Karla wrote:
"Clive Nugent" <comfy_sofa> wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
Looks like you might have been reading Dover Beach. Keep reading. The rest of this sounds like something you have ingested but haven't digested. It's regurgitation. Honor your message - speak with your own voice. Have you read
any Gerard Manley Hopkins? Here's a link to where you can find poems by him:
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/english/wics/gmh/framconc.htm
Read his "God's Grandeur" - pay attention to voice rather than rhythm and meter as Hopkins departs from conventional metrics.
Good luck,
Karla
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted: >>>>>>>> Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put."
I still consider it well put.
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted:
Clive Nugent wrote:
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
I still consider it well put.
Of course you do
MummyChunk wrote:
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted: >>>>>>>>
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted: >>>>>>>>> Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put."
I still consider it well put.
Of course you do
Will-Dockery wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
I liked the poem, and the community by Karla Rogers was illuminating.
Good find, MummyChunk.
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted: >>>>>>>>>
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted: >>>>>>>>>> Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put."
I still consider it well put.
Of course you do
Because it is.
EfOe
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted: >>>>>>>>>>
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted: >>>>>>>>>>> Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put."
I still consider it well put.
Of course you do
Because it is.
EfOe
Insisting that incorrect English
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted: >>>>>>>>>>
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted: >>>>>>>>>>> Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put."
I still consider it well put.
Of course you do
Because it is.
Insisting that incorrect English is correct
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted: >>>>>>>>>>>
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted: >>>>>>>>>>>> Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put." >>>>>>
I still consider it well put.
Of course you do
Because it is.
EfOe
Insisting that incorrect English
Poetics is the study of poetry.
Most of us here practice poetics.
Try to keep up.
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted:
Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put."
HarryLime wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
If you thought they deserve to be brought back for discussion, you must have some opinion on them. You can't count on others to have anything to say if you can't think of anything yourself.
I'll give it shot, this time -- but without having heard your take on it, it feels less like a discussion and more like an unasked for pop quiz.
"Homage to Milton" does nothing for me. It doesn't remind me of Milton, and it doesn't seem to be saying much of anything.
"Ceremony" is better. Structurally, it's good with the closing stanza being a repeat of the opening one -- bookending the poem with the same image with each one having a different contextual meaning.
Stylistically, the poem feels a little singsongy -- but its tone serves a practical purpose, as it alerts the reader that the poem is intended to be "light verse" (humorous in tone).
The narrative works well on paper. People (presumably Pagans) are dancing on the sand. Jesus arrives, dies for our sins, establishes Christianity. But the churches bicker with one another over what Christianity means, and the people fall back into their carefree dance on the shore.
The problem is that the conflict between the churches needs to be further developed. Arguments over suicide or blaspheming the Holy Ghost are hardly enough to bring down the churches (if so, they'd have been gone centuries ago).
As is, it's still pretty good.
Karla's comparison to "Dover Beach" strikes me as odd.
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mpsilvertone@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (HarryLime) posted:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted: >>>>>>>> Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put."
I still consider it well put.
Will Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will Dockery wrote:
mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) posted:
Clive Nugent wrote:
Homage to Milton
The lord of might with Chaos for a bride
Is known as Satan, king of this dark world.
Primeval Chaos was his mother too;
He fears her, he fears consumption by fire.
From Chaos we were made, we shall return
Unless we find a saviour before death.
Ceremony
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
The son of God came down to earth,
He came in human form.
We know because he rose from death
And was of virgin born.
And so we nailed him to a cross,
He had a painful death.
But he forgives this and all else,
He did with dying breath.
But one church says he can't forgive
The act of suicide;
The others say blaspheme the ghost
And heaven is denied.
Beneath the azure twilight sky
The sea draws back from land,
The people gathered on the beach
Are dancing on the sand.
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
Well put, MummyChunk.
She didn't "put" anything forward
She "put" her response really well.
Your move.
She wasn't responding to anything.
MummyChunk was responding to previous criticism.
she wasn't
Yes she was:
"Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
"I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them."
Exactly, MummyChunk had been criticized elsewhere for not commenting on the poetry she's reposting.
Again, try to keep up, Harry.
Wrong again
Absolutely not.
She may have offered the comment *in response to* a post from a different thread, but she was not *responding to* that post.
In general, she was.
HTH and HAND.
It would still not be the same thing.
Responding to a post denotes a written reply made to a specific statement. (Noun tense)
"In response to" connotes an action taken as the result of a specific stimulus. (Verb tense)
She offered her statement as a reaction to a post I'd made in a different thread.
Her post, however, is not "responding to" (i.e., addressing) the points raised in any discussion.
Her "response" (action) was therefore considerate, not "well put."
I still consider it well put.
Of course you do
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
MummyChunk wrote:
Some poems from Clive 20 years ago.
I really do not have much time to make a comment on them now but I feel they certainly deserve to be brought back to the light in 2026. Certainly someone else here will see fit to say how they might feel about them.
If you thought they deserve to be brought back for discussion, you must have some opinion on them. You can't count on others to have anything to say if you can't think of anything yourself.
I'll give it shot, this time -- but without having heard your take on it, it feels less like a discussion and more like an unasked for pop quiz.
"Homage to Milton" does nothing for me. It doesn't remind me of Milton, and it doesn't seem to be saying much of anything.
"Ceremony" is better. Structurally, it's good with the closing stanza being a repeat of the opening one -- bookending the poem with the same image with each one having a different contextual meaning.
Stylistically, the poem feels a little singsongy -- but its tone serves a practical purpose, as it alerts the reader that the poem is intended to be "light verse" (humorous in tone).
The narrative works well on paper. People (presumably Pagans) are dancing on the sand. Jesus arrives, dies for our sins, establishes Christianity. But the churches bicker with one another over what Christianity means, and the people fall back into their carefree dance on the shore.
The problem is that the conflict between the churches needs to be further developed. Arguments over suicide or blaspheming the Holy Ghost are hardly enough to bring down the churches (if so, they'd have been gone centuries ago).
As is, it's still pretty good.
Karla's comparison to "Dover Beach" strikes me as odd.
I've been reading "Dover Beach" and am liking it:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43588/dover-beach
What's your opinion of "Dover Beach," Pendragon?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 07:18:01 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
9 files (16,136K bytes) |
| Messages: | 206,255 |