HOME | DD
KhazDA —
On Form
[NSFW]
Published: 2013-11-23 06:08:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 4275; Favourites: 85; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
FormSome say it brings beauty
Some say it is the pinnacle
I dare say I might agree
If it only didn't feel as perjury
See form to me is hypocrisy
I as an artist, choose to be
Chaos despite the world's ordering
Fight
Read these words and see simply
that form is the pinnacle of my misery
Shove me in a box and package it well
Throw me on a shelf and sell sell
SELL
I don't care if you publish these words
I don't care if you think me absurd
Art is expression and my soul is chaos
My heart pumps fire and my lungs breath sulfur
Fraught
On
Repulsive
Methodology
See, no but do you see? DO YOU SEE?!
Form is great when practiced with care
It gives order and meaning that wasn't there
But I dare say that for me and my ilk
Form is that of which prisons are built
I am wild and untamed and my soul grows anxious
I can smell the blood in the water
I feel so vivacious
Thesaurus me and you might find
A glory of work you cannot define
For if you choose to let emotions run unkempt
You might find that which Shakespeare bent
See
No truly see
I beg you see
That form is nothing more than a system
Systems are set to control and divine
Where my soul seeks to writhe and climb
Your looking glass can't save you
For you choose a box
Where all the pieces are kept
A box for which I once wept
FUCK
OVERT
REGULATION
MONGERING
Enough? Checkmate baby
In here only I win
Related content
Comments: 46
Firstly, my favourite thing about this - is the way you structured your thoughts. I am a big fan of subheadings in literature; because I believe that they give the writers ideas an enhanced definition, and a stronger impact. - You utilised this technique well.
Your subject matter also stood out, as relevant to me; and was addressed with originality. It is likely - that all artists, share similar frustrations - to those you depict here. I am a student engineer; and again, I saw relevance here. Specifically, in terms of, thinking outside the box.
Lastly; some food for thought - I felt, especially towards the end - that your admirably purposeful impact, detracted slightly, from the ultimate vision of the piece. Essentially, it felt like you had written verses of insightful reflections; just so you could fold yours arms and show society, your middle finger. I just felt, it deserved a cleverer ending. Perhaps something with a bit more wit; to truly warrant the 'Checkmate baby', at the end.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The checkmate at the end was for a particular individual that had inspired the piece by using copyright infringement and deflection to cover up his bigotry. I stole his phrase and put it at the end of my poem that says "Fuck form" while using a plethora of poetic utilities. I appreciate your critique and while your writing style made me read it as I suspect only William Shatner could deliver it, any response is always highly valued. Thank you again good sir.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very well done, again!
William Shatner...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This piece embraces such ferocity and attitude that it's hard to disagree with the point. If the point was a punch the defeated would be a KO in my opinion. It's a straight, abrupt shot at conformity in literature and I couldn't have smiled any bigger while reading it as someone who has personally faced the tear-down of others who believe their way is the only way.
I feel this is structurally more poignant written as it is, separating thoughts while still maintaining a flow straight through to the end. I can appreciate the ripping apart of formality by practically introducing formality to the idea of stepping away from the confines of structured writing.
The slap in the face of uptight, form vultures leaves a satisfying tickle inside that lulls and brings the desire to scream 'In your fucking face!' to whomever this strikes. If it doesn't shake the foundations of their rigid views than I don't know what would.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
:0
Snaaaaaap. Damn, this is one powerful piece. As the DD description says, it is very simple in that it has little to no imagery, only theme. Normally, this would make the piece weak, but here you really pull it off with excellent beat, half-rhyme and punch.
However, the fact that each line is capitalized makes it a bit confusing on whether or not enjambment is in use; this may just be me but most of the time I paused at the end of each line. As that might not be the type of reading you were going for, I thought I should point it out.
Anyway, this is a brilliant piece well deserving of DD title. Well done!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I appreciate the time and effort you put into your review. Thank you for your compliments and the capitalization was merely for my own purposes whether or not they make sense for everyone else. Thank you again for the time you took to read my work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This piece of literature is well written. It invokes thought upon this word form, what it stands for and how it is used in the real world. This text, I think, is written in the narrative of 'art', or someone who defines his/herself as an artist. This is effective as it allows room for opinion which can influence the reader. It defines form as a opportunity to imprison art, to impose rules upon it where it is naturally chaotic, free and makes art a bore. This is well enforced by how you have repeatedly included contrast between order and chaos, and through your use of imagery. I liked how you have used key words to summarise your stanzas, which add impact to your work.
