🚀 go-pugleaf

Okay, to each his own, Pendragon.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-05-09 8:12 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon, you may have read a bit of Allen Ginsberg, Charles Bukowski and Jack Kerouac
> Not good enough. He claims to "be familiar with all their writing" --
> not a bit of it, not even a lot of it, but all of it, every jot and tittle.

I refer you to Merriam-Webster:

familiar with
idiom

Definition of familiar with
: having some knowledge about (something)
We are familiar with the situation.
I'm not very familiar with that area.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/familiar%20with#:~:textÞfinition%20of%20familiar%20with,very%20familiar%20with%20that%20area.

However, I should have been more specific:

I am familiar with all three of these authors' writings.

On 2022-05-09 8:12 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon, you may have read a bit of Allen Ginsberg, Charles Bukowski and Jack Kerouac

Not good enough. He claims to "be familiar with all their writing" --
not a bit of it, not even a lot of it, but all of it, every jot and tittle.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>
>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>> [...]
>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>> [...]
>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>
>>
>> Cool, second read


> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
> first time he's been published legally in years.

> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.


Looking forward to reading more of your Nash selections.

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-05-09 8:12 p.m., Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> Michael Pendragon, you may have read a bit of Allen Ginsberg, Charles Bukowski and Jack Kerouac

> Not good enough. He claims to "be familiar with all their writing" --
> not a bit of it, not even a lot of it, but all of it, every jot and tittle.

I remember Pendragon claiming he'd read about a paragraph of Jack Kerouac and stopped, I'd be surprised if he even made it all the way through "Howl", much less the hundreds of poems written by Allen Ginsberg (and Charles Bukowski).

:)

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

> This is something I enjoyed reading.

>>
>> I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>
>> Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.

> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
> been around since "the beginning"

>> Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.

>> But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>
>> This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry.  It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>

>> Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>

> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
> of verse, from PPP:
> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."

> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
> having been referred to as stanzas."

> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
> rhymed ones.)

>> If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>
>> Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature  -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays."  However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>
>> That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print.  Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>

> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
> physical books and magazines.

>> When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>
>> Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>

> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

Well said Mr. GD....

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-05-02 6:56 p.m., W.Dockery wrote:
>> General-Zod wrote:
>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>
>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>> [...]
>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>> [...]
>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>
>>
>>> Cool, second read
>>
>>
>> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.

> Oh, yeah. As an example:I remember one textbook I picked up in the last
> half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to verse.
> First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it pontificated
> that rhyme was good only for humorous effect; and the one example of
> rhyme it cited was Ogden Nash.

> Be that as it may, I'm glad to have his poetry on the blog. This debut
> is a bit out of the ordinary -- it reads like a love poem he dashed off
> to his wife, whether he did or whether he designed it that way (probably
> the latter, since his wife was born in March).

Strange days indeed....

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

> This is something I enjoyed reading.

>>
>> I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>
>> Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.

> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
> been around since "the beginning"

>> Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.

>> But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>
>> This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry.  It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>

>> Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>

> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
> of verse, from PPP:
> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."

> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
> having been referred to as stanzas."

> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
> rhymed ones.)

>> If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>
>> Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature  -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays."  However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>
>> That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print.  Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>

> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
> physical books and magazines.

>> When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>
>> Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>

> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

Nailed it, George Dance.

HTH and HAND.

Will Dockery wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
>> This is something I enjoyed reading.

>>>
>>> I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>>
>>> Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.

>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
>> been around since "the beginning"

>>> Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.

>>> But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>>
>>> This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry.  It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>>

>>> Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>>

>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
>> of verse, from PPP:
>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."

>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
>> having been referred to as stanzas."

>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
>> rhymed ones.)

>>> If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>>
>>> Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature  -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays."  However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>>
>>> That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print.  Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>>

>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
>> physical books and magazines.

>>> When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>>
>>> Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>>

>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

> Nailed it, George Dance.

> HTH and HAND.

Agreed and seconded.....

General-Zod wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:

>> On 2022-05-02 6:56 p.m., W.Dockery wrote:
>>> General-Zod wrote:
>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>>
>>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Cool, second read
>>>
>>>
>>> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.

>> Oh, yeah. As an example:I remember one textbook I picked up in the last
>> half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to verse.
>> First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it pontificated
>> that rhyme was good only for humorous effect; and the one example of
>> rhyme it cited was Ogden Nash.

>> Be that as it may, I'm glad to have his poetry on the blog. This debut
>> is a bit out of the ordinary -- it reads like a love poem he dashed off
>> to his wife, whether he did or whether he designed it that way (probably
>> the latter, since his wife was born in March).

> Strange days indeed....

Most peculiar.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 6:04:39 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> >> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> >
> >> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
> >> [...]
> >> April golden, April cloudy,
> >> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
> >> [...]
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
> >>
> >
> > Cool, second read
> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
> first time he's been published legally in years.
>
> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.

Cool.... cool.....

General-Zod wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:

>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:

>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>> [...]
>> April golden, April cloudy,
>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>> [...]
>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html

> Cool, second read

Good morning, agreed.

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:50:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >> >> > George J. Dance wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
> >> >> >> >>> [...]
> >> >> >> >>> April golden, April cloudy,
> >> >> >> >>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
> >> >> >> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >> > Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
> >> >
> >> > >>> Oh, yeah. As an example: I remember one textbook I picked up in the last
> >> > >>> half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to verse.
> >> > >>> First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it pontificated
> >> > >>> that rhyme was good only for humorous effect;
> >> >>
> >> >> > What an appallingly horrid little work that must have been.
> >> >>
> >> >> > And a textbook, yet (implying that it was actually taught in classrooms).
> >> >>
> >> >> > One need look no farther to understand why poetry has become a dead language and an obsolete art form.
> >> >>
> >> >> > And, yes -- I would consign that book to be burned along with
> >> >> Your burn list includes some of the best poets:
> >> >>
> >> >> Allen Ginsberg
> >> >> Charles Bukowski
> >> >> Jack Kerouac
> >>
> >> > I don't see any poets on that list
> >> Thus, your ignorance of certain forms of poetry is confirmed.
>
> > I'm familiar with all of their writings
> You've read, what, two paragraphs of Jack Kerouac, I think you've stated?

