Mrs F*** by Rokkitnite

F*cking brilliant! Classic. I can just imagine it being performed at the WI social.

"There’s no heaven but this" is an excellent line. I might pinch it. Cheers, Mark

Not my bag at all. Didn't find it creative in subject matter (Shock! Outwardly 'respectable' mature lady secretly likes to be fucked every which way!) and to be honest, the stereotypes really do go straight in the lowest common denominator box. Technically, it gets lazy. I can see with lines like "Must all your encounters Be so very... Vadgety?" that you're going for the tongue-in-cheek bad half-rhyme thing, but it just feels Rokkitnite had a list of jizz and vag related words to include for comedy effect and wanted to crowbar them in any which way. Overall the piece seems to go for shocking but falls over in its naivety. (Tony, in all honesty, were you ACTUALLY shocked?) Sexual content, in particular perversion or any practice even vaguely detached from the prescribed norm, can be funny, horrifying, appalling, touching or provocative when it comes off the back of research or insight, but this demonstrates neither.

'Sexual content, in particular perversion or any practice even vaguely detached from the prescribed norm, can be funny, horrifying, appalling, touching or provocative when it comes off the back of research or insight, but this demonstrates neither.' Well, the piece is definitely puerile, and I wouldn't attempt to defend it as a work of high art, but I think claiming that 'sexual content' requires 'research or insight' to be funny is demonstrably untrue. You can't really start applying all sorts of intellectual schema to puerile humour - it's a guilty, not terribly enobling pleasure. Nearly all of my performance poems, really, fall into that category - they're scatological, offensive, and they go for cheap laughs. By all means say you didn't enjoy it, but I don't think you can really argue that Mrs Fuck is technically lazy - there are some primo rhymes in there, and it scans throughout. Beyond that, to point out that the poem's incredibly crass is to state the obvious.

I didn't think it was your finest hour, rokkitnite, but I will forgive you because of the sheer brilliance of This Line's The Title.

I liked this. Agree that it's not as good as your best but your best is very good. 'Sexual content, in particular perversion or any practice even vaguely detached from the prescribed norm, can be funny, horrifying, appalling, touching or provocative when it comes off the back of research or insight, but this demonstrates neither.' I am quite worried by this advice. If you take it to its logical conclusion and start hanging around outside meetings of local Conservative associations in Surrey wearing a smart shirt and a winning smile, do be careful.

Perhaps now would be a good time to give the 'backstory' to Mrs Fuck. When I perform it I usually tell the story. A group of lads in their late twenties from my hometown went out to celebrate of their number's birthday. Quite a few drinks were consumed and one of them ended up sleeping with the birthday boy's mother. Now, she was a divorcee and he was single - there was no reason why they oughtn't to have a one-night stand. But the community couldn't let it go. They had to brand this woman. They had to give her a nickname. The nickname they decided upon was Mrs Fuck. What I love about it, is that it's *so* crass, *so* misogynistic, that it actually comes out the other side as a kind of sublime, impossibly laconic satire of small town prejudice. OMFG, she had sex! And she was also a mother! So, in performance, the poem's meant to be playing against that working class story by stepping into the archetype of the prim socialite with the secret wanton streak. Maybe that's why it works better when I deliver it to an audience.

Maybe but also, if a poem's technically sound and includes loads of swearing and sexual terminology, that's generally more than enough to get a decent response from many audiences. I'd agree, though, that the poem does much better in terms of playing against the backstory once you know that the backstory is there. I think it would be a pretty hard one to guess.

So the line is to stop taking things so seriously. When I talk about insight/research, I don't mean you have to immerse yourself in a brothel in drag undercover for months on end. It just feels that so much can be done with sexual content once you dig a little deeper than the Ann Summers catalogue. Agree with buk that any sex stuff tends to get a giggled response and a cheer at the end from most audiences, but don't you ever want to do something that isn't just shooting fish in a barrel? Not so much highbrow (who wants to be highbrow?) as presenting something a little differently, not just rolling over and grabbing the closest thing to deviation you can lay your hands on.

'don't you ever want to do something that isn't just shooting fish in a barrel?' Yes, and I have plenty of that in my set. And then sometimes I do bum and willy jokes. One doesn't preclude the other.

