why do i even talk to you
i can hear your sneer &
when you talk about yourself
you sound like you could
i could be jerking off
instead of listening to you
do it &
when i see you
do you even realize anymore
that we used to
how is this what this is now
i should be jerking off
instead of listening to myself
to you &
to you &
22 Sep 10
Rated 10 (8.3) by 2 users.
Active (2): 10
Inactive (7): 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10
(define the words in this poem)
(16 more poems by this author)
(1 user considers this poem a favorite)
Add A Comment:
& what? this catches a lot of attention, you see.
i like the documentary honesty of this, but find a lack of any actual poetic force behind the words.
Journal entry, not poetic in any sense, although it does sound very modern. Fuck loses it's impact when used too much, the &'s are not helping your poem, only seeming to cheapen it and even make you look very immature and greedy.
direct and clean writing with no fluff. makes for the best kind of poetry. it's complete in itself as this word-bomb exploding for anyone who can read openly and simply fall into the poem in good faith. if someone can't just let go when they read a poem, then their worthless as poetry critics and poetry readers... they're just looking for prose facts and instant authentication of their cultural superiority. if their culture is hugh-hefner or martha stewart, then their poetry is going to be pretty much dry and dead happy talk.
good writing ( it's not about how poetical we are or how sensitive, it's about how direct with writing we are. poetry is the only direct writing, since it comes directly from emotion -- all life is lived in emotion, even if we pretend it's about being smart.)
"direct and clean writing with no fluff. makes for the best kind of poetry"
No it doesn't.
"it's complete in itself as this word-bomb exploding"
No it's not.
"if someone can't just let go when they read a poem, then their worthless as poetry critics and poetry readers..."
This is meant as a personal attack on previous commentators, and does not reflect any actual realistic criticism other than Mike's own personal need to bitch.
What he says is completely wrong.
"( it's not about how poetical we are or how sensitive"
Once again, Mike, it's ab out what ever we want it to be about, not what you say it should be about.
Your intellectual eugenics fascist programming is showing again.
well, if poetry isn't direct writing from the emotion, then what is it? and, i don't mean 'verse', which is a kind of kinky prosewriting with a little wiggle of its behind.
smartly, poetry is unique, and using poetry as an easy way to write a treatise on seduction -- when you can't write, say, de sade, jeni -- is an attempt to use poetry to to gain entry into creativity when you're not very creative. direct writing is the only way to be creative in writing, and that's why poetry is real. not because you fart roses and write pretty lines to seduce sweet things.
"poetry is the only direct writing"
No it's not.
"well, if poetry isn't direct writing from the emotion, then what is it?"
It's what ever we want it to be. A polished highly crafted piece of word art, a diary entry, a shopping list.
What ever the fuck we want it to include and be and say.
"poetry is unique"
This is erroneous and elitist thinking.
Everything is 'unique'. What you are saying is that it's the most 'unique' thing for you.
You elitist snob. :)
prove it, troll. you just repeat in the negative because you're not a poet. write a poem as good as this one, even, and you'll change into a poet. if it's about anything being what you think it's supposed to be, then 'astronomy' is kitchen cookie making for people afraid to look gay.
Using the word 'smartly' is an attempt at a personal attack on my intelligence. It is also what destroys any credibility you have have in saying what is good or bad about this poem, and what poetry should and shouldn't be, because you want a personal bitch fight :)
You don't have the basic human class to be a poet, Mike :)
"prove it, troll"
Fuck off, troll. You don't have any place to tell me what to do. So, fuck you, troll. :)
"if it's about anything being what you think it's supposed to be, then 'astronomy' is kitchen cookie making for people afraid to look gay"
If that's what someone wanted their poetry to be then there's absolutely fuck all you can or could do about it, other than cry on the sidelines about it :)
the duty of genius is to help. i'm not a genius, but i try to help anyway. if you're a genius, why aren't you trying to invent poetry, instead of killing it so that your corny verse will be all that's left? do you hate this poem and this author? why are you talking to me instead of him? is it a perfect poem? do you consider that a poem might be 'perfect'? where does poetry come from in the first place? if you can't write an answer beyond 'fuck-off', it's probably that you're a light-weight amateur and shouldn't be messing with me: you don't care about the person... about any of us.
if someone can't just let go when they read a poem, then their worthless as poetry critics and poetry readers... they're just looking for prose facts and instant authentication of their cultural superiority.
Looks who's talking. And this writing is crap in its purest form. Only you would deem it otherwise for the sheer sake of being heard and for having the last word. It's nothing more than a juvenile approach to seeking attention, much like yours.
