deepundergroundpoetry.com
THE CLOWN'S GOWN
THE CLOWN'S GOWN
Europe, you wax so frail and low
in all what you can see and show.
You've changed your verse to guessing games
but kept for it those great old names.
How can you place your modern verse
among the poems of great wits?
Don't you feel shy and hide yourself
as what you indite brings you grief?
You are still proud though lost your creed,
the secret why you could succeed.
You're getting funny, low and down;
no wonder your verse wears this gown.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Europe, you wax so frail and low
in all what you can see and show.
You've changed your verse to guessing games
but kept for it those great old names.
How can you place your modern verse
among the poems of great wits?
Don't you feel shy and hide yourself
as what you indite brings you grief?
You are still proud though lost your creed,
the secret why you could succeed.
You're getting funny, low and down;
no wonder your verse wears this gown.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 6th Sep 2020
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 28
reads 321
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
8th Sep 2020 8:59am
Baldwin, you asked me about great poetry. My answer is:
1- For me poetry is great when it contains the charming ideas that stick to your mind, and make you remember those ideas and lines with their fantastic subjects. For example, Shakespeare's poem:
Shall l compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Certainly, you know the rest of the poem. It makes your imagination go far, and meditate on it for long.
Where are you from that? At least l am trying to produce something beautiful that makes you meditate.
1- For me poetry is great when it contains the charming ideas that stick to your mind, and make you remember those ideas and lines with their fantastic subjects. For example, Shakespeare's poem:
Shall l compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Certainly, you know the rest of the poem. It makes your imagination go far, and meditate on it for long.
Where are you from that? At least l am trying to produce something beautiful that makes you meditate.
8th Sep 2020 4:07pm
I did not ask you about "great poetry" -- let alone in this thread.
I asked in the thread initiated by your "The Sample" **to provide concrete evidence** that the piece I posted there --i.e., the one that begins with "Old Joseph-Z has now rehearsed/ the bald assertion he has made with frequency" and that does not contain any of the things that are demonstrably characteristic of your writings**-- was not poetry.
I note that you have dodged doing what I asked you to do and even here are continuing to do so.
**grammar gaffes, noun-verb disagreement, forced rhyme,
solecisms, deixis, demonstrably false and/or question-begging statements/claims about the world, human nature, well-springs of human action, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of texts [especially Biblical ones] that your submissions are based on, inversions of ordinary ways of speaking, sacrifices of sense in order to get a rhyme,
sacrifices of syntactically necessary article use in order to maintain a particular rhythm, clumsy and clunky rhythm,
misuse of and/or misunderstandings of the meanings of words that you have used within lines, a limited vocabulary and overuse of words within them, strange, improper, and illegitimate use of punctuation, no use of concrete imagery or appeals to the senses, little use of metaphor or simile,
overblown claims about the way the world works,
questionable claims about what leads to human happiness, and titles the subject of which is not the subject of your text.
I also note that you think far too highly of yourself if you maintain that any of your submissions contain charming ideas that stick to one's mind and make a reader remember those ideas and lines, that make one's imagination go far, let alone rival anything that Shakespear wrote.
I asked in the thread initiated by your "The Sample" **to provide concrete evidence** that the piece I posted there --i.e., the one that begins with "Old Joseph-Z has now rehearsed/ the bald assertion he has made with frequency" and that does not contain any of the things that are demonstrably characteristic of your writings**-- was not poetry.
I note that you have dodged doing what I asked you to do and even here are continuing to do so.
**grammar gaffes, noun-verb disagreement, forced rhyme,
solecisms, deixis, demonstrably false and/or question-begging statements/claims about the world, human nature, well-springs of human action, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of texts [especially Biblical ones] that your submissions are based on, inversions of ordinary ways of speaking, sacrifices of sense in order to get a rhyme,
sacrifices of syntactically necessary article use in order to maintain a particular rhythm, clumsy and clunky rhythm,
misuse of and/or misunderstandings of the meanings of words that you have used within lines, a limited vocabulary and overuse of words within them, strange, improper, and illegitimate use of punctuation, no use of concrete imagery or appeals to the senses, little use of metaphor or simile,
overblown claims about the way the world works,
questionable claims about what leads to human happiness, and titles the subject of which is not the subject of your text.
