Well, I didn't think it sugary, I thought it was more like the too many cooks spoiling the broth thing, where each throws something in until it is an incoherent mess when a more spartan technique would have better served. Of course, this was one cook doing the work of 20...

For the record, I really don't take this stuff as seriously as other people here seem to (and maybe I seem to to others). I take my own writing seriously, even when I'm tossing off a quick, playful piece. But ultimately I consider the difference between what I do and what Tuesday's poet does to be qualitative.

hi back sue, well, in that case, you **have** been here a while. It's interesting & a bit odd, the responses that this lovely poem has brought out, isn't it? Another poster who liked the poem, as you prob. have read, is G Harry S...(hope I got the initials in the right order). I'm still fine with that original position and just don't feel like beating this one "with a hose." (Very funny, btw...) I just want to sit, kind of Buddhist style and absorb this one and "Let It Be." (heard that great old song on the oldies radio yesterday, driving home & felt like pulling over & just taking a nap. Luckily, I didn't act on that impulse!). Regards, "L." / t.

Hello MaryAnn, and loyal Poetry Fray contributors. As one poster kindly pointed out earlier in a related thread, the meat is sweetened and ofttimes entirely provided by the dinner guests. This is rock stew at its best.

Hi MaryAnn,

The best thing to come out of this Tuesday's poem was your critique reminding me also of Iris-2. Her, "It makes my teeth hurt" comment when poems were too sugary.

Although I didn't think of sugar when I read the poem. All I thought was, this is not my taste in poetry. And my taste is not exclusive to anything, but that the piece has to move me. And this one didn't. Can't really say much more.

Enjoy your √mark!

~ Galatea

What is wrong with you Lunesta? I see you're having another Tempo Tantrum. You should really take a step back and read your replies to people. They are awful - it's getting harder and harder to imagine there is a good person behind all this cyberspace.

I cannot recall the last time I read one genuinely nice thing you had to say to anyone - anything "nice" comes with (sugary) ulterior motives to cover your mean spirited tracks.

Just check yourself out here. It looks like you are the nasty bossy bully. Interesting the first thing you say to MaryAnn after reading her critique is:

Lunesta:

Hi M.A., how about chilling out & starting over? Perhaps I am just in a better Karmic place than you today, or perhaps I am loving the gorgeous Springtime too much for your critical taste. But I think it is a lovely poem, a gift from God (which is to say, Mr. P.) and the goddesses, and a handsome addition to a stunningly beautiful day at this stunningly graceful time of year. There are some days when we are just happy to be alive, if we are lucky, and some poems which help us along in that happiness. For me, this is just such a day, and such a poem. In other words, 'stop with the kvetching already," OK? Some things are just meant to be appreciated.
...
Geez, M.A., lighten up & maybe read it again, OK? Peace, joy, love and chill out...maybe a trip to San Francisco is in order? Or to the spa? Or to church?
Thanks, "L."

Better Karmic place??? Qua? What does karma have to do with liking a poem or not?

Then she replies to you:

MaryAnn:

Hi M.A., how about chilling out & starting over?....Geez, M.A., lighten up & maybe read it again, OK?

No can do, Lunesta. I call 'em as I see 'em, just as you do. Think of all the times you've hated a Tuesday pick when I thought it was not bad. Never did I ask you to lighten up because it's just a matter of different strokes for different folks.
...*
But that's just my take on the poem. You're entitled to a different take.

MA

*[further explaining MaryAnn politely gives regarding her take on the poem]

And now you say to her:

Lunesta:

Gosh, thanks, Mary Ann! Gee, I'm "entitled to a different take." Let's effing hope so! :-)

Multiplicity of voices, Mary Ann, multiplicity of interpretations, multiplicity of meanings & responses -- one of the GREAT positives about poetry & reading it. pls. remember, we are NOT all your 'students," OK? Some of us have taught poetry, led workshops & were writing & publishing poems & reviews back when you were still whipping the 7th graders into shape, please. Maybe the poet is on a Wordsworth roll, who knows? I don't find the intervening stuff "cutesy" in the least, Mary Ann, I think the language and word choices work.

And as so often, I find your bossy tone off-putting and inappropriate. Apparently, a couple of new posters do, too. And I hope that you & the ever-critical Inkberrow do NOT scare off this G Harry person, who seems quite nice. You want to rain on this week's parade, fine. It's your choice. But keep your habitual bossiness out of it, if you would. Thanks, "L."

Looks like projection to me when you issue your usual clichés, like get a life or chill out, etc.

Also, who really knows who's new and who's not? Oh you, sorry I forgot. If they're not catnapping or Gypsy, they're new LOL. Anyone truly new here I can only imagine would be put off by you. Please try and work on changing/evolving, because you are creating bad karma with your cyber-actions.

I did not like this poem. But what I find even worse is your behavior in this thread towards MaryAnn. You display a tremendous amount of anger here. Does this stem from jealousy perhaps...that she (and others) got a checkmark and you didn't.

I read this in WR's thread:

Lunesta:

...
As for the checkmarks, they look as though they were handed out at random, by an Editor some of us have been writing to, saying, "Please, Moira, pay some attention to the Poems Fray."
As ever, "L."

I don't live for checkmarks like you appear to, but I don't believe these were handed out at random. It's unfortunate you have to think that because you begrudge who received them.

Oh poor poor you. Really Tempo, grow up.

~ Galatea

yeah I definitely see a lot of unwarranted hostility in your postings, Lunesta. You seem to think you're on some sort of higher plane that entitles you to patronize people and belittle their opinions while holding yours to be the only proper ones. How, in the same (cyber)breath, can you accuse someone of bossiness while basically telling them to shut their (pound)cakehole? The essence of your postings is: "it's absolutely beautiful, and if you think otherwise, you are just being a negative crank."

As for the poem, I didn't find it to be particularly accessible...call me uncultured, but I haven't read enough Wordsworth to catch the references, and it didn't suit my taste. I'm probably not in the intended audience. I did like "just a tranquil darker,' the phrase, but the poem more or less lost me after that. But in any case, I've written much worse, and I think when it comes to criticism, something Vonnegut said applies across the board, even though he said it about novels: "Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae."

I wouldn't say it was total crap, and I am not saying I could do better myself, but I was not very impressed either. The "tranquil darker" line was about the high point -- for me it went downhill after that.

Probably should have a diabetic warning.