| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 36:05:41 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,010 |
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
Okay, definitely not s Glosa poem, possibly a Cento, after all, though: >>>>>
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/glosa
***
A Cento has to be composed *entirely* out of lines from the original poem or by the original poet.
If Dance changed/added any words, it is not a Cento.
I can't remember, I'll have to read the original poem again.
You needn't take such drastic measures, Donkey.
Just scroll up to the first post in this thread where NancyGene compares the *similar* (albeit altered) lines of the poem with those of the original song.
It doesn't fall under the definition of a "Cento."
Not a strict form Cento, anyhow.
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
Okay, definitely not s Glosa poem, possibly a Cento, after all, though: >>>>>>
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/glosa
***
A Cento has to be composed *entirely* out of lines from the original poem or by the original poet.
If Dance changed/added any words, it is not a Cento.
I can't remember, I'll have to read the original poem again.
You needn't take such drastic measures, Donkey.
Just scroll up to the first post in this thread where NancyGene compares the *similar* (albeit altered) lines of the poem with those of the original song.
It doesn't fall under the definition of a "Cento."
Not a strict form Cento, anyhow.
You don't understand the first thing about poetry, do you, Donkey?
Highly specific forms like Cento and Glosa do not have "loose" forms/variations.
A loose Cento would establish its own set of rules and be given a different name.
Dunce's poem is one of two things: an homage or an example of literary theft.
And, IMHO, it's equal parts of each.
Dunce has been caught stealing poetry before... and has always defended his theft with his typical Dunce logic.
For example: Dunce posted a little known poem by Leonard Cohen *without any attribution.*
When caught, Dunce claimed that he did so in order to elicit an unprejudiced response from the AAPC whose attention he had directed it to. Dunce did not see this as an act of theft, because he says he planned on eventually revealing the poem's authorship.
In another example, Dunce wrote a spoof of a poem by PJR. Dunce and a friend began what was essentially a cascade, wherein they took turns adding to the list of colors mentioned in the spoof. This went on interminably, until several thousand different colors had been listed. At that time, Dunce decided that the now epic length poem had become his own property, changed the name of the poem's protagonist, and made sure that none of the lines from PJR's poem had been copied word-for-word, and pronounced the poem to be his own. And I'm sure that Dunce fully believes that the poem is indeed his work.
In "Piper at the Gates of Dawn," Dunce wrote an homage to a Pink Floyd lyric, but chose not to note it as such. Since Dunce would have immediately recognized it, he figured that other Pink Floyd fans would easily do the same. If, otoh, literary fans happened to be unfamiliar with the bulk of Pink Floyd songs, well... that was just too bad. In Dunce's mind, if they were to mistake Dunce's poem as a wholly original work, they were merely demonstrating their ignorance of a fifty-year old album track from a rock band.
HarryLime wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
Okay, definitely not s Glosa poem, possibly a Cento, after all, though: >>>>>>>
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/glosa
***
A Cento has to be composed *entirely* out of lines from the original poem or by the original poet.
If Dance changed/added any words, it is not a Cento.
I can't remember, I'll have to read the original poem again.
You needn't take such drastic measures, Donkey.
Just scroll up to the first post in this thread where NancyGene compares the *similar* (albeit altered) lines of the poem with those of the original song.
It doesn't fall under the definition of a "Cento."
Not a strict form Cento, anyhow.
You don't understand the first thing about poetry, do you, Donkey?
Highly specific forms like Cento and Glosa do not have "loose" forms/variations.
A loose Cento would establish its own set of rules and be given a different name.
Dunce's poem is one of two things: an homage or an example of literary theft.
And, IMHO, it's equal parts of each.
Dunce has been caught stealing poetry before... and has always defended his theft with his typical Dunce logic.
For example: Dunce posted a little known poem by Leonard Cohen *without any attribution.*
When caught, Dunce claimed that he did so in order to elicit an unprejudiced response from the AAPC whose attention he had directed it to. Dunce did not see this as an act of theft, because he says he planned on eventually revealing the poem's authorship.
In another example, Dunce wrote a spoof of a poem by PJR. Dunce and a friend began what was essentially a cascade, wherein they took turns adding to the list of colors mentioned in the spoof. This went on interminably, until several thousand different colors had been listed. At that time, Dunce decided that the now epic length poem had become his own property, changed the name of the poem's protagonist, and made sure that none of the lines from PJR's poem had been copied word-for-word, and pronounced the poem to be his own. And I'm sure that Dunce fully believes that the poem is indeed his work.
