February

Unnoticed beauty:
ocean waves in winter,
the curve of your cheek.

- George J. Dance, 2023

Commentary for those who need it:

This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.

My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.

That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.

This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> February
>
> Unnoticed beauty:
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.
>
> - George J. Dance, 2023
>
>
> Commentary for those who need it:
>
> This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
>
> My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.
>
> That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
>
> This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).

PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:

> PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.

George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
>
> > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.

Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya..

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
> February
>
> Unnoticed beauty:
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.
>
> - George J. Dance, 2023
>
>
> Commentary for those who need it:
>
> This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
>
> My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.
>
> That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
>
> This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).

Again, good one, and good edit.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> February
>
> Unnoticed beauty:
> ocean waves in winter,
> the curve of your cheek.
>
> - George J. Dance, 2023
>
>
> Commentary for those who need it:
>
> This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
>
> My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express ws not clearly expressed.
>
> That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
>

The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."

Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."

Running away from the truth won't change it, George. Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.

You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP). Dollars to donuts you already have.

> This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
>

The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet. It also supports my similarly often expressed claim that your poetry, though often skillfully written, fails to rise above the level of the mundane.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> >
> > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.
> Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.

You attend poetry readings now?

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > >
> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you..
> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> You attend poetry readings now?

Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.
> > > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > You attend poetry readings now?
> Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!

WAAAAY over his fat drunken head.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
>
> > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.

I was actually talking about my wife, but I have to admit you (and your fellow troll) did help me, by calling the original poem "mindless" (your word) and saying that ""the lines and phrases of your poem have no meaning; whether sequentially, contextually, or as a whole" (his). When a midwit says that something is meaningless, it usually means that they can't see the meaning; just as when a midwit says that something doesn't make sense, it usually means they can't see the sense. Even if the midwit is a troll, it's a good idea to "listen to" their posts, as even a troll can accidentally say something constructive.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > > > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.
> > > > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > > You attend poetry readings now?
> > Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
> WAAAAY over his fat drunken head.

sorry Dance, I was cajoled to read this...
looks pretty and probably went over well with your wife, which is fine, that's why we do this thing called poetry...
but to a third party, like me, it seems incomplete and unfinished and the subject not cohesive.
(this is merely a neutral impression of a reader)

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
>> > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you..
>> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
>> You attend poetry readings now?

> Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!

Why else would George Dance meet with Jim Senetto in New York City to check out a poem?

Right, Senetto is having those violent fantasies again?

🙂

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> >> > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you..
> >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> >> You attend poetry readings now?
>
> > Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
> Why else would George Dance meet with Jim Senetto in New York City to check out a poem?
>
> Right, Senetto is having those violent fantasies again?

Your statement is another of your bumbled classics. But then who needs proper writing to troll.
And it is right to say, sWilly is obsessive in his ego's need to cover up and deflect commentary that doesn't stroke his and his gang's egos...

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> >> > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you..
> >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> >> You attend poetry readings now?
>
> > Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
> Why else would George Dance meet with Jim Senetto in New York City to check out a poem?
>
> Right, Senetto is having those violent fantasies again?
>
> 🙂

You're a drunk, live with it.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
> > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
>..
> > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > >> You attend poetry readings now?

> You're a drunk, live with it.

You're an obsessive lying old fart, live with that, Senetto.

:)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > >> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> >..
> > > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > > >> You attend poetry readings now?
> > You're a drunk, live with it.
> You're an obsessive lying old fart, live with that, Senetto.
>
> :)

Poor drunk....see you at graveside

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > >..
> > > > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > > > >> You attend poetry readings now?
> > > You're a drunk, live with it.
> > You're an obsessive lying old fart, live with that, Senetto.
> >
>
> Poor drunk....see you at graveside

Your death fantasy is noted, Senetto.

;)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > February
> >
> > Unnoticed beauty:
> > ocean waves in winter,
> > the curve of your cheek.
> >
> > - George J. Dance, 2023
> >
> >
> > Commentary for those who need it:
> >
> > This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
> >
> > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.
> >
> > That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> >
> The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."

No, Michael, that's two lies. First, I did not move anything from that other thread. I posted a revision of my poem in a new thread, and added the "commentary" you're always begging for as well. You're the one trying to start the same fight you were trolling about in that other thread.

