| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed (Sestina) by zodiac Do you hold words so dear that
you hold words â so? Dear, that do.
Hold words so dear that you do
words that do hold you so, dear â
so dear. That you hold â Do words,
dear, that do you. Hold words so
that. Do you? (hold words?) So, dear.
Up the ladder:
The Ebony Orchid of Theta
Down the ladder:
broken bottles
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.105263
Posted: April 14, 2004 6:18 PM PDT; Last modified: April 14, 2004 9:33 PM PDTWeighted score: 7.0054193 Overall Rank: 79 Comments:
[10]
edpeterson @ 68.79.14.47
|
14-Apr-04/6:51 PM
|
Reply
Fucking hilarious that you chose sestina for the category. AHHAAHHAHHA.
[n/a]
zodiac @ 67.240.155.18
> edpeterson
|
14-Apr-04/8:26 PM
|
Reply
If each word were its own line and each line a stanza... it still wouldn't really be a sestina.
LoL. Brilliant.
Leets see, you don't have a nine yet...
Ah Foucalt...lovely...I do believe Dear I hold your words dear- Dear
The answer is yes, er maybe, er . . ., ah forget it, have an 8.
I would just like to say that it hadn't occured to me until this moment that a sestina has only 6 lines per stanza, not 7, and so the whole idea is shot. But then, for me, the question "What were you on when you wrote this?" wouldn't be strictly rhetorical.
you could glosa this and end up with a sestina - you might change the last or fourth lines so you don't have "dear" twice though.
I have no idea what you mean.
Anyway, I'd have to re-do it with a six-word line, which would be ridiculous. Solution: It's a SEPTINA.
you heard it here first, folks.
btw, there's no words per line limitation in a sestina - maybe in a septina there is....
take each line and make it the starting line of new stanza.
Its a lot of frickin work and you'll have to fudge the end a bit; prolly not worth it, and besides with all the repetition in this as it is (works fine here) would look like ass after the sestina gets done with it.
That's exactly what I was trying to skip by writing a - um - septina where EVERY WORD IS A LINE.
A Skilfully Skilless skillet. 10!
Did you know that Foucault's first book was the "History of Sexuality?" Leave it to a French philosopher.
Yes, I did. In that book, he argues that homosexuality really didn't exist until the Victorian Age defined it. Before then, it was just some dudes fucking around. The theory is, as you might imagine, supremely wrong.
He also says somewhere else that people didn't exist until the concept was invented after the end of serfdom. He seems unable to perceive the difference between the concept of people existing, and people (the things we currently denote with the term "people") existing. He is a prime bollock.
There are a number of philosophers who have never made any decent arguments and are famous only because their theories were so ridiculous and obviously wrong that everyone after them had a jolly good time explaining why. Here are the top three:
1. John R. Searle 2. Michel Foucault 3. Bishop Berkeley
The abovementioned are also the gayest of the philosophers, who, as a class, are exceedingly gay. Except Wittgenstein, as I believe I've mentioned elsewhere.
4. Thomas Hobbes - he was a sloppy cunt, State of Nature, State of my arse more like. 5. Jean Jacque Rosseau - credible right up to the part when he started fucking anything that moved including himself. 6. Locke - Would have had slightly more gravitas had his father not locked him up in a cupboard for the first 16 years of his life. 7. Darwin - rubbished in fine style by David Koresh. 8. Ron Atkinson - was for a time revered, however, recent actions have led to a revisionist backlash against what was formerly regarded as gospel.
First, Hume would win Wittgenstein any day of the week. Second, for you to go around trumping out miniature gushing guffs of adulation for Wittgenstein is as bulgingly ignorant as it is appallingly pretentious. Wittgenstein was a crazed loner whose only achievement, which was realising that nearly all questions in philosophy are steaming cornucopiae of bow'ls, was continually nullified by his inexplicable continuing engagement in philosophy.
Furthermore, to think about Wittgenstein's work is to expend hideous amounts of mental effort on a completely useless task. Anyone who is somehow proud of having tried to understand Wittgenstein is either being paid for it, or is so acutely aware of the total waste of time their life has been that they have to tell themselves it was incredibly fulfilling. Studying him as a requirement for a class is no excuse whatsoever.
Think of how often, in the middle of doing something pointless and pleasurable, you suddenly think, hey, I wish there was some way I could be paid to do this for the rest of my life. Sure, you'd probably better spend your time developing an AIDS cure or portable non-polluting jetpack that runs on urine, but at least you're not developing super-cholera am I right? And you can (make a living doing something pointless, I mean,) provided no-one realizes how pointless it is - else they'd stop buying your books or taking your classes.