Each of your lines are simple, yet effective in conveying thought. It can be overwhelming, and is set in a fast pace, which also helps with making the reader feel a certain way. The idea behind this text is confined to form in art, but also makes us think about how it is used in everyday life, and how imposing it is.
Overall, your poem is well written, yet also very conceptual and emotional.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The time and effort you spent on creating this reply really does make me feel incredible. To warrant such a response was well beyond the scope of the original intentions and I must admit that I am overwhelmed with the amount of feedback your comment alone offers. Thank you for reading my work and taking the time to fill out a critique form.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I admit I was kind of nervous about writing it to standard. I'm glad you like it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No need to be nervous when sharing genuine insight. I appreciate it again. Thank you so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
IF you're so rebellious to the system(s) in the written word, then why do you follow the rules to spell correctly, ETC.? Your poem and its tone contradicts itself because you don't really forget safety in how you word things, you don't write how you fear to write, you don't write what you fear to write, and you don't write where you fear to write. One or two things in that just said may not apply, but most of it does. Until you have destroyed your reputation of all correctness (since you seem to hate it so much) I cannot bring myself to believe anything your poem says in a vain attempt to get away from 'form,' the 'system,' or whatever else it is you want to relate it to.
There are rules broken that work, and there are rules broken that do not work. Look out beyond our atmosphere; there are numerous righted wrongs happening 'out there' forming all kinds of things, but until they are righted, until what's out there forms into something, they remain wrong. For example, you wouldn't throw sand, rocks, leaves and pieces of branches into the ingredients of a pumpkin pie and expect those added things to make a tasteful pumpkin pie. In a nutshell, there comes a point where correctness is needed no matter what it is, including writing. Otherwise, it's not going to make sense or be horrible. Trying to get away from the 'correctness' of the written word is like trying to wrong the mutual right of 1 + 1 equaling 2.
Sometimes I don't know why everyone fights 'correctness' so much, yet other times I am reminded to understand the reason for that is because we are indeed chaotic creatures who bask in the easiness to destroy things than to build things, to not follow (anything [lies!]) than to follow something or someone. What's with this mentality to alienate everything, including but not limited to, rules? To be different for the sake of being different?
KhazDa said:
"I just thought I would take a second and let you know that my poem on form that I wrote in response to your overzealous comments was featured as a DD. Thank you for elevating my work through desire to prove you wrong."
Prove me wrong? It seems you forgot the fact I did / do support those who break rules (well) in one of my comments. I break some rules, too, however, a writer must first know the system(s) in the written word to break them well. Those who break rules poorly are the ones who make true error viewers (like me) point out. Regardless, you're still following certain guidelines in some way, shape or form depending on how well you break rules. It's called the system of carefulness in that deep down there is 'form' in how you're going to form your opinion (or whatever it is) through words. Even in visual art, sure! you can transgress and be disorderly all you want by scribbling lines all over the canvas or notebook, but don't expect viewers to see much in it or get anything from it.
No matter how original you, me, or anyone else thinks themselves to be, not matter how hard you try, there is no getting away from the 'system(s)' of the written word (or any system) no matter how much we fool ourselves thinking we actually got away. The trick is to make the system our own, not get away from it since it is the foundation we rely on to alter it our way to our preference(s). Ah, but there is only one way to get away from the rules of writing and that's to break all of them to uphold the message in your poem. Then again, you know that would be the wrong thing to do because it wouldn't be right, right? Right.
Regardless of everything I said, I am not disagreeing with you since rules are OK to break, however, I only encourage (not force [as you believed]) writers to do it well when breaking rules when writing.
P.S. Unlike the act of completely breaking rules, worse, all rules, form actually challenges and advances one's thinking; chaos or what is otherwise disorderly challenges nothing. When you become too chaotic in whatever it is you do, you hope for the best, and more often than not, kill yourself and / or your work in the process.
Shakespeare said it best, though, when he said, "Nothing is right or wrong, but thinking makes it seems so . . ." to which I would like to add, "because where this is no right or wrong, there is no disorder or order. So what then is there? that which is openness all around accepting things as they come like in outer space, all except us, most of us, pushing each other and everything away because of the closed state of mind in Man. Perhaps if we were the opposite of that just said, we would all kill ourselves by accepting all views as 'right,' which is probably what needs to happen to cleanse this world of its stupidities so things can go back the way they were where no mind existed to reason things. Before we came along, everything was GO!
Congratulations on your DD despite our disagreements.
