMs.
As for brocade... Brocade is a very heavy material and kind of stiff. I think what Larkin is refering to is the suffocating and unbending nature of religion (or of the religious?). Even though it might look nice from a distance (I don't think brocade even does that but...), it is not comfortable.
Musical> Like a chorus maybe? The unison in which the supporters of a certain religion vocalize their judgements and opinions.
Moth-eaten> To show the 'holes' in the religious belief systems? They are damaged and far from perfect.
[QUOTE=The Unnamable]He's thinking like a poet in that he's adding layers of meaning.Quote:
Isn’t that the point I was making? :confused: I'm not quite sure what "thinking like a poet" means here.
I never said he was being positive. In fact I said the opposite. What I said was that there is layer of remorse and wretchedness in his core that religion, if he so happened to believe, could have dispelled. But he can't believe because at his core he is completely rational. That feeling of wretchedness is never alleviated. That is not positive.Quote:
Could you explain any of this, please? Why are all my comments ridiculous? I state that a poet is under no obligation to be positive (as you see it). Am I wrong?
OK, butQuote:
He didn’t call it ‘a brocade’; he called it “That vast moth-eaten musical brocade/ Created to pretend we never die,”. It seems obvious to me that he is being negative
Here is where you are reading this as a philosophic tract. What's fairness have to do with anything? He was specific in using the trerm "musical bracade." Not and vast-moth eaten rag, not some some broken down empty building of a church. He was specific in his unusual diction. That is significant.Quote:
but he is also being fair.
Of course.Quote:
Brocade is not at all common in recent usage;
Ok, I don't dispute this. But pain and remorse is part of this poem. I don't know the other poems, but why bring up a subject if it's so meaningless.Quote:
Larkin has chosen a rather old-fashioned word to describe an institution that belongs in the past. Its primary purpose is decorative. It looks and sounds nice. He presents religion in a way that is consistent with poems like Church Going and his comment, "The Bible is a load of balls of course - but very beautiful." He can recognise its fading splendour but still dismisses it as offering nothing more than a delusion.
I don't disagree. But it is an elaborate image in poem sparsely filled with imagery.Quote:
He is no less dismissive of rationalism. There was once and might still be a grandeur about religion but the force of the comment comes from Created and pretend. 'Created' does carry positive connotations but the blatant suggestion is that man, not God, has created religion. As for the music, it’s pretty much what blp suggests –it’s the seductive organ swell of hymns, carrying us along on a tide of religious sentiment.
The crux of this disagreement is whether one sees an additional layer to Larkin's poem or one just sees the surface statements. The reading that Unnamable presents is for the most part a sub-set of my reading. I just see more. I have not read any other Larkin. I don't have a feel for his level of poetic skill. If this had been William Shakespeare, or T.S. Eliot, or Wallace Stevens, or William Butler Yeats, or William Blake there would be no doubt in my mind that the poet had added this layer of remorse within the undercurrent of the text. The fact that the entire tone is of wretchedness, initiated in the very first line of being drunk every night, the fact that he protests his remorse, the term "musical brocade" as discussed above, and even more, presents to me an additional layer of meaning. Normally you give the artist the benefit of the doubt and assume he intends these layers of meaning. When meanings can be added, readers attribute to the author. If Larkin really just wrote along the surface meaning, then this is a rather mundane piece. If so, then he may have even lost control of the tone. I don't feel that way. I see craft here.
Well, I was going to agree with Unnamable all the way on this point. I mean, Larkin only introduces the musical brocade image to poke holes in it after all. It doesn't seem as though he has any (even subconcious) feeling that religion is able to save him or anything of that sort. Having read the above post, however, I take your point about a poem having multiple layers. On a certain level what drives this poem is the doubts that he has about all sorts of things, the regrets that come unbidden to even the most decided minds, the contemplation of the "undiscovered country," or in this case the nothingness that awaits us. He considers the "conventional" ways of grappling with the question of death (including religion) and acknowledges the potential attraction of religion. It is important that he include such considerations if he is going to effectively make his point that none of them matter. I think what you are pointing to is something that creates the tension of the poem, the fact that Larkin is able to see the temptations of regrets and the attractions of religion even while he is insistently unable to take this view himself.
:D I remember having to read that in like middle or elementary school.
I love that poem.
One of my favorites.
Hi Virgil,
I don't think this was the point that Unamable was disputing (in fact I am not too sure what it is). Because what you have just stated is, I feel, not disputable: every poem must have many layers of meaning. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding. You're right nonetheless. I think any piece of art is the subject of interpretation, and everyone is entitled to have a view and have that view respected. How can any of us know the exact answer?