I also note that you think far too highly of yourself if you maintain that any of your submissions contain charming ideas that stick to one's mind and make a reader remember those ideas and lines, that make one's imagination go far, let alone rival anything that Shakespear wrote.
8th Sep 2020 6:09pm
Baldwin, haven't you got tired of this repeated nonsense. However, this terrible nonsense is much better than your horrible poetry.
8th Sep 2020 7:19pm
Another (bluster filled) dodge of what I asked you to do -- due, I expect, to the fact that you don't have any evidence that backs up your claim that my piece is not poetry and that you are wholly unable to make the case that it isn't.
8th Sep 2020 10:09pm
Baldwin, if you like your poetry, why are you asking me to prove this and that? You like your poetry, l congratulate you. This is what's important. But as you insist on hearing from me that l like your poetry, l doubt that you are convinced that you think your poetry is good or has any use to yourself first then to others.
8th Sep 2020 11:01pm
I didn't ask you to say whether or not you liked my poetry. I asked you to give evidence for your claim that the piece I posted in the thread on your "The Sample" was not poetry.
So once again you've dodged doing so by putting words in my mouth.
So once again you've dodged doing so by putting words in my mouth.
8th Sep 2020 11:19pm
Baldwin, you say l asked you this, and l didn't ask you that, and you dodge this and that. Who do you think yourself you are? Enough pride and haughtiness. They are the symptoms of emptiness.
So you didn't write this?
"On your honour, do you consider your last piece [i.e., the one that begins with "Old Joseph-Z has now rehearsed"] poetry?"
And speaking of pride and haughtiness, this is surely exemplified in these question-begging claims of yours.
"I believe that my poetry is excellent, and l think you are jealous because you can't produce anything that equal [sic equalS] even 5 percent of my level. This is what you are. The proof is most of your poems are taken from my poetry. You are nothing without me. The other readers know this fact."
"On your honour, do you consider your last piece [i.e., the one that begins with "Old Joseph-Z has now rehearsed"] poetry?"
And speaking of pride and haughtiness, this is surely exemplified in these question-begging claims of yours.
"I believe that my poetry is excellent, and l think you are jealous because you can't produce anything that equal [sic equalS] even 5 percent of my level. This is what you are. The proof is most of your poems are taken from my poetry. You are nothing without me. The other readers know this fact."
9th Sep 2020 2:36pm
Please name a few of the modern European poets whose verse not only wears the gown of a clown but brings their authors grief.
9th Sep 2020 7:51pm
9th Sep 2020 7:56pm
9th Sep 2020 8:26pm
I say to you, you can look at poetry in general, and here l say and name a lot of them, and you say l am unable to back up my claim. You are very strange, Baldwin!
Where did you "name a lot" of the European poets you disdained?
And the strange one here is you when you tell **me** that I should do what is your responsibility, not mine, to do since I did nor make the claim you did about how the writings of modern European poets bring them grief.
Come on, Joseph. Be responsible for once for what you say and name at least two of the modern Europen poets you referred to.
And the strange one here is you when you tell **me** that I should do what is your responsibility, not mine, to do since I did nor make the claim you did about how the writings of modern European poets bring them grief.
Come on, Joseph. Be responsible for once for what you say and name at least two of the modern Europen poets you referred to.
Here's a piece from a modern poet.
My love will come
will fling open her arms and fold me in them,
will understand my fears, observe my changes.
In from the pouring dark, from the pitch night
without stopping to bang the taxi door
she’ll run upstairs through the decaying porch
burning with love and love’s happiness,
she’ll run dripping upstairs, she won’t knock,
will take my head in her hands,
and when she drops her overcoat on a chair,
it will slide to the floor in a blue heap.
Please show me how and why this is a "guessing game" as you've claimed all modern European poetry is. And please show me, too, THAT this piece has brought grief to its author. What evidence do you have that it has done so?
My love will come
will fling open her arms and fold me in them,
will understand my fears, observe my changes.
