Ah! Someone who disagrees with my assessment
of Bobby Adams' "Candy" (strongly, apparently).
I only wish you would've elaborated at least a little
on your disagreement with me about this particular
work (try to specify what you believe ARE the merits
of the work... if you believe you are able to do so).
Perhaps you will change my opinion of the piece.
Otherwise your inability to provide such positive
arguments will only reinforce the feeling that my
negative comments were justified--as your present
obiter dictum above already has, somewhat... since
what exactly (if anything) you intended with it is a little
bit ambiguous: Who is an asshole? Do you perhaps
suffer from Tourette Syndrome?...
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
RE:
>
> Dear Bobby, I'm sorry to have to tell you that
> your so-called poem is no poem at all. Perhaps
> if you removed/ignored the rhymes you would
> see this yourself.
>
> Art has to have SOME merit, for Heavens' sakes.
> And your "poem" above is just the mere dumb
> mumblings of some candy-licking idiot (the
> "merits" of the piece are that he/she is annoying
> .. perhaps he or she also has sugary goop all over
> his/her mouth & face/forehead). The whole idea
> is repugnantly sweet.
>
> Now, if you had taken that repugnance and done
> something constructive with it (like... had the
> guy/gal slurping candy SLIP on his sweet saliva and
> slide under a passing bus, say, THEN) it MIGHT
> have been of some mild interest (if psychopathic).
>
> And then, perhaps you might have WORKED that
> idea into a structure (poetic structure, although not
> always necessary for poetry IS often quite helpful),
> a structure which might have displayed some charm
> and grace... something with which you could have
> highlighted the "merits" of your thought. And this
> might have allowed your readers to think your thought
> memorable (even if but only somewhat).
>
> Good luck in all your future efforts (if you're still
> alive--Sorry it took this long for me to comment
> on your piece, but I was doing something else). *
>
> S D Rodrian
>
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
http://music.sdrodrian.com
>
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
> * As you can probably tell, I commented on your
> piece not because it deserved to be commented
> on but because I was mentioned in this thread (for
> some inscrutable reason or other).
