|
It's far too clear that Edward Lear
Will never, ever, 'log on' here;
For it's dismal, "Great Writing",
And there's not been a sighting
Of 'good' work on here for a year. |
Written by Fledermaus (3281 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | Had to look the guy up, for I had never heard of him. Seems he is dead long enough for his works to be public (and online), so he won't log on indeed. I'm not overly impressed though and dare say there are much better poets than that guy on this site.
Tell me, have you read every work on this site? If so, where are the reviews? If not, it seems a claim based on nothing. It's like having seen one dog with five legs and by induction concluding that all dogs have five legs.
The Master said, "He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good." - Analects, chapter 14.
|
Written by audrie (451 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | Of course, that includes all your own offerings, doesn't it, Pete?
Let's face it, if the people who write to this site were first class poets, they would have their own publisher, and volumes of work in the stores. How many on this site can say that?
Chill out, Pete, you don't need to take it so seriously! |
Written by fellpony (1608 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | Your limerick didn't quite catch the essential rhythm that Lear used. Though I think many of EL's limericks have weak endings because the last line simply restates the first.
Personally I like the ones that subvert the form, as Gilbert did:
There was a young lady of Bude
Who went for a swim the lake
A bloke in a punt
stuck his oar in her ear
and said, You can't swim here, it's private. | I omitted
Written by fellpony (1608 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | | "in" the lake, of course. Not quite THAT subversive. (or submersive.) | Mr Lear
Written by petetheverse (164 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | Hi to all reviewers,
Thanks,
I think only fellpony realised that this was entirely tongue in cheek; I'm far too world weary to be bothered to insult people deliberately, audrie.
And you, my little flying dingbat, to admit to never having heard of Edward Lear is really a bit like saying you hadn't heard of muffins, or Blackadder, or Spike Milligan.
PTV
Yes, still waiting for a publisher, as audrie so kindly points out!
| To Fledermaus - again
Written by petetheverse (164 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | OK, sir,
Point taken - you have twenty times the reviews that I have.
So - does that make you a 'good' reviewer; or a better reviewer than I? Or merely a more assiduous reader of the work of other people - which is to be truly admired, for I wonder where you get the time.
I just say what I think. So far, I've only come across a few good writers on here - and I think, from memory, that one of your own pieces I commented positively on.
I've no axe to grind - other than the axe that cuts to the quick - and in this context I mean that if something isn't up there, it isn't up there.
If you tell people you like what they like, when you don't, yo do them no service. But that is not to say that you have to cut them to pieces - I don't think that I've done that with any single piece here; for I will always try to suggest where I (and it is only me) think they may have gone wrong.
That's all.
My overall condemnation of the general quality of writing on here - I stand by.
I may be Victor Meldrew - but punctuation and spelling is shot to pieces.
And - for poetry in particular - punctuation and spelling is utterly at the heart of the whole thing.
Cheers for now.
PTV | To Petetheverse - again
Written by Fledermaus (3281 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | | I wouldn't claim anything. It's just a simple logical thing that induction is no proof. The comment above is not a comment on your reviews, but on this very 'Limerick' (which btw seems to miss one key ingredient for a Limerick). I think that questioning the quality of a certain site on the site itself is asking for such responses hm? |
Written by Phil (6713 comments posted) 26th January 2008 | Actually, in many ways, I quite agree with the drift of the piece and the comments that followed. The quality on GW is not what it might be, nor what it once was.
Quality has always been mixed - as it ought to be - this is an amateur site. Reviews though, could be a little more honest. There is a problem though. In the last month honestly given reviews (none of them aggressive and given as my opinion only) have led to one member removing all his work and two more complaining - one in a PM and one on the post. Being honest isn't easy - especially when you don't always have the confidence to make a sound response to a piece.
Devaluing reviews devalues the site.
Some posts are put up as fun pieces only - like the Limericks - fair enough. They should be treated as fun. Work that is presented by the writer as a serious effort should be reviewed as such.
It's a niggle that's been around for as long as I've been a member - but probably more pertinant now than ever before.
For the record, there is good and excellent work on the site, but it's posted far less frequently than before.
Phil. | Offence
Written by petetheverse (164 comments posted) 27th January 2008 | Just a note to anyone who has read all this correspondence that I am more than prepared to apologise to those who have taken offence at my efforts at a cheap, quick, joke.
And I shall endeavour to post pieces that are worth your while to read and possibly review.
In addition, when I have the time, I shall try and review your own work as straightforwardly and honestly as I can.
This may read as a grovel - it is not intended to, at all, but I DO respect the fact that a cheap slight has caused a lot of offence.
So I hold my hands in the air.
Pete. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