You're exaggerating, Donkey.

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:07:35 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:50:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >> >> > George J. Dance wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> >> >>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
> > >> >> >> >>> [...]
> > >> >> >> >>> April golden, April cloudy,
> > >> >> >> >>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
> > >> >> >> >>> [...]
> > >>
> > >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
> > >> >
> > >> > >>> Oh, yeah. As an example: I remember one textbook I picked up in the last
> > >> > >>> half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to verse.
> > >> > >>> First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it pontificated
> > >> > >>> that rhyme was good only for humorous effect;
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > What an appallingly horrid little work that must have been.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > And a textbook, yet (implying that it was actually taught in classrooms).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > One need look no farther to understand why poetry has become a dead language and an obsolete art form.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > And, yes -- I would consign that book to be burned along with
> > >> >> Your burn list includes some of the best poets:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Allen Ginsberg
> > >> >> Charles Bukowski
> > >> >> Jack Kerouac
> > >>
> > >> > I don't see any poets on that list
> > >> Thus, your ignorance of certain forms of poetry is confirmed.
> >
> > > I'm familiar with all of their writings
> > You've read, what, two paragraphs of Jack Kerouac, I think you've stated?
> You're exaggerating, Donkey.

In what way?

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:50:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> >> > George J. Dance wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> >>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>> >> >> >>> [...]
>> >> >> >>> April golden, April cloudy,
>> >> >> >>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>> >> >> >>> [...]
>>
>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>
>> >
>> > >> > Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
>> >
>> > >>> Oh, yeah. As an example: I remember one textbook I picked up in the last
>> > >>> half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to verse.
>> > >>> First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it pontificated
>> > >>> that rhyme was good only for humorous effect;
>> >>
>> >> > What an appallingly horrid little work that must have been.
>> >>
>> >> > And a textbook, yet (implying that it was actually taught in classrooms).
>> >>
>> >> > One need look no farther to understand why poetry has become a dead language and an obsolete art form.
>> >>
>> >> > And, yes -- I would consign that book to be burned along with
>> >> Your burn list includes some of the best poets:
>> >>
>> >> Allen Ginsberg
>> >> Charles Bukowski
>> >> Jack Kerouac
>>
>> > I don't see any poets on that list
>> Thus, your ignorance of certain forms of poetry is confirmed.

> I'm familiar with all of their writings

You've read, what, two paragraphs of Jack Kerouac, I think you've stated?

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>
>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>> [...]
>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>> [...]
>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>
>>
>> Cool, second read


> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
> first time he's been published legally in years.

> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.


Cool... cool....

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:07:35 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:50:14 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> >> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >> >> > George J. Dance wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> >>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
> > > >> >> >> >>> [...]
> > > >> >> >> >>> April golden, April cloudy,
> > > >> >> >> >>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
> > > >> >> >> >>> [...]
> > > >>
> > > >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >>> Oh, yeah. As an example: I remember one textbook I picked up in the last
> > > >> > >>> half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to verse.
> > > >> > >>> First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it pontificated
> > > >> > >>> that rhyme was good only for humorous effect;
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > What an appallingly horrid little work that must have been.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > And a textbook, yet (implying that it was actually taught in classrooms).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > One need look no farther to understand why poetry has become a dead language and an obsolete art form.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > And, yes -- I would consign that book to be burned along with
> > > >> >> Your burn list includes some of the best poets:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Allen Ginsberg
> > > >> >> Charles Bukowski
> > > >> >> Jack Kerouac
> > > >>
> > > >> > I don't see any poets on that list
> > > >> Thus, your ignorance of certain forms of poetry is confirmed.
> > >
> > > > I'm familiar with all of their writings
> > > You've read, what, two paragraphs of Jack Kerouac, I think you've stated?
> > You're exaggerating, Donkey.
> In what way?

You only wrote one sentence, Donkey.  Figure it out.


Michael Pendragon
"I've been hanging out with the snuggliest love-balls and it's spectacular."
-- Clay Dockery ("Not that there's anything wrong with that.")

In other words, I nailed it and you just can't admit it, Pendragon.

HTH and HAND.

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:38:02 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> In other words, I nailed it and you just can't admit it, Pendragon.
>
> HTH and HAND.

Those are certainly "other words," as they're not even remotely close to what I said.

Learn to read, Donkey.

Take a free online course (or twenty) in basic English.

You'll be glad you did... and so will the rest of us.

Michael Pendragon
"I do go in for the childish name-calling."
-- Will Dockery in a rare moment of self-acknowledgement

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:38:02 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> In other words, I nailed it and you just can't admit it, Pendragon.
>
> HTH and HAND.

Good luck on EVER getting Voodoo Boy to admit that he was every wrong about anything.... ha.

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:00:13 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> General-Zod wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> >> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>
> >> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
> >> [...]
> >> April golden, April cloudy,
> >> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
> >> [...]
> >> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>
> > Cool, second read
> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.

Seconded.....

George J. Dance wrote:

> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:

> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
> [...]
> April golden, April cloudy,
> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
> [...]
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html


Yep... great

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>
> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
> [...]
> April golden, April cloudy,
> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
> [...]
> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html

A good one.....

General-Zod wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:

>> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>>
>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>> [...]
>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>> [...]
>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cool, second read


>> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
>> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
>> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
>> first time he's been published legally in years.

>> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
>> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
>> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.


> Cool... cool....


Agreed.