VicariouSoul
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The only thing I will add to what my good friend has already said to you is that I find it incredibly interesting you saw yourself fit to finish a quote from Shakespeare, especially given he had already finished it himself. I might also add that when you quote someone you should probably focus on their intent a bit more as your quote doesn't assist your argument, but rather is modified to fit your own interpretation because not even Shakespeare is above your petty antics. The quote comes from Hamlet and is actually the character Hamlet himself expressing a desire for blissful ignorance. I appreciate your overall inability to form a solid argument. Perhaps you need a technical writing course or a debate class to flesh out your ability to exchange intelligent arguments. Sigh. Perhaps you just need to stop pointing out useless facts and writing pointless essays.
-=KhazDA
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*Laughs heartily* You shoot yourself in the foot all the time. I didn't interpret the phrase Shakespeare said any different than its intended meaning because 'blissful ignorance' is the absence of the mind / reasoning in which, yes, "Nothing is right or wrong, but thinking makes it seems so." Therefore, ignorant people just wants to be ignorant without having to think at all because in The Beginning, nothing reasoned at all anyway before we came around! So yeah, what better way (for some people) than to be like a rock, just going wherever you please without having to think about what you are, where you're going, why you're going, what you're doing, or what you're about to do?
Some of that just said may be an add-on (call it what you will) to Shakespeare's quote, but it gets to the same meaning. All I did was elaborate on it, but leave it to you to think myself worthy to finish the quote. My intent was not to finish it. My intent was to give explanation in a bit of a different light toward the same meaning.
People seek blissful ignorance because they'd rather just BE (like everything around us) than reason why regarding everything. There are other reasons not mentioned here people seek blissful ignorance, but hopefully the obvious is truly obvious to you so I don't have to say them or explain them.
In the end, there is no difference between my elaboration and Shakespeare's quote. If you do see a difference, then let that be proof of your tendancy to misunderstand things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The difference between your interpretation and his original quote is that his quote was intended to reflect on how Hamlet wished to be blissfully ignorant of one particular set of circumstances and not of the world or order or form or any other rule set, but rather quite simply, the hold Denmark had on him. Hamlet was expressing a desire to be absent of the knowledge regarding his mother and step father and was not commenting on form or anything of the like, but leave it to your overbearing and overzealous twisted perception to take what was a simple quote, extrapolate, add in some bull shit, and then bring it all around about how awesome you are. Well done. You truly are an artist of the people. Move along now as my patience grows thin for educating a child unwilling to learn.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pardon the late reply. Child? If I'm the child then you're assumptionist (still,) which then disproves your ridiculous claims because you think you know me so well. If you're going to call someone something be sure it holds true and don't make yourself look like a complete idiot.
I read Shakespeare's play(s) countless times, and whether Hamlet wished to be blissfully ignorant or not on one set of particular circumstances, my other reply to you still holds true. All I did was somewhat broaden the quote, but that doesn't mean what I said in my other reply is wrong just because I didn't put it in literal terms as it was said or meant in the play itself, or just because I didn't go by what you expected me to go by.
To quote what I said in my last reply to you, I said, "There are other reasons not mentioned here people seek blissful ignorance, but hopefully the obvious is truly obvious to you so I don't have to say or explain them."
I should have said, "There are other reasons not mentioned here people seek blissful ignorance, including but not limited to, said reasons in Shakespeare's play, but hopefully the obvious is truly obvious to you so I don't have to say or explain them."
Sadly, I still find myself having to explain things to you. Sometimes I think you act stupid just to see what I or someone else is going to say, and ou do a fantastic job at it. I've never been so foolish in my entire life talking to another fool because you're not capable of understanding things. You want people to understand things in your one-way idea in what you believe to be right rather than seeing further than that.
If I wanted to use Shakespeare's quote in all its literality, I would have, but because I wanted to make a point in my argument, yea, I put it in slightly different terms, but not so much to where it alienates the general idea or meaning of blissful ignorance no matter the reason for it. If you have problem with that, go sulk somewhere else about it.
The moral of the story is you don't like what I did with the quote, including but not limited to, other things I have said, and you're doing anything you can to disprove and tear it down. That's fine because I'll always have something else to come back with much like you do, always.
You and I have one thing in common, and that's not shutting up because we feel the need to disprove or make better sense than the other guy until we turn red, green, blue, and purple in face. Let our continuing to exchange words be proof of that just said.
