zodiac26 Dec 2004

If you can cram into your head the idea that "magical" only roughly means "not abiding by logic or satisfactorily explainable by logical analysis", you'll be fine. But you can't and won't.

Your bigger problem is that you apparently think (and have indeed railed on about many a time) that we only examine, criticise or otherwise deal with poemranker poems according to their logical merits. Don't say, I haven't said this! No, of course you haven't said exactly that. You said it much more bumblingly and malapropismed. The ideas that usually make it into poems ARE hard to critique, especially since they're usually some variation on "God is Love", "Love is both pleasurable and painful", or, and rarely, "Negroes are people too, though obviously a lesser sort." Since it's pretty obvious that a poem is crap without some kind of logic, it IS easy to critique the logic of a poem you don't like and safely conclude that it's crap. And most poems I don't like ARE illogical.

Your other problem is thinking "logical" means something like 'involving numbers or the word Boolean' (cf. Shuushin's respectably logical poem, posted here.) Bow'ls. And another shameful stain on your much-besmirched record.