mmm, there is a lot of subtlety here that i really like.
i dont usually pat people on the back for a great piece, i rarely do. in fact, in retrospect; i dont think i ever have. were i to comment on such pieces that i find to be above the line, i sometimes feel like critiquing cheapens it, and that i take a bit away. anyhow.... opening mouth.. awaiting to receive foot.....
first, its all about the wordplay in the title here for me. wonder how that came to be.
secondly, were one to break this down and give an impression of this piece (a daunting task in its own right), one surely would stumble once or twice. or even appear to look deeper and overestimate its depth, when really it is but a puddle. a most unwise decision on one's part most of the time.
thirdly, the diatribe. there's something about the way these two go on about. the classic me vs me thing. ive read a lot. its tried, its clichéd, its overdone and has the stench of megalomania and ego-tripping. but this, there is almost no apparent ego- this is something that i always try to achieve in my own writing;
the brilliance that can only be found within the reader if he/she digs as deep and in to as many layers as he/she desires. and to the reader's surprise and delight; abundant layers. cavernous depths.
i think ive rambled long enough. anyway, i guess thats why ive favored you more than anyone here, and that i rarely comment on your pieces.
p.s. i dont know if you were being rhetoric about the question you posed in your description or anything, but for me, the answer would have to be literacy. you will command both if you have litaracy. as for the distinction between the two... i dont have an answer.... so what is the difference eh?
Why do you do this to me? Why do you continue to construct these befuddling puzzles as if cyphers were scripture and a shaman's dilemma were a source of hope? To what encrypted logic do you cling?
Oh this sounds like male/female communication gone awry, someone is not getting through, and obviously it's occurring from both ends of the scale. But this tells me it's someone familiar,
Why do you do this to me?
and the rest, well I don't think you and I should ever live together or there might be trouble. hehe!
But to me you've stated the theme so deftly right at the start. And it adheres to your ongoing rant about intelligence. As I mentioned to Vancrown the other day, the people that need to hear what we write won't come within 100 miles of our work. I suggested that he apply a 2x4 to the head to yield the same result. Oh, enough of my histrionics *stands on head with no hands*
I don't think I prefer Agassi as a winner, at least in terms of your piece. The reference dives into the piece out of the blue, and isn't that the theme you're trying to address. (No foreign objects allowed?) You may have very good reasons for doing so but I would choose a horrific loser to fill that space.
I write with the patience of God on hiatus. By the way, I can't recall arguing with a mirror before.
I love this and what it says is why poets are in training to be para-educators.
but this I saw over the weekend from James Tate and I loved it and had to send it...
Teaching The Ape To Write
They didn't have much trouble teaching the ape to write poems first they strapped him into the chair then tied his pencil around his hand (the paper had already been nailed down). Then Dr. Bluespire leaned over his shoulder and whispered into his ear: "You look like a god sitting there. Why don't you try writing something?"
As usual, your use of language is Agassi-like, though I’m not sure if its before or after the win mattered. In any case, I do dislike “befuddling puzzles” and cryptic references that require work on the order of an archeological dig. Even Marianne Moore’s work, which I admire, often lapses into local references that even poetry experts can’t decipher. More than all else, poetry is a form of com-mun-i-ca-tion. A good poem requires a bit of reaching. My early poems lacked this, but I definitely want to avoid turning them into befuddling puzzles, or impenetrable forests of adjectives and rare words. They were over-sylized, another danger. Perhaps there is a Buddhist middle way to poetry. If so, I think you found it; if not, I still liked it. God’s speed (and patience). fred