| Author | Message | ||
| steve williams
Board Administrator Username: twobyfour Post Number: 2312 Registered: 01-2003 |
Just a note on Admin's position about the style of language used in poetry. Some examples: If you look at Shakespeare's sonnets, the language in them is much the same as the language in his plays. Linguists will tell you that the what looks archaic to us is really how people talked in that time. So from Shakespeare's (or whoever used his name but that's another topic) point of view, he was writing poems in the everyday language of his life. When he researched plays in from the past, he didn't use the language of the past but rather of the current. The same can be said of any many past writer's. Mark Twain used the dialects of the Mississippi of his day. In fact Huckleberry Finn is a marvel in how it captures and preserves those dialects. So, as poets of this time, this century. If you go back and write in the form of a past writer, you owe it to your craft to write in today's speech. It is our job to capture our own age, to be witness to today. By going back and patterning your work after others and also using their language, all you have accomplished is an imitation. You may call it homage, but still it is not an original work. If you are interested in writing as an art form (and many are not), then capture your reality, not someone elses. If not, then admit you are doing homage and are not interested in the creative aspects of writing but rather the aspects of tribute. We do not have an issue with this goal of writing but rather have an issue when this style of writing stridently declares itself to be original and creative, which by its own definition is rather difficult to achieve. ok getting off my soapbox warmly s and m | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 10566 Registered: 07-2002 |
Excellent point, Steve. One of my main objections to sonnets that sound 'Shakespearean' is that the diction gets so twisted to make the meter and the rhyme that it can end up sounding like a parody or like 'yoda-speak'. Edward Hirsch has some beautiful modern sonnets in "Lay Back the Darkness". A study on how graceful a sonnet can be once the poet dispenses the the 'thees' and 'thous' etc. best, ljc Once in a Blue Muse Blog LJCohen | ||
| Lazarus
Senior Member Username: lazarus Post Number: 4455 Registered: 10-2005 |
Thanks for this explanation Steve, now I know what is making me disconnect from such writing. It's the lack of reality; the feeling that this isn't about me or people like me. Even if a poem takes on a different dialect than my own, if it is real somewhere on this planet, then it will come across as real for me. Dialect is also a good tool to use in revisiting the past. The play I'm working on about the 1700's couldn't be done in modern dialect. We expect at least that much from our historical playwrights today. -Laz | ||
| Fred Longworth
Senior Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 5091 Registered: 05-2006 |
To me, it goes like this. In a world that is changing faster than at any other point in history, our educational system has this maladaptive fixation on the past. Every argument in favor of this misguided pedagogy distills down to the past is more important than the present. A result of this twist in educational focus is that the main kind of poetry that people encounter is poetry from the past. They are not taught to read poetry from the present, except of course e.e. cummings, who gives the impression that to be "modern" one must be mainly clever at word play. So, later on, when (for whatever reason) they develop an interest in poetry, they tend to write in the archaic styles they learned in school. * * * * * Practically always, when an "old-fashioned styles" writer is asked "Do you read modern poetry?" -- the answer is NO or ONLY A LITTLE. Fred even consciousness, a pastiche of recycled cans | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 201 Registered: 02-2008 |
Steve...most respectfully...I strongly disagree with both the point and the logic behind it. I learned to read over 50 years ago, and since then I have read anything that didn't move too fast to focus on--literally. Granted, that range is somewhat limited to English, or good translations from other languages, as I don't read for pleasure in the other languages I've since learned or been exposed to. Still that makes for a pretty big paintbox. I am heir (as are we all) to the full richness of the literary and poetic heritage of Mankind--if it were not meant to be so, all our literary forebears would not have written their works down, and carried their genius to their graves...leaving their heirs (us) to stop-and-start and reinvent everything anew with each generation. By logical extension of your point, modern