Goad23 Jan 2005

Let's try putting it a different way:

When you "leave things to interpretation" by having a complete thought (or image), from which you excise details to pare the thought (or image) down to the size and shape of a few stanzas, while leaving signposts for the astute reader to reconstruct a complete thought or image for themselves: that is a valid exercise. We all agree to call that poetry.

When you have an INcomplete thought, from which you jot down a few random phrases/images, from which you then demand that the reader construct their own complete thought, that is not a valid exercise. Assume a reader does construct a complete meaningful thought for themselves, engendered by your dribbled phrases -- should they ascribe to you any credit? for what? a cowpatty lying in a pasture, whose folds and texture happen to resemble the shape of a lovely young girl's buttocks might also engender a sudden vivid intense rush of imagery in the mind of a passerby. Ought they then to deem the cowpatty a genius? We agree to call such writing "mental diarhea" or "meaningless dribble" to distinguish it from the more difficult to write and more meaningful to read "poetry"

HTH, Goad Esq.Po.Et.Ry