deepundergroundpoetry.com
Retort
Old Joseph-Z
has charged me with
indecency
because I dared to wondered if
the denizens of Camelot
were who he knew
without familiarity with sources that
are ancient
and thought primary
like those of Nennius and Gildas and
the Historia Brittonum or then
the Annales Cambriae,
poetic sources, too,
like triads Welsh
and then Y Gododdin
in which the legends grew
they had to be.
He does not know
that I am not alone in doing so.
In century 18th
the writer Thomas Percy called
queen Guinevere
‘a bitch, a witch, a bold faced whore”
Other poets, tradents, too
have labeled them
as characters of shame
.
The substance of the stories told
through history
have changed.
They’re not, regarding who king Arthur was
or Lancelot
the Table’s mates,
and Guinevere,
consistent with themselves
and in regards to any glory that
we think these figures sure possessed
are often contradictory.
has charged me with
indecency
because I dared to wondered if
the denizens of Camelot
were who he knew
without familiarity with sources that
are ancient
and thought primary
like those of Nennius and Gildas and
the Historia Brittonum or then
the Annales Cambriae,
poetic sources, too,
like triads Welsh
and then Y Gododdin
in which the legends grew
they had to be.
He does not know
that I am not alone in doing so.
In century 18th
the writer Thomas Percy called
queen Guinevere
‘a bitch, a witch, a bold faced whore”
Other poets, tradents, too
have labeled them
as characters of shame
.
The substance of the stories told
through history
have changed.
They’re not, regarding who king Arthur was
or Lancelot
the Table’s mates,
and Guinevere,
consistent with themselves
and in regards to any glory that
we think these figures sure possessed
are often contradictory.
Published 16th Jun 2022
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 9
reads 274
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
17th Jun 2022 3:37pm
Dear Baldwin,
I will repeat
that l don't care what kind of characters
the denizens of Camelot could be.
What l most truly care about
is that they could remain for long
as figures in good literature that people liked
and you yourself till now
still write about.
But l think that
we ourselves should write something
that can have depth
and give a meaning to this life
that only very few
can really understand
and not to write about
a lady going up a high starecase
and you are climbing after her.
I don't know what you want to see.
This life is full of sheer nonsense.
It does not need the more.
You are a man who can write well
and help the readers to improve
their minds and thoughts.
I would like you to be of help
to quite a lot_when you write well_
and l am one of them.
I will repeat
that l don't care what kind of characters
the denizens of Camelot could be.
What l most truly care about
is that they could remain for long
as figures in good literature that people liked
and you yourself till now
still write about.
But l think that
we ourselves should write something
that can have depth
and give a meaning to this life
that only very few
can really understand
and not to write about
a lady going up a high starecase
and you are climbing after her.
I don't know what you want to see.
This life is full of sheer nonsense.
It does not need the more.
You are a man who can write well
and help the readers to improve
their minds and thoughts.
I would like you to be of help
to quite a lot_when you write well_
and l am one of them.
"What l most truly care about
is that they could remain for long
as figures in good literature that people liked
and you yourself till now"
Your syntax makes you say that what you truly care about is that denizens of Camelot might have the potential to remain "for long" as figures that people liked [sic], which is not only poor writing but raises the questions of why this is of concern to you and why it's important that it be remembered in the future that people once liked these figures enough to produce literature about them
And did you mean to write "as you yourself **have done** 'till now"?
Furthermore, you are apparently unaware that "... and you yourself till now" is poor English since "have done" is not understood.
"This life is full of sheer nonsense.
It does not need the more."
Did you mean to write "It does not need more"?
Sorry, but you will not be able to write something of depth, let alone something that gives meaning to life (even assuming that you can give life meaning), until you admit that your grasp of how to write well in English is not as good as you think it is.
And given that Arthur and Camelot have been the subjects dealt with at length by "the greats", even though they were aware that they were not giving meaning to life by writing about them, why would you think that it is beneath you to do so as well, let alone that to do so would not be in accord with your (questionable) views on the purpose of poetry and why you attempt to write it?
In the light of this, I note that if you are as capable as you claim you are in writing sound iambic lines about interesting topics that can easily be seen as coherent and contextually comprehensible, it should be easy and desirable for you to write a faultlessly iambically metered poem about a topic you proclaim is as interesting as the character of Arthur or the denizens of Camelot is that is as coherent as it is evocative and whose lines are absolutely clear in meaning. So let's see you do it.