🙂

Will Dockery wrote:

> General-Zod wrote:

>> George J. Dance wrote:

>>> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>>>
>>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cool, second read


>>> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
>>> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
>>> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
>>> first time he's been published legally in years.

>>> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
>>> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
>>> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.


>> Cool... cool....


> Agreed.

> 🙂

Good day to ye, kind sir.....

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:06:44 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-05-04 1:53 a.m., W.Dockery wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-05-02 6:56 p.m., W.Dockery wrote:
> >>> General-Zod wrote:
> >>>> George J. Dance wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> >>>
> >>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
> >>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Cool, second read
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
> >
> >> Oh, yeah. As an example:I remember one textbook I picked up in the
> >> last half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to
> >> verse. First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it
> >> pontificated that rhyme was good only for humorous effect; and the one
> >> example of rhyme it cited was Ogden Nash.
> >
> >> Be that as it may, I'm glad to have his poetry on the blog. This debut
> >> is a bit out of the ordinary -- it reads like a love poem he dashed
> >> off to his wife, whether he did or whether he designed it that way
> >> (probably the latter, since his wife was born in March).
> >
> >
> > As you know, much of my early years of poetry writing and study I was
> > taught to shun rhymes, in popular culture and personal school studies
> >
> >
> > My teacher and me
I'mntor Dan Barfield, as you know, famously told our class:
> >
> > "Rhyme is a crutch."
> That would be late 70s, in high school back when and where rhyme was
> most out of fashion. I encountered the same prejudice in my friends who
> wrote poetry; all of them shunned rhyme, and only liked the poems in
> which I did the same.
>
> But regardless of Dan's views on rhyme, I'd interpret his maxim more
> charitably, not as saying "Don't use rhyme", but as Don't rely on rhyme;
> don't try to use it to support work that isn't supported otherwise.
>
> If I were teaching poetics, I'd advise new students to start by writing
> open form, until they'd learned how to write poems - how to arrange the
> words to tell a story, or present a scene, or even construct an
> argument, to give the reader an epiphany.
>
> Then I'd instruct them on meter, rhyme, and finally forms. But I'd make
> it clear that in their poems they'd have to use those in addition to all
> that other stuff they learned earlier, not as a substitute (or "crutch)
> for them.
> >
> > I learned to begin to embrace rhyme, meter and form, et cetera, in these
> > later years.
> I won't claim any credit, since you were using rhymes before I got on
> the group. But I do think that being on aapc was probably a big
> influence on your doing that.

I'm working on a poem using the form you used for "Usenet's Greatest Poet".

It'll be a while before it's finished but I'll post it for comment when it's ready.

General-Zod wrote:

> Will Dockery wrote:

>> General-Zod wrote:

>>> George J. Dance wrote:

>>>> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cool, second read


>>>> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
>>>> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
>>>> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
>>>> first time he's been published legally in years.

>>>> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
>>>> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
>>>> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.


>>> Cool... cool....


>> Agreed.

>>
> Good day to ye, kind sir.....

Good morning, my friend.

🙂

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote: 
> 
> This is something I enjoyed reading.
> > 
> > I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood. 
> > 
> > Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.
> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its 
> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in 
> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was 
> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's 
> been around since "the beginning"

Good points to remember.

> > Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry. 
> 
> > But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry. 
> > 
> > This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry. It is saying that they are two different literary forms. 
> > 
> 
> > Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete. 
> >
> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" -- 
> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept 
> of verse, from PPP: 
> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the 
> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry) 
> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern." 
> 
> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia: 
> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a 
> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or 
> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally 
> having been referred to as stanzas." 
> 
> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and 
> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them, 
> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of 
> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme 
> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters 
> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the 
> rhymed ones.)
> > If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found. 
> > 
> > Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays." However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter. 
> > 
> > That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print. Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form. 
> >
> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For 
> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late 
> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and 
> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet 
> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast 
> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that 
> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the 
> physical books and magazines.
> > When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose." 
> > 
> > Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing. 
> >
> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or 
> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little 
> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery 
> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying 
> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic 
> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>
>> This is something I enjoyed reading.
>> >
>> > I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>> >
>> > Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.
>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
>> been around since "the beginning"

> Good points to remember.

Indeed, agreed and seconded...!

>> > Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.
>>
>> > But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>> >
>> > This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry. It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>> >
>>
>> > Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>> >
>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
>> of verse, from PPP:
>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."
>>
>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
>> having been referred to as stanzas."
>>
>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
>> rhymed ones.)
>> > If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>> >
>> > Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays." However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>> >
>> > That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print. Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>> >
>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
>> physical books and magazines.
>> > When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>> >
>> > Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>> >
>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

Quite a compelling read...

Zod wrote:

> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>
>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>
>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>> [...]
>> April golden, April cloudy,
>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>> [...]
>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html

> A good one.....

Again, agreed.

Victor H. wrote:

> Will Dockery wrote:

>> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>
>>> This is something I enjoyed reading.
>>> >
>>> > I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>> >
>>> > Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.
>>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
>>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
>>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
>>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
>>> been around since "the beginning"

>> Good points to remember.

> Indeed, agreed and seconded...!

>>> > Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.
>>>
>>> > But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>> >
>>> > This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry. It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>> >
>>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
>>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
>>> of verse, from PPP:
>>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
>>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
>>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."
>>>
>>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
>>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
>>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
>>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
>>> having been referred to as stanzas."
>>>
>>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
>>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
>>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
>>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
>>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
>>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
>>> rhymed ones.)
>>> > If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>> >
>>> > Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays." However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>> >
>>> > That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print. Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>> >
>>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
>>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
>>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
>>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
>>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
>>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
>>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
>>> physical books and magazines.
>>> > When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>> >
>>> > Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>> >
>>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
>>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
>>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
>>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
>>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
>>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

> Quite a compelling read...

