A Blast From The Past...Only Current
Oh, My LJ. You allow me to notice new comments from anonymous visitors on posts I wrote TWO YEARS AGO.
The comment:
"You know, before you go and post things like this you should speak with the author. This is insulting and very unintelligent on your part. I'm afraid to ask what kind of grade you got on your own paper if all you can do is pick apart others.
I also noticed that you didn't put up your own poem. Was it any better? Must not have been.
Look at yourself before you start making fun of others. And stop being so literal. That's the reason you can't understand the poem in the first place."
Wow. I personally cannot WAIT for this person to get to my nine really, really offensive journals. Especially "Chillin' Wit' My Car Thieves." Oh man, this person might hunt me down for that one.
How best to respond...? Well, obviously, I should take Anonymous' advice and --before posting brashly-- speak privately with the author of the comm... Oh. Anonymous. Well then, guess it's time for an open post after all.
"This is insulting and very unintelligent on your part."
Insulting? I should say so. If it hadn't come across as insulting to a poem that isn't even as good as the crap that wins poetry.com contests, then I'd have failed in my duty as a smartass.
Unintelligent though? Now you're being unfair, Anonymous. I went out of my way to be as thorough and analytical as I could. Did it sound like I was being dense? Because I was; purposefully so. I took that poem at face-value, and it didn't work. It couldn't work, even on the most basic level: line by line analysis.
But perhaps that was too much to ask of a poem. Perhaps we were meant to read "Crossword Puzzle" as a whole, not paying attention to piddly, unimportant poetic devices like word choice and line order. Perhaps we were only meant to glance at it for a second and say, "Oh! The phrase 'Crossword Puzzle' is in bold, so I'll remember those words, and theeeeen... let's skip through this crossword stuff, since the author obviously knows more about that nerdy stuff than I do... aaaaaand, Oh! 'The answer to the crossword was God!' An exclamation point signifies importance! That means that God loves everybody... even nerds!"
If that was the message we were intended to take away, I guess I owe everybody an apology (You'll get yours in the mail, Anonymous). However, I kind of doubt that was the only lesson we were supposed to glean from these lines. I would say that the author's creative process went something like this:
"Hmm. I need to write a poem of some kind. It needs to be religious and rhyme of course, but also --like Gypsy Rose Lee taught us-- I've gotta get a gimmick. Hmm. Well, there's all kinds of things that God has done or is given credit for, what with his being responsible for everything good in the world... Hey. You could put them down like crossword clues, and they'd all have the answer 'GOD' because God did everything that's good! This poem will write itself!"
Thus was born "Crossword Puzzle."
I still don't understand why Claytia felt inclined to start at Four Across though. I mean, sure, Anonymous, I can understand not wanting to put all kinds of confusing numbers just so the resulting crossword could work in real life (42 Across: Who loved the world? 126 Down: Who gave his son?), but the fact that that concern crops up only highlights the awkwardness of the poem. You will never see a crossword where the same word's used more than once, especially not that close together, and even more especially, not crossing like the GOD's in this poem are supposed to.
But WAIT! I'm still assuming too much, aren't I? What if this puzzle, with its deific answer, is some kind of revelation, some sort of mind-and-reality-bending 2-dimensional criss-cross from the 5th dimension that serves to show an unwashed nerd the true meaning of Crossword Creation? Is this poem really an episode of "You Won't Believe How I Was Born Again!"? Assuming that's true, is the poem any better? Is it acceptable to write such a mind-blowing poem that you forget to mention to the reader how mind-blowing it's supposed to be? I say No.
How was that analysis, Anonymous? Was it any better? Must not have been.
And for the record, my grade? Why, I got a...well, I got positive feedback on my "paper" (aka poem). I wish I could put down the grade I got on it, but that whole college-creative-writing-class thing means I didn't get a grade for the specific poem, just criticism from my peers and professor, none of whom gave me crossword puzzle poems of their own... so I guess I can discount their feedback, right?
As for my poem itself, you know what? You're right, Anonymous, I should definitely take credit for the things I've written. After all, if people don't have all the information on my poetry, they might not be able to judge "Crossword Puzzle" by Claytia Doran on its own merits... oh wait. That stopped making sense somewhere around the time I started to pretend to agree with you.
However, all of this might sound like I'm trying to wheedle my way out of posting my poem, so before I say any more, here you go, Anonymous. Enjoy:
Creator
by Kit FitzSimons (that's me, so I'm only violating my own rights)
I see the world in black and white,
a melancholy patchwork quilt
where GOOD and EVIL never meet,
a finer framework never built.
I oversee its every flaw,
its babelspeak and cul-de-sacs,
and all it takes to make them right:
a turn of phrase, a turn of facts.
The damage left from last time gone,
I set a theme for each new draft
then set it loose upon my fans
who set their focus on my craft.
I hide The Answer constantly
to keep the cheaters occupied.
Frustration often stays the search,
but I am rarely set aside.
The masses weekly push themselves
to crack the clues they might have missed.
My title though shall stand alone:
Eternal Cruciverbalist.
I'm glad we cleared that up. If you have any further criticism of me, Anonymous, I'd be happy to hear it... as soon as you submit your own mocking commentary of "Crossword Puzzle" to me for perusal. After all, how can I trust your criticism of my criticism of a poem if you won't show me what your criticism of the poem looks like?