You think what you want about me (and other people) because you're going to anyway, but you're not walking over my face and getting away with it. It's not happening, ever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The best part of all of this, is that I don't have to walk over your face. You still haven't done anything with my original complaint, and have once again gone off course. It must be nice to live in a world where one is not bound to address any argument head on, but rather stifle all conversation with grand attempts at trailing off in directions that bear no consequence to the original argument. I suppose at this juncture you will continue to uphold your copyright infringement as necessary, and I will stand by the regulations that govern the site and the copyrights the site offers for works posted here. I do hope one day you realize that just because you presume yourself better than another, does not make you privy to breaking the law. Perhaps one day you will be man enough to face adult repercussions for the actions you take.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
“The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions.”
Leonardo da Vinci
I'd like to think the point being made is that, while the piece may follow
the logical systems of writing in one way or another, each writer and
artist is different. Those differences should allow for discrepancies in
writing norms without the backlash of bias or implication that their piece
might need restructuring to fit such writing norms/systems. What is boring
and cliched to others might be entertaining and meaningful to another.
Abrasive opinions of others can often be degrading to developing writers
making them believe what they have to offer isn't good enough as is,
which I believe is the wrong way to approach an author of any skill level
since writing is very often a personal process regardless of the subject
matter.
This is a literary 'thumbing of the nose,' if you will, at the construct of rigid
writing, and a reply to a vigorous and opinionated exchange. I feel that
it's pretty obvious that this piece would have to follow some kind of
structure since it would make no sense otherwise. I see your argument/
opinion as redundant, and in many ways a waste of space since you
really aren't saying anything that isn't already obvious. Yes, the piece
notably desires the breaking of norms/systems, yet, as you said, it would
be utter chaos, scribbles. Taking your reply into consideration regarding
this piece is laughable at best. You really have no point in stating the
obvious.
Albeit, the obvious doesn't really apply since the piece is more of an
opinion as is. The message has been made and that is the point.
Disregarding norms/systems, at times, can produce a more dynamic
piece. We both know he isn't asking people to speak gibberish and
write in scribbles, so why even bother pointing out, at length, why
disregarding writing systems leads to chaos? Pointless and completely
missing the point.
Sure, you acknowledge that breaking rules, when done correctly or
in good judgment, can be beneficial to a piece but we've heard that
before. Your repetition of topic points has become sigh worthy.
In this instance, whether egged on or not, your decision to come here
and comment should at least garner and impart a well formed opinion
of the piece that doesn't regurgitate something you've already said to
this particular deviant. It's my opinion that you've sidestepped the message
to skip straight to stating your opinion about it rather than meeting the
message head on and appreciating it for what it is. What does that mean?
It means you made it about you. While it seems to have been inspired by
your meandering it doesn't degrade the point, passion, time, effort, thought,
or message the piece encompasses.
And basically stating everyone needs to die so time, space, and logic
can make sense again is something I scoffed at. Whether you said that
exactly or not, it's what I took away from it and I don't think I'm the only one
who might see it that way. Maybe time, space, and logic exists because
we count minutes, look at the stars, and think about how to respond to
overzealous, slightly pompous, egocentric, media narcissists on websites
like dA. Another pointless tangent.
The point is to envy such clever delivery and formulate a response based
upon the piece itself. Your long winded reply leaves me wondering which
veiled insult to apply to the piece or the deviant who wrote it. If your goal
is to exercise your literary skill by writing long responses that are lacking
in purpose and overfull of elitist philosophies than I really am left wondering
what it is exactly you're gaining.
Please, rinse and repeat another reply. I'm curious to see where this goes,
I desire to exercise my mental prowess through shallow challenges.
-*ttbloodlusttt
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And that’s why you have so much room to talk about me because your comment is so small! Look at it . . . it's BIG! What is this, a competition of whose comment can be the smallest? If we did that, it would dumb down to ridiculous one-liners or profane words. Don’t sit here and talk about the length of my comments when yours are no shorter. Do you know why? It takes more than just one-liners to kick me out of an argument. Let your next reply be proof of that just said unless you come back with, “Whatever!” like most do when they forfeit in argument.
Since you want to have war with the famous’ quotes, here is one to those who hate systems:
“I must create a system or be enslaved by another man’s; I will not reasons and compare: my business is to create.”
William Blake
In other words, those who are rebellious against systems, including but not limited to, the system of the written word (in this case the system of form,) should make up their own system(s). Don’t give reason to others regarding your system, and don’t compare it to other systems. Just create it!