Good morning, Zod, I hope you and Mike are having a great morning.

🙂

Will Dockery wrote:
> Zod wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is something I enjoyed reading.
>>>> >
>>>> > I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>>> >
>>>> > Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.
>>>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
>>>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
>>>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
>>>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
>>>> been around since "the beginning"

>>> Good points to remember.

>> Indeed, agreed and seconded...!

>>>> > Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.
>>>>
>>>> > But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>>> >
>>>> > This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry. It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>>> >
>>>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
>>>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
>>>> of verse, from PPP:
>>>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
>>>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
>>>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."
>>>>
>>>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
>>>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
>>>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
>>>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
>>>> having been referred to as stanzas."
>>>>
>>>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
>>>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
>>>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
>>>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
>>>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
>>>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
>>>> rhymed ones.)
>>>> > If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>>> >
>>>> > Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays." However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>>> >
>>>> > That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print. Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>>> >
>>>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
>>>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
>>>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
>>>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
>>>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
>>>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
>>>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
>>>> physical books and magazines.
>>>> > When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>>> >
>>>> > Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>>> >
>>>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
>>>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
>>>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
>>>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
>>>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
>>>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

>> Quite a compelling read...

> Good morning, Zod, I hope you and Mike are having a great morning.

Good day to you sir....!

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 6:10:17 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > Zod wrote: 
> >>> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:32:53 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote: 
> >>>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>> This is something I enjoyed reading. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter. 
> >>>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its 
> >>>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in 
> >>>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was 
> >>>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's 
> >>>> been around since "the beginning" 
> 
> >>> Good points to remember. 
> 
> >> Indeed, agreed and seconded...! 
> 
> >>>> > Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> > But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry. It is saying that they are two different literary forms. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> 
> >>>> > Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" -- 
> >>>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept 
> >>>> of verse, from PPP: 
> >>>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the 
> >>>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry) 
> >>>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern." 
> >>>> 
> >>>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia: 
> >>>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a 
> >>>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or 
> >>>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally 
> >>>> having been referred to as stanzas." 
> >>>> 
> >>>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and 
> >>>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them, 
> >>>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of 
> >>>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme 
> >>>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters 
> >>>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the 
> >>>> rhymed ones.) 
> >>>> > If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays." However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print. Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For 
> >>>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late 
> >>>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and 
> >>>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet 
> >>>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast 
> >>>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that 
> >>>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the 
> >>>> physical books and magazines. 
> >>>> > When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose." 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing. 
> >>>> > 
> >>>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or 
> >>>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little 
> >>>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery 
> >>>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying 
> >>>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic 
> >>>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century. 
> 
> >> Quite a compelling read... 
> 
> > Good morning, Zod, I hope you and Mike are having a great morning.
> Good day to you sir....!

Hello again my friend.

George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool, second read


>>>>> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
>>>>> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
>>>>> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
>>>>> first time he's been published legally in years.

>>>>> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
>>>>> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
>>>>> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.


I thank you for the knowledge.....

Victor H. wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>>>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cool, second read


>>>>>> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
>>>>>> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
>>>>>> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
>>>>>> first time he's been published legally in years.

>>>>>> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
>>>>>> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
>>>>>> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.


> I thank you for the knowledge.....

Seconded.

Will Dockery wrote:

>>> General-Zod wrote:

>>>> George J. Dance wrote:

>>>>> On 2022-04-30 5:13 p.m., General-Zod wrote:
>>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool, second read


>>>>> I am glad you're a fan of Nash, because this is a big moment. You see
>>>>> Nash died in 1971, meaning his poems went into the public domain last
>>>>> Jan. 1. Accordingly, this is his first time on the blog, and perhaps the
>>>>> first time he's been published legally in years.

>>>>> His poetry is all over the web, but mainly on sites in the U.S., where
>>>>> it will still be copyrighted for years; but the publisher hasn't kept
>>>>> his books in print, so it's unlikely to challenge those bootleg copies.


>>>> Cool... cool....


>>> Agreed.

Howdy....

Victor H. wrote:

> Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> Response from George Dance attempting to clear up Pendragon's confusion:

>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/ArTmAUO-RQw/m/PFMio5mICQAJ

>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-05 11:03 a.m., Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>> Were you asleep in the 1990s-2000s, Pendragon?
>>>>
>>>> Love it or hate it, the hip-hop and rap influence on the current poetry scene is real.
>>>>
>>>> Look it up.
>>>
>>> We were discussing the change from traditional to modern poetry, Donkey, and the subsequent redefinition of poetry (abandonment of rhymed-metered verse).

>> No, we'd moved on from that and were talking about the rediscovery of
>> rhyme (beginning in the 1980s).

>> <q>
>>>>
>>>> I learned to begin to embrace rhyme, meter and form, et cetera, in these
>>>> later years.

>>> I won't claim any credit, since you were using rhymes before I got on
>>> the group. But I do think that being on aapc was probably a big
>>> influence on your doing that.

>> I think perhaps the [advent] of HIP HOP spoken word poetry helped bring
>> on the changes as well.....
>> </q>

>> Will, of course, was talking about himself and his own discovery of
>> rhyme. Zod was pointing out that the former didn't happen in a vacuum;
>> Will's pesonal evolution was happening in, and reflective of, a general
>> popular trend in poetry post-1980.
>>>
>>> 1) Hip-hop and rap did not appear until long after the change had taken place.
>>> 2) Hip-hop and rap rely heavily on rhyme and meter, and would represent a popular movement to restore traditional poetry.

>> Exactly what Zod was saying. The hip-hop movement didn't occur in a
>> vacuum, though; there were other factors behind the rediscovery of
>> rhyme. The most important, academically, was the rise of New Formalism,
>> which was a movement of poetics as much as poetry.

