Re: The Return of Michael Monkey

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 7:38:10 +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:

As to your claim that I wouldn't call Jim's writing "poetry," you are
intentionally falsifying my meaning by referring to my words out of
context (unfortunately this is another of your standard practices).

>
It's the definition of "poetry" you proposed and we both agreed to,
earlier on this thread. I understand that you realize you fucked up
and want to switch definitions, but - nope.

>
Seriously?
>
My definition of "poetry" is my own.  If you choose to agree to it, that
makes two of us.  Most readers, publishers, scholars, professors, etc.,
would vehemently disagree.

>
I didn't say I agreed with it, Lying Michael; I said I'd accept it as
the
definition for this thread (though, since you now want to dispense with
it,
let's do so).

I never said that you agreed with it duplicitous Mr. Dance.  I made the
hypothetical observation that *if* you should agree with it, that would
make two of us who define as such.

I'm quite happy to accept free verse as poetry (and have even written a
few
poems in free verse). I do think, though, that a would-be
poet should know how poetry is written. Even someone who uses free verse
should have some understanding of rhyme, meter, imagery, and sonics.

I am not familiar with the *complete* works of Charles Bukowski, but I
feel safe in my guess that he had no understanding of any of the above.
And, I disagree with your above-stated belief.
Since the various forms of Modern poetry reject rhyme and meter, a
working knowledge of these would be useless to (and possibly to the
detriment of) the modern day poet.
What every poet *should* have is a basic understanding sentence
structure, large vocabulary (and the common sense to check he definition
of every word he is even vaguely unsure of), and the ability to express
him/herself in a clear and intelligible manner.

Jim,
as I mentioned, has none; and he's too stupid (too wilfully ignorant)
to learn any. And every poet should be willing and able to critically
reread and revise his work; which he cannot do either. So, as far as

As noted in the previous post, Jim often revises his work.  He certainly
revises his work much more than I revise mine.  He apparently has
numerous revisions of over 10,000 poems randomly saved to various discs
or drives, and has no means of determining which version of a poem is
his latest -- or even how many versions of a given poem exist.
You can accuse him of keeping disorganized records of his work, but he
is continually posting revisions of his work to the FB AAPC group, and
has done so at Usenet AAPC as well.

But be that as it may.  My definition of what constitutes "poetry"
should have no bearing on Jim's talent as a writer.
>
Regardless of whether you call it "poetry" or "prose," Jim remains an
extremely talented author.

>
I won't debate "talent" with you, because that's completely
subjective - you call him talented because you like his writing.

Again, I need to stress the fact that I do not apply the word "talented"
as a judgment  call.  I use "talented" to refer to a natural ability to
excel at a given task or in a given field.
This is *not* a subjective call.  A talented pianist can easily play a
tune by ear.  The musician sitting beside him who plays strictly from
sheet music may be equally, if not more, skilled as a musician.  But it
is the former who has talent.

What is objective fact is that Jim has no skill at writing. Skill
has to be acquired, and Jim has no interest in
acquiring it; he's happy with whatever he churns out. Which is fine with
me;
if he doesn't want to learn to develop his talents, by
learning some writing skills, he doesn't have to.

You're exaggerating what would otherwise be a true statement.  Jim has
some skills as a writer, and lacks others.  He is skilled at reproducing
realistic, authentic speech patterns.  He has a basic understanding of
sentence composition, and a fairly wide vocabulary.  He has difficulty
with capitalization and punctuation, and seems hellbent on dropping as
many articles as possible.
Initially, the latter problem bothered me, but I've come to understand
it as an earmark of his style.  He isn't so much dropping the article,
as using the dropped article as a means of turning the noun or verb it
pertains to into an abstraction of itself.  Sometimes it works
brilliantly.  Other times, it fails miserably.  But I do believe that it
is done intentionally.

The fact that you are seeking to use my very limited definition out of
context as an implied dismissal of Jim's work, is yet another example of
the duplicity I'd mentioned at the start of today's post.

>
Good; that brings us back full circle - I began by saying that you were
using that word "duplicitous" incorrectly.

