Father

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Damn, Morpheus, you get crap now when you compliment someone. (Oops, I shouldn't use that emoticon--it's such a sure indication that Morpheus and I are the same person.)

[Delta40]

Damn, Morpheus, you get crap now when you compliment someone. (Oops, I shouldn't use that emoticon--it's such a sure indication that Morpheus and I are the same person.)

It is pretty funny but I'm sure Morpheus Mutandis can weather any storm that comes his way

[Hawkman]

Bust you on comb and catacombs? certainly not. I would have if you'd tried to rhyme it lol. Different pronunciations so there isn't any assonance. No what bothers me is the repetition of "he lies here in peace" as a refrain in the first two stanzas and it's ommission form the third and that it so closely repeats the Welsh: lit. "there is peace here".

I'd also query

"weather beaten and covered in moss
he lies here at peace"

Which is so worded that the description of weather beaten etc. refers to the man, not the place. It kind of gives the impression his bones are liying on the ground like a forgotten murder victim's. It's so important to really read what you have written, rather than just skip superficially over the surface of the rhythm and mood you were experiencing while writing. Of course, if you did and/or wished to convey that you murdered him in the woods and left him lying there, then it puts a whole new spin on the poem. Actually, this idea is reinforced by "strangled by the ivy" which has shallow roots and grows across the ground, as well as up the trunks of trees.

But there are some lovely moments here: The last two lines of S1 and S2 and the whole of S3 are quite wonderful.

Live and be well - H

[MorpheusSandman]

Hey I'm still in the dark about what FWIW means! Are you sure it's an innate intuition of the poet and that intentional or not it's inconsequential?

FWIW = For What It's Worth

I think developing patterns and motifs on multiple levels is innate in the creative instincts and intuition of GOOD poets, yes. Some of them choose to develop that talent consciously as well as unconsciously, but it's very difficult to write a poem consciously thinking about the effect of every single element. So it's quite useful to just be able to utilize those things on an intuitive level. Utilizing them consciously is what rewrites are for.

Intention and the godlike nature of the author is something that's really bit the dust in the wake of 20th century criticism. The Intentional Fallacy was the first major blow dealt by the New Critics, and the poststructuralists pushed it even further with Death of the Author and intertextuality (you may have caught some of this in the deleted thread over in PP&P). The point of placing the emphasis on the text rather than on the author makes sense if you think about it: if patterns are there, it shouldn't matter whether they were intentional or not. Why are intentional patterns better/more important than unintentional ones? Cannot unintentional patterns tell us something about intuitive creativity? Humans are naturally pattern finding and making machines anyway, so that kind of stuff is already innately in us, but transferring that to art isn't always automatic.

I'm still not sure about 'live' and whether it should be replaced with 'rest'. Given your analysis, MS it probably should be to complement lies and peace so I've edited it.

Which part are you referring to?

It's very interesting the way you have looked at the words MS yet Hallaigs response is also very interesting and I guess you both highlight a line which I dare not cross.

I don't find Hallaig's response interesting in the slightest. Artists are often afraid of critics so they deride and attack what they don't understand. Some certain people around here claim to have read certain critics, but then malign someone like myself when I use the techniques of those critics. It's blatant hypocrisy and ignorance manifesting in unwarranted hostility. You be the judge of whom you'd rather listen to.

It is pretty funny but I'm sure Morpheus Mutandis can weather any storm that comes his way

I guess I didn't see the part of the thread where I got accused of being Mutandis. S/He and I aren't even online posting at the same times and s/he sent me a PM about the accusation (apparently the thread was deleted before I could see it). It's rather hilarious because it reveals that certain minds are so paranoid that everyone that disagrees with them must be the same poster!

As for weathering the storm, I don't know. I didn't come back here to be relentlessly attacked by idiotic n00bs that should've been banned by now.

[MorpheusSandman]

Damn, Morpheus, you get crap now when you compliment someone.

I get crap by the same nagging mosquitos that, as I said, should've been banned by now. When I can't even positively criticize someone ELSE'S poem, especially after I was specifically asked by the poet to elaborate on what I meant by a comment, without those ninnies attacking me then something is very wrong.

Hello? Are any mods reading this? Anyone? Is this behavior really condoned?

[Delta40]

Sorry Morpheus. It isn't my intention to offend you at all and I hope you haven't misread my comments as anything other than friendly and lighthearted.

[miyako73]

Sorry, Delta. I will heed your advice after this.