Who wants to wager that Joseph will post excuses for not doing so, all of which will be cover-ups of the fact that he lacks the ability to do what I asked him to do.
is that they could remain for long
as figures in good literature that people liked
and you yourself till now"
Your syntax makes you say that what you truly care about is that denizens of Camelot might have the potential to remain "for long" as figures that people liked [sic], which is not only poor writing but raises the questions of why this is of concern to you and why it's important that it be remembered in the future that people once liked these figures enough to produce literature about them
And did you mean to write "as you yourself **have done** 'till now"?
Furthermore, you are apparently unaware that "... and you yourself till now" is poor English since "have done" is not understood.
"This life is full of sheer nonsense.
It does not need the more."
Did you mean to write "It does not need more"?
Sorry, but you will not be able to write something of depth, let alone something that gives meaning to life (even assuming that you can give life meaning), until you admit that your grasp of how to write well in English is not as good as you think it is.
And given that Arthur and Camelot have been the subjects dealt with at length by "the greats", even though they were aware that they were not giving meaning to life by writing about them, why would you think that it is beneath you to do so as well, let alone that to do so would not be in accord with your (questionable) views on the purpose of poetry and why you attempt to write it?
In the light of this, I note that if you are as capable as you claim you are in writing sound iambic lines about interesting topics that can easily be seen as coherent and contextually comprehensible, it should be easy and desirable for you to write a faultlessly iambically metered poem about a topic you proclaim is as interesting as the character of Arthur or the denizens of Camelot is that is as coherent as it is evocative and whose lines are absolutely clear in meaning. So let's see you do it.
Who wants to wager that Joseph will post excuses for not doing so, all of which will be cover-ups of the fact that he lacks the ability to do what I asked him to do.
What on earth were you trying to say here:
"I would like you to be of help
to quite a lot_when you write well_
and l am one of them."
to quite a lot of what?
you are one of whom?
Was it your intent to say that you would like me to be of help to the readers of DUP but only when I write well? Do they need help? You claimed that they are all well educated and therefore do not need help with things.
And are you saying that you want my help to write well? If so, why?
According to you, you don't need anyone's help since you have denied that you ever write poorly and have many times claimed not only that I don't know how to write poetry, but that my remarks to you about what your submissions need to be well written are rubbish.
"I would like you to be of help
to quite a lot_when you write well_
and l am one of them."
to quite a lot of what?
you are one of whom?
Was it your intent to say that you would like me to be of help to the readers of DUP but only when I write well? Do they need help? You claimed that they are all well educated and therefore do not need help with things.
And are you saying that you want my help to write well? If so, why?
According to you, you don't need anyone's help since you have denied that you ever write poorly and have many times claimed not only that I don't know how to write poetry, but that my remarks to you about what your submissions need to be well written are rubbish.
Joseph,
You wrote
"... l think that
we ourselves should write something
that can [?] have depth
and give [SIC giveS] a meaning to this life
that only very few
can really understand"
So you think that we should intentionally write things that most readers here at DUP will not understand (despite the fact that all of them are, if your claim about them is true, well-educated)? And are you saying that without the sort of poetry that you think we should write, life does not possess meaning?
"and not to write about
a lady going up a high starecase [SIC staircase]
and you are climbing after her."
You seem to be saying that in writing my piece about following a woman up a long flight of stairs (where did I say that the stairway was a high one?), I am neglecting a poet's duties. If so, perhaps you'll tell that to one of the 16th century's "greats", Robert Herrick , who wrote this:
"Whenas in silks my Julia goes,
Then, then (methinks) how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.
Next, when I cast mine eyes, and see
That brave vibration each way free,
O how that glittering taketh me!"
(" Upon Julia's Clothes")
which is both understandable to readers who are not well-educated and is only intended to express his joy at seeing something that enraptured him.
You wrote
"... l think that
we ourselves should write something
that can [?] have depth
and give [SIC giveS] a meaning to this life
that only very few
can really understand"
So you think that we should intentionally write things that most readers here at DUP will not understand (despite the fact that all of them are, if your claim about them is true, well-educated)? And are you saying that without the sort of poetry that you think we should write, life does not possess meaning?
"and not to write about
a lady going up a high starecase [SIC staircase]
and you are climbing after her."