Philosophers are the best at this, followed by writers. Any decent philosopher has to have noticed that no new idea has been formulated in the field of philosophy since 1) all questions in philosophy are steaming cornucopiae of bow'ls, and 2) this is probably because there's no way to really know anything with any degree of certainty. And maybe 3) there is no God worth thinking much about in this lifetime. As far as I know, all of these were said pretty well in the 19th century, if not before. Naturally, philosophers can't come out and say that or they'd lose tenure, so they've spun it out endlessly in gobbledygook code and hundreds if not thousands of people have lived long comfortable lives doing philosophy instead of having to work in coal mines or something. That said, certain philosophers probably do think they're saying something new and important. These are the gay ones. The half-decent ones know it's just a game and treat it as such, i.e., Wittgenstein. That's fine. Incidentally, if you think you're life is something more than a game, then it's most likely just a more deadly game, i.e., designing super-cholera or participating in Middle Eastern politics. I haven't read Wittgenstein since I was required to do so years ago, and I don't think I ever will again. It's sufficient for me to condense his entire body of work into a one-line summary which I use to whiffle-bat anyone who thinks anything means anything.
"Life is just a game" is the world's stupidest platitude. Life is not a game. Life is a thing in which games take place. It's not even an understandable confusion; the features of 'games' are almost entirely distinct from the features of 'life'.
Also, what is this speech about wouldn't it be ace to be a philosopher? I never said there was anything wrong with professional philosophers. Indeede, I implied that it was OK to feel proud about studing Wittgenstein if you were being paid for it. Nice one!!
Drat.
Interesting phrase "take place"
"life is a thing in which games take place" "take place" as "occur", "manifest", "become; become apparent" - it all feels redundant. Games as a thing defined, as having a label and used by language - already exist. "life is a thing in which games occur(...)" could be: "life is a thing with games" Yet, life as a thing has lots of things, in fact, it could be argued that it contains all things (including nothing) - not just games. So really, it is meaningless to claim it has games. Life has belly-button lint too, but do we really need to state it? "Life is a thing" But really, we know life to encompass more than just things, it also contains the set of no-things. "Life is" Yet, sometimes it isn't - is that true also? Seriously - if life can contain the thing "no-thing" can it also contain the thing "non life"? And by doing so, does it negate its own existance? Or rather, does it make it's definition meaningless - or at best - fruitless? I offer the previous ruminations as proof that defining life is fruitless. As fruitless, at least, as wondering if Foucault would have had nearly the fame he enjoys if he wore a toupee and contacts.
No.
Obviously, as I said.
Don't defend me. I misspoke and needed punishing.
GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS
"life is a game" = about 25,000 "life's a game" = about 8,430 TOTAL: 33,430 "life is not a game" = about 5,720 "life isn't a game" = about 588 TOTAL: 6,308 "life is a thing in which games take place" = nil TOTAL: nil Having applied a suitably democratic method of inquiring into the merits of your propositions, I find myself in the regrettable position of having to make the following announcement: you fail.
The truth of a proposition is inversely proportional to the number of idiots who believe it.
GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS
"The truth of a proposition is inversely proportional to the number of idiots who believe it" = nil TOTAL: nil Once again you fail.
:-(
what the hell is this????????
ABCDEFG /
BCDEFGA / CDEFGBA / DGACBEF / EFGBCAD / FGABCDE / GABCDEF.
this person goes to your school too?
No.
great, another trouble maker.
Earlier today you wrote a less than eloquent poeme about what a set of wasters poemranker residents were. You have spent since then voting low scores on everybody.
What the hell is that [all about].
you are correct. Not ALL the residents here, just a little clique of mean spirited dolts, who think they are soooo talented. They get off on reviewing others work by putting them down. I had quit coming on this childish site exactly for that reason, and somehow got an email, came back on, and rememered why I quit it. You guys would NEVER cut it on Zoetrope, it is to sophisticated for some of you. People are real, mature,talented and classy. PS Did you know that Agents freqent workshop sites to find some new talent and they would never sign or be interested in people who are so mean and tacky, and not all that talented.
1) Zoetrope is not a poetry publication.
2) Agents do not frequent anything, least of all online workshops. 3) Many of us are already published; you are not. 4) as an adverb, it's "too"; as a preposition, "to". We don't have to be sophisticated to know that. 5) This is a recent comment from the "mature,talented and classy" online poetry workshop, allpoetry.com: "This poem is a great start. I love the last two lines especially [All the time I spend thinking, Is the biggest waste of all.] I certainly know how that feels, spending so much time worrying and thinking it takes a while to realize NOT worrying and thinking so much would have been a lot less stressful and a lot more productive... I share your pain! Anyways the only criticism I have for this piece is: Maybe you could try experimenting with NOT ending almost all the lines in prepositions. Prepositions make things choppier and almost sound like you ended in the middle of an idea without ever getting to the punchline. Anyways, keep writing! I'll be back!" 6) Such comments are crap to the nth degree. 7) You are a nincompoop. Did you see my response to your comment on this page? Do you understand it?
you can quit again.
either that, or spend the time brushing up on spelling and grammar. <meow>
not a sestina
Good call. Neither is yours.
487 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