>> But the biggest influence, I'd say, was as always the internet. Suddenly
>> (over 25 or so years, or just the blink of an eye in terms of the
>> tradition), public domain poetry went from a few dusty books in
>> second-hand shelves, that hardly anyone even noticed much less bought,
>> to being seen and read by millions.

>>> You and your Stink are obviously unaware of both the history of modern poetry and of the history of poetry in general.
>>>

>> No, that looks like a case of misunderstanding.

>> -----------------------------------------------------------------

>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/ArTmAUO-RQw/m/PFMio5mICQAJ


> Again, I thank you for setting the record straight on this here matter.....

As if anyone decided to comprehend it.


🙂

Victor H. wrote:

>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>>
>>> Response from George Dance attempting to clear up Pendragon's confusion:

>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/ArTmAUO-RQw/m/PFMio5mICQAJ

>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-05 11:03 a.m., Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>> Were you asleep in the 1990s-2000s, Pendragon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Love it or hate it, the hip-hop and rap influence on the current poetry scene is real.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look it up.
>>>>
>>>> We were discussing the change from traditional to modern poetry, Donkey, and the subsequent redefinition of poetry (abandonment of rhymed-metered verse).

>>> No, we'd moved on from that and were talking about the rediscovery of
>>> rhyme (beginning in the 1980s).

>>> <q>
>>>>>
>>>>> I learned to begin to embrace rhyme, meter and form, et cetera, in these
>>>>> later years.

>>>> I won't claim any credit, since you were using rhymes before I got on
>>>> the group. But I do think that being on aapc was probably a big
>>>> influence on your doing that.

>>> I think perhaps the [advent] of HIP HOP spoken word poetry helped bring
>>> on the changes as well.....
>>> </q>

>>> Will, of course, was talking about himself and his own discovery of
>>> rhyme. Zod was pointing out that the former didn't happen in a vacuum;
>>> Will's pesonal evolution was happening in, and reflective of, a general
>>> popular trend in poetry post-1980.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Hip-hop and rap did not appear until long after the change had taken place.
>>>> 2) Hip-hop and rap rely heavily on rhyme and meter, and would represent a popular movement to restore traditional poetry.

>>> Exactly what Zod was saying. The hip-hop movement didn't occur in a
>>> vacuum, though; there were other factors behind the rediscovery of
>>> rhyme. The most important, academically, was the rise of New Formalism,
>>> which was a movement of poetics as much as poetry.

>>> But the biggest influence, I'd say, was as always the internet. Suddenly
>>> (over 25 or so years, or just the blink of an eye in terms of the
>>> tradition), public domain poetry went from a few dusty books in
>>> second-hand shelves, that hardly anyone even noticed much less bought,
>>> to being seen and read by millions.

>>>> You and your Stink are obviously unaware of both the history of modern poetry and of the history of poetry in general.
>>>>

>>> No, that looks like a case of misunderstanding.

>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------

>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/ArTmAUO-RQw/m/PFMio5mICQAJ


>> Again, I thank you for setting the record straight on this here matter.....

Good evening my friend, tell Mike I said hello.

🙂

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:06:44 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-05-04 1:53 a.m., W.Dockery wrote:
>> > George J. Dance wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2022-05-02 6:56 p.m., W.Dockery wrote:
>> >>> General-Zod wrote:
>> >>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>> >>>>> [...]
>> >>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>> >>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>> >>>>> [...]
>> >>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Cool, second read
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
>> >
>> >> Oh, yeah. As an example:I remember one textbook I picked up in the
>> >> last half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to
>> >> verse. First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it
>> >> pontificated that rhyme was good only for humorous effect; and the one
>> >> example of rhyme it cited was Ogden Nash.
>> >
>> >> Be that as it may, I'm glad to have his poetry on the blog. This debut
>> >> is a bit out of the ordinary -- it reads like a love poem he dashed
>> >> off to his wife, whether he did or whether he designed it that way
>> >> (probably the latter, since his wife was born in March).
>> >
>> >
>> > As you know, much of my early years of poetry writing and study I was
>> > taught to shun rhymes, in popular culture and personal school studies
>> >
>> >
>> > My teacher and me
> I'mntor Dan Barfield, as you know, famously told our class:
>> >
>> > "Rhyme is a crutch."
>> That would be late 70s, in high school back when and where rhyme was
>> most out of fashion. I encountered the same prejudice in my friends who
>> wrote poetry; all of them shunned rhyme, and only liked the poems in
>> which I did the same.
>>
>> But regardless of Dan's views on rhyme, I'd interpret his maxim more
>> charitably, not as saying "Don't use rhyme", but as Don't rely on rhyme;
>> don't try to use it to support work that isn't supported otherwise.
>>
>> If I were teaching poetics, I'd advise new students to start by writing
>> open form, until they'd learned how to write poems - how to arrange the
>> words to tell a story, or present a scene, or even construct an
>> argument, to give the reader an epiphany.
>>
>> Then I'd instruct them on meter, rhyme, and finally forms. But I'd make
>> it clear that in their poems they'd have to use those in addition to all
>> that other stuff they learned earlier, not as a substitute (or "crutch)
>> for them.
>> >
>> > I learned to begin to embrace rhyme, meter and form, et cetera, in these
>> > later years.
>> I won't claim any credit, since you were using rhymes before I got on
>> the group. But I do think that being on aapc was probably a big
>> influence on your doing that.

> I'm working on a poem using the form you used for "Usenet's Greatest Poet".

> It'll be a while before it's finished but I'll post it for comment when it's ready.

Of interest.....