So a poet is similar to a cook, adding a dash of ambiguity here and a pinch of extra meaning there. The creative process is a bit like a recipe, complete with the relevant ingredients. Sorry, but this is not how I think poets work. I said earlier that, “ perhaps this is an example of the art that conceals itself but I see Larkin in that poem as a man first and a poet later. It’s the experienced man and not the experienced poet that I hear first and foremost.” I stand by this.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Here’s the bit that I was referring to: “This could have been written as a celebration of a life lived, even as an atheist, but he doesn't.” You seem to lament the fact that Larkin has NOT provided us with a celebration. You offer it almost as a lost opportunity. He is under no obligation to offer us anything. He gives us his thoughts and it would be ludicrous of me to complain that those views could have been more life affirming.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Having taught Larkin a number of times at post-16 level, I have had to battle with students’ assumptions that Larkin’s views are those of a miserable pessimist with nothing of value to say. If that’s how they want to see him, then that’s their right. However, if their outlook depends on the assumption that poetry (or even Literature in general) has to provide us with a celebration of life, then I think their assumptions need to be challenged. Larkin’s right to his view is no less valid than any other author’s right to his or hers.
Even though, in the poem he makes it clear that rationalism is as flawed and limited as religion?You appear to have overlooked a layer of meaning. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
“And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear -- no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,”
Were he rational to the core, he shouldn’t be scared.
No, I don’t think it would be seen as positive. To me, there is nothing to be gained by applying a label either way here. The feeling of wretchedness is never alleviated because that’s how he feels, not because he has somehow failed as a poet or an artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Not at all. This is where I see the poet’s choice of words as generating layers of meaning. Larkin’s attitude is not so cut and dried as to say simply that religion = bad. He registers some of its positive aspects in the language he uses. He is being faithful to his own perceptions. In his comment about the Bible quoted above, he simultaneously considers it “a load of balls” and “beautiful”. As Jack Kerouac said, “Walking on water wasn't built in a day.”Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Of course it is. I’m not arguing that it isn’t. I’m saying that Larkin is not interested in regrets, certainly not in the sense that he thinks things might have been different, if only he’d been more life affirming or whatever. I agree with Petrarch’s Love, when she says “his point is that, terrible though such regrets might be, they don't really matter at all because nothing matters because all will be nothing in the end. Ultimately even terrible regrets look comforting next to the realization that we "shall be lost in always. Not to be here,/Not to be anywhere,/And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true."Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
In Dockery and Son, Larkin compares himself with someone he knew who produced a son (the speaker is childless). He asks:
“Why did he think adding meant increase?
To me it was dilution. Where do these
Innate assumptions come from?”
This poem ends with the oft quoted:
“Life is first boredom, then fear.
Whether or not we use it, it goes,
And leaves what something hidden from us chose,
And age, and then the only end of age.”
This is where you are taking the poem as a piece of philosophical writing. The fact that something is meaningless (your word, not mine by the way) does not mean that someone shouldn’t write about it. I thought I’d made it perfectly clear why he’d brought it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
:confused: How does that work?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
I love the way you unselfconsciously make the most outrageous statements as if they are the humblest of facts. :D That statement is both arrogant and misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
For me the crux of the disagreement resides in your comments above, which feed directly into your perception of what Larkin is doing.
You say:
“There are three things Larkin brings up that he dispells, unconvincingly to me: remorse, wretchedness, religion. As to religion, if he doesn't feel something towards it, why bring it up? The tone of the poem suggests to me that it could have changed his life, but he's too rational in this modern age to accept it.”
And you later add:
“This could have been written as a celebration of a life lived.”
You have entirely missed the point of the poem.
That’s the benefit of having a superior intellect, I suppose. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
I have. You see more; I read more. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Even if he feels remorse, it’s dismissed and counts for nothing when faced with the absolute and undeniable reality of death. That is the thrust of the poem – to try to dilute its potency by insisting that this bleakness could have somehow been avoided is to emasculate it. What you are doing here is tactically unfair. You are implying that my reading of the poem depends upon ignoring layers of meaning. It doesn’t. It depends on being sensitive to the significance of those layers. Yes, Larkin thinks about the “time / Torn off, unused” but this is not what terrifies him. Had he focused on it, it might even have helped him to stop seeing "what's really always there:"Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Your argument is rather like saying that the best thing about Hamlet is the character of Osric and anyone failing to see that is dealing only in surfaces. Shakespeare must have considered Osric important or he wouldn’t have ‘brought him up’, right? Perhaps the point is that Hamlet should have been more like Osric? All I can say is, thank God he wasn’t.