"So, in performance, the poem's meant to be playing against that working class story by stepping into the archetype of the prim socialite with the secret wanton streak." Tim, you can't just say in one breath that no one's allowed to apply any kind of even vaguely 'intellectual' evaluation to it, and then explain the sense of irony and satire that went into its creation. Make your mind up. Is it a totally unambitious piece of schlock designed almost solely to get another thread where TC says, "OMG! So rude but I laughed like a drain!" and so on, or were you actually attempting something serious? I get the feeling you're hiding behind your line about 'guilty pleasures/not everything has to be high art'. Anything you write and then label as poetry or put on as a performance is something you're putting out there as art of some kind. You're saying, "Hey, look - I did this - it's worth paying attention to. It's different." The realm of the purely puerile, artless, pointless nonsense is one we can access via casual social relationships - the whole point of art is that however much it might disguise itself, there's more going on. And that means you're inviting critical evaluation - there's no 'it's only a bit of a laugh' get-out clause, and the technical state of the language is only one consideration. And yeah, I know, people laugh. People also go to see shit movies in droves, and enjoy them, and they read shit newpapers, and they listen to shit music. People like wasting their time on rubbish and pretending that it was worthwhile because it appealed to their basest responses, or it just stopped them feeling bored for a while. I'm not saying there's not a place for all this shit, but there's an overwhelming amount of it, and it's not an excuse or a sign of a job well done if people rise to it. It doesn't really mean anything. Anyway, I thought this was a waste of your abilities and a waste of potentially interesting subject matter. I think everyone who's singing its praises is wowed by the slick but ultimately shallow wordplay and equates that with being funny, and is also avoiding engaging any kind of critical faculties for fear of taking it 'too seriously'. And I think you know all of this, and I think you make up a sort of defensive philosophy in your head to avoid answering to that sort of criticism because you're ultimately pretty pleased that it gets you attention and adulation. That whole backstory explanation suggests you're aware of the need for any piece of art to answer to some deeper evaluation, however 'light', however much you try to keep it accessible and fun - but you don't really get a sense of any of that from the piece itself. I doubt anyone will bring themselves to agree with me, or even contemplate it as a possibility, but worrying about that has never made my posts any shorter.

'the whole point of art is that however much it might disguise itself, there's more going on. And that means you're inviting critical evaluation - there's no 'it's only a bit of a laugh' get-out clause, and the technical state of the language is only one consideration.' Absolutely. I'm not denying anyone's right to have an opinion on it. No doubt I could turn my pen to far nobler, more nuanced subject matter. And sometimes I do. But not in this instance. I don't consider 'it's only a bit of a laugh' to be a get-out clause - it's just my genuine motivation for having written it. Now, you may reasonably respond 'well, I don't think that's much of a justification'. Which is fine. I'm not presenting it as a work of high art or a scathing indictment of modern society. I think there's a place for crass, one-dimensional toilet humour. If you don't, then, well, you don't. But then I don't feel there's much more to discuss.

"Anyway, I thought this was a waste of your abilities and a waste of potentially interesting subject matter." How can it be a waste of his abilities? It's not like he only has ten poems in him and his jizzed this one up the wall. And it IS funny. It's works brilliantly in performance, not just cos he's saying 'fuck,' he takes the crassness of the boys in the story and everytime he says it he further lampoons their idiocy. It's a great bit of comedy.

I don't agree, Luke. I'm not getting this 'lampoons their idiocy' vibe - the poem, in its tone, delights in the same vulgarity and inappropriateness that probably appealed to the gossipers in the first place, just with greater articulation/vocab. There's no sympathy with the main character whatsoever - it's having a laugh at the freak. And on the technical point, it's a waste of his abilities because he could have used his time and energy to produce something better. He's only going to write a finite amount of poems in his life - probably more than ten - but hey, just because the planet is two thirds water doesn't mean leaving the tap dripping isn't a waste. Tim, I feel you've missed my point. It's not about the subject matter - it's what you do with it. And your genuine motivation for writing it is, I think, so that people will laugh at it and you can feel like a pretty funny, entertaining and talented guy. If it was just 'a bit of a laugh' for you, why perform it? I'm not buying the altruistic 'feels good to make people feel good' line. Anyway, you're quite right - there's no real point of discussion. For me, it goes beyond taste or 'horses for courses' - I think it's fairly pointless, tired stuff verging on self-parody, and that this is gobsmackingly obvious, as opposed to something that has its place which I don't happen to like. Not because it's vulgar, crass, silly or steeped in sex but because it's nothing more than that. But I doubt there's a single person here who'd give credit to such a theory unless it was blatant to them in the first place.

