Kirsten I Luke I Dave I Mike I Shawn
Catch you later, man. . . . . . Whutzup John. Hey Dave. . . . . Hey Dave Tzup Megan. . . . . THIS WEEKEND AND NEXT! (this is the place where. . .) . . . . Hey Meredith. . . . . Hey man, what's up? Nothin, you? Not too much. . . . . Wutzup (Hey Dave) Andrew (How you doin') ahright.
From: email@example.com (Kirsten L Thorpe) the "whutzup"s kinda remind me of "catsup" which shouldn't be spelled that way at all. sorry. the muses haven't been doing me any favors lately, either. k.
From: Luke Szyrmer
Dave and all: We clearly have a chronic entitlement problem, as a group. I wonder why? Is this poem a manners poem, or a commentary on the superficiality of conversations, or both? Is Dave laughing at us? Himself? Why periods and not any other form of punctuation? Becuase they are something between ellipses and ends of sentences? It seems to me this text is more of a soundscape than a poem. Maybe I've been listening too much to Kristin Gallager's wonderful creations on Live at the Writers House. For those of you who don't know, I've spent the last couple of weeks transferring recordings of Live at the Writers House to the web/internet, so I've listened to many of the clips in excruciating detail. I like poetry this way--simple words, complex thoughts. It's unobtrusive and as insightful as the reader wants to make it out to be. Dave's little deconstructions have excellent milage. Why is dave Framing beginnings and endings of conversations as climactic points, since the common assumption (Korshin's--not important if you don't understand) is that poetry is about such moments? Presumably to challange that assumption. What is gained by glorifying the quotidian? Maybe he's satirizing it. Perceptions of manners are a superficial lot, but nevertheless important. Improving the poem would require playing around with the fourth segment (THIS WEEKEND...), using "emotional shorthand" to introduce elements of plot possibly?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (David N Slarskey) Precedence: bulk Lucky has hit the nail on the head. Except the whole mileage thing, which I don't know that I really believe in. Oh, Lucky, I mistyped your name. Does anyone (Nate) else do that? Mean to type one word and suddenly type another? I meant "Luck" of course (I just did it again, actually twice, with the second "Luke") but the result is a new nickname. Anyways, I think I am poking a little fun, and I do have an entitlement problem. The whole social security situation frightens me. I'm having problems writing recently, because, as well as I can tell, it comes back to Shawn's point -- why am I writing? I don't know, and so my response is to not write. Or to write one of these "little deconstructions" and it just pisses me off. Perhaps Professor Korshin and I should sit down and talk about the finer points of poetic motive. Of course, since I dropped his class last week he might not be into speaking with me. (He never seemed to be interested in class. . .not that I'm bitter). Actually, now that I reflect, it's not an entitlement problem. I actually titled it "Untitled". Of course, perhaps ******** that's just another cute little deconstruction which seems to be giving me so much mileage. At any rate, I just ate a whole bunch of beans and rice at the ole' Writers House, and now I'm going to go drink a beer. If anyone cares to join me, I'm headed to that "age-old Pennstitution" of Smokey Joe's. I find it amusing, close and cheap. And I'm not framing conversations, Lucky (there it is again), it's actually the extent of the conversations themselves. Yet again a cute little deconstruction. The image is everything. I am a machine. glorifying the quotidian, dave (Oh, and I believe that Lucky gets the February 1-17th award for most constructive criticism on hubverse. If anyone else wants one, they can pay me.)
From: email@example.com (Michael Magee) from Mr. Slarskey: " I'm having problems writing recently, because, as well as I can tell, it comes back to Shawn's point -- why am I writing? I don't know, and so my response is to not write." Man, we would have lost alot of nice writing if everyone'd taken this position over the years. At least make a reason up, to get the chicks (or fellas) if nothing else! -m.
From: Shawn Walker
> the result is a new nickname. Anyways, I think I am poking a little fun, > and I do have an entitlement problem. The whole social security > situation frightens me. As often in your poems, Dave, real emotions slide through, you can just barely see them lurking there, wanting to be the surface, but they are underneath and hidden. I presume that you really are frightened about the whole social security situation (-- it is frightening --), yet the odd placement of this sentence won't allow your reader to take it seriously. Ah -- a connection point! But before we have time to connect, your on to the next topic. > I'm having problems writing recently, because, > as well as I can tell, it comes back to Shawn's point -- why am I > writing? I don't know, and so my response is to not write. Or to write > one of these "little deconstructions" and it just pisses me off. After reading Mike's response: Plenty of writers have had the same thoughts/conclusions and gone on writing anyway. Writers should be both supported and questioned by both themselves and others -- would-be-readers and not. Again -- this emotion, how quickly it slips by. The frustration of indecision, the anger of cynicism as it's only seemingly available outlet. Is there a way to (let yourself) feel these things as a substantial basis for writing (that isn't in itself cynical but yet explores honestly negative feelings)? But maybe you don't want to do that. However, the "little deconstructions" in quotes keep reminding me of Cezanne talking about his "little sensation" (I don't do the French version), though the two are about entirely opposite. > And I'm not framing conversations, Lucky (there it is again), it's > actually the extent of the conversations themselves. Is it? Shawn