Second, the definition we agreed on in that thread was (in your words):
<quote>
">> > > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
</q>

You're trying to switch definitions, hoping that your bringing it up in a new thread would keep anyone from noticing. Too bad; it didn't work.
> Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."

But not in any way "intellectually deep" -- so it doesn't satisfy the definition.

> Running away from the truth won't change it, George.

> Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.

That's a third lie, Michael: I just explained that in this very thread:
'Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.'

I'll be happy to go back to that other thread and post it there when I feel like it.
> You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP).

> Dollars to donuts you already have.

> > This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).

> The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet.

As I've always said, I'm a writer, not a poet. My "natural talent" is for non-fiction. Indeed I had to learn to write good poetry

> It also supports my similarly often expressed claim that your poetry, though often skillfully written, fails to rise above the level of the mundane.

<yawn>

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:12:50 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:48:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > > >..
> > > > > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > > > > >> You attend poetry readings now?
> > > > You're a drunk, live with it.
> > > You're an obsessive lying old fart, live with that, Senetto.
> > >
> >
> > Poor drunk....see you at graveside
> Your death fantasy is noted, Senetto.
>
> ;)

That's life, bubba.

Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:12:50 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
>
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
>
>> > > > > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
>> > > >..
>> > > > > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
>> > > > > >> You attend poetry readings now?
>> > > > You're a drunk, live with it.
>> > > You're an obsessive lying old fart, live with that, Senetto.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Poor drunk....see you at graveside
>> Your death fantasy is noted, Senetto.
>>
>> ;)

> That's life, bubba.

True, something we all face eventually.

You being what, 77 years old, you know better than I, probably.

And so it goes.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> >> > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you..
> >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> >> You attend poetry readings now?
>
> > Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
> Why else would George Dance meet with Jim Senetto in New York City to check out a poem?
>

Given that Chimp Obsesso is almost as obsessed with my ass as he is with you, I'm afraid that his "poem" is a childishly gross metaphor.

> Right, Senetto is having those violent fantasies again?

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:23:18 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > >> > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you..
> > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > >> You attend poetry readings now?
> >
> > > Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
> > Why else would George Dance meet with Jim Senetto in New York City to check out a poem?
> >
> Given that Chimp Obsesso is almost as obsessed with my ass as he is with you, I'm afraid that his "poem" is a childishly gross metaphor.
> > Right, Senetto is having those violent fantasies again?

I see what you mean, George.

:)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:53:20 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > > > > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you.
> > > > > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > > > You attend poetry readings now?
> > > Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
> > WAAAAY over his fat drunken head.
> sorry Dance, I was cajoled to read this...
> looks pretty and probably went over well with your wife, which is fine, that's why we do this thing called poetry...
> but to a third party, like me, it seems incomplete and unfinished and the subject not cohesive.
> (this is merely a neutral impression of a reader)

That was a fair crit. It actually reminded me of the negative part of Manwolf's crit of the 2009 version:

"Okay, not bad, but it definitely needs more to make it stand on its own.
It sounds like you are starting to describe certain things you've
taken for granted: someone you love, the beauty in winter, and so on. If
you build on the theme a little more and added some line I think it
could be good."

I never replied to him, partly because I didn't know the best way to put it.. Same this time.

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:27:08 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:23:18 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-4, W.Dockery wrote:
> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:58:53 PM UTC-4, Edward Rochester Esq. wrote:
> > > >> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:43:10 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > PS - I'd like to thank a very special and wonderful woman for their feedback in this regard.
> > > >> > > George Dance, we know that we are special and wonderful, and we appreciate it that you realize that and thank us, but we have no interest in you..
> > > >> > Hi George...who the fuck cares. Come down to New York, I have a poem for ya.
> > > >> You attend poetry readings now?
> > >
> > > > Whooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
> > > Why else would George Dance meet with Jim Senetto in New York City to check out a poem?
> > >
> > Given that Chimp Obsesso is almost as obsessed with my ass as he is with you, I'm afraid that his "poem" is a childishly gross metaphor.
> > > Right, Senetto is having those violent fantasies again?
> I see what you mean, George.
>

Heh! It reminded me of Hammy Hog's notorious phrase about "their pink poetitudes."