Which is only so if you insist that there was nothing inherently
deceitful in your having quoted me out of context to make it appear as
if I were expressing my own beliefs (as opposed to my understanding of
*yours*).  In which case your lack of a moral compass would boggle the
imagination, but so be it.

In this case, your "definition" was just something you brought up to
excuse your publishing a poem you're now trashing. So you told me
that Jim doesn't write poetry. Next time you talk to Jim, you'll be
telling him he does write poetry, using some other definition. Your
definitions, like all your beliefs, are contextual; they depend on
whom you're talking to, what you think of that person at the time,
and what you want to accomplish. You'll say one thing one day, and
the opposite the next day, because the "context" has changed. The
word for that is two-faced, or (as it's called in Latin) duplicitous.

Everyone's statements must be taken in their correct context -- not just
mine.
Jim's poetry doesn't fall under my definition of poetry.  It does,
however, fall under the catch-all definition used today.
Let's say that I consider Jim to be an extremely talented writer,
regardless of what categorization we assign his writing to.
Jim as said that he's written over 10,000 poems, and that in his
opinion, a hundred or two of those qualify as "excellent."  I haven't
read 10,000 of his poems, but based on what I have read, I'll readily
agree.  But two hundred excellent poems is quite an accomplishment --
regardless of how many misfires it took to produce them.
There is nothing even remotely duplicitous in my comments regarding
Jim's work.  When he's good, he's very, very good.  When he's bad, he's
bad... and I'm the first to tell him so.

If you truly believed that poetry was formal verse, then you wouldn't
even be reading either Jim's chopped-up prose, or FTM NG's doggerel,
much
less praising it or publishing it in your journal.

For the 40th time: AYoS publishes representative work by *each* and
*all* of the members who post poetry on our group FB page.  It doesn't
matter how good or bad their poetry might be in my estimation -- if they
post it, I publish it.
AYoS is a *sampler* wherein people who are following our FB page can see
what *each* of us writes in a magazine format.  That's all it is. That's all it was ever meant to be.
I am not picking and choosing what goes into it.  *Every* poem that gets
posted automatically gets published.
Our year-end issue selects some of the best examples of each of the
participating poets, but *all* of the members are *always* included in
it.

Do you believe your
definition or not? The answer: it depends on "context".

Obviously.
If we're discussing modern poetry, I'm going to refer to it as poetry
out of convenience.  My insisting on referring to it as "chopped prose"
or "pseudo-poetry" during a discussion would be mean-spirited and petty
in the extreme.
If, otoh, we're discussing my *personal* definition of poetry, I will
use the stricter definition accordingly.
NEWSFLASH: Many words have multiple meanings.  The meaning in question
is generally derived from the context in which it is used.  Surely you
must have learned this in school?

If you can
"win an argument" using the above definition, you believe it; but if you
can't "win an argument" with it, you don't. Your purported beliefs are
whatever you think will give you that win.

See above.

In your above statement, you make it appear as if I had been making a
value judgment regarding Jim's work  Such was not the case.  I have
always defined "poetry" as "a literary form comprising rhymed-metered
verse."  The majority of Jim's works do not use rhyme or meter, so they
fall outside of my definition of poetry.

>
Not just his work: The majority of wwhat you publish in AYOS falls
outside
your definition of poetry. You publish his non-verse (and NancyGene's
doggerel) because they're your allies.

>
Again: AAPC was conceived to be a "sampler" of the writings of the
various poets who participate in the group.  Anyone in the group can
write in any style they choose.  That's the whole point of it.

>
By "AAPC" you probably mean AYOS. It's interesting to hear that AYOS
is not longer a sample of "The Year's Best Poetry" (as you say both in
the chapbook and your advertising for it), but only for your "poets"
to write whatever they want. That's a good example of how the "context"
-
changes what you think or say.

Yes, I meant AYoS.
No, AYoS is not "The Year's Best Poetry."  It is "The Year's Best Poetry
by AAPC Members."  And the chapbook and advertising make this abundantly
clear.