I'm not feeling this one at all. It lacks any real sense of flow and/or musicality; it's more like something you might find on a Burger King bathroom wall. The overuse of "F" bombs and "jerking off" references makes it less accessible (as poetry) by cheapening it in my opinion. I can't say that it's juvenile as noted above, but I WOULD SAY that it just reads as commonplace men's room jargon.
I would like to see the writer own this poem. It's easy to post this kind of thing under Unknown, harder to own it.
ownd, i guess. I post anon. because, as one can imagine, it's a personal poem.
Well, good for you to own it. It seems a VERY personal poem!
I like your other stuff MUCH MORE than this one, sb! This one just doesn't have that quiet OOMPH. It's TOO up in your face. You KNOW you can do better than this. I've seen it and I LOVE your other stuff. Now go get crack-a-lackin' and make this poem start SMACKIN'! I got faith in your ability to do that. :-)
or maybe I should say, "whackin'?" LOL!
ok i know there's nothing more futile than a writer defending his own writing, but i think it's worth pointing out that the *excessive* (as deemed by a few of you) "fuck"s & references to jerking off are both used exactly twice. & not haphazardly at all, but in specific places, for specific reasons. i won't speak to a quality in my poem as a whole--i rarely recognize quality in my own poems--but this is something fairly concrete, if i were to have used each of them only once, it would have disrupted a symmetry i was trying to create.
i am flattered, though, that you feel i arranged my salty parts in such a way that they seemed to flow copious.
"i'm not a genius"
You can say that again :)
cum laude, hehe.
i really feel that, reading the comments on this, that most people in p.c. are poetry illiterate, that they don't like to get out of the egos and into someone else's ego... that everything real they do has to be done in the bedroom with a locked door, and that any sense of humanity they might share with others in the outer world is locked up and protected, and life itself is kept at a sanitary distance. i just can't understand why supposed poets laugh at the word 'fuck' and sneer at it, unless they're so guilty about 'doing the nasty' that they're not able to cope with a poem like this at all. 'doing the nasty'... the first time i heard that expression was from a verse hack woman in ventura who made a career of writing about eating her avacodo -- about being a sex-goddess virgin. when she casually dropped 'doing the nasty' in conversation, as a real image of sex, it all fell into place -- why her poetry was so shallown and trite and why she was so popular a reader among bedroom people. the whole grown-up sneaky world of adult hypocrisy makes me puke. if you don't admit to having a body -- and, how many so beautiful natural poets here would be caught dead being naked in their own body?... if you don't own your own body, then how can you Objectively read a poem like this? because, it's not about sex!!! it's not nasty!! and, if you're going to be Subjective, why are your poems so sneaky-cheat sex teases?
this one has poetry moves. if you can't read poetry moves then ask and we'll tell you what they are and how to use them yourself.
There's a few elements of this that I like; how you introduced the ampersand and dropped it off in the ending, losing your train of thought, certain elements of the rhythm feels like it was written during some angry sex by a relationship-frustrated person, and then you just god lost in the fucking and lost your train of thought.
The wording is uninteresting and hits a lot of buzz words about fucking, but the repetition is what's important here I think.
15 is a nice line.
I'm not sure why the first five comments on this are that its not a poem without including a more strict definition of what poetry is, which by all of your definitions is undefinable?
If this gets a rewrite, try to tie it together more and flesh out the action via the thought process a little more, but as is I think it works fine.
what if it's not about thought-process, tech? just as being in rage isn't in thought either. doesn't this reflect real-life experience more than some lamer farmer-brown william carlos william's sentimental joke-fest? it way does to me, just because the motion in this just as it is hits a nerve: i know this space and know and hear why everything in this is in the right place. it's because it's written in the mode, not in that ironic smart-distance kids write in so that the author can win the saint hell award for being cool.
"I'm not sure why the first five comments on this are that its not a poem without including a more strict definition of what poetry is, which by all of your definitions is undefinable?"
That's not what I said, and you just answered your own 'why'.
I said I do read any poetic force behind the words.
do not #
"i really feel that, reading the comments on this, that most people in p.c. are poetry illiterate"
Then your feelings are wrong.
"this one has poetry moves"
No it doesn't.
"i know this space and know and hear why everything in this is in the right place"
No you don't, and no it's not.
"if you can't write an answer beyond 'fuck-off'"
I can, but that's the one you deserve :)
yes, spread the love. while you're at it, spread some for this author and the poem, because people are hating it for all the wrong reasons.
Shut up, Mike, you tedious oaf :)
Who decided what the 'right' reasons are?
"Who decided what the 'right' reasons are?"
