comprehension exercises by Spack

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP - ENCORE! If it was acceptable to read other people's work at my Poet's Corner events, I would choose this poem to perform. Like Juliet - I'd love to see it live! Check out my website: http://www.francesmacaulayforde.com

Well-deserved CHERRY too (by the way)! Check out my website: http://www.francesmacaulayforde.com

yes yes yes.

I will hate myself for this comment, so you don't have to. But I don't like this, I find it smug. I don't profess to know anything about poetry. But I read it and wanted to comment. I don't think this has to be smug and I like the idea of it. It reminds me of clicking fingers, the idolisation of the French and back slapping in smokey bars. However it creates a strong emotional response in me. Which, to my small brain, is the point of a poem over a story.

i did love this against my better judgement http://naptime500.blogspot.com

Cutting stuff, directed at a very deserving target, with good poetry in-jokes. My only complaint is that it's perhaps a little *too* tongue-in-cheek, ie. 'just 'avin a laff', when there is room, maybe, to risk a little more genuine rancour. Rancour isn't radio-friendly, but criticism without it *can* seem like smugness.

'directed at a very deserving target' surely thats all people who try to write poetry. This poem walks a fine line in my liking. I think it only works if it is tongue in cheek, otherwise it makes me think the poet/writer man is himself stating that he too is above the common pit falls of poetry. If it remains tongue in cheek then the audience (who lets face it are mostly aspiring writers themselves) can laugh (at themselves) but also still like the poet cos he is not seperating himself off from his inclusion. That I think is its sneaky strength.

Thanks for the feedback everyone and Juliet for the flag. Jack - thanks for the comment. I think I agree with you that there could be more genuine rancour. I hadn't really intended it as a satire on writing poetry. The original idea was to write a flowery poem with dead-pan explanative subtitles. But that didn't work so I wrote this instead. At the moment, it's more of a pisstake than a genuine attack. Though I'm not sure that a genuine attack will fit in with either the poet or the tutor's tone. Phil - thanks for the comment. Self-concious writing often seems smug. I can see how this piece could be. Hopefully, in the delivery, I will try and desmug it. Span - Thanks! I hope that it comes across that the poem section is not a joke poem. I actually tried to make it good. So, I hope, this means that I am including myself in all these criticisms. Most of the tropes I discuss are taken from looking at what cynical tricks I do in my own poetry. Cheers! Joe

"surely thats all people who try to write poetry." No, I disagree. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the 'poem' part of this - if anything, it's Spack showing off how easily he can write a series of striking images. The satire and the jokes, apart from the extended metaphor bit, are entirely within the 'commentary' part, and are directed at the poetry scene's equivalent of musos and luvvies. See here: "A “poetry nod” is more powerful than a round of applause./It is second only to a “poetry gasp”.//A “poetry nod,” within the right circles/can make a writer’s career." This is clearly ripping it out of the poetry audience, rather than the poet. Of course, a normal audience applauds, but not one that thinks itself incredibly deep and in tune with the poet's cleverness. "The mention of death, love, time or the sea is known as a THEME./When two THEMES collide/the poet is said to be: DRAWING PARALLELS./If a poet fits all the THEMES/into the same poem at the same time/they are known as a VISIONARY." This is an accurate-enough poke at the common practice of making simple tricks in a poem sound more intellectual than they are, and also exaggerating a poem or a poet's worth to a silly degree. "There are at least three ways/to finish a poem./It is generally considered good practice/to mention “the stars” somewhere/in the final stanza./You may also mention:/“dust suspended in the air.”" Even here, which you might argue is ostensibly taking the piss out of the poem's ending, he's using "It is generally considered good practice." By whom? The poem here is fine, and Spack is not laying into poets for being obvious. He is demonstrating how easy it is to impress a particular type of person with a particularly narrow approach to poetry. And the way it is couched at the moment, I could imagine them taking it as a semi-affectionate dig at them, and forgive him. I'd rather they bitterly stormed off to write their next glowing review of Jane Hirshfield. **edit** Post overlapped with Joe's. I'm not sure, reading Joe's comments, where it backs up what I've said or not!

Cheers Jack. I like the idea of the audience storming off, but I have enough poems that make people hate me. I want this one to be a crowd pleaser - it should make people feel in on the joke/ laughing at themselves. Everyone thinks that it means they are a great person if they can laugh at themselves.

Wasn't thinking of the whole audience. Just the ones who give the poetry nod.

Oh yes. Those ones. Fair enough then...