You seem to be saying that in writing my piece about following a woman up a long flight of stairs (where did I say that the stairway was a high one?), I am neglecting a poet's duties. If so, perhaps you'll tell that to one of the 16th century's "greats", Robert Herrick , who wrote this:
"Whenas in silks my Julia goes,
Then, then (methinks) how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.
Next, when I cast mine eyes, and see
That brave vibration each way free,
O how that glittering taketh me!"
(" Upon Julia's Clothes")
which is both understandable to readers who are not well-educated and is only intended to express his joy at seeing something that enraptured him.
25th Jun 2022 12:39pm
Very dear Baldwin,
"We ourselves should write something that can have depth and give a meaning to this life."
You corrected it by using "?" for can have depth. "Can have" here means, "It is possible to have. Is it necessary to say, "that has"? No. Because you change the meaning that l intend to say.
"That can have depth and give..." You corrected it by saying, and GIVES. You are mistaken because after AND, you can omit the repeated auxiliary CAN. What can you say about these two points?
"We ourselves should write something that can have depth and give a meaning to this life."
You corrected it by using "?" for can have depth. "Can have" here means, "It is possible to have. Is it necessary to say, "that has"? No. Because you change the meaning that l intend to say.
"That can have depth and give..." You corrected it by saying, and GIVES. You are mistaken because after AND, you can omit the repeated auxiliary CAN. What can you say about these two points?
"What can you say about these two points?"
That you don't know what you are talking about.
I did not change "can" to [?]. I used [?] to ask if "can" was the right word because what needs to be said is that what "we" want to do is to write things that actually DO have depth rather than only the potential for having it. And the issue with "give" is that the verb does not agree with the subject's number.
"We ourselves should write something that ... give a meaning to this life." is a solecism.
To say what you intended to say, you should have written
We ourselves should strive to write something that has depth and gives meaning to this life."
That it is possible to eliminate a second "can" is irrelevant.
More importantly, I note that you have done what you typically (and not unexpectedly) do when you are confronted with points that show that the claims you make are incoherent, fallacious, and question-begging. You ignore them -- no doubt because you cannot answer them. and do not want to admit that what I say is correct.
That you don't know what you are talking about.
I did not change "can" to [?]. I used [?] to ask if "can" was the right word because what needs to be said is that what "we" want to do is to write things that actually DO have depth rather than only the potential for having it. And the issue with "give" is that the verb does not agree with the subject's number.
"We ourselves should write something that ... give a meaning to this life." is a solecism.
To say what you intended to say, you should have written
We ourselves should strive to write something that has depth and gives meaning to this life."
That it is possible to eliminate a second "can" is irrelevant.
More importantly, I note that you have done what you typically (and not unexpectedly) do when you are confronted with points that show that the claims you make are incoherent, fallacious, and question-begging. You ignore them -- no doubt because you cannot answer them. and do not want to admit that what I say is correct.
25th Jun 2022 7:11pm
Baldwin, you show yourself as a person who is unable to understand what is addressed to him. Why? I know what you will answer.
I think that you are not well acquainted with English grammar. You need to have a long revision of it. Sorry, Baldwin.
I think that you are not well acquainted with English grammar. You need to have a long revision of it. Sorry, Baldwin.
Actually, I've shown that I fully understand what you've addressed to me. What you have shown with this ad hominem reply is that you are ill-equipped to demonstrate the validity of your claim and are left with attacking my person.
And if I don't understand what you've said to me, it's not because of any lack of a capacity to do so on my part. It's because your grasp of how to write clear and comprehensible English is extremely tenuous.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you have an undergraduate degree in English Literature. But all that means, even leaving aside that a non-native speaker needs a post-graduate degree in English **Composition** to speak authoritatively on points of English grammar, is that you should have some knowledge of what good English looks like. It does NOT mean that you will write well in English.
And if I don't understand what you've said to me, it's not because of any lack of a capacity to do so on my part. It's because your grasp of how to write clear and comprehensible English is extremely tenuous.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you have an undergraduate degree in English Literature. But all that means, even leaving aside that a non-native speaker needs a post-graduate degree in English **Composition** to speak authoritatively on points of English grammar, is that you should have some knowledge of what good English looks like. It does NOT mean that you will write well in English.
25th Jun 2022 10:20pm
Questions for you, Joseph.. Were you born and raised in the USA or in the UK? Have you lived in the USA or England for an extended period of time? If not, and no matter how many Americans or Brits you have come in contact with, you cannot possibly know what sounds correct to a native English speaker's ear.