I have no idea how you acquired the belief that I was saying poems don’t have layers of meaning. My disagreement is over the hierarchy of those layers. More than anything else, this is a poem about facing the certainty of extinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
And I, of course, was saying there is no craft, especially when I said that it might be an example of “the art that conceals itself”, which is the craftiest craft of all.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
PS Larkin's dying words were, "I am going to the inevitable."
I think the tension in the poem comes more from our unwillingness to accept Larkin’s bleak outlook while at the same time registering that he doesn’t allow us to see it any other way. I note your use of ‘insistently’.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Petrarch’s Love”
My ambition is to get you to go all the way with me. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by “Petrarch’s Love”
Who’d have thought a poem had layers of meaning? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Petrarch’s Love”
Is this your get-out clause? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by “Petrarch’s Love”
I disagree. What drives the poem is not doubt but certainty – “The sure extinction that we travel to / And shall be lost in always.” Why did he include ‘sure’ and why did he use ‘shall’ when he might have used ‘will’? You could argue that even by mentioning ‘sure’ and using ‘shall’, he is forcing the issue and has to do so because he favours certainty over doubt. If the emphasis were placed here, much of the power of the poem would be lost for me and, I believe, for most who love Larkin. Here we see a man utterly devoid of any comforting beliefs, managing his relationship with approaching extinction. In The Old Fools he writes about being old and ends with:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Petrarch’s Love”
“…crouching below
Extinction's alp, the old fools, never perceiving
How near it is. This must be what keeps them quiet:
The peak that stays in view wherever we go
For them is rising ground. Can they never tell
What is dragging them back, and how it will end? Not at night?
Not when the strangers come? Never, throughout
The whole hideous inverted childhood? Well,
We shall find out.”
We shall indeed.
Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, here's this week's poem again. I guess maybe we could hold over the discussion until next week and hope the musical brocade question's neatly tied up with a bow by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riesa
Thanks blp, :D I was thinking that next month I would try again with one that might actually get talked about..;)
Can I humbly interject here and remind the discussion which took place a while back :D :
People do interpret literary works differently and as long as these interpretations are supported by textual 'proof', they are all valid, in my opinion. I know that this argument of mine has taken a lot of bashing from all corners of the world. However, if one takes the time to read this whole thread from the start, it will be apparent that we all have different views on these poems and it only adds to their richness to have these interpretations and meanings. And Larkin's poem is no different. Virgil looks at it from one angle (which is supported by his own cultural background and personal beliefs) and The Unnamable from another (ditto). I think it is beautiful to have these variations and, to me, neither is right or wrong (I might tend to agree with one more than the other, again based on my personal experiences); they are simply different.
Good God. Did I hit a nerve or what? So sorry. I didn't realize your sensibilities were so delicate. Nor how emotionally attached you are to this poem. How old did you say you were? A little disagreement and your feathers get all bent out of shape? Well, let us just say we agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
I Would Like To Post Next Weeks Poem.
Do you think you can wait until the week after next, ktd222? As I said above, I really think it would be good and only fair to give the one Riesa posted a proper airing. Aside from everything else, I really like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktd222
I don't know if I can. I've got a doozy. But I'll only post if their is no opposition. Can you repost the poem Blp? Are we in agreement Riesas post is what were discussing next?
"Time throbbing in my temples repeats
the same unchanging syllable of blood."
Could this be a headache? When I have a headache I feel the pulse on my temples clearly, like a clock ticking. Am I way off target?
Like I said before, I'll try again next month, no big deal, by all means, post away ktd222.
Now I'm feeling guilty. Forget what I said, your post before mine is just fine.
oh, come now. first everyone is yelling at each other, and now everyone is all kissy-kissy.
Whatever happened to the poetry? :lol:
Hey! I wasn't the One yelling before! Maybe later!
that's true, that's why you deserve the chance to post your doozy.
I don't have to wait until Monday? I'm afraid of The Law(Scheherazade).
Well, that's probably not a bad idea. :eek: plus, maybe there are a few around here that haven't quite finished what they want to say.
So are we discussing the Paz? I'll assume so for the moment (if ktd goes ahead and posts the "doozy" while I'm writing this, then I guess we can go ahead and discuss that). It's really a beautiful little gem of a poem, and I'm interested in the fact that it's the first poem I've seen on this thread that is a translation. This brings up some very interesting questions about what the status of a translation of a poem is. The images of the poet are the same, but the sound of the poetry is obviously altered in its move to another language (is anyone here really good with Spanish and would like to comment on the differences--I can get a sense, but I don't really know the language well). I personally enjoyed the translation of this poem very much, but I wonder how much of my pleasure in the poem is attributable to the ideas the original poet contributed to it, and how much of my reaction to the poem is a result of the way the translator has worded the poem in English. In a way I suppose a translator is a bit of a poet in his own right. I think it would be phenomenally hard to translate poetry well. Here's the poem again in both languages for those who forget easily:
Between Going And Staying
Octavio Paz
Between going and staying the day wavers,
in love with its own transparency.
