Replying to a comment on:

Dictionary Lesson (Free verse) by Dovina

When I said, “I love you,” and soon realized its reciprocal, “You love me,” and its result, “We are in love,” and much later, with its contrary, “I don’t love you,” and finally its opposite, “I hate you,” and when, after a long hiatus, its many reverses blured into, “I have no feeling for you,” I realized my dictionary is a history, written ahead of fact, a compendium of devolution.

zodiac 24-Nov-04/12:12 AM
Jesus. I just found this message and evacuated into my pants. For one thing, no one on this site credits you with too much reason. We credit the human race in general with a capacity for reason - most of which, we're well aware, is regularly and somewhat disgustingly pissed upon by aspiring poetes such as yourself.

For another thing, "find fascination" is not a real English construction; rather, it's what I've come to identify as "typically Dovina" - an ignominious category chockfull of such gems as "realized its reciprocal" and "discover all that I've made quite pleasing".

For yet another thing, your bumming on about "strictly philosophical" anything, including that bum bum-filled bum of a "strangled verse" above is totally nuts. You'd have done much better to answer -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment something like: "Almost any poem I, Dovina, can think of (except my own) is philosophically sound, meaning roughly that it can be regarded using the tools or language of philosophers without being found totally bum," instead of just proving his point. Frost's "The Road not Taken," for example, is more-than-adequately philosophical, proposing as it does that the profit from blindly picking only one of two more-or-less equivalent options (and without later knowing the result of picking the other option) is pretty much unknowable and only in the mind of the chooser, who thinks, man I'm sure lucky I picked this option, I'm a great chooser. And I bet you thought the road less travelled by really does make all the difference.

And for another thing, there is no anything without words, so saying there's no philosophy without them is crap and a cheap dis.

And for another thing, "the only things we can talk about logically are words and numbers" is simply wrongheaded. We can only talk about anything with words and numbers, so obviously thinking logically about them is pretty important.

And for another thing, saying "if so, there is no fun, and without fun, what good is logic." is bum twice-over and mispunctuated. This is essentially equivalent to saying both, "without harnesses and polo horses, there is no fun" AND "without fun, what good is sewage-treatment?" Bum and bum.




Track and Plan your submissions ; Read some Comics ; Get Paid for your Poetry
PoemRanker Copyright © 2001 - 2024 - kaolin fire - All Rights Reserved
All poems Copyright © their respective authors
An internet tradition since June 9, 2001