I take SEVERE exception to the allegation that there has been no quality stuff on GW for a year.  So take THAT. There was a young lass of Long Marton
Who kept half her socks in a carton.
She found that the rest
Were best stuffed down her vest
For a silhouette like Dolly Parton. |
Lovely!
Written by audrie (444 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | Agree with your comment. Has Pete read any of Talisker's poems, I wonder?
I liked Fledermaus's put-down! | ORRRR ...
Written by fellpony (1580 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | Patterjack's, or ellipinnock's, or Clo's or gutterkitty's, or dare I say mine (though I admit lots of mine have disappeared off here because they are in competitions where they have to be "unpublished").
Thank you Audrie ... | Too true
Written by Josie (2732 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | | Fellpony, I agree and there are lots of others too. I am glad that my target audience, the young people, particularly children, disagree with what Pete said. I can only tell him that since September there have been 5150 visitors to my poem "An Autumn Visit" which may indicate that not everyone thinks my work is not worth reading on the children's section, and writing for children is far harder than for adults, and they're honest to the point of being rude if they don't like anything. My target audience love what I write for them, and it is their opinions that matter to me. | Here we go
Written by petetheverse (164 comments posted) 25th January 2008 | Well,
What a sensitive lot you all are; the piece about Edward Lear was NOT a denigration of everyone on here; it was merely a quick rhyme for a smile.
Quite a few of my own pieces have come in for a bit of a hammering - and rightly so, I'm sure.
We can all only write what comes into our heads when we have the pen in our hands; some of it's good, some of it's so-so, some of it's mediocre and some of it's poor. And, quite naturally, we are all protective of our own pieces.
Whether 5000 people or 5 enjoy something is neither here nor there; what I am saying is that the title of this website is a misnomer; there IS no great writing on here - except perhaps for a very few - Gerard Connelly comes to mind - and one or two others that I've so far come across, like hutmaster, who have a great command of the english language.
Fellpony, as a moderator, is entirely correct in defending the place - it's a very good forum for putting work in front of other like-minded people.
But there is a lot of dross here, as well.
That may seem cruel. Everyone who is capable of writing a well-balanced, informed and literate piece is also, no doubt about it, capable of writing dross.
I've done it myself; and will probably continue to do so.
And now I shall go off and read the work of Talisker, bless him/her, having been pointed in that direction.
Having made friends on here, I have no wish to fall out with them; but I didn't come here to make friends - I came here to read poetry. And that is like looking for a needle .......
PTV |
Written by Phil (6645 comments posted) 26th January 2008 | Like a dog returning to his own vomit - I return.
I agree, there is dross on here - there is also excellent writing here - and every shade between. Frankly PTV, it was probably the arrogant tone of your posting below the Edward Lear piece that irked, rather than the comments themselves. (At least for some) After all, we all read a lot into the words chosen to express. It's one reason many of us are here.
Quality is down - many reasons for that - but some quality remains. With good reviewing other members wil imrove and produce better work.
To claim - as you seemed - that there's been no quality for a year is also bound to wind up a few. While I claim no quality in the poetry stakes, I'd like to think some of my postings elsewhere had a touch of something besides the whiff of sh*t about them. And there is quality in the poetry section. Amongst the dross, the average, the pretty good, the merely entertaining; there are excelent pieces. A few poets consistently post high quality work.
Sue, your piece - I apologise - you know I get a little excited over things like this. Just what Limericks do best - stray into the slightly rude - or in my case, into the very rude. Read it and then sing the line: Working nine to five - fits well.
Phil. |
Written by fellpony (1580 comments posted) 26th January 2008 | While the intro was tongue-in-cheek, it's curious that only one person commented on the limerick  !!! | Always pleasant...
Written by patterjack (1159 comments posted) 26th January 2008 | ... to read the odd limerick-- I have made long acquaintane with them -- individual ones and collections . I remember a rewrite of Dante's Inferno in limerick form
I rarely stray into the form -- my basic vulgarity is such that the verse would consist mostly of asterisks -- though I have written on another site ( and long ago ) the odd vicious comment that did not require profanity to make its point.
On this site I will need to be just a little more aggravated before i dip into the vitriol vat, but I have been close !
Limericks per se are fun-- and the nice thing about this one is that it is not so laboured as are so many that either miss the scansion or even the rhyme.
patterjack
|
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