Then again, most people think they’re not following a system, yet they are, and even when they do make their own system(s) they still reflect off a reference point, worse, second-guess themselves because a great many fear people will view them wrongly if they disobey systems or what is otherwise accepted too much. For example, enjambments in free-verse alone, no matter how someone chooses to break lines, is none other than form itself, just not as formed as it could be.
On another note, form is not to be confused with rhyming, etc. that goes into poetry. Form also has a lot to do with the body of poetry and how it presents itself in its enjambments. With that said, not even free-verse is entirely free from form.
ttbloodlustt said:
“This is a literary 'thumbing of the nose,' if you will, at the construct of rigid writing, and a reply to a vigorous and opinionated exchange. I feel that it's pretty obvious that this piece would have to follow some kind of structure since it would make no sense otherwise. I see your argument/ opinion as redundant, and in many ways a waste of space since you really aren't saying anything that isn't already obvious. Yes, the piece notably desires the breaking of norms/systems, yet, as you said, it would be utter chaos, scribbles. Taking your reply into consideration regarding this piece is laughable at best. You really have no point in stating the obvious.”
If the obvious was so obvious (it’s not, obviously, right?) you and KhazDa wouldn’t be exchanging words with me. It’s obviously not so obvious what I have been trying to point out, but that’s not really why I am here to comment. I am here making comments because KhazDa’s biggest mistake was in coming to my front page and rubbing sarcasm in my face regarding our argument(s). When you rub dirt in my face, come prepared. Clearly (so far) you’re not because I am able to uphold my reasoning in my argument(s). I did in our last exchange of words (you guys gave up before me,) and I will/can do it again.
ttbloodlusttt quoted:
“The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions.”
Leonardo da Vinci
If the greatest deception Man suffers from is his own opinions, then the greatest disease Man suffers and dies from is ignorance, even when the truth stares him in the face.
There comes a point where opinion is no longer opinion. Is that just said an opinion, or is it fact? You see (perhaps you don’t,) even when someone is right about something, people are going to disagree with you or alienate your viewpoint, anyway. Let me give a prime example. One opinion says all countries should be free of government, and that the population can do well on its own. Then there is another opinion that says the complete opposite.
The point here is both of those said things are opinions, however, one opinion is more factual than the other, and the fact is we do need government because it’s clear we cannot do things entirely on our own. Do you think when we move away from our parents’ house at age 18-20 we’re free of parents! Think again. When we become adults, our new parents are the ones in black-and-white suits with ties in the government, and then there is our Uncle Sam! (in the U.S.) While the truth is the black-and-white suits and ties government is the people’s parents even when children, it is only when we reach the age of reason we understand that.
Then again, the opinion saying a world without government could be true IF only Man could truly care for and do for himself. Some people can, but there are too few.
This now proves opinion can be fact. Sometimes they are not separate from each other; they are one in the same via an opinion laced with fact. In case you didn’t know that, I am glad you could learn something new because a great many people believe and say the two don’t go together.
ttbloodlusttt quoted:
“Albeit, the obvious doesn't really apply since the piece is more of an opinion as is. The message has been made and that is the point. Disregarding norms/systems, at times, can produce a more dynamic piece. We both know he isn't asking people to speak gibberish and write in scribbles, so why even bother pointing out, at length, why disregarding writing systems leads to chaos? Pointless and completely missing the point.”
Really? Wait, let’s take from what KhazDa said on my page! “Thank you for elevating my work through desire to prove you wrong.”
Every time you or KhazDa make a reply to me, you shoot yourselves in the foot every time. Clearly he thinks his viewpoint here in his poem outshines mine, therefore, his viewpoint is fact, and my viewpoint is fiction. You see (I’m sorry, no you don’t,) my viewpoint is not doing away with his viewpoint. I welcome disobeying ‘the system’ of the written word, too, but what I am not for (like KhazDa seems to be) is doing away with everything and anything to do with form entirely.
What KhazDa is saying is, “I despise form and will deviate from it much as possible because I want to be different!” whereas I am saying, “You don’t understand (still) that I’m all FOR people breaking rules, etc. (well,) however, it is foolish to do away with form entirely. You cannot do away with everything and anything to with form and expect to be successful.”
You and KhazDa are under the wrong impression that I’m one-sided to what is correct / form only when I am not. The more you continue not to understand that, the more you and I argue.
Think of me as a transgressor yet a preserver of what little etiquette we have left in the written word. When it comes to writing (anything, even life itself,) it does more harm to be one-sided toward something than it is to have balance via a little form and a little transgression. What happens when you go too much to the right or left on the tightrope of life? You fall from the tightrope, injure yourself or die, correct? The same thing happens in writing, except your work falls short in quality.
ttbloodlusttt quoted:
“The point is to envy such clever delivery and formulate a response based upon the piece itself.”