.
The comment:
"You know, before you go and post things like this you should speak with the author. This is insulting and very unintelligent on your part. I'm afraid to ask what kind of grade you got on your own paper if all you can do is pick apart others.
I also noticed that you didn't put up your own poem. Was it any better? Must not have been.
Look at yourself before you start making fun of others. And stop being so literal. That's the reason you can't understand the poem in the first place."
Wow. I personally cannot WAIT for this person to get to my nine really, really offensive journals. Especially "Chillin' Wit' My Car Thieves." Oh man, this person might hunt me down for that one.
How best to respond...? Well, obviously, I should take Anonymous' advice and --before posting brashly-- speak privately with the author of the comm... Oh. Anonymous. Well then, guess it's time for an open post after all.
"This is insulting and very unintelligent on your part."
Insulting? I should say so. If it hadn't come across as insulting to a poem that isn't even as good as the crap that wins poetry.com contests, then I'd have failed in my duty as a smartass.
Unintelligent though? Now you're being unfair, Anonymous. I went out of my way to be as thorough and analytical as I could. Did it sound like I was being dense? Because I was; purposefully so. I took that poem at face-value, and it didn't work. It couldn't work, even on the most basic level: line by line analysis.
But perhaps that was too much to ask of a poem. Perhaps we were meant to read "Crossword Puzzle" as a whole, not paying attention to piddly, unimportant poetic devices like word choice and line order. Perhaps we were only meant to glance at it for a second and say, "Oh! The phrase 'Crossword Puzzle' is in bold, so I'll remember those words, and theeeeen... let's skip through this crossword stuff, since the author obviously knows more about that nerdy stuff than I do... aaaaaand, Oh! 'The answer to the crossword was God!' An exclamation point signifies importance! That means that God loves everybody... even nerds!"
If that was the message we were intended to take away, I guess I owe everybody an apology (You'll get yours in the mail, Anonymous). However, I kind of doubt that was the only lesson we were supposed to glean from these lines. I would say that the author's creative process went something like this:
"Hmm. I need to write a poem of some kind. It needs to be religious and rhyme of course, but also --like Gypsy Rose Lee taught us-- I've gotta get a gimmick. Hmm. Well, there's all kinds of things that God has done or is given credit for, what with his being responsible for everything good in the world... Hey. You could put them down like crossword clues, and they'd all have the answer 'GOD' because God did everything that's good! This poem will write itself!"
Thus was born "Crossword Puzzle."
I still don't understand why Claytia felt inclined to start at Four Across though. I mean, sure, Anonymous, I can understand not wanting to put all kinds of confusing numbers just so the resulting crossword could work in real life (42 Across: Who loved the world? 126 Down: Who gave his son?), but the fact that that concern crops up only highlights the awkwardness of the poem. You will never see a crossword where the same word's used more than once, especially not that close together, and even more especially, not crossing like the GOD's in this poem are supposed to.
But WAIT! I'm still assuming too much, aren't I? What if this puzzle, with its deific answer, is some kind of revelation, some sort of mind-and-reality-bending 2-dimensional criss-cross from the 5th dimension that serves to show an unwashed nerd the true meaning of Crossword Creation? Is this poem really an episode of "You Won't Believe How I Was Born Again!"? Assuming that's true, is the poem any better? Is it acceptable to write such a mind-blowing poem that you forget to mention to the reader how mind-blowing it's supposed to be? I say No.
How was that analysis, Anonymous? Was it any better? Must not have been.
And for the record, my grade? Why, I got a...well, I got positive feedback on my "paper" (aka poem). I wish I could put down the grade I got on it, but that whole college-creative-writing-class thing means I didn't get a grade for the specific poem, just criticism from my peers and professor, none of whom gave me crossword puzzle poems of their own... so I guess I can discount their feedback, right?
As for my poem itself, you know what? You're right, Anonymous, I should definitely take credit for the things I've written. After all, if people don't have all the information on my poetry, they might not be able to judge "Crossword Puzzle" by Claytia Doran on its own merits... oh wait. That stopped making sense somewhere around the time I started to pretend to agree with you.
However, all of this might sound like I'm trying to wheedle my way out of posting my poem, so before I say any more, here you go, Anonymous. Enjoy:
Creator
by Kit FitzSimons (that's me, so I'm only violating my own rights)
I see the world in black and white,
a melancholy patchwork quilt
where GOOD and EVIL never meet,
a finer framework never built.
I oversee its every flaw,
its babelspeak and cul-de-sacs,
and all it takes to make them right:
a turn of phrase, a turn of facts.
The damage left from last time gone,
I set a theme for each new draft
then set it loose upon my fans
who set their focus on my craft.
I hide The Answer constantly
to keep the cheaters occupied.
Frustration often stays the search,
but I am rarely set aside.
The masses weekly push themselves
to crack the clues they might have missed.
My title though shall stand alone:
Eternal Cruciverbalist.
I'm glad we cleared that up. If you have any further criticism of me, Anonymous, I'd be happy to hear it... as soon as you submit your own mocking commentary of "Crossword Puzzle" to me for perusal. After all, how can I trust your criticism of my criticism of a poem if you won't show me what your criticism of the poem looks like?
.