twelveoone
ground zero
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
- Posts
- 5,882
It has always been my feeling that something has been missing for Literotica since the loss of YDD. This has been compounded by the absence of WickedEve. YDD always seemed to me to get to essence of what the writer and the poem tried to be. WickedEve always was ready to help newbies.
First, I digress, on "things":
In this context, I agree, but I find "things" to be the perfect word for what you have an attachment for, but probably shouldn't as for instance the whatever you hold in your hand, or you write, and can't decide if it garbage or not.
So, because I think the greatest unsung heroes are those that are willing to point out the problems and the potentional (you can't point out the potentional, of something that you just said is the greatest), or in other words, real critics.
I have observed comments, the "Not for the Thin-Skinned" thread and a couple of submission threads by people asking for advice, so this is just MY subjective evualation only.
I am impressed with this Tzara, not only for going after that awefull disciple of that late great poet Johnny Cochrane, 1201, but for the insight shown in the essence and mechanics of poetry.
This weeks YDD prize goes to:
Tzara = Not For The Thin-Skinned, and Damn
Special mention for BooMerengue for getting over her reluctance to offer criticism.
Others I would like to note:
bogusbrig = Pls. vote on some of my poems
*Catbabe* = Not For The Thin-Skinned
Honorable mention to J. Doe, who is not afraid to hand out 4's.
Quite nicely done, I appeciate. Sorry if I missed anyone. If you wish we can make this more democratic. No fluffers. No new poem mentions.
Ignore criticism, you die as a writer.
First, I digress, on "things":
Tzara said:Let's start with things. What does a "thing" look like? Smell like? Sound like? How much space does it take up? Is it big, small, or medium sized? In short, what the hell does it say?
Is it, in fact, a word that says anything?
Oh.
I hope you agree that no, it doesn't.
Thing is a non-word, a very generic word--it basically doesn't add anything (ooh, buried thing, there) to the imagery of the poem. It evokes nothing (yikes! thing again!) in the reader. It is merely a placeholder for a real and concrete word--a word that gives the reader some actual purchase on what you actually do want to say.
In this context, I agree, but I find "things" to be the perfect word for what you have an attachment for, but probably shouldn't as for instance the whatever you hold in your hand, or you write, and can't decide if it garbage or not.
So, because I think the greatest unsung heroes are those that are willing to point out the problems and the potentional (you can't point out the potentional, of something that you just said is the greatest), or in other words, real critics.
I have observed comments, the "Not for the Thin-Skinned" thread and a couple of submission threads by people asking for advice, so this is just MY subjective evualation only.
I am impressed with this Tzara, not only for going after that awefull disciple of that late great poet Johnny Cochrane, 1201, but for the insight shown in the essence and mechanics of poetry.
This weeks YDD prize goes to:
Tzara = Not For The Thin-Skinned, and Damn
Special mention for BooMerengue for getting over her reluctance to offer criticism.
Others I would like to note:
bogusbrig = Pls. vote on some of my poems
*Catbabe* = Not For The Thin-Skinned
Honorable mention to J. Doe, who is not afraid to hand out 4's.
Quite nicely done, I appeciate. Sorry if I missed anyone. If you wish we can make this more democratic. No fluffers. No new poem mentions.
Ignore criticism, you die as a writer.