-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.27 Jan 2004

You're all wrong, and you're all grotesquely ugly freaks. None of my poemes are open to interpretation, or any sort of guff like that; they merely relate factual events and experiences that befell my childhood years. Granted, I do have three poemes on the Worst list, and said poemes have been there for almost two years now, but that doesn't mean my opinions aren't valid! All opinions are valid, even the invalid ones! Sure some poemes are open to interpretation, and they might even be good poemes, but why can't a poeme just be a description of something? What's wrong with communicating something specific in a poetic way? The idea that a poeme is necessarily better because it is open to interpretation is buncombe. People just say that because they listen to art critics and nod knowingly, and then prance around the place saying things like "Huxley's 'nappy' is a bold encapsulation of the cultural effluence stagnating a leaking society". Pish! Fipsy! Buncombe!

Huxley's 'nappy' may well be all those things, and more, but there is one thing Huxley's 'nappy' is not: It is not a proof that vagueness is a necessary characteristic for good art. Husks are.