I'm a big fan of crass and this made me laugh. If that makes Tim feel funny, entertaining and talented, then good luck to him. I bet it feels good to perform that and get people laughing. I would feel good if I performed something and made people laugh. As for the technical aspects of poetry, well that ain't my bag so I can't really comment on artistic worth, or whatever else. Just thought it was funny, is all.

I think I disagree with Jack's analysis on two levels. Firstly on the question of should poets write and perform work that is entertaining but has no deeper message. I'd say yes and that being able to entertain a room full of people is, in itself, a talent worth having. Secondly in terms of this piece. I'm a big fan of a lot of Tim's writing and don't think this reaches the heights of his best work but it's still very good. I think this is especially unfair: "Not because it's vulgar, crass, silly or steeped in sex but because it's nothing more than that." The grotesque extent of the vulgarity and crassness does make the reader think about their own attitudes and the general place of sex in public discussion. It's not the best poem in the world ever but, in my opinion, it was well worth Tim writing it and it's well worth a read or two.

All of this discourse is interesting. I actually saw the poem from a slightly different angle, maybe the angle rokkit was intending in the first place - that of the hypocrisy of the 'proper veneer' (and this seems to be something which the Brits in particular have down to a fine art.). The mature, morally upright upper-middle class woman (and why is it more shocking when it is a woman? From where does this attitude derive?) whose sexual proclivities are hidden behind a well-polished facade. Although the language of the poem is titillatory in nature (is that a word? can it be one?), I thought the underlying tone of the piece was kind of sad; Mrs. F chained by needs she can't satisfy under a veneer she can't keep up. Well done, rokkit. I like it just as it is.

"I'd say yes and that being able to entertain a room full of people is, in itself, a talent worth having." I don't disagree, but I think there are different kinds of entertainment. Some people, after all, evidently find happy-slapping entertaining. Or Bernard Manning ('found' being the word there). Or Vicky Pollard. 'Deeper meaning' isn't what I'd say entertainment has to have in order to be worthwhile. I'd say heart or humanity. Some kind of genuine interest in something, beyond just taking the piss and showing off. Otherwise it might as well just be a bunch of school kids laughing at fart sounds or seeing the class nerd get ribbed. "The grotesque extent of the vulgarity and crassness does make the reader think about their own attitudes and the general place of sex in public discussion." I might accept such an assessment, and Archergirl's suggestion that the underlying tone is sad, if this wasn't just the latest in a line of poems Tim's written in almost exactly the same manner.

'I might accept such an assessment, and Archergirl's suggestion that the underlying tone is sad, if this wasn't just the latest in a line of poems Tim's written in almost exactly the same manner.' I wondered when this hoary old canard would rear its ugly head: 'Tim writes poems with jizz flying everywhere and the females all very passive!' I realise, Jon, that you think I'm some closet misogynist with all the cultural sensitivity of a twirly-moustached nineteen-twenties boxing cad, and I'm getting bored with patiently and politely responding. You've been banging on about these supposed tendencies of mine for literally *years*, and your gripes predate my writing poetry. I've lost count of the number of times you got drunk at parties and then started accusing me of being a greasy-pawed philanderer and black-hearted libertine just because I was chatting to a member of the opposite sex while you glowered into your vodka and diet coke. It's tedious and patently untrue and it says far more about your own long-standing emotional/sexual hangups than about the artistic import of a single piece of silly doggerel verse. Good day, sir!

This is just as good as Mailer vs. Tom Wolfe, excpet the stakes aren't as high...

Conflict plus character: now there's a story. :-)

Hmmmmmm, I think we've got a question here: What's the difference between being popular and being populist? Tim's poem seems to have been quite popular, but does this necessarily mean that he has set out to be populist ie. seeking to appeal to or represent the interests and views of ordinary people? It doesn't follow that something popular is necessarily populist. Cheers, Mark

I'm all for an entertaining read. i just found this mediocre and undeserving of a flag. I'm not much of a fan of rokkit but rokkit's done much better work that's more deserving of the spotlight.