writers would not be welcome to formulate in rhymed, or metered lines, and have only the linguistic paucity of 20-21st Century "everyday language" to express themselves in...I'm sure you can imagine my "everyday language" reaction to that. (I'llspare the children from exposure to it, if you please!) Suffice it to say...the idea that I (or anyone) should be confined to free-verse-in-Valley-Speak (or the equivalent) gives me the creeping shudders! I would rather have my "tongue" cut out, fried and fed to dogs than submit to such curtailment. And for what? I wrote a perfect Elizabethan sonnet, once, on the subject of someone's nose. I used old forms of language and carried perfect meter and rhyme throughout. It was perfect in all respects, but I never, ever posted it...because it was a mocking parody of someone, and no one who read it would have misunderstood it as anything else. It was not "an imitation", it was not plagarism, it was not hubris--it was sparkling, clear and very, very funny (in that meanway of humour that is so devastating to its' target, because it encourages others laugh at their expense). I didn't post it because it had an archaic flavour to it, or because someone might not understand it, or because I didn't want to appear to be passe in my efforts. I didn't post it...to spare hurt feelings that would result, and the invention of a virulent grudge on the part of the "victim". That kind of constrainment I can wholeheartedly accept and, indeed, will self-impose. But to insist that it is my "job", as witness and chronicler of my life and times, to "speak" of it solely in the current vernacular...simply won't wash. It amounts to an insistence on "dumbing down", and that is a current trend that should be exposed for what it is--paternalistic fascism at its' pernicious and intrusive worst. (Well, perhaps I exaggerate, but...I relate it to the current sad and sorry state of our contemporary education system, which I think of as something of a crime against Humanity.) So much for my soapbox. --Packrat. | ||
| Kathy Paupore
Moderator Username: kathy Post Number: 10269 Registered: 12-2003 |
"So, as poets of this time, this century. If you go back and write in the form of a past writer, you owe it to your craft to write in today's speech." The challenge of the forms then becomes to use today's grammar and syntax, make them contemporary, modern. Although surely it is a challenge to write as they did in Shakespearean times and would require a certain skill. The forms were developed and written in times when poetry was an oral tradition, and were meant to be read out loud, to be heard, and to pass on myths and stories. As such, much attention was given to how they would sound and the use of sound and mnemomic devices to help the listener remember them. Many the listener in those times did not know how to read or write. They also have a certain amount of drama to them. When reading a sonnet written in Shakesperean or one of the other forms complete with the language of that time, I always see an actor in tights on stage with heavy red velvet drapes opening and closing. If that image doesn't distract the read I don't know what does. Although I respect the craft of the past,the diction of that era makes my eyes hurt, and my brain cramp trying to interpret what it all means. But, if you read it out loud strictly for the sounds, does it really have meaning beyond being remembered? Perhaps I'm giving myself a headache for no reason. Today, we're a more literate society and we tend to read with our eyes and minds and try to find the meaning in the words and imagery. What helps me remember a poem is not the rhythm or end-rhyme but what I can connect with in the poem. my 2 cents Kathy You're invited to: Wild Flowers Free verse in not, of course, free.--Mary Oliver | ||
| Will Eastland
Intermediate Member Username: dwillo Post Number: 813 Registered: 07-2006 |
Packrat, I think in a sense you are saying the same thing steve is saying just from a different perspective. You didn't post your sonnet here because it would have been of limited appeal due to subject matter, form, language or some or all of these. Steve is saying to communicate to a modern English speaking audience the best vehicle is modern English. You can write in whatever style, tone, voice, form about whatever you want. But know you are choosing (or perhaps limiting) your audience as you make those choices. I want either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it. ~Ashleigh Brilliant | ||
| steve williams
Board Administrator Username: twobyfour Post Number: 2313 Registered: 01-2003 |
As Kathy noted, Shakespeare's audience was mostly illiterate. His plays are full of bawdy language, puns about sex, cheating wives. It is gutter language of the time. It may seem elevated now, but then it was strictly R rated and understandable by every peasant in England. For more on this, see this week's challenge  s | ||