General-Zod wrote:

> Will Dockery wrote:

>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:06:44 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-04 1:53 a.m., W.Dockery wrote:
>>> > George J. Dance wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 2022-05-02 6:56 p.m., W.Dockery wrote:
>>> >>> General-Zod wrote:
>>> >>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>> >>>>> [...]
>>> >>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>> >>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>> >>>>> [...]
>>> >>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Cool, second read
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
>>> >
>>> >> Oh, yeah. As an example:I remember one textbook I picked up in the
>>> >> last half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to
>>> >> verse. First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it
>>> >> pontificated that rhyme was good only for humorous effect; and the one
>>> >> example of rhyme it cited was Ogden Nash.
>>> >
>>> >> Be that as it may, I'm glad to have his poetry on the blog. This debut
>>> >> is a bit out of the ordinary -- it reads like a love poem he dashed
>>> >> off to his wife, whether he did or whether he designed it that way
>>> >> (probably the latter, since his wife was born in March).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > As you know, much of my early years of poetry writing and study I was
>>> > taught to shun rhymes, in popular culture and personal school studies
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > My teacher and me
>> I'mntor Dan Barfield, as you know, famously told our class:
>>> >
>>> > "Rhyme is a crutch."
>>> That would be late 70s, in high school back when and where rhyme was
>>> most out of fashion. I encountered the same prejudice in my friends who
>>> wrote poetry; all of them shunned rhyme, and only liked the poems in
>>> which I did the same.
>>>
>>> But regardless of Dan's views on rhyme, I'd interpret his maxim more
>>> charitably, not as saying "Don't use rhyme", but as Don't rely on rhyme;
>>> don't try to use it to support work that isn't supported otherwise.
>>>
>>> If I were teaching poetics, I'd advise new students to start by writing
>>> open form, until they'd learned how to write poems - how to arrange the
>>> words to tell a story, or present a scene, or even construct an
>>> argument, to give the reader an epiphany.
>>>
>>> Then I'd instruct them on meter, rhyme, and finally forms. But I'd make
>>> it clear that in their poems they'd have to use those in addition to all
>>> that other stuff they learned earlier, not as a substitute (or "crutch)
>>> for them.
>>> >
>>> > I learned to begin to embrace rhyme, meter and form, et cetera, in these
>>> > later years.
>>> I won't claim any credit, since you were using rhymes before I got on
>>> the group. But I do think that being on aapc was probably a big
>>> influence on your doing that.

>> I'm working on a poem using the form you used for "Usenet's Greatest Poet".

>> It'll be a while before it's finished but I'll post it for comment when it's ready.

> Of interest.....

Thanks again for the interest.

George J. Dance wrote:
>
>> >>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>> >>>>> [...]
>> >>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>> >>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>> >>>>> [...]
>> >>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Cool, second read
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
>> >
>> >> Oh, yeah. As an example:I remember one textbook I picked up in the
>> >> last half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to
>> >> verse. First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it
>> >> pontificated that rhyme was good only for humorous effect; and the one
>> >> example of rhyme it cited was Ogden Nash.
>> >
>> >> Be that as it may, I'm glad to have his poetry on the blog. This debut
>> >> is a bit out of the ordinary -- it reads like a love poem he dashed
>> >> off to his wife, whether he did or whether he designed it that way
>> >> (probably the latter, since his wife was born in March).
>> >
>> >
>> > As you know, much of my early years of poetry writing and study I was
>> > taught to shun rhymes, in popular culture and personal school studies
>> >
>> >
>> > My teacher and me
> I'mntor Dan Barfield, as you know, famously told our class:
>> >
>> > "Rhyme is a crutch."
>> That would be late 70s, in high school back when and where rhyme was
>> most out of fashion. I encountered the same prejudice in my friends who
>> wrote poetry; all of them shunned rhyme, and only liked the poems in
>> which I did the same.
>>
>> But regardless of Dan's views on rhyme, I'd interpret his maxim more
>> charitably, not as saying "Don't use rhyme", but as Don't rely on rhyme;
>> don't try to use it to support work that isn't supported otherwise.

Good points... G.D.


>> If I were teaching poetics, I'd advise new students to start by writing
>> open form, until they'd learned how to write poems - how to arrange the
>> words to tell a story, or present a scene, or even construct an
>> argument, to give the reader an epiphany.
>>
>> Then I'd instruct them on meter, rhyme, and finally forms. But I'd make
>> it clear that in their poems they'd have to use those in addition to all
>> that other stuff they learned earlier, not as a substitute (or "crutch)
>> for them.
>> >
>> > I learned to begin to embrace rhyme, meter and form, et cetera, in these
>> > later years.
>> I won't claim any credit, since you were using rhymes before I got on
>> the group. But I do think that being on aapc was probably a big
>> influence on your doing that.

> I'm working on a poem using the form you used for "Usenet's Greatest Poet".

> It'll be a while before it's finished but I'll post it for comment when it's ready.

..

Victor H. wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:
>>
>>> >>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>> >>>>> [...]
>>> >>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>> >>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>> >>>>> [...]
>>> >>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Cool, second read
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.
>>> >
>>> >> Oh, yeah. As an example:I remember one textbook I picked up in the
>>> >> last half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to
>>> >> verse. First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it
>>> >> pontificated that rhyme was good only for humorous effect; and the one
>>> >> example of rhyme it cited was Ogden Nash.
>>> >
>>> >> Be that as it may, I'm glad to have his poetry on the blog. This debut
>>> >> is a bit out of the ordinary -- it reads like a love poem he dashed
>>> >> off to his wife, whether he did or whether he designed it that way
>>> >> (probably the latter, since his wife was born in March).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > As you know, much of my early years of poetry writing and study I was
>>> > taught to shun rhymes, in popular culture and personal school studies
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > My teacher and me
>> I'mntor Dan Barfield, as you know, famously told our class:
>>> >
>>> > "Rhyme is a crutch."
>>> That would be late 70s, in high school back when and where rhyme was
>>> most out of fashion. I encountered the same prejudice in my friends who
>>> wrote poetry; all of them shunned rhyme, and only liked the poems in
>>> which I did the same.
>>>
>>> But regardless of Dan's views on rhyme, I'd interpret his maxim more
>>> charitably, not as saying "Don't use rhyme", but as Don't rely on rhyme;
>>> don't try to use it to support work that isn't supported otherwise.