I am afraid I agree. I think this is a worthy debate. However, I just dont find the story that interesting. I think that the difference between (that crass division) page and performance poetry, is that on stage Tim could stand up and tell the story and because it is funny it enchances the poem. If someone came on here and tried to tell the story behind a page poem they would be shouted down by everyone, myself included. Cos a poem is either a good poem or it is not. You dont get to have the explanation also. Just not funny to me. I can imagine though, knowing how good Tim is at performing that he would make it hilarious. No one should be getting their knickers dirty about what Tim chooses to write though. Its kind of his look out. And yup, its not as if this is the only sort of thing he has ever written. Span x

I don't think I read the poem as anything other than a performance poem, and I think the "Vadgety" line really would work in that context. It's the performance equivalent of a build when DJing, it'll get people going almost by physical reflex, whether they know why or not. It's an interesting debate as span says. When pushed into a corner, people will explain their work. There's a question over whether that enhances or diminishes it. I'd prefer, as much as possible, to incline my head, appear to be thinking then disappear like Nightcrawler into a puff of smoke and the smell of brimstone. Sometimes, it probably more honest and correct just to say 'I didn't like it', or 'the subject didn't interest me' and explain why, which is what Brighteyes and Jack Cade were having a shot at. I still think "There is no heaven but this" is a great, great line. We really should have more talking like this on ABCtales. This is, after all, Discuss Writing from ABCtales. Cheers, Mark

Not many words make me uncomfortable, but there's something about the word 'poop' I find really unsettling. It's one of only two terms used to describe bodily functions I don't like. The other is 'vaginal discharge'.

"I realise, Jon, that you think I'm some closet misogynist with all the cultural sensitivity of a twirly-moustached nineteen-twenties boxing cad, and I'm getting bored with patiently and politely responding." This has absolutely nothing to do with the poem and there was no need to go into it. But as you've brought it up, 'chatting with a woman' hardly accurately describes the kind of behaviour I've complained about, and I'm not the only one who has observed it. I have defended your character to people who find you entirely, obviously false, cynical and self-serving, because I've spent enough time around you to know that there's more there than just this mode of behaviour. I just find it kind of embarrassing when your actions seem to come straight out of some instruction book on engaging people's attention, right down to the occasional humility-implying soundbites that seem so finely judged. This is mostly a separate matter from the fact that when you write about something that genuinely interests you, that you give a damn about, your flair with flowery language works mostly in your favour. When you've just hit upon a subject and clearly thought, "Hey, I can get umpteen fucking jokes out of this," it makes for bad writing. I wouldn't try to link this back too closely with complaints about your general character, mainly because I come up with exactly the same kind of juvenile stuff as this, just far less frequently and solely for the motivations you ascribe to yourself (ie. a laugh), which means it doesn't go public. It's also, if anything, even more crass and tasteless than yours, since I don't hold back for fear of actually genuinely offending an audience. Tony Cook! How predictable: "It is clearly nonsense to say that entertaining people is not an art in itself." Yes, it is, which is exactly why I didn't say that, and why I said the opposite - that entertainment is itself an art, and thus answers to broadly the same requirements. The criteria for entertainment in that sense isn't just that some people find it entertaining. I know you're going to baulk at that, so start with something simple and obvious, and work your way from there: if some people laugh at rape, is rape funny? If lots of people laugh at rape, is it funny? If everyone but you were laughing at rape, would you concede that actually, rape is pretty funny? Or would you think, "Hold on, everyone's got it wrong. I really think that we should put a stop to this." Public entertainment puts itself on a pedestal, just as art does, and that invites judgment. Judgment means that you can say, "This is shit," if you have good reason, no matter what everyone else thinks. Live with it. Stop choking on your indignation. I'm pretty sick and tired of you suggesting that my every objection to something is based on a desire for so-called 'high art', and that every opinion I express with any confidence regarding art indicates that I think of myself as some kind of guru. It's an easy way to dismiss an argument and not actually address it. I'm not asking for an intellectual message or a thousand different layers - I want some heart to a piece, whether it's entertainment or not - something that proves it's not production line, formula-driven stuff. It's not cultural elitism to find something soulless, is it? I think you should get your head out of your own arse and use it to think about something for once, instead of trying to sanction off your little segment of shits and giggles so it's safe from any criticism. It's exactly this kind of intellectual protectionism - this rejection of anything threatening an individual's comfort zone - that makes positive social change on a wider scale so difficult. TC, you can come along and criticise my soft entertainment any time you like - Transformers or X-Men comics, or MST3K maybe - and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I won't accuse you of taking it too seriously or thinking you are The One Authority. ~ That's enough responding to people with their knickers in a twist. Now for intelligent points. Mark: I don't think the piece is 'populist' - it's not designed for 'ordinary people' or 'the masses'. It's lowest common denominator humour, but that's not the same. It's like, say, putting naked people on the front of a magazine - it's something that might be seen as a more effective strategy when targeted at the underclasses, for various reasons, but it's not exclusive to them, and that behaviour doesn't define them. Similarly, calling this populist draws a link between your 'ordinary people' and toilet humour that really isn't there. Toilet humour just appeals to the inner-juvenile in all of us. That's why there's so much criticism of it wherever it crops up. Personally, I think it's entirely justified where it allows you easy engagement with something that's got some heart or humanity in it. 'Shallow Hal', for instance, was criticised for being based entirely around toilet humour and fat suits, but the film really had something more to it - not a subtle coded message for intellectuals, but a sledgehammer-obvious moral arc that succeeded in not being too preachy. It wasn't the best film ever, but it didn't deserve to be dismissed as 'just fart gags'.

