> On Mar 12, 6:17 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" arvig.net> wrote:
>

>>George Dance wrote:
>>

>>>On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Karla sbcNOSPAMglobal.net> wrote:

>>

>>>>Project Gutenberg includes four volumes of Sara Teasdale's poetry. This
>>>>poem is included in two of the volumes. On the title page for LOVE SONGS,
>>>>under "Copyright Status", Project Gutenberg informs us that this work is
>>>>not copyrighted in the U.S.

>>

>>>>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/442

>>

>>>>Since many works prior to 1922 are no longer under copyright in the U.S.,
>>>>this makes sense "The Look" was transcribed from a 1918 reprinting of a
>>>>1917 edition.

>>

>>>>So, I would question whether this is a "blatant copyright violation" as
>>>>this poster claims. The original poster, "sirblob" has re-titled it "the
>>>>biscuit tin" but left Ms. Teasdale's original words intact. Sirblob appears
>>>>to be claiming this poem as his own by adding, after the subject line, "my
>>>>13th poem of the year". I am inclined to tag it 'plagiarism', not a
>>>>copyright infringement.

>>

>>>Agreed: sirblob is a plagiarist.

>>

>>>>To plagiarize is to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass
>>>>them off as one's own.

>>

>>>>Copyright, on the other hand, is the exclusive right to the publication,
>>>>production, or sale of the rights to a literary, dramatic, musical, or
>>>>artistic work, or to the use of a commercial print or label, granted by law
>>>>for a specified period of time to an author, composer, artist, distributor,
>>>>etc.

>>

>>>>Definitions of 'plagiarize' and 'copyright' are from Webster's New World
>>>>Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

>>

>>>>Since, to our knowledge, Ms. Teasdale's poem is not copyrighted, it's
>>>>unlikely that the use of the poem is infringment or a "blatant copyright
>>>>violation." :)

>>

>>>>Here's another Sara Teasdale poem:

>>

>>>I didn't like that one. Here's one of Teasdale's more philosophical
>>>poems:

>>

>>>There Will Come Soft Rains

>>

>>>There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
>>>And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

>>

>>>And frogs in the pools singing at night,
>>>And wild plum trees in tremulous white;

>>

>>>Robins will wear their feathery fire,
>>>Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

>>

>>>And not one will know of the war, not one
>>>Will care at last when it is done.

>>

>>>Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
>>>If mankind perished utterly;

>>

>>>And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn
>>>Would scarcely know that we were gone.

>>

>>> -- Sara Teasdale

>>
>>Exercise for poets: point out a half dozen places (even without
>>reasons, or saying which bad technique was substituted for a good
>>one) that this is a not-very-good poem, and at least one thing that
>>makes it not very good philosophy.
>>
>>Exercise for editors: point out why it sold to its readership.
>>
>>Exercise for teachers: point out why it sold to babies subsequently.

>
>
> The poem uses a weasel technique of suggesting while denying:
>
> "I'm not saying Bush is the greatest President we've ever had, but..."
> "I'm not saying Nature is cuddly and caring, but..."
>
> ... "but", the frogs sing joyfully, the robins "wear" their colour
> proudly, the trees display bridal modesty, and "Nature", whoever "she"
> is, can be guaranteed to be still around even after humanity has
> liquidated itself.
>
> By personifying Nature, Teasdale avoids addressing what she pretends
> to address, the indifference of the universe to the fate of man (which
> Arnold /does/ address, as you point out), while pushing a subtext
> along the lines of "hey, folks, what's the point in fighting wars, it
> makes no darn difference to anything, let's all go hug trees
> instead" ("Not one" is suspiciously suggestive of "no one"). The
> "Nature" she presents is impossibly fluffy (an Eden without serpents)
> and consists entirely of cliches from other poems, and her assertion
> that it can get along fine without humans is disingenuous, insofar as
> any landscape offering swallows, robins and plum trees will almost
> certainly be highly artificial (she avoids mentioning the ploughed
> fields and hedgerows, but they're still there in the reader's
> visualisation - the selection and the cliches guarantee that).
>
> The poem, then, says nothing about the real world, and would
> presumably therefore appeal to people who don't want to know about the
> real world, i.e. babies. QED?

>
> Once I was visited by some JWs who left me a Watchtower depicting,
> full-page, an Edenic scene in which a lioness disported herself with a
> lamb, and three humans dressed in smocks had a picnic nearby. On their
> next visit, I asked them how God intended to modify the digestive
> system of carnivores so that they could become vegetarians, and
> whether such a gung-ho orgy of genetic modification didn't seem a bit
> rich coming from a Higher Being who has forbidden even compatible
> blood transfusions among members of a single species. I never saw them
> again.
>