| Fred Longworth
Senior Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 5093 Registered: 05-2006 |
They may have been "illiterate," but they were not, in my opinion, "acultural." In those times, the verbal tradition was king. Even peasant children heard large amounts of rhyming poetry. In every pub in England, folks would drink and sing the common songs of the working man. Many ordinary people could recite substantial portions of the liturgy. It is frankly more out of the unwritten tradition than the written one that poetry emerges. Fred even consciousness, a pastiche of recycled cans | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 202 Registered: 02-2008 |
No, Will, chosing not to post it had absolutely nothing to do with "limited appeal"; it had solely to do with chosing not to deliberate disgrace myself in public by nailing someone's sorry ass to the wall, and provoking the subsequent fallout. I don't write "for an audience"; finding one is nice, and very rewarding/encouraging/confidence-building, etc., but it is not something I crave to exploit. If I write something I like and think others might enjoy, I'm pleased to have a way (Wild,etc.) to share it--for their enjoyment, amusement, etc., but I do not seek, nor have much interest in cultivating a following, or "audience". To me, that's something one does to deliberately garner a "market", and I have no commercial ambitions in that regard. Writing, for me, is not a "means to an end", it's far more like intellectual itch-scratching. Folks may like it, or they may not like it, butI don't/won't do it in a way specifically designed to attract or acquire their approval/legitimization. And I sincerely hope that no one else would ever stoop to do so in order to get my attention/approbation. I strongly suspect that the underlying unspoken thing here, the proverbial "elephant in the room" no one is mentioning is commercialization strategies. For me, writing is part of my living-and-breathing, not something I do to make a living. Of course, I'm just an "old-fashioned" fart, who'd rather lock herself in a closet than restructure to appeal "to the masses", but then, no one has ever mistaken me for anything of a "fashionista", and I likely must content myself with that. (The only alternative to that, that I can think of, is to "BITE MY THUMB"!!, though, of course, "I do not bite my thumb at YOU!"--Oh,dear, I've slipped out of the vernacular, once again--sorry, Will S.; can you ever forgive me?--Guess I'll have to throw that point-made in the trashcan, too, eh??!!) --Packrat. (Message edited by harolyn j gourley on December 16, 2008) | ||
| Will Eastland
Intermediate Member Username: dwillo Post Number: 814 Registered: 07-2006 |
Hi Packrat, SOrry I misunderstood your reasoning for not posting the sonnet in question. However, I don't think you can draw an equal sign between writing for others and crass commercialization. While my poems also tend to be the resolution of an intellectual (though not necessarily highly intellectual  ) question that has raised itself to me, I desire those resolutions to be useful to someone else, even if only for use as diversion. If I'm writing to share with others, then, it serves the reader for me to use her language. If I'm merely talking to myself, I might speak in any and every voice with whichever language amuses me. And you don't have to apologize to me for anything. Feel free to bite your thumb all you like, just leave some for the space bar. I want either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it. ~Ashleigh Brilliant | ||
| Vienna
Senior Member Username: vienna Post Number: 724 Registered: 11-1998 |
I too find that writing in the archaic style today seems to come over as a rather lofty 'I am a Poet' thang. I find it difficult to read and, whilst am understanding of the skill involved with strict form etc, the archaic voice seems to distant for me to get to grips with. I really struggled to find much interest and understanding of Shakespeare and his ilk, Wyatt's Whoso List to Hunt being the only work that really struck me in a plethora of ancient poets and their works. Contemporary dialect was another thing altogether, although some of the Scots poets took some reading, I found that because the language was still living, the poems did too. V If wishes were horses..... | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 203 Registered: 02-2008 |