shocking? lol. I've always considered rokkit's work to be soiled by peacockery. This piece is rather sedate :) Box of chocolates, anyone? When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

"If lots of people laugh at rape, is it funny? If everyone but you were laughing at rape, would you concede that actually, rape is pretty funny?" "I'm not asking for an intellectual message or a thousand different layers - I want some heart to a piece, whether it's entertainment or not - something that proves it's not production line, formula-driven stuff. It's not cultural elitism to find something soulless, is it?" Jon, This comeback is as spirited as it is willfully obtuse. Tony's argument (shared by others, including me) is that a piece of art can be good if it's entertaining but has no wider message or significance. Rape clearly does not fall in this category. Neither does, for example, public execution, which is still a form of mass entertainment in some countries. In fact, we can only be grateful that you resisted the urge to tell us that some people were really entertained by the spectacle of Kristallnacht. Your second set of points doesn't seem greatly connected to the first but it's more credible. It obviously isn't cultural elitism to find something soulless. It's a perfectly legitimate position. The problem is that couple with your suggestion that, because you feel something is soulless, it shouldn't have been written at all. In the end you can boil down the argument to something like: Jack - This kind of writing is soulless. Rokkit - I enjoy doing it and people enjoy listening to it. Jack - I don't care, stop doing it now and write about something that I think is important. Rokkit - No, no, I won't. Excuse me, I've got six girls on my other lines waiting to tell me how funny I am.

David, The question I am looking to draw from the rape comparison is: what is it that differentiates good entertainment from something that is merely entertaining to some people? I wouldn't say it necessarily has to be a 'wider message or significance', but it is clearly something. The argument that Tony seems to rely on is that if people are laughing at it, that makes it good entertainment, and impervious to criticism. Clearly, that isn't the case. You agree. So what's the difference? Does something have to be proved to be utterly morally wrong and antisocial in order for it to be bad entertainment? Where's the mistake in saying: in my judgment, this needs something more, maybe a lot more? In terms of telling Tim to stop writing it, I am not really advancing that as an intellectual argument. I am saying that I would prefer he use his talents to write about something that is at least of some importance to *him*. It's only like saying you think Morrissey should go back to being miserable because you think his new stuff sucks, or that the BBC should make better TV. The obvious implication is that they should stop doing what they're doing, that the bad stuff shouldn't have been made at all. I think you skew it by using the word 'important'. People can make any subject 'important' by writing about it with some passion or warmth. I don't think it's the one single factor that makes the difference between Tim writing good stuff and what yan terms 'peacockery', but it's the most significant one I can identify. I don't know how much I can stress that this is not about expecting everything to operate as 'high art' or contain a 'deeper meaning'. Those terms come in to it because Tim - and then Tony - deflects criticisms by implying that those criticisms can only apply to 'high art' and not to entertainment. I haven't for a moment approached the poem as anything other than something that's meant to be amusing and fun. Instead, I find it irritating and twatty and I have simply tried to explain why.