> Good points... G.D.

Agreed.


>>> If I were teaching poetics, I'd advise new students to start by writing
>>> open form, until they'd learned how to write poems - how to arrange the
>>> words to tell a story, or present a scene, or even construct an
>>> argument, to give the reader an epiphany.
>>>
>>> Then I'd instruct them on meter, rhyme, and finally forms. But I'd make
>>> it clear that in their poems they'd have to use those in addition to all
>>> that other stuff they learned earlier, not as a substitute (or "crutch)
>>> for them.
>>> >
>>> > I learned to begin to embrace rhyme, meter and form, et cetera, in these
>>> > later years.
>>> I won't claim any credit, since you were using rhymes before I got on
>>> the group. But I do think that being on aapc was probably a big
>>> influence on your doing that.

>> I'm working on a poem using the form you used for "Usenet's Greatest Poet".

>> It'll be a while before it's finished but I'll post it for comment when it's ready.

***

George J. Dance wrote:

> On 2022-05-02 6:56 p.m., W.Dockery wrote:
>> General-Zod wrote:
>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>>
>>>> Always Marry an April Girl, by Ogden Nash
>>>> [...]
>>>> April golden, April cloudy,
>>>> Gracious, cruel, tender, rowdy;
>>>> [...]
>>>> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2022/04/always-marry-april-girl-ogden-nash.html
>>>>
>>
>>> Cool, second read
>>
>>
>> Nash definitely was the master of his niche in poetry.

> Oh, yeah. As an example:I remember one textbook I picked up in the last
> half of the last century. It was very modern in its approach to verse.
> First, it ignored rhythm / meter completely. Second, it pontificated
> that rhyme was good only for humorous effect; and the one example of
> rhyme it cited was Ogden Nash.

> Be that as it may, I'm glad to have his poetry on the blog. This debut
> is a bit out of the ordinary -- it reads like a love poem he dashed off
> to his wife, whether he did or whether he designed it that way (probably
> the latter, since his wife was born in March).


And the uniqueness of this poem in relation to most others by Nash makes it a particular favorite for me.

Will Dockery wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:

>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

>> This is something I enjoyed reading.

>>>
>>> I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>>
>>> Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.

>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
>> been around since "the beginning"

>>> Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.

>>> But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>>
>>> This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry.  It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>>

>>> Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>>

>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
>> of verse, from PPP:
>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."

>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
>> having been referred to as stanzas."

>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
>> rhymed ones.)

>>> If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>>
>>> Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature  -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays."  However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>>
>>> That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print.  Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>>

>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
>> physical books and magazines.

>>> When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>>
>>> Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>>

>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

> Nailed it, George Dance.

> HTH and HAND.


Quite rightly....

Victor H. wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:

>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

>>> This is something I enjoyed reading.

>>>>
>>>> I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>>>
>>>> Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.

>>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
>>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
>>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
>>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
>>> been around since "the beginning"

>>>> Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.

>>>> But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>>>
>>>> This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry.  It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>>>

>>>> Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>>>

>>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
>>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
>>> of verse, from PPP:
>>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
>>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
>>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."

>>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
>>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
>>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
>>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
>>> having been referred to as stanzas."

>>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
>>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
>>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
>>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
>>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
>>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
>>> rhymed ones.)

>>>> If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>>>
>>>> Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature  -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays."  However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>>>
>>>> That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print.  Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>>>

>>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
>>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
>>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
>>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
>>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
>>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
>>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
>>> physical books and magazines.

>>>> When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>>>

>
>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
>
>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
>
>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
>
>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
>
>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
>
>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

>

> Quite rightly....

Exactly.

George J. Dance wrote:

>>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

>>>> This is something I enjoyed reading.

>>>>>
>>>>> I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>>>>
>>>>> Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.

>>>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
>>>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
>>>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
>>>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
>>>> been around since "the beginning"

>>>>> Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.

>>>>> But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>>>>
>>>>> This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry.  It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>>>>

>>>>> Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>>>>

>>>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
>>>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
>>>> of verse, from PPP:
>>>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
>>>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
>>>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."

>>>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
>>>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
>>>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
>>>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
>>>> having been referred to as stanzas."

>>>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
>>>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
>>>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
>>>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
>>>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
>>>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
>>>> rhymed ones.)

>>>>> If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature  -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays."  However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print.  Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>>>>

>>>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
>>>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
>>>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
>>>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
>>>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
>>>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
>>>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
>>>> physical books and magazines.

>>>>> When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>>>>

>>
>>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
>>
>>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
>>
>>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
>>
>>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
>>
>>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
>>
>>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

Cool back story...

Zod wrote:

> George J. Dance wrote:

>>>> On 2022-05-04 11:58 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:

>>>>> This is something I enjoyed reading.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still remember the first time I was confronted with "modern" poetry (long before I ever dreamed of penning any poetry of my own), and my inability to understand how it was supposed to be the same literary form as the poetry I'd known and loved since early childhood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poetry had always been defined as having rhyme and meter.

>>>>> Not "always". Older poetry "Greek" to "Anglo-Saxon" had meter (in its
>>>>> own fashion) but not rhyme. Rhyme (and our concept of meter) began in
>>>>> Italy, and while English poets had been using it since Chaucer, it was
>>>>> still quite controversial in the early Tudor period. So you can say it's
>>>>> been around since "the beginning"

>>>>>> Blank verse, which kept only meter, was a sub-division of poetry.