In from the pouring dark, from the pitch night
without stopping to bang the taxi door
she’ll run upstairs through the decaying porch
burning with love and love’s happiness,
she’ll run dripping upstairs, she won’t knock,
will take my head in her hands,
and when she drops her overcoat on a chair,
it will slide to the floor in a blue heap.
Please show me how and why this is a "guessing game" as you've claimed all modern European poetry is. And please show me, too, THAT this piece has brought grief to its author. What evidence do you have that it has done so?
9th Sep 2020 10:05pm
I'm not the one who is being unreasonable. You made two claims about modern European poetry. When I asked you to tell me the names of modern European poets who exemplified the claims you made, you told me to look at modern European poetry where, according to you, I'd find ample evidence for your claims. And although it was not my job to find evidence for your claims, I went ahead and looked at an example of modern European poetry to see if your claims held water. But curiously this piece does not seem to be a guessing game. Nor does it seem to be something that the author knows would bring him/her grief.
Consequently, it's hardly unreasonable to ask you to show me how and why this piece is a guessing game and how you know that it brought grief to its author.
But it IS unreasonable, as well as irresponsible, and revealing, (but not atypical), for YOU not to do what I asked of you.
Consequently, it's hardly unreasonable to ask you to show me how and why this piece is a guessing game and how you know that it brought grief to its author.
But it IS unreasonable, as well as irresponsible, and revealing, (but not atypical), for YOU not to do what I asked of you.
9th Sep 2020 10:40pm
You know that they are true. You always like to ask unreasonable questions which drive their readers crazy. I am not ready to answer such questions.
"You know that they are true."
I do NOT know that they are true. And the piece I cited shows that they are not since there is nothing there that indicates that it is a "guessing game" or that the author knew that it was going to bring him/her grief.
And your avoidance of showing me how and why that piece proves your claims and of giving the names of European poets who display what you say is characteristic of modern European poetry is good evidence that your claims are bankrupt and that there's no reason for anyone to take what you claim seriously.
I do NOT know that they are true. And the piece I cited shows that they are not since there is nothing there that indicates that it is a "guessing game" or that the author knew that it was going to bring him/her grief.
And your avoidance of showing me how and why that piece proves your claims and of giving the names of European poets who display what you say is characteristic of modern European poetry is good evidence that your claims are bankrupt and that there's no reason for anyone to take what you claim seriously.
"You always like to ask unreasonable questions "
What's unreasonable about my recent questions here? Why, given how un-evidenced your claims are, are they in your eyes not warranted?
(cue the "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" response)
What's unreasonable about my recent questions here? Why, given how un-evidenced your claims are, are they in your eyes not warranted?
(cue the "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" response)
10th Sep 2020 5:52pm
I wonder now if what you claim is true:
that all the versifiers of the golden age of poetry,
when reigned Will Shakespeare and his ilk
(Rossetti, Marlowe, Milton, Donne, Traherne, Carew)
and those who wrote before free verse became the rage,
like Browning, Byron, Shelly, Keats and Pope,
Thoreau, and Hardy, too,
felt free, if not obliged, to give
all leave unto themselves
to think it so that they, to get a cunning verse
or two,
had liberty, indeed a mandate then,
to throw good grammar to the wind,
and felt that it was never sin to leave out articles
and other parts of goodly speech
in order not to breach the all-important sacrosanctity
of well-maintained precisioning within
the measured rhythm and the length of line
they knew (or so it’s claimed)
they had,
upon the pain of being thought
poetically incompetent, untalented,
and lacking inspiration and the gift
of literary grace,
to cast their verses in
if they were ever to achieve,
to win, the knowledged critics’
and the educated reading public’s accolades?
Is there any concrete evidence for anyone
assuming so?
I’ve never seen a whit, seen neither hide nor hair, of it.