Morpheus, you wrote somewhere that you are a critic first before a poet. Literary critiques are pieces of literature too. Are you saying that you can critique poets here and poets cannot critique you and what you write?

Moderators are not dumb. They read the stuff you write. They should reprimand you by now for making the forum a playground for your childish toys and play.

I don't know what kind of a literary mind will accept these:

"Y is a V with a tail."
"'man' is contained within the word 'remains' interrupted by the 'I'"

And you consider those brilliant. Please don't reduce the vibrant poetry in this forum into your playful nonsense.

Doubting is not a ground for banning a member. I read the rules. Can I not doubt that you and Mutatis can be one and the same?

"Morph" from Morpheus and "mutate" from Mutatis are synonymous. Morpheus Sandman and Mutatis Mutandis are both related to superheroes comics, and it's pretty clear you are into comics. My doubt is the product of close-reading; hence, it is literary. Whether there's truth in it, like in poetry, it's up to its readers.

And yes, I'm not a "n00b" here. I've been a member since 2009. Also, I'm not a newbie--as you defined and understood it--in literature. Now back to Delta's poem, whose poignant beauty deserves a repeated reading.

[MorpheusSandman]

Sorry Morpheus. It isn't my intention to offend you at all and I hope you haven't misread my comments as anything other than friendly and lighthearted.

No, no, no, YOU haven't offended me at all, Delta. You asked me to elaborate on my criticism, I did, and OTHERS decided to jump on me because of the crap that had happened between them and I in other threads. They're acting like petulant children in dragging that issue into YOUR thread, especially after you asked me to elaborate on what I meant.

I just want to stress, you and I are good. You haven't now, nor have you ever offended me. You remain one of my favorite posters and favorite poets on this site, period. I just wish others would grow up or get out.

[MorpheusSandman]

Morpheus, you wrote somewhere that you are a critic first before a poet. Literary critiques are pieces of literature too. Are you saying that you can critique poets here and poets cannot critique you and what you write?

God, I hesitate to reply to this, but I feel compelled to.

No, critics are not above criticism. I've said before that poets and critics should engage civilly and intelligently with each other. But, see, those two adverbs "civilly" and "intelligently" are paramount for the engagement to be productive. It is not civil or intelligent to say "God, what are you on?" or "see what I mean? Stop him while it's still early." That's just blatant flaming and hostility, things that should be against the rules. But what makes it worse in this situation is that THE POET ASKED ME TO ELABORATE ON WHAT I MEANT! I had not even intended to go into those technicalities, but when a poet asks me to, you should not take that as a liberty for you to jump in an derail the thread and continue our feud. It's childish, immature, and completely disrespectful to the poet that asked for a critic to do what they did.

What's more, you seem intent on degenerating every thread in which you do this into a discussion about theoretical critical approaches to literature, but, at the same time, you'll say what you have to say, insist you're done, and then fail to respond to anything the other side says. You are clearly only interested in what YOU THINK and what YOU have to say. The fact that you've managed to royally tick off three long-time members, who are generally quite affable and easy to get along with, is proof positive that the problem is YOURS. Why in the world you're taking it upon yourself, not just to critique critics of your own poems, but to have the audacity to tell OTHER poets what criticisms to listen to is beyond me. If my criticism is "nonsense" then they can ignore it, the same way you COULD'VE ignored mine and Hawk's criticism of your poetry, but instead decided to get on your soapbox.

I do hope the moderators are reading what I write and what you write. I hope they're seeing that you take every opportunity you can to lash out at me, personally, even when what I'm saying has nothing to do with you. I hope they realize that you and you alone have generated a lot of hostility from many long-time members on this forum where, before, there was a very friendly, helpful, and welcoming community, one in which many have taken the time to send me PMs stating how much they appreciated my insights. I wonder how many such friendly PMs you've gotten?

I don't know what kind of a literary mind will accept these:

Vendler and Ricks perform that kind of linguistic minutiae criticism all of the time. You claim to have read Vendler's book on Shakespeare, yet you completely overlooked the parts where she talked about the visual playfulness of Shakespeare, or how certain words would be contained within another?

Here's a sample:

Sometimes Shakespeare plays games with his KEY WORD. In sonnet 55... we find "outlive" in Q1, "living" in Q2, and "live" in C. Though we began by thinking (as we read the octave and couplet) that we ight be about the find the fourth use that make "live" a KEY WORD, we are momentarily "disappointed" as we look back on Q3 and find no mention of anything "living" or "outliving" anything else... It is only on a second reading that we notice, with distinct amusement, the "tucked away" KEY WORD "live" is in "obLIVious", making the pattern phonetically (if not graphically) complete in all four units of the poem.