"The question I am looking to draw from the rape comparison is: what is it that differentiates good entertainment from something that is merely entertaining to some people?" It's a good question but the rape example isn't relevant to it. It's abundantly clear to me what differentiates acts of violence and barbarity from legitimate entertainment. The more interesting question is how you differentiate good entertainment from bad entertainment. I like one Canadian music artist, Leonard Cohen but dislike another, Celine Dion. Both are popular with a lot of people. I can give you plenty of reasons why I'd rather listen to Leonard Cohen than Celine Dion. But I'm not sure I could develop that in the good/bad moral position you seem to putting forward here. There's no problem with you not liking Tim's poem(s), in the same way that there's no problem with my not liking Celine's warbling. But if I tried making a moral argument that Celine had been doing something fundamentally wrong by churning out turgid power-ballads to make £millions, she wouldn't care because she'd be so busy bathing in big, fat banknotes that she wouldn't have the time to point out that millions of people enjoyed her atrocious sound and had derived hours of pleasure from experiencing it. If, for Tim, the laughter and glory derived from performing his poetry is enough to justify the effort of write it - and tens, hundreds, of people have a decent night out listening - that's the same thing really isn't it.

"It's a good question but the rape example isn't relevant to it." I was trying to start with something extreme and obvious, and then come in from that. Because if acts of barbarity and violence are at once excluded from being with the remit of legitimate entertainment, how about something like Vicky Pollard, or racist humour? Then what about entertainment that is supposed to encourage bad behaviour, like violent computer games? How wrong does something have to be before it crosses the line? Some things are much less obvious. But I see your point - that this moral distinction is a different one to the basis on which I have been arguing against Tim's piece. It is a sidetrack I've gone down in trying to argue against the wider notion that 'people laugh = good entertainment, no returns'. All I can say is that some people can listen to Celine Dion, or read a page of Dan Brown and think, "Well, I might find this atrocious, but I suppose if people get pleasure out of it, then I can't take an intellectual stance against it. Life is a buffet - I'll fill my plate and leave." Other people think, "My God, this is so wrong it shouldn't really exist, and that should be abundantly clear to anyone..." - not with everything they don't like, but with some things, here and there, perhaps because they feel it is, on some level, detrimental to culture in general - perhaps socially detrimental in the same way, but on a much smaller scale, to how completely immoral forms of entertainment are. Perhaps they believe that on some very low level it makes us into worse people, in the same way good culture, good art and good entertainment is often cited to make us into better people. In any case, I'm changeable, but mostly I'm the latter. And most of the time, it's not worth bothering about, but sometimes you see an opportunity for changing someone's mind, hopefully in the service of the greater good you perceive, and on this occasion I held out the faint hope that I might appeal to Tim's better judgment - as well as wanting to come completely clean, lest Tim think from the odd disparaging remark I make that I say all this behind his back. Maybe it's pointless, sure, but I don't think it is completely unreasonable to state these views here, and forcefully. I should probably also mention that, yes, if the thing you object to seems relatively popular, it does tend to harden the negative feelings - I think that's fairly widespread, and not specific to me. But what riles me more, I think, is what I perceive as the cynicism behind it. It's similar to when people complain about 'dumbing down'. I haven't gone through my thoughts on this thoroughly, but I don't like it in the same way I don't like how advertisements use semi-naked photoshopped women to sell products. And that's what intensifies my reaction beyond simply thinking it a bad piece of writing. I guess I think of it as being a series of low blows from a guy who could win the fight legitimately.

Sorry, I didn't really like the poem. I read these comments first, and the subject matter really interested me, but I just didn't think it was all that good. Don't mean to offend. Thought so much could have been made with a character like that, and I was a bit disappointed.