But if you think you’ve found such
in their work,
I beg you this with me, as soon as possible,
to share.
that all the versifiers of the golden age of poetry,
when reigned Will Shakespeare and his ilk
(Rossetti, Marlowe, Milton, Donne, Traherne, Carew)
and those who wrote before free verse became the rage,
like Browning, Byron, Shelly, Keats and Pope,
Thoreau, and Hardy, too,
felt free, if not obliged, to give
all leave unto themselves
to think it so that they, to get a cunning verse
or two,
had liberty, indeed a mandate then,
to throw good grammar to the wind,
and felt that it was never sin to leave out articles
and other parts of goodly speech
in order not to breach the all-important sacrosanctity
of well-maintained precisioning within
the measured rhythm and the length of line
they knew (or so it’s claimed)
they had,
upon the pain of being thought
poetically incompetent, untalented,
and lacking inspiration and the gift
of literary grace,
to cast their verses in
if they were ever to achieve,
to win, the knowledged critics’
and the educated reading public’s accolades?
Is there any concrete evidence for anyone
assuming so?
I’ve never seen a whit, seen neither hide nor hair, of it.
But if you think you’ve found such
in their work,
I beg you this with me, as soon as possible,
to share.
I see you’ve made the claims
that European poets in the modern age
have changed the way that poetry is made
into what’s nothing more than “guessing games”
and all “what” they “indite”
is recompensed with grief.
In light of this, so moved was I
to see if this was so,
I thought that I should sound engage
in putting to the proof your claims
by sampling what these many folks
(their names below)
have writ
to find if any weight these bold contentions
do possess.
I must confess,
that after delving into what these women
and these men did write (and are writing still),
I’ve come away unsighted of
a whit of evidence these claims are true.
So if you want to show your readers that
you know the things you say you know
about all modern poetry, name just one or two
of all the poets listed here
who write the way you say they do.
My money's on the fact you can’t.
Your knowledge of the poems you brag
you are familiar with
would scarcely fill the brains of tiny ants
It’s hardly worth a tepid song.
But I’d be happy if
you proved me wrong.
A
Dannie Abse
John Agard
Patience Agbabi
Kenneth Allott
Mary Anderson (art historian)
John Penrose Angold
Simon Armitage
Frank Ashton-Gwatkin
Attila the Stockbroker
W. H. Auden
Shamim Azad
B
Sebastian Barker
Elizabeth Bartlett (British poet)
Wilfred Bennetto
Francis Berry
Deben Bhattacharya
Oswell Blakeston
Regina Miriam Bloch
Marjorie Boulton
Jacob Bronowski
Christine Brooke-Rose
Celia Buckmaster
John Buxton (ornithologist)
C
Juanita Casey
Wilfred Rowland Childe
John Clarke (socialist politician)
Jack Clemo
Wendy Cope
John Cournos
Patrick Creagh
Andy Croft
Andrew Crozier
D
Cengiz Dağcı
Roald Dahl
Patric Dickinson
Valentine Dobrée
Basil Dowling
Carol Ann Duffy
Ronald Duncan
Clifford Dyment
E
T. S. Eliot
George Every
F
Geoffrey Faber
U. A. Fanthorpe
Kathleen Faragher
Andrew Fekete (artist)
James Fenton
Mabel Ferrett
Arthur fforde
Mark Ford (poet)
Adam Fox (poet)
Naomi Foyle
Erich Fried
G
John Gawsworth
Karen Gershon
Michael Gibbs (poet)
Lady Sybil Grant
M. A. Griffiths
H
Stephen Haggard
Barbara Hardy
Adrian Henri
Rayner Heppenstall
Patrick Hore-Ruthven
Ian Horobin
Michael Horovitz
Libby Houston
I
Noor Inayat Khan
J
Colin Jerry
Edmund John
Amryl Johnson
Linton Kwesi Johnson
Brian Jones (poet)
K
Sylvia Kantaris
Francis King
Bernard Kops
Theodor Kramer
L
R. F. Langley
Paul Lebiedzinski
Denise Levertov
Richard Percival Lister
Gerry Lockran
Herbert Lomas (poet)
Tom Lovatt-Williams
Tom Lowenstein
Malcolm Lowry
Alexis Lykiard
John Lyons (poet)
M
Colin Mackay (writer)
Joseph Macleod
John Gillespie Magee Jr.