We are not told hereof what the "play" consisted... What we do know is that "p-lay" is a compound by which the "lay" of a bird has been prefaced by the consonant (p) associated throughout the sonnet with the young man and the seasons... this erotic use of "P" will reach its phallic apogee in 151, where it mutates into cynicism.

Neither "fore" nor "tract" can be explained by semantic, alliterative, or phonetic needs. At the risk of seeming overingenious, I can only suggest that the golden sun generates, throughout the sonnet, French puns on "or": "orient," "adore", "mortal," and--our point of origin--"fore"; and that the central image of the sun's "car" generates anagrammatically scrambled cars elsewhere; in "gracious," "sacred," and--our point of origin--"tract". The aging of the sun in the poem seems to generate "homAGE," "AGE," "gOLDen pilgrimAGE," and (once again) "age"; and the long and (to the reader) intolerable suppression of the word "sun" of course makes the word "son", when it finally leaps off the page as the closing word, entirely inevitable.

It was this "no earthly" of (Geoffrey) Hill's that brought to mind some other lines of his which may clarify what is at issue in Gower's rhyme of "face/deface." In what is likewise an evocation of the enduring dead (though far from the world of faery), Hill has written

Grass resurrects to mask, to strangle,
Words glossed on stone, lopped stone-angel;
but the dead maintain their ground--
that there's no getting round--
("The Distant Fury of Battle")

The impossibility is lodged not only in the argumentativeness of the cliches but also in "round"'s being so obdurately lodged in "ground."

So, if you want an answer to "what kind of literary mind would accept these," I'd say the same kind that accept the above, namely those that teach poetry at Harvard and Oxford.

Can I not doubt that you and Mutatis can be one and the same?

Sure, if you want to look like a moron. We're not the same poster. Period. Admin has access to our IPs and (probably) locations. MorpheusSandman is obviously taken from Neil Gaiman's comic book, the title and lead character. I don't know what "superhero" comic "Mutatis Mutandis" is related to, but Sandman isn't even a superhero comic, so that's a major FAIL on your part.

[Delta40]

Miyako - I expect to get unbiased reviews of my work and I'm concerned that your reviews are reactionary to anything Morpheus posts in my threads. FYI I appreciate his reviews very much and I would appreciate yours too providing they don't digress into the personal difference you and MS have.

Morph - You can take other steps besides responding and I know that you know it's not appropriate to carry on this difference of opinion in another members thread.

By the way, this thread was a tribute to the death of my father in case both of you need reminding.

[miyako73]

Delta, I'm sorry if you view my reaction to your poem that way. In my own little way, I'm trying to control the influence of pseudo-linguistics that is nonsense to real linguists. My reaction to your work is not reactive to anyone personally. I don't usually react to a poem I already find beautiful in my reading and to my hearing. But if someone is out to technically ruin that beauty, as an admirer, I will speak up.

[ShadowsCool]

I just want to stress, you and I are good. You haven't now, nor have you ever offended me. You remain one of my favorite posters and favorite poets on this site, period. I just wish others would grow up or get out.

This started out well intentioned until, "I just wish others blah blah.... was added.

Let us respect Delta's dad on this thread and stop with the spitballs.

[MorpheusSandman]

Morph - You can take other steps besides responding and I know that you know it's not appropriate to carry on this difference of opinion in another members thread.

By the way, this thread was a tribute to the death of my father in case both of you need reminding.

You're absolutely right, and I do apologize for even responding to her bait. The subject matter of this thread is why I found what was going on even more offensive than usual. But I'm very sorry, Delta. It shouldn't have happened.

[Silas Thorne]

Yes, I agree with ShadowsCool on this completely. Let's turn back to the poem...

I think this is a wonderful touching tribute to your father. I love many lines in this poem, since many lines seem to be simultaneously looking back to your youth and then his old age, such as the lines 'I don't need to hold his hand
when I cross the road.' and 'a boy, a man, a father
and the shadow of a God.' I read 'shadow of a God' to be the shadows left from feelings of hero-worship of your father when you were very young, but of course, the memories of what he was at different stages of his life are all there.
Thanks for posting.

[hallaig]

That's interesting. I didn't read the'shadow of a God' line to represent hero worship at all, but rather something else. That's what I meant when I said earlier that it left interesting unresolved questions about your relationship or his relationship to God rather than your relationship to your Father? I might be wrong, but that's all part of the fun, eh?