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > February
> > >
> > > Unnoticed beauty:
> > > ocean waves in winter,
> > > the curve of your cheek.
> > >
> > > - George J. Dance, 2023
> > >
> > >
> > > Commentary for those who need it:
> > >
> > > This is a revision of an old poem I wrote and posted here in 2009. It's still on the group; I considered deleting it, but decided there's no need as it's obviously an older version. (It was posted before I started using my middle initial.) I also published it in print form in a 2015 book.
> > >
> > > My reason for revising it is that it recently came up that a couple of people didn't understand the poem. IMO, if a reader tells a writer that he can't understand something he's written, a reader should take that in and look for an explanation. Sometimes it's just a stupid reader, but it can also be that the poem is unclear. So I looked at it, and decided that indeed the idea I was trying to express was not clearly expressed.
> > >
> > > That idea, for those who need it spelled out, was a simple thought that came to me one day. Here I was, sitting at my computer day in and day out, and missing out on the wonderful things around me, the natural world and my wife. (The two images of LL2-3 are meant as synecdoches for both.) Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.
> > >
> > The definition of "profound" that we'd agreed on in the thread you moved this from ("Georgie Porgy ran away"... again), was "intellectually deep or insightful."
> No, Michael, that's two lies. First, I did not move anything from that other thread. I posted a revision of my poem in a new thread, and added the "commentary" you're always begging for as well. You're the one trying to start the same fight you were trolling about in that other thread.
>

You did not just post a revision of your poem (not that a revision should have required a separate thread). Your commentary was a list of unsupported accusations taken from the original thread.

Like I said, you're a lying p.o.s.

> Second, the definition we agreed on in that thread was (in your words):
> <quote>
> ">> > > > "Profound" means "having intellectual depth and insight."
> </q>
>
> You're trying to switch definitions, hoping that your bringing it up in a new thread would keep anyone from noticing. Too bad; it didn't work.

This, too, is a lie.

When I first offered that definition, you claimed that I was merely restating one that you'd already posted.

Were you lying then? Are you lying now? Do you ever make a post without lying?

You should have been a politician.

> > Realizing that one is failing to notice the beauty around him would certainly qualify as "insightful."
> But not in any way "intellectually deep" -- so it doesn't satisfy the definition.

It's deep enough. One could even compare it to the Zen practice of living completely in the moment.

> > Running away from the truth won't change it, George.
>
> > Nor have you managed to offer an explanation as to *why* you would have posted a 3-line poem if you hadn't thought it to be in any way profound.
> That's a third lie, Michael: I just explained that in this very thread:
> 'Nothing "profound," or intellectually deep, but it hit me as a revelation or epiphany at the time, so I wanted to see if I could express it in the poem.'

And how is a "revelation" not deep, insightful, or profound? How is an "epiphany" not deep, insightful, or profound?

Both words signify a form of knowledge that is revealed to one. If the knowledge has to be revealed, it is not readily known to others. It is, therefore, profound.

> I'll be happy to go back to that other thread and post it there when I feel like it.

You and your Donkey are the only imbeciles who think that they have to carry out each of their arguments on multiple threads.

> > You can't run away from that question either (unless you cross-post this discussion to a group that no one else involved goes to, like RAP).
>
> > Dollars to donuts you already have.
>
> > > This revision incorporates an abstraction, "beauty", which one is never supposed to do in modern poetry, a rule that can be traced back to Ezra Pound. However, that's a rule I've never subscribed to. In fact, there have been many good poems that depend on abstractions, which is enough to refute Pound's rule. That point was made by Northrop Frye years ago; I don't remember the name of the essay I read it in, but I do remember that Frye's counterexample was Byron's "She walks in beauty" (which, ironically, uses the same abstraction that I've used here).
>
> > The fact that you would feel compelled to write poetry by the rules only further demonstrates my oft-expressed observation that you are a craftsman rather than a naturally talented (inspired) poet.
> As I've always said, I'm a writer, not a poet. My "natural talent" is for non-fiction. Indeed I had to learn to write good poetry

I hate to break it to you, George, but your posts here speak otherwise.

> > It also supports my similarly often expressed claim that your poetry, though often skillfully written, fails to rise above the level of the mundane.
> <yawn>