In "Piper at the Gates of Dawn," Dunce wrote an homage to a Pink Floyd lyric, but chose not to note it as such. Since Dunce would have immediately recognized it, he figured that other Pink Floyd fans would easily do the same. If, otoh, literary fans happened to be unfamiliar with the bulk of Pink Floyd songs, well... that was just too bad. In Dunce's mind, if they were to mistake Dunce's poem as a wholly original work, they were merely demonstrating their ignorance of a fifty-year old album track from a rock band.
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
Okay, definitely not s Glosa poem, possibly a Cento, after all, though: >>>>>>
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/glosa
***
A Cento has to be composed *entirely* out of lines from the original poem or by the original poet.
If Dance changed/added any words, it is not a Cento.
I can't remember, I'll have to read the original poem again.
You needn't take such drastic measures, Donkey.
Just scroll up to the first post in this thread where NancyGene compares the *similar* (albeit altered) lines of the poem with those of the original song.
It doesn't fall under the definition of a "Cento."
Not a strict form Cento, anyhow.
You don't understand the first thing about poetry, do you, Donkey?
Highly specific forms like Cento and Glosa do not have "loose" forms/variations.
A loose Cento would establish its own set of rules and be given a different name.
Dunce's poem is one of two things: an homage or an example of literary theft.
And, IMHO, it's equal parts of each.
Dunce has been caught stealing poetry before... and has always defended his theft with his typical Dunce logic.
For example: Dunce posted a little known poem by Leonard Cohen *without any attribution.*
When caught, Dunce claimed that he did so in order to elicit an unprejudiced response from the AAPC whose attention he had directed it to. Dunce did not see this as an act of theft, because he says he planned on eventually revealing the poem's authorship.
In another example, Dunce wrote a spoof of a poem by PJR. Dunce and a friend began what was essentially a cascade, wherein they took turns adding to the list of colors mentioned in the spoof. This went on interminably, until several thousand different colors had been listed. At that time, Dunce decided that the now epic length poem had become his own property, changed the name of the poem's protagonist, and made sure that none of the lines from PJR's poem had been copied word-for-word, and pronounced the poem to be his own. And I'm sure that Dunce fully believes that the poem is indeed his work.
In "Piper at the Gates of Dawn," Dunce wrote an homage to a Pink Floyd lyric, but chose not to note it as such. Pink Floyd fans would easily recognize it as such. If literary fans happened to be unfamiliar with the bulk of Pink Floyd songs, well... that was just too bad. In Dunce's mind, if they were to mistake Dunce's poem as a wholly original work, they were merely demonstrating their ignorance of a fifty-year old album track from a rock band.
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
Okay, definitely not s Glosa poem, possibly a Cento, after all, though: >>>>>>>
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/glosa
***
A Cento has to be composed *entirely* out of lines from the original poem or by the original poet.
If Dance changed/added any words, it is not a Cento.
I can't remember, I'll have to read the original poem again.
You needn't take such drastic measures, Donkey.
Just scroll up to the first post in this thread where NancyGene compares the *similar* (albeit altered) lines of the poem with those of the original song.
It doesn't fall under the definition of a "Cento."
Not a strict form Cento, anyhow.
You don't understand the first thing about poetry, do you, Donkey?
Highly specific forms like Cento and Glosa do not have "loose" forms/variations.
A loose Cento would establish its own set of rules and be given a different name.
Dunce's poem is one of two things: an homage or an example of literary theft.
And, IMHO, it's equal parts of each.
Dunce has been caught stealing poetry before... and has always defended his theft with his typical Dunce logic.
For example: Dunce posted a little known poem by Leonard Cohen *without any attribution.*
When caught, Dunce claimed that he did so in order to elicit an unprejudiced response from the AAPC whose attention he had directed it to. Dunce did not see this as an act of theft, because he says he planned on eventually revealing the poem's authorship.