Envy? I envy no man, and neither do I expect any man to envy me. With that said, IF what KhazDa wrote was so clever, explain how I am able to make a response to its message and the reasoning behind it by saying doing away with form (KhazDa thinks is a great idea,) is not such a great idea?
ttbloodlusttt quoted:
And basically stating everyone needs to die so time, space, and logic can make sense again is something I scoffed at. Whether you said that exactly or not, it's what I took away from it and I don't think I'm the only one who might see it that way. Maybe time, space, and logic exists because we count minutes, look at the stars, and think about how to respond to overzealous, slightly pompous, egocentric, media narcissists on websites like dA. Another pointless tangent.
There is no basically; I either said it or I didn’t say it. I didn’t say so ‘logic’ can make sense again. That in itself makes no sense. I was exampling what it’d be like if ‘logic’ wasn’t around so everything could just BE instead of everything argued (through us.) Everything around us is just fine. It is people (yes, you and me included) who exaggerate things not being fine only because it affects us. You don’t see two stars out in space going, “Oh %$#@ no, I’m not about to collide with that galactic monstrosity!” We on the other hand, if met with the ugliest and meanest person face-to-face, a great many of us would say or do the opposite, and yet anything else in space (including us, floating around in this void) would not care if met with that person.
Now, I could suggest we should be doing the same thing everything else does 'out there,' but no, we are all enslaved by rules and the curse to reason. It is more prevalent than the act of intercourse because reasoning happens above or equal to the speed of light if we were to measure the speed at which thinking is going on through 7 billion people.
Furthermore, I didn’t say everyone needs to do anything. I said perhaps in case you didn’t catch on to the fact I was trying to make through sarcasm. Clearly (again) you misunderstood what I said, and that’s the problem here because what you are taking from what I’ve been saying is the wrong thing to be taking. Or perhaps what you’re taking is right only to you (even if it is wrong) just to support your replies full of loopholes that my replies try to fill with getting you to understand certain things to no avail. Then again, the only benefit I do get from all of this is reading the replies you give so that sometime if your replies prove more right over mine I can finally say, “Whoa, that’s smart. You got me!” Until then, that’s not going to happen.
Therefore, what I meant was is if our minds didn’t exist, things would be the way they were before we came around (with reason.) The way it was before everything married everything in the cosmos: planets brazing against planets in a cosmic soup, meteors to meteors, exploding stars cutting into other stars. WE are the only things that don’t come together be it in a friendly manner or marriage in itself. Meanwhile, everything around us ‘out there’ is getting along just fine. You don’t see anything ‘out there’ arguing like we do, which is WHY I said perhaps if we agreed with all points of views (even if they are wrong,) including but not limited to, those who think it’s a great idea to push the ‘Red Button’ to launch a nuclear war, then perhaps we would be better off so things can go back the way they were when there was no ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’
Is the above just said obvious to you? It is? OK, then tell me why Mankind isn't learning from what’s ‘out there’ on how to get along? I’ll tell you why, because our curse is reason. We (and perhaps any other intelligent life) are the only things in existence that are no just space objects marrying other space objects and HOPING for the best. No. Instead, our reasoning decides whether or not to bind with someone or something via a sentimental object, etc. We’re not like what’s ‘out there’ like we probably should be.
Since that will never happen while we are alive, sadly, the only way to truly be like what’s ‘out there’ is if we become the mere particles, etc. which we are made up of so that we can become part of the cosmic soup system come the next BIG thing that hits our planet, and perhaps then can become something else and ONE with everything else floating around ‘out there,’ literally.
ttbloodlusttt quoted:
“Your long winded reply leaves me wondering which veiled insult to apply to the piece or the deviant who wrote it. If your goal is to exercise your literary skill by writing long responses that are lacking in purpose and overfull of elitist philosophies than I really am left wondering what it is exactly you're gaining.”
The answer is we love to argue, and I love a good debate. My comments are also not elitist as much you wrongly believe them to be. I am just one out of the few who cares about preserving a little bit of the etiquette in the written word since a great many abuse the term free in ‘free-verse’ to the point of nonsense. Let that not to the assumption I am saying OR have ever said you or KhazDa has done that to that extent. I have not.
As for your other comments, I will leave you drowning in your own misconceptions. I have already explained what you believed to be B.S. from me. What can you do about yours?