Sarah Maguire
John Mander
Itzik Manger
Joyce Mansour
E. A. Markham
Theodore Maynard
Roger McGough
Anna Mendelssohn
Francis Meynell
Spike Milligan
Hope Mirrlees
John Moat
Sinéad Morrissey
Iris Murdoch
Victor Musgrave
N
Martin Newell (musician)
O
Philip Oakes
Philip O'Connor
P
Annie Yellowe Palma
Ian Patterson (poet)
Mario Petrucci
William Plomer
Peter Porter (poet)
F. T. Prince
John Pudney
Jock Purdon
Q
Iftikhar Qaisar
R
Deborah Randall
Tessa Ransford
Darryl Read
John Rety
Martin Robertson
Paul Roche
Alan Ross
Jacob Ross
Ronald Ross
A. L. Rowse
S
William Scammell
Vernon Scannell
Howard Sergeant
William Kean Seymour
Hakim Ahmad Shuja
Colin Simms
Hylda Sims
Charlie Smith (Romani poet)
Ken Smith (poet)
Theodore Stephanides
Sean Street
Alma Strettell
Todd Swift
Randall Swingler
T
Ghulam Mustafa Tabassum
Meary James Thurairajah Tambimuttu
Emrys Thomas
Walter J. Turner
V
Robert Vansittart, 1st Baron Vansittart
Annie Vivanti
W
Robert Walling
Andrew Waterhouse
Laurence Whistler
Pamela Wyndham
that European poets in the modern age
have changed the way that poetry is made
into what’s nothing more than “guessing games”
and all “what” they “indite”
is recompensed with grief.
In light of this, so moved was I
to see if this was so,
I thought that I should sound engage
in putting to the proof your claims
by sampling what these many folks
(their names below)
have writ
to find if any weight these bold contentions
do possess.
I must confess,
that after delving into what these women
and these men did write (and are writing still),
I’ve come away unsighted of
a whit of evidence these claims are true.
So if you want to show your readers that
you know the things you say you know
about all modern poetry, name just one or two
of all the poets listed here
who write the way you say they do.
My money's on the fact you can’t.
Your knowledge of the poems you brag
you are familiar with
would scarcely fill the brains of tiny ants
It’s hardly worth a tepid song.
But I’d be happy if
you proved me wrong.
A
Dannie Abse
John Agard
Patience Agbabi
Kenneth Allott
Mary Anderson (art historian)
John Penrose Angold
Simon Armitage
Frank Ashton-Gwatkin
Attila the Stockbroker
W. H. Auden
Shamim Azad
B
Sebastian Barker
Elizabeth Bartlett (British poet)
Wilfred Bennetto
Francis Berry
Deben Bhattacharya
Oswell Blakeston
Regina Miriam Bloch
Marjorie Boulton
Jacob Bronowski
Christine Brooke-Rose
Celia Buckmaster
John Buxton (ornithologist)
C
Juanita Casey
Wilfred Rowland Childe
John Clarke (socialist politician)
Jack Clemo
Wendy Cope
John Cournos
Patrick Creagh
Andy Croft
Andrew Crozier
D
Cengiz Dağcı
Roald Dahl
Patric Dickinson
Valentine Dobrée
Basil Dowling
Carol Ann Duffy
Ronald Duncan
Clifford Dyment
E
T. S. Eliot
George Every
F
Geoffrey Faber
U. A. Fanthorpe
Kathleen Faragher
Andrew Fekete (artist)
James Fenton
Mabel Ferrett
Arthur fforde
Mark Ford (poet)
Adam Fox (poet)
Naomi Foyle
Erich Fried
G
John Gawsworth
Karen Gershon
Michael Gibbs (poet)
Lady Sybil Grant
M. A. Griffiths
H
Stephen Haggard
Barbara Hardy
Adrian Henri
Rayner Heppenstall
Patrick Hore-Ruthven
Ian Horobin
Michael Horovitz
Libby Houston
I
Noor Inayat Khan
J
Colin Jerry
Edmund John
Amryl Johnson
Linton Kwesi Johnson
Brian Jones (poet)
K
Sylvia Kantaris
Francis King
Bernard Kops
Theodor Kramer
L
R. F. Langley
Paul Lebiedzinski
Denise Levertov
Richard Percival Lister
Gerry Lockran
Herbert Lomas (poet)
Tom Lovatt-Williams
Tom Lowenstein
Malcolm Lowry
Alexis Lykiard
John Lyons (poet)
M
Colin Mackay (writer)
Joseph Macleod
John Gillespie Magee Jr.