In another example, Dunce wrote a spoof of a poem by PJR. Dunce and a friend began what was essentially a cascade, wherein they took turns adding to the list of colors mentioned in the spoof. This went on interminably, until several thousand different colors had been listed. At that time, Dunce decided that the now epic length poem had become his own property, changed the name of the poem's protagonist, and made sure that none of the lines from PJR's poem had been copied word-for-word, and pronounced the poem to be his own. And I'm sure that Dunce fully believes that the poem is indeed his work.
In "Piper at the Gates of Dawn," Dunce wrote an homage to a Pink Floyd lyric, but chose not to note it as such. Pink Floyd fans would easily recognize it as such. If literary fans happened to be unfamiliar with the bulk of Pink Floyd songs, well... that was just too bad. In Dunce's mind, if they were to mistake Dunce's poem as a wholly original work, they were merely demonstrating their ignorance of a fifty-year old album track from a rock band.
Not all homages are directly attributed for various reasons.
For example, Jean Luc Godard used dozens of homage scenes in his movies to Hitchcock and many others. Godard couldn't just stop the movie to give each artist credit in the homage.
HTH and HAND.
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:
Okay, definitely not s Glosa poem, possibly a Cento, after all, though:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/glosa
***
A Cento has to be composed *entirely* out of lines from the original poem or by the original poet.
If Dance changed/added any words, it is not a Cento.
I can't remember, I'll have to read the original poem again.
You needn't take such drastic measures, Donkey.
Just scroll up to the first post in this thread where NancyGene compares the *similar* (albeit altered) lines of the poem with those of the original song.
It doesn't fall under the definition of a "Cento."
Not a strict form Cento, anyhow.
You don't understand the first thing about poetry, do you, Donkey?
Highly specific forms like Cento and Glosa do not have "loose" forms/variations.
A loose Cento would establish its own set of rules and be given a different name.
Dunce's poem is one of two things: an homage or an example of literary theft.
And, IMHO, it's equal parts of each.
Dunce has been caught stealing poetry before... and has always defended his theft with his typical Dunce logic.
For example: Dunce posted a little known poem by Leonard Cohen *without any attribution.*
When caught, Dunce claimed that he did so in order to elicit an unprejudiced response from the AAPC whose attention he had directed it to. Dunce did not see this as an act of theft, because he says he planned on eventually revealing the poem's authorship.
In another example, Dunce wrote a spoof of a poem by PJR. Dunce and a friend began what was essentially a cascade, wherein they took turns adding to the list of colors mentioned in the spoof. This went on interminably, until several thousand different colors had been listed. At that time, Dunce decided that the now epic length poem had become his own property, changed the name of the poem's protagonist, and made sure that none of the lines from PJR's poem had been copied word-for-word, and pronounced the poem to be his own. And I'm sure that Dunce fully believes that the poem is indeed his work.
In "Piper at the Gates of Dawn," Dunce wrote an homage to a Pink Floyd lyric, but chose not to note it as such. Pink Floyd fans would easily recognize it as such. If literary fans happened to be unfamiliar with the bulk of Pink Floyd songs, well... that was just too bad. In Dunce's mind, if they were to mistake Dunce's poem as a wholly original work, they were merely demonstrating their ignorance of a fifty-year old album track from a rock band.
Not all homages are directly attributed for various reasons.
For example, Jean Luc Godard used dozens of homage scenes in his movies to Hitchcock and many others. Godard couldn't just stop the movie to give each artist credit in the homage.
HTH and HAND.
A scene from a motion picture > is not a poem
No, but "an homage is an homage.'
Godard's movies were, first and foremost, Godard films (and not homages to other directors).
Agreed, although in many scenes Godard pays homage to various directors without specifically attributing each one.
Yes, when Jean-Paul
Belmondo runs his thumb back and forth across his lips in "|C bout de souffle," he is paying homage to Humphrey Bogart. And Godard *visually acknowledges* this by showing two close ups the the photo of Humphrey Bogart that Belmondo is staring at. "|C bout de souffle" is not, however, a cinematic homage to Bogart. It is a Godard film in which a character (and, by extension, Godard) pays homage to
Bogart.
An "Homage Poem" exists solely for the purpose of "paying homage to" an existing poem. My award-winning poem, "Hell Rising," is an Homage Poem, as it was written specifically as an appreciation of Edgar A. Poe's "The City In the Sea." "Hell Rising" cannot exist on its own, but must *only* be read in terms of its relationship to Poe's aforesaid work.
Hopefully, you are
understanding the difference.