Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 7:36:42 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:58:18 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 2:20:10 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:29:37 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:07:47 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:06 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

>

Allow me to rephrase that to your satisfaction: Over the course of the
7+ years you've been fighting with Jim, you launched numerous attacks on
him.  One example, was when you called him illiterate.

>
Look, I'm sorry that the snowflake is offended, but it's simple fact
that Jim cannot write poetry, of any kind; and, as this thread also
demonstrates, he can't even punctuate properly.

>
The simple fact is that *I* consider free verse to be a misnamed form of
prose.  Virtually everyone else on the planet considers it to be a valid
poetic form.
>
Jim writes free verse extremely well.  He is one of the best free verse
poets I have ever read.

>
Jim's stuff is not just devoid of rhyme and meter, but of imagery and
sonics as well. He writes what I call "diary poetry" - simple accounts
of
what he did that day, chopped into lines to make it look "poetic."
He reminds me of Rod McKuen, except that McKuen's poetry does not
contain
spelling and grammar errors, while Jim's does even after they're pointed
out to him, as he never revises. But you go right on slurping him.

Jim has written rhymed-metered poetry. His attempts aren't bad, but
they're, rather like yours... meh.  Jim's power lies in the *realism* of
his "diary poetry."  Many of them also contain a great deal of imagery,
which he does exceedingly well. His NY-based poems, often focusing on
the past, really hit home with me (as I've lived and/or worked in NYC
for the past 35 years or so, and as I strongly identify with the era he
often describes).
I see Jim's poetry as a form of literary anecdote, wherein he recreates
a tiny slice of life in vivid and realistic colors.
I have also expressed, many times, that Jim has a habit of tacking on
unnecessary morals to his poetry, and driving them home with a
sledgehammer.  I'm glad to say that he his improved immeasurably in this
area.
That is not a "slurp," but a true explanation of what I like about Jim's
poetry.  A "slurp" is a false, flattering statement made by a sycophant.
 General Zod slurps the Donkey's poetry incessantly.  One can readily
identify it as a "slurp," because he reuses the same generic words and
phrases over and over again for various poems: "interesting," "one of
your best," "good old school poem," etc.
Jim does revise his poetry.  In fact, he has multiple revisions of many
of his poems -- often with different titles.  You may think he fails to
revise them when he reposts one that someone had pointed out an error
in, but that is not the case.  My impression is that Jim doesn't
organize his files very well (if, indeed, at all).  He copy-pastes the
corrected version into a Word file (apparently one of many Word files),
and has no idea as to what the latest version is.
In Jim's defense, by his most recent estimation, he has written over
10,000 poems, which would make organization difficult for most of us.

His poetry was extremely popular here, and
remains so in The Official AAPC FB group.

>
Jim was popular here, irrespective of his poetic talent. Until you took
him under your wing, he was a friendly person who got along with
everyone,
and offered only constructive praise and encouragement. He was nice to
people, so people were nice to him. I'm sure that's still the case
in your Facebook group.

Jim has always been Jim.
Jim only went on the attack after Will conned him out of $50.00.
[No need to rehash that here, we all know the details.]

I also feel that Jim is a much better writer than you.

>

You've made quite a few typos in this thread, George.  I have merely
chosen not to point them out.  And I'm sure that I've made my share of
errors as well.

>
I'm back to typing on Notepad, which means I don't have "wavy read
lines"
to find typos. If it prevents you from understanding what I'm writing,
I could look for another WP to use. Otherwise, there's no reason to
mention it.

Whatever your excuse, you make typos.  I make them as well.  So does
Jim.  So does your Donkey (although he makes more than all the rest of
us combined).  Even NancyGene makes them on rare occasions.  Since
Usenet comprises a series of informal discussions, there is no call for
members to dot every proverbial "i" and cross every proverbial "t."
The difference is that I have been ignoring yours in these discussions,
whereas you have been needlessly pointing out mine.

It's Usenet -- typos come with the territory.

>
That's what I told you when you began typo-laming here in assorted flame
wars.
But there's a difference between making typos on Usenet, and making
spelling or
grammar mistakes in poems.

There most certainly is.
If I make a typo in one of my poems (and I almost invariably do), I not
only appreciate, but encourage, others to bring that typo to my
attention.

There's an even bigger difference between
making
typos on Usenet, and reposting a poem with mistakes that were previously
pointed out.

See above.

Another example
was when you challenged him to write a triolet and to pit it against one
of yours.

>
I've challenged him to write many forms - triolets, centos, ballad
meter,
even haiku - but he hasn't been willing to make an effort. He's just too
stupid (too wilfully ignorant) to learn. Once again, that's just a fact.

>
That's funny.  He's posted several Haikus to The Official AAPC page.

>
You mean on your facebook page? I'll believe that when I see them -
which
of course I won't be able to do.

IIRC there's one slated to appear in our forthcoming year end issue.

But do you seriously believe that everyone should be willing to make an
effort to write poetry in an established form simply because you've
challenged them to?

>
I do seriously believe that everyone who calls himself a poet
should be willing to make an effort to write poetry. Which does not
mean poetry by your purported definition, of course.

That isn't what I asked you.  I'm asking if you seriously believe that
every poet should be expected to compose a "challenge" poem in a
specific form of your choosing?
You were demanding that a free verse, "diary entry" poet should pit his
poetic skills against yours by composing a triolet.
I hope this "challenge" now seems as ridiculous to you as it does to me.

A poet does not have to write in rhyme or meter, or use imagery or
sonics,
but IMO he should at least know how. And every poet, regardless of how
they
write, should be able to impartially judge their own work, and revise as
necessary, fixing the bad lines and inappropriate words that
inevitably mar a first draft. Jim doesn't do any of that - not because
he can't, but because he thinks all his work is just perfect when he
spews
it out. Which is why I would say he doesn't write poems; he write first
drafts
and stops there.

Again, see above.
I should also note that when sorting through the submissions to this
year's AYoS print volume, I found that Jim had reposted several of his
poems in slightly different versions (some with different titles).
I don't think it's a matter of not revising his poetry -- he obviously
does.  It's a matter of keeping his poetry in an organized system of
files.

Jim excels at free verse.  In fact, the more prosaic Jim's poems are,
the better they actually read.  Jim's power as a writer is in his
ability to capture a sense of reality in his words.

>

Why should he be
expected to change his form and or style to suit your whim?

>
Why indeed should he learn to write poetry, when you slurp him like
this no matter what he writes? Why should he try to improve, when
you tell him his work is perfect already?
>
I used to challenge him to do better, as you know, but why
should he listen to criticism when you've convinced him that
anyone who offers criticism of his work is attacking or belittling him?

I've never convinced him of anything of the sort.
If you look back through the Sampler records, you'll see that I've
accused him of using "tarzanspeak," "tacking on unnecessary morals,"
using a "sledgehammer" to drive his moral home; corrected numerous
errors regarding consistency, tenses, and of course corrected those
pesky little apostrphes.
You'll also see that Jim has invariably thanked me for my corrections.
If Jim is no longer interested in taking suggestions/corrections from
you, it is only because he sees you as a... um... that is to say, he
sees your corrections as a petty attempt of hostility (for which *you*
are entirely to blame).
--