You know this very well, because you had attempted to take over Jim's
"Sunday Sampler" (unsuccessfully) after one of Jim's sabbaticals from
the Usenet AAPC.

>
Aside from being a lie, Lying Michael, your sentence makes no sense. How
would my running the former Sampler (at Jim's request) for a couple of
weeks
effect, in any way, whether AYOS ppublished poetry or just any writing?
Reading my issues, I'd say the latter; but WTF does the Sampler have to
do with that?

You did not step in at Jim's request.
You took it upon yourself to step in after Jim closed it down.

I publish Jim and NancyGene, and everyone else, *because* they are
members of the group.

>
Neither Jim nor NG are currently members of aapc, Lying Michael.
I could remind you that you've said yourself that they haven't been here
for
months, but you'll just say that's a different "context"; they're aapc
members
when you want them to be, and not aapc members when you don't want them
to be.

AAPC does not begin and end with your little Usenet group, George.
When Google Groups shut down, the majority of AAPC's members relocated
to Facebook.
The FB Group includes such former Usenet members as: myself, NancyGene,
Jim, Ash, Bob, Corey, Karen, Richard, ME &  Wenceslas.
Your group has you, Will, Zod, Rachel, and Jordy.
Based on Majority rights, our version has the best argument for
retaining the AAPC name -- but I'm willing to share.
[TO BE CONTINUED]

>

They are, however, excellent
literary works -- and works which contemporary critics would define as
"Modern Poetry."
>
And, FYI, Jim's work is still receiving compliments from other Modern
poets on The Official AAPC FB page.
>
I am a fan of Jim's writing.  I just consider it to be extremely well
written prose.

>
I understand perfectly. You (the anonymous person inside thw socks don't
think
Jim's work (and most of what you post on AYOS) is even poetry, but you
(as your "Michael Pendragon" sock) have to praise his work and request
it for your journal, because he's your ally. Which I've repeatedly
pointed out.

>
That's not even remotely true, George.
>
AYoS is a sampler. It was created to show  off the poetry of *all* of
AAPC's members.

>
I know that's what it was created for, and what it's sold as. It's a
direct copy of /April/ magazine that I've told you about (except I
didn't sell mine).
>

It has nothing to do with my definition of poetry.  It
has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes.  It merely shows
off the poetry of our group's members.

>
AYOS is being marketed as a sampler to show off the poetry of *all* of
aapc's members,
but as I've told you it's turned into a vanity project for Team Monkey
and assorted
trolls, none of which are writing anything on aapc. Except you, of
course, under
a new sock, but I don't think you'd publish any of that on aapc.
>

PJR used to post a link to a web page that described each of AAPC's
members (nearly all of whom were long gone by the time I joined).

>
I don't think it was his list, or that it was specifically aapc.
>

Jim
created the "Sampler" (among other reasons) to show readers who the
current members were.  "A Year of Sundays" is merely picking up where
the "Sunday Sampler" left off.

>
The big difference with AYOS, of course, is that it has nothing to do
with aapc.
>

I like both Jim and NancyGene's poetry, and am glad that I'm able to
include it in AYoS.  But I don't publish it because I like it.  I
publish it because they are members of AAPC and AYoS is a "sampler" for
AAPC poets to display their work in.

>
No, lying Michael. Neither have participated in AAPC since google
stopped
carrying it, except for one possible troll post each. they're members of
your Facebook group; you just use the name of the usenet group for
advertising purposes.
>

Which brings us back to where we began this digression, so it's a good
place to end it, too.
>
snip

>
You are obviously jealous of Jim and NancyGene.  Your jealousy of them
has been obvious for many years.

>
Now, that is funny. What am I supposed to be jealous of? That you're
their
online "friend" (ie, their ally)? That you praise and publish their
"writings"?
I'm afraid that's all I can think of.
>

I'm sorry that you feel that way; but it is to your continued discredit
that you insist on belittling their poetry here, long after they have
been regular participating members.

>
Interesting. So it's "obvious" to you that anyone who belittles a poet's
work is jealous of that poet? Or does that depend on "context," too?
>

As always, HtH & HAND
--

--