Sarah Maguire
John Mander
Itzik Manger
Joyce Mansour
E. A. Markham
Theodore Maynard
Roger McGough
Anna Mendelssohn
Francis Meynell
Spike Milligan
Hope Mirrlees
John Moat
Sinéad Morrissey
Iris Murdoch
Victor Musgrave
N
Martin Newell (musician)
O
Philip Oakes
Philip O'Connor
P
Annie Yellowe Palma
Ian Patterson (poet)
Mario Petrucci
William Plomer
Peter Porter (poet)
F. T. Prince
John Pudney
Jock Purdon
Q
Iftikhar Qaisar
R
Deborah Randall
Tessa Ransford
Darryl Read
John Rety
Martin Robertson
Paul Roche
Alan Ross
Jacob Ross
Ronald Ross
A. L. Rowse
S
William Scammell
Vernon Scannell
Howard Sergeant
William Kean Seymour
Hakim Ahmad Shuja
Colin Simms
Hylda Sims
Charlie Smith (Romani poet)
Ken Smith (poet)
Theodore Stephanides
Sean Street
Alma Strettell
Todd Swift
Randall Swingler
T
Ghulam Mustafa Tabassum
Meary James Thurairajah Tambimuttu
Emrys Thomas
Walter J. Turner
V
Robert Vansittart, 1st Baron Vansittart
Annie Vivanti
W
Robert Walling
Andrew Waterhouse
Laurence Whistler
Pamela Wyndham
10th Sep 2020 10:02pm
Baldwin says: I thought that I should sound engage. It should be engaged. This is a grammar mistake.
Give me one poet who can compete
with Shakespeare and what he could achieve
whether it was poetry or plays!
You can read what charms your heart and brain.
His fame has lived for such a long time.
No one has dared to write against him.
His name is known by the young and old.
Master of the masters will remain.
Other poets like Shelley and Keats
no one can with them ever compete.
Masters they will stay whether you like,
or don't like as they could speak good rhythm.
Byron was so great in what he wrote.
People read him and love every word.
I read modern poets but my verse
is affected by some and just those.
Give me one poet who can compete
with Shakespeare and what he could achieve
whether it was poetry or plays!
You can read what charms your heart and brain.
His fame has lived for such a long time.
No one has dared to write against him.
His name is known by the young and old.
Master of the masters will remain.
Other poets like Shelley and Keats
no one can with them ever compete.
Masters they will stay whether you like,
or don't like as they could speak good rhythm.
Byron was so great in what he wrote.
People read him and love every word.
I read modern poets but my verse
is affected by some and just those.
"Baldwin says: I thought that I should sound engage. It should be engaged. This is a grammar mistake."
No, it's not a grammar mistake. What I was saying is that I thought that I should engage myself soundly in .putting your claims to the proof.
And even if it is a mistake (which presupposes wrongly that I was saying that I wanted to be heard as doing something), so what, especially given how many grammar mistakes you make and excuse yourself for having done so?
And how your faulty metered piece (e.g., MASters THEY will STAY WHETHer you LIKE, [sic] or DON"T LIKE as
THEY could SPEAK [??] good RHYthm) about how good Shakespeare was at writing verse is evidence that supports your particular claims about the nature and consequences of modern European poetry is hardly evident. In fact, it's irrelevant.
What you needed to do to show your claims are true and that you are not talking through your hat was to point out which of the particular modern European/English speaking poets whose names I listed have made poetry a "guessing game" or have been brought to grief by the way they "indite".
But just as I predicted, you failed to do so.
No, it's not a grammar mistake. What I was saying is that I thought that I should engage myself soundly in .putting your claims to the proof.
And even if it is a mistake (which presupposes wrongly that I was saying that I wanted to be heard as doing something), so what, especially given how many grammar mistakes you make and excuse yourself for having done so?