I suppose Tim should be flattered that so many people step into the ring to duke out whether his work is 'quality work' or not. My perspective on writing, whether poetry or lit, is: sometimes you come home after a hard slog at the office, flip on the telly, and settle down to watching 'Cops' or 'The World's Worst Drivers', because that's all your brain wants to deal with. *Some* of Tim's stuff (not all, of course) falls into this category: light, fluffy, funny, low-ball shtick. And it's great. Sometimes you come home after a hard slog at the office, and feel like digging into something meaty, so you turn on the Science Channel to learn about super-massive black holes in the centre of the galaxy, or have a stab at War and Peace. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with either type of writing, or telly, or Celine Dion, for that matter. Like perfumes, there's one to suit every mood.

I agree archergirl, there are different types of poems or prose or tv programmes for different types of mood. Howevever, just as Ms Dion is a pile of wank, there is such a thing as bad poetry. I dont think that is what we have here though. I am not sure that is what Jack Cade is objecting to however. I think it is more a case of he knows Tim can do better. Which to be honest he can, but that does not make this poem any less good or funny it just means that cos Rokkitnite is a great writer and many of us know his stuff that we have come to expect variety and an increasingly high standard. Not that this is a step backwards, just that I think what Jack Cade might be trying to say, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that he wants to see variety. Which is a fair comment. That said, it is good to see this kind of discussion on abctales. What a lovely new lease of life. It might put Rokkitnite off writing poetry for a while, or at least it gives the impression of a contemptuous baited breathed audience. Whatever he chooses to do, its flattering and I hope he sees it that way. Span

The rape in A Clockwork Orange was entertaining, I guess (?) you don't want to watch, and can't believe what they are doing, very uncomfortable.

"it just means that cos Rokkitnite is a great writer and many of us know his stuff that we have come to expect variety and an increasingly high standard." This is true, span; and to be honest being a good writer is [well, must be] a double-edged sword. The 'increasingly high standard' must put both writer and reader into a difficult situation where one is either comparing one's own work to previous glories, or the reader is, and it's hardly fair on either, especially if there is a particular genre in which the writer excels (like Rokkit's talent for the prurient). I actually prefer this 'jizz flying in the air' poem to some of the other 'jizz' poems in Tim's list. Yes, it may be 'on a theme', but so what?

What is art if not provocative? QED

"Not that this is a step backwards, just that I think what Jack Cade might be trying to say, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that he wants to see variety." I mean, in a way, but that's not the primary thing. In the past, Tim has written things I don't think work very well, and things that, for him, aren't very original - but I have never had the same negative reaction to these because, whatever the faults, he was trying to write about something he thought he should write about. Even if *I* didn't give a fig for his subject, there's something in the writing that tells you *he* does. When you get to 'Heidegger Hundesser', it's frivolous and has nothing to say, but it was something new from him, yeah. Plus, the humour came from a number of sources and was slightly risky in parts ie. people might not know who Pol Pot is and not be able to follow it. If Tim had continued in this vein, so long as he kept up his other work, I wouldn't have cheered him on, but equally I wouldn't have felt I had reason to object. Since then though there seems to have been a drive to get the humour as consistently one-note as possible, eradicate anything that might make a single member of an audience raise a puzzled eyebrow, and get the balance of rude and nasty 'just so', so that no one is actually offended but everyone feels that "How outrageous!" vibe. It's got the feel of production line pop, evidenced by the fact that Tony Cook's forum threads about these latest poems seem to have begun almost identically, and he leaps to its defence with all the plucky sophistry of a teenybopper fighting back against Britney-haters. That in itself is disappointing, but on top of that, I think there's a real nastiness emerging in the way the subjects are handled. 'Middle Class Girls' basically just riffed off a series of ugly stereotypes. I know, I know - we all use stereotypes here and there and he's doing it oh-so-ironically. But I found the relentlessness of it to be fairly vicious. And here again, the humour of this poem is completely at the expense of the character. Even when he chooses subjects that are perhaps more deserving of a piss-taking (as in the local papers one) it's done with aloofness and pomposity - again, with some accompanying claim to irony. And yeah, he can do technically better too, I'm sure - it's just end rhymes and iambic rhythm. But that's not much of a concern. Now, I seem to have been asked to justify every comment I've made, down to a simple sentiment like 'You should write something else' being rigorously scanned for philosophical cogency. I think saying, "If Tim wants to do it, and we like it, what's the harm?" or "What right have you to tell Tim what he should write about?" is really missing the point. This is the Discuss Writing forum. I am telling you what I think about it - like reviewers in papers do when they say something is bad, and someone should write differently, or that something is a waste of time. When I start campaigning for a law that forces Tim Clare to only write important stuff, then you can say I'm on my high horse. Until then, kneejerk defensiveness is silly.