Uh...Will Eastland, dear...I was apologizing to William Shakespeare for stealing his lines from Romeo and Juliet (Act one, Scene one, I think...). I will, however, apologize to you Will E., as well...for getting cranky. (Stuff like this does tend to "wind me up", *sigh*) I really don't deliberately use, on occasion, old forms of speech/diction, etc., to be elitist or obfuscatory (sp??)...it's more like... My mind is something like a lint trap, or (my favourite metaphor! >>...) one of those old sticky, pull-down-from-the-ceiling housefly strips. Whatever flies by close enough, gets stuck there, regardless of utility. My head is like a walking-around-reference-library, with little or no specific categorization. I have something like an eidetic memory (though it's full of holes, blank spots and "fuzzy" bits as well) and when the Muse is upon me, it just comes out in whichever way it/She wants. Sometimes modern language is supremely appropriate, sometimes it simply doesn't want to go there, preferring the looser vestements that linguistic pot-pourri and verbal gymnastics confer. Sometimes She dresses to the nines, sometimes she slums around in baggy trews and old sweatshirts. Sorry to say, She's not much of a fashionista, either. When a poem pops out that is too thoroughly (and obviously) a case of "talking to myself", I seldom post it--it is a disservice to make anyone else try to unpack internal mental musings; it just sounds like Diva-gibberish, and soundly deserves a righteous pounding. There have been exceptions, such as Singularity Waltz, but in both cases of posting it, it was aimed at the very narrow "market" of suicidally-inclined young techno-nerds, in hopes of "reaching" where more conventional "messages" might not. Otherwise, I keep 'em in my pocket and don't abuse a wider audience with the rigours of trying to "unpack" them. But..."modern speech" is desparately relative. I speak and engage the world with modern, vernacular English...and a lot of my contemporaries still don't understand me. I go through Life constantly "dumbing down" just to "seem normal", in terms of vocabulary and language usage (not to mention referential quips--kind of a form of verbal shorthand), and...more often than not I am simply behind-the-hand-perceived to be "making fun" (of the listener) by "talking over their heads", etc. I know I haven't posted much (only two, and those just recently) in the last long while, but has anything I've posted not made sense, to the average lector? Individuals may not care or have a taste for rhymed or metered pieces, etc., but I don't think there has been any confusion about what I was trying to say, regardless of the diction involved. Which whole thing leaves me in a very awkward position indeed... --Packrat. | ||
| Will Eastland
Intermediate Member Username: dwillo Post Number: 815 Registered: 07-2006 |
Well I'm quite the misreader today! At any rate, I say again, I think you and steve are essentially saying the same thing with a couple minor exceptions. And you're also welcome to be as cranky as you like. Adds interest to the place. Will I want either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it. ~Ashleigh Brilliant | ||
| Christopher T George
Senior Member Username: chrisgeorge Post Number: 6965 Registered: 12-2004 |
Hi Steve I guess I take exception to the idea that Shakespeare's language was the language of an illiterate and that he wrote in his sonnets in the rough and bawdy language of the day. If that was the case why were his works acceptable to the nobles of the day not just to the "groundlings" that attended his plays?  Now certainly there are passages in Shakespeare's plays of low humor, but that is the way plays of his day were written: interspersing scenes of slapstick comedy featuring actors portraying common folk with scenes that featured actors in the roles of the more wealthy. I do take your point that Shakespeare wrote in the language of his day, and that other writers wrote in the idiom of their time as well, and that, in general, we should write in our everyday voice as well. On the other hand, some writers such as John Berryman or James Joyce and others have been able successfully to write in voices other than their own, so I certainly would not make a blanket statement that it can't be or shouldn't be done. Best regards Chris George (Message edited by chrisgeorge on December 16, 2008) Editor, Desert Moon Review http://www.thedesertmoonreview.com Co-Editor, Loch Raven Review http://www.lochravenreview.net http://chrisgeorge.netpublish.net/ | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Advanced Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 1093 Registered: 10-2005 |