The circular afternoon is now a bay
where the world in stillness rocks.
All is visible and all elusive,
all is near and can't be touched.
Paper, book, pencil, glass,
rest in the shade of their names.
Time throbbing in my temples repeats
the same unchanging syllable of blood.
The light turns the indifferent wall
into a ghostly theater of reflections.
I find myself in the middle of an eye,
watching myself in its blank stare.
The moment scatters. Motionless,
I stay and go: I am a pause.
Entre irse y quedarse
Entre irse y quedarse duda el día,
enamorado de su transparencia.
La tarde circular es ya bahía:
en su quieto vaivén se mece el mundo.
Todo es visible y todo es elusivo,
todo está cerca y todo es intocable.
Los papeles, el libro, el vaso, el lápiz
reposan a la sombra de sus nombres.
Latir del tiempo que en mi sien repite
la misma terca sílaba de sangre.
La luz hace del muro indiferente
un espectral teatro de reflejos.
En el centro de un ojo me descubro;
no me mira, me miro en su mirada.
Se disipa el instante. Sin moverme,
yo me quedo y me voy: soy una pausa.
One question on translation, Petrarch. Would certain cultural resonances, sort of what we argued over above, be lost in translation? I should say, could. How does a translator handle that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
I was actually ready to dive into riesa's selection, but I've had such a hard day at work today, I've just been too tired this evening. Although I can't say I understand it, I have jotted down some thoughts. I don't wish to ignore it or pass it by.
That's an interesting suggestion. It's true that your pulse throbs when you have a headache. It alters the way I had been perceiving the mood of the poem to think of the writer as having a headache. I had been thinking of it as one of those exceedingly still and tranquil moments when everything is so silent that you're intensely aware of the beat of your own pulse, and you feel you can almost hear your heartbeat.Quote:
"Time throbbing in my temples repeats
the same unchanging syllable of blood."
Could this be a headache? When I have a headache I feel the pulse on my temples clearly, like a clock ticking. Am I way off target?
By the way, for the spanish speakers out there, I was wondering if "sien" actually means "temple" or if the translator is taking liberties? Similar words in French, "sein" and Italian "seno" mean chest or breast, so I was wondering if he was actually referring to a heartbeat.
Thats true, Petrach. Translations, for some reason, always brings me back to Rainer Rilke and the poem 'The Panther.' If you read the translations by Stephen Mitchell and Edward Snow--the two translations are comparatively different from each other on word choices and syntax; and that does, to the reader, give each translation a different 'sense.' So I would guess a large part of how we would react to a translated poem is dependent on the translation. How true to the original is this translation--whose to know?Quote:
I personally enjoyed the translation of this poem very much, but I wonder how much of my pleasure in the poem is attributable to the ideas the original poet contributed to it, and how much of my reaction to the poem is a result of the way the translator has worded the poem in English.
Certainly, as you say, cultural resonances are often lost in translation. Every language has words with a variety of meanings and feelings attached to them that no dictionary can adequately explain, and which have no real correspondence in another language. That is, after all why we use certain foreign expressions even when speaking English, because there's just no other way to express that je ne sais quoi. ;) And as we've just seen, it's sometimes hard enough to reconcile different cultural/individual perceptions of words within one's native language. I think (after dealing with the change in actual musical sound of the language) it must be one of the hardest jobs of the translator to keep all the connotions of those words alive in a foreign tongue, especially when poets have often chosen that word with extreeme care to convey a particular meaning.Quote:
One question on translation, Petrarch. Would certain cultural resonances, sort of what we argued over above, be lost in translation? I should say, could. How does a translator handle that?
I suppose there are different attempts to deal with this. Some end up just giving a literal translation and losing the prior feeling of the word. Some translators try to find the closest colloquial equivilent to the word in their own language. Some end up transplanting the poem into their own culture by ignoring the original cultural context, but trying to find the thing that feels most similar in their culture. Of course there are certain words that people generally just don't even try to translate (my favorite of these is "sprezzatura" from the Italian renaissance--it's impossible to define but it basically means you do everything well seemingly effortlessly and applies to the "Renaissance man"--like Leonardo).
I love that word too. I wish I could find more times to use it. I would love to stick it in a technical report one day and watch some of the reactons. :D You've probably never read technical reports, but it just wouldn't go. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love