P.S. You're just a fan to my words set on fire. If you have such a problem with me or think me some erroneous fool, why do you continue to fan my flames? When will you finally pull out the bucket to extinguish them? Or is that the two opposite forces are so strong, no one wins?
In a nutshell, form in some way or shape is present in free-verse, and fairly put, so too are the ways of free-verse in poetry following strict form. Somehow you and KhazDa believe I've been saying the opposite, that form is greater than the ways of free-verse. The trick is to bring them together. That's what I do, and that's what I encourage anyone to do.
I could have just replied with the above stated, but few words aren't good enough for explanation. Proof of that can be seen in briefer comments I have made to you in the past.
I hope now you get it. Continue on . . . I await your next reply.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just want to note briefly that I have never stated that your argument was that form was superior to free verse, rather that your assumption you are capable of rewriting another author's work without their permission does not mean it isn't copywright infringement, nor does it mean that you did so better by any means, especially when the author themselves states quite openly you missed the meaning of the poem and you struck away the raw emotion with your necessitating certain poetic devices that the author knowingly excluded. The rest of this argument is because you refuse to stay on point. You did not ask the author to rewrite her poem. That is copywright infringement every time, and if I need to seek clarification from the respective authorities on the matter, I will be more than happy to do so. You chose to refuse to accept outside opinions as different, including that of the original author, by stating that your poem was somehow superior to the original because of the use of different literary devices that as previously stated, were declined by the author as that was not their intent. You have no argument because you are creating overbearing assumptions and wielding misinterpreted quotations from writers who were well aware of the need to use poetic devices when desired and omit them when desired in an effort to stir up arguments that hide the original issues. You broke the regulations of the site, and you were told that your interpretation was quite far off base as the majority agreed with the original author's intent. Thank you again for your wasted reply, because once again you have proven an inability to stay focused and formulate an argument that doesn't lose itself in overexertion of vocabulary and a need to read one's own words strewn across an entire page.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry to break your, "O' yeah, I shut him up now!" mood, but you're already wrong saying I have no argument. Sir, I can put a dispute until the day I die if I was foolish enough to want to. Just because I didn't reply sooner does not mean I have no argument. I do have other things to do and have been doing other than be on d.A. 24/7.
KhazDA said:
"I just want to note briefly that I have never stated that your argument was that form was superior to free verse, rather that your assumption you are capable of rewriting another author's work without their permission does not mean it isn't copywright infringement, nor does it mean that you did so better by any means, especially when the author themselves states quite openly you missed the meaning of the poem and you struck away the raw emotion with your necessitating certain poetic devices that the author knowingly excluded."
I already OKed to most of what you wrote in the above stated to the author IF only you had been paying attention. Since you're still under the impression I committed the crime of Copyright Infringement, I went about my way of revising the poem (not stealing it or claiming it my own) for critique purposes only. Therefore, stop saying the revision I made is my poem. It's not my poem. How many times do I have to repeat that? Yes, a revision makes for a different version of something, but don't be so quite to assume or judge that because of that it's mine and I own it.
Do you think I am the only person on d.A. that revises people's work like this? If so and that's the thought you're entertaining, then you're wrong! Look, I gave my outlook on the author's poem, followed by what could be looked into in the revised version, and I never expected the author to consider or take anything in it, or learn anything from it.
If you think what I did was a crime (you're wrong,) look at those who illegally download music, that even for personal use is still illegal. With that being said, I didn't even use the author's work whatsoever for any personal use or financial gain at all! People have revised my work the same way I did this author without me asking them, and the simple answer I give if I disagree with what they say or put forth is, "No." followed by explanation as to why, and leave it at that.
Must I also remind that not you, or anyone, went about disputing my defense in my comment regarding Copyright Infringement on the author's page? When I asked for responses some time ago, that's about the time you guys stayed quiet because there was clearly nothing to say against my defense. Why is that? Because it makes no sense whatsoever for me (or anyone) to have premeditated the action of going through with Copyright Infringement when the revised version for critique purposes was able to be seen by everyone on the author's commentary section. This then proves the revised version of the author's work you believe to be my poem? is not mine at all. Why would I claim someone else's work mine when I got plenty of my own material?
Remember, Mr. Literal, I didn't make a reproduction (means to make the same) of the author's work. There is a difference between revising someone's work for the sake of helping the author to get ideas, etc. going, and making an exact copy (reproduction) for one's own personal use and self gain by claiming it their own or selling the material. Her poem was also posted before the very first comment I made, so even if I wanted to convince anyone her work was mine, no one would be believe!
