response 2 of 16:

Feb 7 18:38 UTC 2001

(seriously, though).  This _is_ an effective poem, as evidenced by the
fact that it made at least one of its targets twitch a little.  I'm
guessing a critique would be sort of in bad taste, though.  But, it is
nice to have your voice in the conversation here (during the little
bubbles of conversation we have these days, anyway). 

response 4 of 16:

Feb 8 04:32 UTC 2001

resp:1  This was borne out of intimidation, as well.. it seemed like 
some were emphasizing wordsmithing so much that I just felt I couldn't 
compete.

brighn drives a lot of that, hard, and I'm being brutually honest 
here.  No offense to anyone personally, but I felt crushed under the 
expectation that I was having to perform to elitist tastes, and so I 
failed to be more prolific lest I risk churning out some fluffy drovel 
that no one cared for.

Ironically, "cotton candy" poetry is what I *do* favor, and so I was 
being rather oxymoronic for a bitter satirical twist.  I have disagreed 
with a number of bbs'ers here (not just in the poetry cf) in that 
fluff, candy, and bubblegum is necessarily a bad thing.

You can see I'm terribly cathartic; release of emotion always seems to 
drive my poems.  I usually cannot write poetry of high wit, 
objectivism, or clever construction.  Dan will recall my imagery of 
burnout and menustration in another poem.  Very disgusting, but it 
worked.

response 6 of 16:

Feb 8 06:13 UTC 2001

You'll never compete with remmers for pure fluff, and (despite appearances)
I have nothing but respect for him.

I also know where you're coming from, though. I've been fighting writer's
block where my pen will not move lest it produce every word a shining specimen
of what all know to be my literary genius. If you think it's hard to live up
to my standards, imagine being me and having to live up to my standards.

As for catharsis, see my new entry. Hopefully, I'm back too.

And I still want someone to write a poem with "eccliastic Jeffersonian" in
it, dammit!

response 8 of 16:

Feb 8 13:49 UTC 2001

Yeah, "ecclesiastic Jeffersonian" has been bugging me for a
day now.  I tried to tackle it, but nothing came of it.  Poet's
block, I guess.

response 10 of 16:

Feb 9 18:45 UTC 2001

Hm.

I guess I make a lot of responses about wordsmithing because it's the only
sort of response I feel like I can _make_ in this conference -- a lot of the
poems we get are on personal enough subject matter that critiquing the
subjects of poems would make me cringe.  And I got tired of posting "mm.
nice." in every item, so I try to find _something_ to say if I'm gonna
respond.

One thing cloud used to do, when he showed up in this conference from time
to time, was say "okay, here's what I think this means -- is that what you
think it means?"  That was sort of nice, and now that I think of it, it's the
sort of criticism that I'd find very useful, 'cause I often find myself
meaning something I didn't intend to.

I dunno.  What sort of criticism would you like to see?

response 12 of 16:

Feb 14 02:39 UTC 2001

resp:6 Remmers also writes in a lot of rhyme and meter, which I have 
come to disdain somewhat because of a lot of bad poets who think poetry 
must rhyme, and have a strict meter.  He somehow pulls it off, however, 
and so I am pleasantly surprised instead at what *can* be accomplished 
with those tools.

response 14 of 16:

Feb 19 20:53 UTC 2001

But there are fewer good living poets who use the old forms.  (Not surprising
-- there are also fewer good living musicians who could write a fugue to save
their life, and there are plenty of _fantastic_ musicians these days.)

response 16 of 16:

Feb 20 00:34 UTC 2001

<throws rotten fruit while applauding wildly>

("yeah, it got sort of a mixed reception...")