zodiac
on Every Time by pletcgm
27 Oct 2005, 4:21 AM
I suggest you change the title of this poem to "Chills with Bumps". Otherwise, ace.
Awesome. The best part is you were giggling. I love it.
huh?
Sounds like a Ween song off the 12 Golden Country Greats album....nice
constellation sex..
stalactite or stalagmite, not stalagtite. :-)
Good work!
excellent visuals here.
the sounds in these first 5 stanzas are gorgeous!!
the last two stanzas don't pack the punch the first 5 do.
this is a weak simile:
til all they heard from me was silence
like a silent willow tree.
all in all, you weaken the poem when you resolve it. ood, that.
i like this.
I'm bored too. Let's leave it there.
Of course. And if that doesn't work, there's always this:
"[The] total of Iraqi dead since the American-led invasion is 26,690 to 30,051... A recent analysis [shows] that more than 60 Iraqis were killed daily this year, up from 40 last year."
-today's NY Times
"Usage Note: It is not surprising that blatant and flagrant are often confused, since the words have overlapping meanings. Both attribute conspicuousness and offensiveness to certain acts. Blatant emphasizes the failure to conceal the act. Flagrant, on the other hand, emphasizes the serious wrongdoing inherent in the offense. Certain contexts may admit either word depending on what is meant: a violation of human rights might be either blatant or flagrant. If it was committed with contempt for public scrutiny, it is blatant. If its barbarity was monstrous, it is flagrant.
Blatant is sometimes used to mean simply “obvious,” as in the blatant danger of such an approach, but this use has not been established and is widely considered an error."
Yeah, you're so casual about the matter you can't stop yourself from calling everyone who's bothered mentioning your poem's technical clumsiness a, um, what's your expression? oh, a disagreer.
For example,
WILCO: I think the last half kills it.
DOVINA: You probably like the joking part and object to the belief.
ZODIAC: Change that to something less totally didactic and wood-tongued.
DOVINA: You are simply disagreeing with the Christian position that “To die is gain.”
ALCHEMY: I know you're taking what the doctors are saying out of context but it's a bit confusing.
DOVINA: You say BOO because it seems contradictory. But for a Christian, Blaaaaaaaaaat.
In other words, none of us cares to discuss the doctrinal part. Maybe YOU care to discuss it because it's like the third time you've totally flipped on the matter since coming to poemranker and you're rather proud of yourself (rather than, say, wondering if your such a total sack of contradictions you mightn't just fly apart at any moment.) Personally, we're bored with the matter. You don't believe me. Whatever. It's old news.
What I DO care to discuss is the annihilation of the self into God. If you're not going to discuss that with me, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to go somewhere else. Now I'll start.
ZODIAC: If (as only seems reasonable) the soul is incorporated into God at the instant of death, so that all, say, the imperfect parts of zodiac are burned away and what's left is only perfection and God-love, can I really say zodiac (ie, the part of zodiac that makes him zodiac) "survives death" or experiences heaven in any meaningful way?
If (as only seems reasonable) I become some perfect-and-totally-different eternal zodiac, will I really care?
Okay, seriously, what possible answers to that question did you imagine? Carney? Kennedy? Australian? It's a silly question without even the benefit of SOUNDING deep.
PS-You should consider "Arabic".
Boring. Okay, I'm bored.
God will more likely admit the selfish to heaven, because the selfish has at least secured the well-being of one person during his lifetime - himself - while the selfless has possibly not done so. For all we know, the selfless killed himself building movie theatres on small tropic islands to show Wes Anderson films to their mystified and disappointed inhabitants.
God will most likely FORGIVE the selfless first, though, because the selfless is more likely to be stupid, and stupid people deserve forgiveness. I'm not saying selfless people are stupid, I'm saying if 5% of actually selfless people are stupid, 4% of actually selfish people are. It's all about probabilities.
I predict the totally unproductive direction this conversation takes is going to hinge on whether we define selfishness as (1) working for one's own well-being before others' or (2) doing the drugs and raping everybody and stepping on kittens and never working for anyone's well-being ever - i.e., greediness to the point of self-destruction. I propose accepting definition (1) from the start. Definition (2) is for losers and Bushies and doesn't make any sense.
Also, The Jitterbug.
Hey, there was one great fad a couple of years ago that really rocked. It was called Making Sense Occasionally, you should check it out.
redundancy is too fun, english is one of the few languages that frowns upon it