It's about time you grow some common sense, but unfortunately, your head cannot contain such a super power of that magnitude.
It's the bad intent for one's own self gain, etc. behind alteration of one's work that rightly defines Copyright Infringement, not alteration with the intent to revise someone's work for the sake of helping the author through illustrative purpose only. I must repeat myself because you never get the message, ever.
An author not asking me to revise or give criticism to their work is a moot point to make because the comments section is the comments section, and people are going to say what they want to say and how they want to say it.
Answer this: what harm will come from how I decided to comment on the author's work? Better, what harm has come --- other than argument and exhausted explanation on my part --- to the author's work in how I decided to look over the author's work?
In case the answer isn't clear to you, NO harm has come whatsoever, and argument and exhausted explanation on my end is not enough to be considered harm, it's just well-wasted time between two people who see each other as complete idiots. The author's work is still the author's work, it's not on my PC or in my home, not being sold or posted by me anywhere else on the internet, and the author still lives and breathes to this day.
Get over it and let your false accusations die already. You're the only one making the Copyright Infringement claims, no one else, not even the author. Do you know why? Because you're the only one here who doesn't know your toe from nose when it comes to what truly defines Copyright Infringement.
KhazDA said:
"The rest of this argument is because you refuse to stay on point. You did not ask the author to rewrite her poem. That is Copywright Infringement every time, and if I need to seek clarification from the respective authorities on the matter, I will be more than happy to do so. You chose to refuse to accept outside opinions as different, including that of the original author, by stating that your poem was somehow superior to the original because of the use of different literary devices that as previously stated, were declined by the author as that was not their intent."
The respective authorities? Go ahead. You don't intimidate me, and neither will the authorities. Did you really think you were going to shut me up by saying that? Think again.
I've been staying on the point this entire time to get at an ultimate point, and sometimes, yes, I use other examples, etc. to get to that point regardless if I'm changing the meaning of a quote, etc. to support what I try to get across. However, since you're the literal type and want in-your-face staying on topic, here you go.
On another note, nowhere (try hard!) can you quote me I said --- what you wrongly believe is my poem that's really the author's poem --- is superior to the author's poem. That makes no sense since it's clearly, still, the author's poem. Just because I tweaked it a little bit for illustrative revision purposes only, does not mean it's not still the author's poem just because I gave some revision to it. If the connection can be made the revised poem is not mine and is the author's poem, it is therefore not my poem!
KhazDA said:
"You broke the regulations of the site . . ."
Try harder. You think I did, but I haven't. What seems to you isn't what is. To accuse me of such things you need to be very sure the absurd claims you make were in my intent.
KhazDA said:
". . . and you were told that your interpretation was quite far off base as the majority agreed with the original author's intent."
Like I said, I already OKed to this with the author. I was fine with what she said. You talk about me being often repetitive, etc. when you're no better.
P.S. To the rest of what you claim and believe of me, as said in my other comment before this one, you're going to think what you want to think, and no amount of anything I say is going to change that. I could go on and on about disputing and disproving the rest of your other said drivel, but since you want(ed) me to stay on topic, I decided to not include it in this reply.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is outstanding! Symbolic, yet blunt at the same time. Absolutely beautiful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you ever so much for the comment. I appreciate your time and words.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like to consider myself a poet and I loooooooove other people's poetry and I absolutely LOVE this!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I will have to frequent your gallery here in a bit. I must ask for a minute or two in order to get out from under the one hundred favs I am buried in right now, but I promise to give a gander.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are ever so welcome. I try to do what I can for those who do what they can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's a lot of punches! Explosive work, my dear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I appreciate you stopping by. Explosive makes me smirk. Thank you ever so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow.
I don't quite know what to say.
That was intense. And rather well said.
Thank you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The thanks belongs to you my dear for stopping by and leaving such a lovely comment. Thank you again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Learn the rules so you can break them properly." - Dalai Lama
This is a great piece. Congrats on your DD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for the quote as I have always appreciated it. Thank you so much for your words.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow! You've expressed those sentiments that I've felt several times so well! I don't think that it deserves a censor bar (Come on, I'm sure that everyone here has heard and used that word! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you ever so much. I would remove it but I like to be honest with my work and given they provide the filter I will use it. Thank you again for your kind words.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As is your comment. Thank you again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you ever so much. Enjoy every day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rather nice way to convey my mutual feelings of late.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0