Shakespeare's work endures because it speaks across the ages, but the messages it communicates can be lost on those unfamiliar with the language. Studying that language is important, as is studying the form of the Shakespearean sonnet, as The Bard's mastery of words and sounds remains rich and vibrant. Those who write contemporary poetry can benefit greatly from such works, as rhyme and meter are evident in all good contemporary works -- it may be internal rhyme and irregular meter, but it is still a major component of a good piece of poetry. The sonnet is something I write on occasion as an exercise in writing more than anything else. The poetry is something I appreciate as a human being, and it is still as strong and vital as ever. The body of my work, however, is largely contemporary -- and the reasons for its being so are largely in line with Steve's sentiments. And of course writing is done with readers in mind in addition to being done for the self. It's expression, and as such it expresses nothing without someone on the receiving end. Everything else is either an exercise in expression that doesn't reach fruition or an artist's attempt to justify mediocrity. I write because I feel the need to do so, not because I feel the need to make money at it or to kowtow to commercialization. Nevertheless, it is a need to express, a need to communicate. That said, I do not write poetry in French, as I do not speak the language well. More importantly, perhaps, I do not think in French. I do not dream in French either, lovely as the idea sounds to me. The same holds true for writing in Elizabethan English. It is not my tongue, therefore it is not the language of my work. (Message edited by runatyr on December 16, 2008) "Yo quiero hacer contigo lo que la primavera hace con los cerezos." ~Pablo Neruda Translated: "I want to do with you what spring does with the cherry trees." | ||
| Will Eastland
Intermediate Member Username: dwillo Post Number: 817 Registered: 07-2006 |
I actually can speak in Elizabethan English, or used to could. I read a ton in College, acted in "Much Ado" (Benedick), and watched whatever I could check out or rent. I was also in a comedy improv group and we had a "game" where, based on audience suggestions we would improvise a Shakespearan drama. It was a blast and I might brag that I was ridiculously proficient at it. p.s. Vienna, I was just introduced to Wyatt this weekend my Mr. Harold Bloom. That poem was one of the couple included. I want either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it. ~Ashleigh Brilliant | ||
| Jeffrey S. Lange
Advanced Member Username: runatyr Post Number: 1094 Registered: 10-2005 |
The language isn't exactly foreign to me in that sense, Will. I've performed in several of Shakespeare's plays, including Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night's Dream, and The Comedy of Errors; I've taken an intensive course in Shakespearean English with Shakespeare and Company, as well. I adore Shakespeare. I just tend to write in the language of my own time. P.S.: That game does sound like a blast. (Message edited by runatyr on December 16, 2008) "Yo quiero hacer contigo lo que la primavera hace con los cerezos." ~Pablo Neruda Translated: "I want to do with you what spring does with the cherry trees." | ||
| Kathy Paupore
Moderator Username: kathy Post Number: 10271 Registered: 12-2003 |
I don't think Steve was saying Shakespeare was illiterate, he was following on my comment that many people in that era could not read and write, and that is not saying they were dumb or didn't have any culture. It is just saying they couldn't read or write. Perhaps part of the reason poetry of that era was written with meter and end-rhyme was to help the listener remember it. Shakespeare's work endures because there is a body of people that enjoy it, and I'm thinking if I had gotten a literature degree in college, it would have been one of those things I was required to study. We were probably all exposed to Romeo and Juliet in high school. One way to learn is to learn from those that have done it before, so we study poetry from all eras, and absorb and use the techniques that best fit our own style of writing. We are each passionate about what we like and dislike, but we should at least be able to respect the different forms of poetry, sonnet to free verse. And, we should all be open-minded regarding other's opinions and not be offended that they have opinions that don't agree with our own. Kathy You're invited to: Wild Flowers Free verse in not, of course, free.--Mary Oliver | ||
| steve williams
Board Administrator Username: twobyfour Post Number: 2314 Registered: 01-2003 |