And how your faulty metered piece (e.g., MASters THEY will STAY WHETHer you LIKE, [sic] or DON"T LIKE as
THEY could SPEAK [??] good RHYthm) about how good Shakespeare was at writing verse is evidence that supports your particular claims about the nature and consequences of modern European poetry is hardly evident. In fact, it's irrelevant.
What you needed to do to show your claims are true and that you are not talking through your hat was to point out which of the particular modern European/English speaking poets whose names I listed have made poetry a "guessing game" or have been brought to grief by the way they "indite".
But just as I predicted, you failed to do so.
10th Sep 2020 10:53pm
Baldwin, seem, look, smell, sound, taste:
Subject + seem, etc...+ adjective=
You didn't say: l should [soundly] engage [myself] in.... Baldwin admit it.
Subject + seem, etc...+ adjective=
You didn't say: l should [soundly] engage [myself] in.... Baldwin admit it.
10th Sep 2020 11:05pm
"You didn't say: l should [soundly] engage [myself] in.... Baldwin admit it."
I didn't WRITE I should soundLY engage myself, but "sound" is, among other things, an adverb that when used as such, has the meaning of "soundly." So I DID say it.
See https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/sound_4#:~:text=sound-,adverb,Word%20Origin
I didn't WRITE I should soundLY engage myself, but "sound" is, among other things, an adverb that when used as such, has the meaning of "soundly." So I DID say it.
See https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/sound_4#:~:text=sound-,adverb,Word%20Origin
10th Sep 2020 11:04pm
Yes, Baldwin, speak good meter, l mean use the daily language rhythmically.
Baldwin, my poem is trochaic.
Baldwin, my poem is trochaic.
"Yes, Baldwin, speak good meter, l mean use [sic uses?] the daily language rhythmically."
But "speak good meter" is not what you wrote. You wrote, "as they could speak good rhythm". And these poets you referred to did not **speak** good rhythm. They **wrote rhythmically" (which, BTW, many modern European poets also do).
"Baldwin, my poem is trochaic."
So you say. But an impartial scan of your lines shows that your meter is hardly consistently trochaic.
This line isn't since it scans
His FAME has LIVED for SUCH a LONG TIME.
Nor is this one, since it scans
NO one CAN with THEM EVer comPETE.
Nor is this one, since it scans
GIVE me ONE POet WHO CAN comPETE
But once again you've done what I predicted you'd do and dodged proving your claims about modern European poetry or fulfilling my request that you name which of the modern poets whose names I set out for you who write guessing games and who have been recompensed for what they have indited with grief. How curious this is, if, as you've indicated, you know what you are talking about.
But "speak good meter" is not what you wrote. You wrote, "as they could speak good rhythm". And these poets you referred to did not **speak** good rhythm. They **wrote rhythmically" (which, BTW, many modern European poets also do).
"Baldwin, my poem is trochaic."
So you say. But an impartial scan of your lines shows that your meter is hardly consistently trochaic.
This line isn't since it scans
His FAME has LIVED for SUCH a LONG TIME.
Nor is this one, since it scans
NO one CAN with THEM EVer comPETE.
Nor is this one, since it scans
GIVE me ONE POet WHO CAN comPETE
But once again you've done what I predicted you'd do and dodged proving your claims about modern European poetry or fulfilling my request that you name which of the modern poets whose names I set out for you who write guessing games and who have been recompensed for what they have indited with grief. How curious this is, if, as you've indicated, you know what you are talking about.
11th Sep 2020 9:57pm
Here's a poem by Keats.
Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art—
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors—
No—yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever—or else swoon to death.
Please show me one of yours that in rhythm, rhyme, grammar, and use of imagery is equal (or comes near to being equal) to this and/ or that (at the very least) shows his influence upon what, and the way, you write.
Perhaps you'll note that here (and elsewhere), he sets out his verse (as you do not) in iambic pentameter.
Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art—
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors—
No—yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever—or else swoon to death.
Please show me one of yours that in rhythm, rhyme, grammar, and use of imagery is equal (or comes near to being equal) to this and/ or that (at the very least) shows his influence upon what, and the way, you write.
Perhaps you'll note that here (and elsewhere), he sets out his verse (as you do not) in iambic pentameter.