It seems Mike is setting out these conditions for us, often without realising he is conversely doing the very thing he is claiming not to be doing, and is against, which is setting what is right and wrong as poetry, and what is right and wrong poetry being posted on this site, and what we as commentators should and shouldn't be doing and saying in response to the poetry.
I don't know if this is a deliberate piece of mental gymnastics he distorts his own mind performing, or not, but it is clear his hypocrisy is all over this site like the stink fluid from a skunks anal glands after being squirted :)
Mike and his "poetry moves" and "inventions of language" and other assorted bullshit. It's only because he KNOWS his poetry can't stand on its own, so he has to resort to using big devices in order that he can come out on top. Myself, I find it all totally incomprehsible. That's HIS problem. It's always the ones who write like shit who have the most to say about how everyone else writes. Gimme a fuckin' break.
The word 'gimmick' always hits me when reading Mike's poetry, not 'poetry'.
The long tirade explanations he gives as claims to being 'poetry literate' is also made up of gimmicky words, and gimmicky sayings to appear informed.
I had to laugh that he suggested on his own poem 'naked' that some how his word 'kok' is an example of invented language that would one day get in the dictionary. I actually laughed out loud at that :)
Thing is, I actually understand what he is trying to say with these ideas of 'poetry moves' and 'inventions of language', but like you say none of his work stands up to the intellectual frame work he thinks he is putting into it, and certainly not this complete trash of his about it being 'musical'.
It's fine talking about how to fire an arrow from a bow, but being able to actually do it and then write a poetic score on it is quite something else.
Mike is a talker, not a bow-master.
starr, my poetry's been published and is very much liked by people who read it. it stands on its own because it's a somewhat innovative poetry. you're not reading it like that -- sometimes... because there are some which you know are very good and readable, and you've said so... because you always have to fall in with the rabid crowd so that they don't eat you. you're very much a loser in life and you should try to find a way to become someone. you have a talent for writing lyrical poetry and, if you'd dedicate yourself for a couple of years to writing what you really want to write about the world, you'd find a unique voice instead of a cloned voice off of CD lyrics. your buddy harry might bark loud, but she's not a poet or critic for anyone but local pub culture. that's crap culture. if you can't read this poem outloud and find the rhythm and energy in it, it's probably because you've never been able to live your own life and accept your own feelings. this one is very mature, and not because it uses R rated language. you should be ashamed of yourself to be so shallow.
This is awful.
why, because it's not arty enough, or because it's not baptist witnessing enough. it's a witnessing, and you're probably too much inside the devil to hear it for its truth and beauty.
"why, because it's not arty enough, or because it's not baptist witnessing enough. it's a witnessing, and you're probably too much inside the devil to hear it for its truth and beauty."
Mike, you do talk out of your arse. :)
"starr, my poetry's been published"
No it hasn't.
"it stands on its own because it's a somewhat innovative poetry."
LOL... no it's not.
"this one is very mature"
No it's not.
so, prickless wonder, why are you being a prick to the author and telling him he's written an immature poem? you're insulting but not helping, and your comment about this having a documentary authenticity was obviously just to show of your vocabulary.
write about the poem, not about me. i'm not the poem.
"so, prickless wonder"
Even when you bitch, you're boring :)
"why are you being a prick to the author and telling him he's written an immature poem?"
You don't get to ask me questions. :)
more vocabulary study? good for you. now, write about the poem, p.w..
While I'm relieved that I oblivious to the apparent personal wars on PC, it leaves me a little in the dark as to the motivations behind many of these 50+ comments.
bmikebauer, I appreciate your defense of the poem (& can only hope that it is as selfless as it seems to come off, despite others implying that your defense of my poem is somehow self-serving). I agree that a lot of things you said were aesthetic motivations while writing it. I wanted to be straight & honest, limiting poetic flourishes. At the same time, I wanted to use repetition in various ways (l15 being rhythmically symmetrical, l10-14 being visually symmetrical, the ampersands, and on) for obvious reasons.
& jharrison, you're not even attempting to hide your self-serving responses within a commentary on my poem. I guess that makes you honest, but to be clear, i don't care about any feud, or whatever these issues might stack up to, you have. apparently your commitment to escalating this feud-whatever-thing takes precedence over your respect for this site. that's a bummer.
Always a pleasure :)
yes, it's only got to be about becoming a writer in your writing, and the rest of us watching that happen and seeing how it's done. there's a directness of poetry wording in this -- your repetitions are poetry-moves and your sounds work to create an edge feeling in this, which seems to create an emotion. i can't think of what poetry is supposed to do but create an emotion in the reader which wasn't there before. it's not that i'm necessarily expressionist and looking for that kind of edge, it's that the poem should express the poet, and, therefore, create a world beyond the reader.