Dear P.R. I never said you shouldn't write what you want. My objection was to imitate a writer of the past and then take the stand that you have just done something original and new. My point was not about the poem but about the accompanying attitude. And yes Chris, Kathy gave a good explanation. I didn't say Shakespeare was illiterate but rather his audience. As to the rhyme and meter of poetry in that age. I think Fred said it was an oral tradition. Pinksy talks at length about the music of poetry and that because it began as an oral tradition, the rhyme and meter are there for the ease of memorization, for the repeating to a friend after you've heard it. That is why meter and rhyme continue to be popular in the today's music. Nobody buys the words of a song, they buy the song and listen, and memorize the song based on what they hear. so, apologies all around for any miscommunication on my part warmly s | ||
| steve williams
Board Administrator Username: twobyfour Post Number: 2315 Registered: 01-2003 |
p.s. Chris, i take your point about personnae pieces when you write in another person's voice. I was not really speaking to that style of writing. s | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 204 Registered: 02-2008 |
Sorry, Steve, my bad. I "get you" about the attitude, though Ican't imagine how or why anyone would do what you've described and not be instantly challenged (justifiably) on the grounds of either plagarism or sheer chicanery... I once transposed Robert Burns' poem To A Haggis from a dry-land/hunters' setting to a Maritime/fishers' setting, to commemorate an hilarious misunderstanding over a proposed Robert Burns' Night events' activities*...for the specific amusement of a small local group (all "in" on the joke), and it was both hilarious and an excellent "excercise", but I would never have tried to "sell" it as anything but what it was...a spoof and fun and solely for local consumption. Even if I had posted it (I hadn't found Wild yet, at the time) I never would have done so without the accompanying story of its' origin, explaining why it was written a la Robbie Burns...how could anybody do less, and still hold up their head in public? Did somebody (never mind names) actually do such a thing...around here?? --Packrat. (*= Someone's mother had expressed private concerns that we not forget to pipe in "the haddock", which had us all bouncing off the floor and walls in hysterics, when her daughter related the story to us...and that, of course, led to me (surely one of the world's biggest "hams}) returning to the next weeks' get-together with "To A Haddock" in hand.) (Message edited by harolyn j gourley on December 16, 2008) | ||
| Orestes Paramour
New member Username: orestes Post Number: 32 Registered: 11-2008 |
Just to wade in with my two cents in a highly intelligent discussion: I believe Shakespeare appeals because his universal themes are relevant. But, to wade into the 'language of his time' debate, I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. Me Linguist friend told me that Shakespeare and his Contemporaries and Elizabethian England all spoke 'early modern era' English. In such, in the 500 years since then and now every single word he uses in his plays and poems are recognisable and understandable (including thy and thine) to - and this is the important part - to those who have the vocab. It is the actual arranging of the words into metaphorical phrases that has those scratching their heads going "huh?", mores the pity for them. I still believe poetry is an oral tradition. I still read poems out loud, including modern verse. It should never be just read. I do fear that poems are becoming increadingly divorced from the sound. If you are not writing for the meter, the rhyme, the flow, the imagery, the aural feast of the words, what ARE you writing for? It smacks of dumbing down the artform, and that, rightly said, is a crime. Write in the language and diction that you want to. I've lived on the streets for years, and the absolute POVERTY of language that exists out there away from literature, away from those who were lucky enough to go to higher education of any form (or even: to go to school) is an absolute disgrace. I agree with Jeffrey when he said "Studying that language is important, as is studying the form of the Shakespearean sonnet, as The Bard's mastery of words and sounds remains rich and vibrant. Those who write contemporary poetry can benefit greatly from such works, as rhyme and meter are evident in all good contemporary works..." Be the light in the Dark Age of Literature (it is coming, I fear), write in the style of masters, write with metaphor and depth, write with narrative flair, and Never, NEVER, have to say: oh I'm only copying, or paying tribute, or at the worst, plagerising; because can anyone, really, in the VAST amount of literature now available to them, guarantee that no one else has ever put those two words or phrases together to come up with something original? Perhaps only Lewis Carrol and Tolkien, and they had to write new languages to do it. | ||
| Orestes Paramour
New member Username: orestes Post Number: 33 Registered: 11-2008 |