>>>>>> But modern verse, which eliminates both the rhyme and the meter no longer has either of the defining characteristics of poetry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This does not in any way imply that modern verse is inferior (or superior) to poetry.  It is saying that they are two different literary forms.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Unfortunately, by appropriating the name of "poetry" for itself, modern verse rendered traditional poetry obsolete.
>>>>>>

>>>>> The concept that's been lost isn't that of "poetry", but of "verse" --
>>>>> literature written in meter. As evidence, here's the traditional concept
>>>>> of verse, from PPP:
>>>>> "A verse is formally a line of poetry written in meter. However, the
>>>>> word has come to mean poetry in general (or sometimes even non-poetry)
>>>>> written in lines of a regular metrical pattern."

>>>>> And here's the public understanding of "verse", from Wikipedia:
>>>>> "In the countable sense, a verse is formally a single metrical line in a
>>>>> poetic composition. However, verse has come to represent any division or
>>>>> grouping of words in a poetic composition, with groupings traditionally
>>>>> having been referred to as stanzas."

>>>>> The two different literary forms are poetry in verse (or "verse") and
>>>>> poetry without verse ("open form"). But there's no line between them,
>>>>> no; a poet can use both, even in the same poem. So there's a lot of
>>>>> hybrid poetry as well. (The paradigm example is Eliot, who used rhyme
>>>>> and meter, but not use in the normal way, mixing up his meters
>>>>> willy-nilly and throwing in a lot of unrhymed lines in amongst the
>>>>> rhymed ones.)

>>>>>> If you look at any of the poetry journals at your library, you'll find that traditional (rhymed-metered) verse is nowhere to be found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern and traditional verse should have existed side-by-side, as related forms of literature  -- as they do in "A Year of Sundays."  However, in the academic and literary world, the former has entirely supplanted the latter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That readers still appreciate traditional can be determined by the fact that traditional poetry collections by Donne, Shakespeare, Keats, Poe, et al., are continuously in print.  Yet the academic prejudice for modern verse has blocked any new traditional poetry from being published -- effectively killing it as a literary form.
>>>>>>

>>>>> I think that has definitely changed, and again that's the internet. For
>>>>> a while after WWII academics did successfully serve as gatekeepers: late
>>>>> modernist poetry was nothing but 100 or so small journals, put out and
>>>>> read by perhaps 10,000 people. But again, as I'd say, the internet
>>>>> changed everything. Not only do today's poets have access to a vast
>>>>> audience online; they even have self-publication, with the result that
>>>>> the academics don't even have a monopoly in their totemic symbols, the
>>>>> physical books and magazines.

>>>>>> When I talk of metaphorically burning books (and/or poets) I am not speaking out of jealousy, but out of a desire to bring about a literary form of enantiodromia wherein traditional verse is re-established as poetry and modern verse is removed to its proper categorization of "poetic prose."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ideally, I would like both forms to co-exist -- but until such a time comes about, I shall continue to advocate the "burning" of texts, journals, and poetic forms that prevent traditional verse from flourishing.
>>>>>>

>>>
>>>> No form of literature prevents another from flourishing. Elites (or
>>>
>>>> snobs) in one form may actively try to do so (and I think that little
>>>
>>>> poetics text I started this off with is a good example of that snobbery
>>>
>>>> and nothing but), but all that's needed is for the world to stop paying
>>>
>>>> attention to that. And that's what's happened to the erstwhile academic
>>>
>>>> gatekeepers over the last quarter-century.

> Cool back story...

Agreed.

Will Dockery wrote:

> Victor H. wrote:

>>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Response from George Dance attempting to clear up Pendragon's confusion:

>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/ArTmAUO-RQw/m/PFMio5mICQAJ

>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-05 11:03 a.m., Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>>> Were you asleep in the 1990s-2000s, Pendragon?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Love it or hate it, the hip-hop and rap influence on the current poetry scene is real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> We were discussing the change from traditional to modern poetry, Donkey, and the subsequent redefinition of poetry (abandonment of rhymed-metered verse).

>>>> No, we'd moved on from that and were talking about the rediscovery of
>>>> rhyme (beginning in the 1980s).

>>>> <q>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I learned to begin to embrace rhyme, meter and form, et cetera, in these
>>>>>> later years.

>>>>> I won't claim any credit, since you were using rhymes before I got on
>>>>> the group. But I do think that being on aapc was probably a big
>>>>> influence on your doing that.

>>>> I think perhaps the [advent] of HIP HOP spoken word poetry helped bring
>>>> on the changes as well.....
>>>> </q>

>>>> Will, of course, was talking about himself and his own discovery of
>>>> rhyme. Zod was pointing out that the former didn't happen in a vacuum;
>>>> Will's pesonal evolution was happening in, and reflective of, a general
>>>> popular trend in poetry post-1980.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Hip-hop and rap did not appear until long after the change had taken place.
>>>>> 2) Hip-hop and rap rely heavily on rhyme and meter, and would represent a popular movement to restore traditional poetry.

>>>> Exactly what Zod was saying. The hip-hop movement didn't occur in a
>>>> vacuum, though; there were other factors behind the rediscovery of
>>>> rhyme. The most important, academically, was the rise of New Formalism,
>>>> which was a movement of poetics as much as poetry.

>>>> But the biggest influence, I'd say, was as always the internet. Suddenly
>>>> (over 25 or so years, or just the blink of an eye in terms of the
>>>> tradition), public domain poetry went from a few dusty books in
>>>> second-hand shelves, that hardly anyone even noticed much less bought,
>>>> to being seen and read by millions.

>>>>> You and your Stink are obviously unaware of both the history of modern poetry and of the history of poetry in general.
>>>>>

>>>> No, that looks like a case of misunderstanding.

>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------

>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/ArTmAUO-RQw/m/PFMio5mICQAJ


>>> Again, I thank you for setting the record straight on this here matter.....

> Good evening my friend, tell Mike I said hello.

> 🙂


I surely will....