Judging by this: http://www.abctales.com/story/jack-cade/mrs-f-remix I think you're getting something quite different from the original poem to what I got from it. I didn't really see it as being judgmental. Vulgarity aside, I thought, as Archergirl has said that the underlying tone was sad and that the poet's position was ambiguous.

I don't think the poet, or voice, is judgmental - rather, bullyingly facetious. If you imagine the small town vibe Tim talks about - there's the prim and prudish, who would talk in a tone of moral outrage, and then there's the schoolkids who might snigger when Mrs. F goes past, or cough 'slut' under their breaths. The voice reads to me as an extension of the latter - even as it's telling her to be 'bold as a rhino' it's really just taking the piss; he's even tuned the character for maximum piss-taking potential (she's super-posh, *and* a fetishist). So you're right that I don't get any sense of sadness from it. I don't feel any emotional investment in the character at all.

'Since then though there seems to have been a drive to get the humour as consistently one-note as possible, eradicate anything that might make a single member of an audience raise a puzzled eyebrow, and get the balance of rude and nasty 'just so', so that no one is actually offended but everyone feels that "How outrageous!" vibe.' I'm - very belatedly - recognising that this has all become a bit silly, and you're just making stuff up now, Jon. What you're saying doesn't match up to my output over the last two years. What was the last thing you saw me perform, and - whether or not it was any good - did it fit the criteria you've just outlined? Thanks very much to everybody who has taken the time to give input, positive or negative. I think these kinds of lively debates are really cool, and one of the most interesting things about abctales. Certainly plenty of food for thought. For now, I'm off to treat women with casual disregard and scandalise the proles by saying 'vagina'.

"What you're saying doesn't match up to my output over the last two years." Well, no, it doesn't. Just with a particular batch of poems over the last I dunno how long. I'm sure you've done other work, but even if you've written twelve bestsellers and a glut of critical essays, it doesn't change the impression I have of you honing a particular dumbed down, machismo-drenched style. The last thing I saw you perform was the piece about gay priests. It didn't match the criteria at all, but it was in the context of a 'serious' art show, so it wouldn't. Prior to that, 'the piddle that sticks' comes to mind. It's got nothing to do with you using the word 'vagina' either, but if I haven't explained myself well enough by now then the task must be beyond me.

'Well, no, it doesn't. Just with a particular batch of poems over the last I dunno how long. I'm sure you've done other work, but even if you've written twelve bestsellers and a glut of critical essays, it doesn't change the impression I have of you honing a particular dumbed down, machismo-drenched style.' Seems like you're suffering from some serious confirmation bias here, Jon. By your own admission, you've selected 'a particular batch' of poems from my whole output and decided they represent a trend, and, as you say, it doesn't matter what other stuff I've written, because you've made a meta-critical decision that I'm 'honing a particular dumbed down, machismo-drenched style'. That seems bizarre. I like writing in lots of difficult styles and I enjoy representing lots of different rhetorical positions, lots of which aren't wholly mine. I'm afraid I can't accept your accusations of dumbing down because I find writing and performing my poems very challenging, both intellectually and emotionally. If that sounds ridiculous to you, well, perhaps it is, but it's the truth. I happen to think that there's nuance and layers to what I do, and that it's not 'one-note', but I also think it's a bit cheeky for me to turn round and say that it's your fault if you don't get that. I accept that I may not convey it to everyone, and I'm sure there's lots I could do to improve how well I get my ideas across. I think asserting that I've been working on becoming steadily more crass and lowbrow requires a ridiculously selective reading of my output - it's forcing you to omit facts to fit your thesis. Frankly, it's presumptuous for you to profess you know what's best for me as a writer - with all due respect, Jon (and it's not totally clear to me how much that constitutes), you are not my primary audience, and, rather than chiding me for squandering some nebulous literary talent, you'd do well to focus your copious intellectual resources on finding an audience for your own work.