Oops, left this bit out: Gutter language doesn't change, we all know an insult or a fart joke when we hear it. What the gutter never had was metphor and imagery. | ||
| Fred Longworth
Senior Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 5103 Registered: 05-2006 |
"What the Gutter Never Had" -- now there's a terrific title for a poem -- or a weekly challenge!!! Fred even consciousness, a pastiche of recycled cans | ||
| Jane Røken
Advanced Member Username: magpie Post Number: 2419 Registered: 03-2007 |
"What the gutter never had was metphor and imagery." Well, that may not always be entirely true. Once, in a rather gutterish environment, I overheard the following curse (not in English, but I'll attempt an adequate translation): "May your arse be forever itching & your arms be forever too short!" Jane | ||
| Orestes Paramour
New member Username: orestes Post Number: 34 Registered: 11-2008 |
Hmm, the Cloaca Maxima is a sewage system in Ancient Rome. Parts of it were open rivers, parts of it underground as building space became more valuable. Parts of it is lined with concrete, parts of it are lined with marble. Perhaps even in gutters there are levels of class? | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 211 Registered: 02-2008 |
...recognizable and understandable...to those who have the vocab. It is the actual arranging of the words into metaphorical phrases that has them scratching their heads going "huh?", more the pity for them... (plus all the rest you said...) Orestes? Can I adopt you?! At least, honorarily?! Jane! *ROTFLMAO!!* That's priceless! I have often thought that it would be a wonderful thing to know enoughArabic--maybe, like, classical??-- to apprectiate the rich trove of "flowery" insult I understand that it is reknowned and esteemed for! Ah,but then I'd have to learn Persian or Turkish (can'trememberwhich) so I could enjoy Rumi in the original, etc., ad infinitum. But, *sigh*, I know and acknowledge that I'm just too steadfastly lazy, and while the rewards would be more than worth it...the idea simply reeks of effort...(to steal a friend of mine's line!!) --Packrat. (...Big Grinz, all 'round!!) (Message edited by harolyn j gourley on December 17, 2008) | ||
| Orestes Paramour
New member Username: orestes Post Number: 35 Registered: 11-2008 |
Sure! I have two poet friends that have adopted me already, I can always have another mama, I never had a mom. (Message edited by Orestes on December 17, 2008) | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 212 Registered: 02-2008 |
Come along, Orestes, my dear...I've got the bestrecipes for frosted brownies and cookies and fresh, homemade biscuits... Fetch the kettle, Magpie, we're for a ceilidh in the cidsin!!! --Packrat. | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Moderator Username: garydawg Post Number: 26293 Registered: 07-2001 |
Rat, do you make pies? Though biscuits work for me. Smiles. Gary Celebrate Walt with Gary: http://www.poetrykit.org/pkl/tw10/tw4conte.htm | ||
| Orestes Paramour
New member Username: orestes Post Number: 36 Registered: 11-2008 |
Ah, you had me at "come". LOL. And I'll bring me son, any mess (or missing pies) I'll blame on him. *snicker. | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 214 Registered: 02-2008 |
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! 'Dawg, I do make pies!And this summer, I got right nervey and got into making (and enjoying wa-a-ay too much!) meat turn-over versions--like a hand-held crescent thingy (aka somosas, meat pies ,and one other name I can't remember but think is the best descriptor). I had tamed the feral pie-crust a couple of years ago, and was just trying to expand on the notion. They turned out really good, and I wound up with a beef version and a chicken one...got side-tracked into a couple of goes at a blueberry-filled one, but they need more work--too drippy. (I've been told that adding tapioca might...) But GOOD! Oh, my! Um-YUM, you betcha!!! --Packrat. | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 215 Registered: 02-2008 |
*LOL!!* Never count a clever lad out, Orestes! That's what making them "drier" is all about--no evidence on hand to get caught with! (Just don't stick out your tongue at anybody!) --Packrat. Holy Smokes! Where'dja go, O.?!? (Message edited by harolyn j gourley on December 17, 2008) | ||
| Orestes Paramour
New member Username: orestes Post Number: 37 Registered: 11-2008 |
heh, clever is making everyone believe you didn't eat them while your face is COVERED in their remains. LOLOL. Mmmmm, pies! (Drools....) er, (lifts son and puts him down in the puddle then discretely steps away...) | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 216 Registered: 02-2008 |
Oh, you stinker! I'm saving the frosting pot forhim...and YOU can deal with the sugar-high! *LOLOL!!* I'm outta here, ladies, lads and laddies. A la prochaine! --Packrat. (Message edited by harolyn j gourley on December 17, 2008) | ||
| Orestes Paramour
New member Username: orestes Post Number: 38 Registered: 11-2008 |
LOL! I'll leave him out tonight, and call animal control in the morning to see if they've found him yet. *snicker | ||
| Kathy Paupore
Moderator Username: kathy Post Number: 10299 Registered: 12-2003 |
P'raps thee strict iambic pent'met'r 'twas eas'r to meeteth whilst thee scans'n 'twas diff'rent in thee olden days of yore. p'RAPS thee STRICT iamBIC pent'MET'R 'twas EAS'R to MEETeth WHILST thee SCANS'N 'twas DIFF'rent IN the OLDen DAYS of YORE. Perhaps strict iambic pentemeter was easier to meet when scansion was different in the past. Kathy You're invited to: Wild Flowers Free verse in not, of course, free.--Mary Oliver | ||
| Jane Røken
Advanced Member Username: magpie Post Number: 2421 Registered: 03-2007 |
Packrat! ... Did I hear ya mention a ceilidh in the cidsin? I'm a-cumin' in ... paw-stiffly wasssssailin'. Shall I bring some of my special spice-primed calvados cakes? What more, what else? Funny apple pies? (I promise to leave my harmonica at home.) Yeah, let's ceilidh!  Jane | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Moderator Username: garydawg Post Number: 26297 Registered: 07-2001 |
I made Peanut Oatmeal cookies today, and have a batch of Tropical Fruit and Nut in the refer chilling to bake... Smiles. Gary Celebrate Walt with Gary: http://www.poetrykit.org/pkl/tw10/tw4conte.htm | ||
| Jane Røken
Advanced Member Username: magpie Post Number: 2422 Registered: 03-2007 |
Gary! ...Wha'.....? Tropical Fruit and Nut in the reefer? ...??? Blimey, I've tried a lot of odd things in my time, but never, never just that.  Jane (still gotta lotta learn) | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 226 Registered: 02-2008 |
No,no, Jane...it's reefer in the Tropical Fruit and Nut mix! Pass the spliff, dear, and don't you dare leave your 'monica home...mine will be far too shy to come out and play, elsewise! (We must always encourage the wee ones, you know!) --Packrat. | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Moderator Username: garydawg Post Number: 26299 Registered: 07-2001 |
Sheesh! Ok, fridge... Smiles. Gary Celebrate Walt with Gary: http://www.poetrykit.org/pkl/tw10/tw4conte.htm | ||
| Packrat
Valued Member Username: harolyn_j_gourley Post Number: 227 Registered: 02-2008 |
(...oh,shoot...) a-hem... Gary, you typed, "refer", which I took, at first, to be a typo for \i{reefer} and/or (on second thought...) you were using anabbreviated, slangish "re-fer-id-ger-ater" to refer (no pun intended) to a refridgerator. Now, to me, that was the second thought/connection I had/made with "reefer"...my first was to the hobo-culture term "reefer", meaning the cubbyhole-ish compartment atop a refidgerated train car...aka, a "reefer". Jane fielded the more broadly familiar marijuana reference and lobbed it back in for a non sequiteur (sp?)...ball's still in play, 'Dawg, if you'd like to dig in yer spikes and put a sprint on...!!! Ceilidh In The Cidsin: I'm thinkin' that would be a really fine idea! Don't anybody go anywhere with it just yet, please--lemme think it out a bit, and I'll start up a Cidsin Ceilidh!! thread between Christmas and New Year's--hey!, that's the time we're all after wanting to visit/+/party (ceilidh) in the kitchen (cidsin), anyway, eh? (If it runs long enough, we could all see the New Year in together on it--a round of toasts and mistletoe, for all hands, and pass the baby pictures 'round while yer at it!!) Trust me...we'll have lots to eat and drink, songs and stories, poems and punning melees to keep ourselves and friends amused! Rollickin', jolly, right!! (Right now, though, I gotta whack o' recipe-rendering to do (working on Stocking Stuffers, and I type/edit slow as molasses!) (Hmm, hmm, hmmmmm)...In the mean time, think (to yourselves) about favourite munchies-recipes, toasts, "party-f/lavours",etc....(I might do a few side-bars on the subject...hmmmmm....) --Packrat. {(...wandering off, hummming and muttering--quite cheerfully--into her "beard"...hmmm-hmmm-hmmm....la-la-la..."I'm giving this DEEP thoughtkus."...)} -----*blink!*----- [Fred, darlin'; if Magpie and I bring our harmonicas, will ya come tickle the ivories with us? I've kept a polish on my Grandmother's pocket-piano (even though I don't play, just "play with"...), with a nice, wide, slanted-mounted mirror on the wall above and behind it...so's the Rag-Time-Man-of-the-hour/occasion never has to miss any of the party going ' on behind 'im! And hey!...no matter how many fiddlers show up, we still need a good key-boarder to get the jigs and reels goin' 'round!] --Packrat.} (Message edited by harolyn j gourley on December 18, 2008) |
