h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree. 'Crunchy Granola Suite' will cheer you right up on a cold night.

at knowing *why* I like this and dislike that. (And I'm certainly not good at constructive criticism: "This is pretty good, but would perhaps be a little better if you did X.") I'm going to try my hand at Smith's Ozymandias:

1. There's some unnecessary archaisms: the /saith/ is unwanted, does nothing for the poem, and should be dispensed with.

2. What, exactly, is the comparison with Babylon supposed to evoke? Babylon is another ruined place, a site of empire gone. But its remnants are larger and better-known than those of Ramses. So ... what does that mean? Are we making a comparison with another ruin; or drawing a contrast with a great city? Which? The phrasing "The site of this forgotten Babylon" presumably means that we're supposed to think of the glory and splendour of Babylon, but it would work much better if you named a currently great city.

3. The second stanza has some awkward phrasing: the sentence has too many sub-clauses, and is frankly difficult to follow.

4. The second stanza is far too direct: we're being told what to think. Shelly's touch is lighter, defter.

5. The shattered visage should have been included. In fact, Smith's "gigantic Leg" is, frankly, just a gigantic Leg. So what? Shelly's word-picture is more complete, and tells a greater tale of magnificence departed. This makes Shelly's point for him, so he doesn't have to drive it home in the clumsy way Smith did.

Am I on the right lines?

TRiG.

My internet connection went when I was writing that, so I saved it to a text document, rebooted the computer, then copied and pasted it in here. And I missed the first line. So I'll try again.



I'm really not very good at literature reviews. I'm not good at knowing *why* I like this and dislike that. (And I'm certainly not good at constructive criticism: "This is pretty good, but would perhaps be a little better if you did X.") I'm going to try my hand at Smith's Ozymandias:

1. There's some unnecessary archaisms: the /saith/ is unwanted, does nothing for the poem, and should be dispensed with.

2. What, exactly, is the comparison with Babylon supposed to evoke? Babylon is another ruined place, a site of empire gone. But its remnants are larger and better-known than those of Ramses. So ... what does that mean? Are we making a comparison with another ruin; or drawing a contrast with a great city? Which? The phrasing "The site of this forgotten Babylon" presumably means that we're supposed to think of the glory and splendour of Babylon, but it would work much better if you named a currently great city.

3. The second stanza has some awkward phrasing: the sentence has too many sub-clauses, and is frankly difficult to follow.

4. The second stanza is far too direct: we're being told what to think. Shelly's touch is lighter, defter.

5. The shattered visage should have been included. In fact, Smith's "gigantic Leg" is, frankly, just a gigantic Leg. So what? Shelly's word-picture is more complete, and tells a greater tale of magnificence departed. This makes Shelly's point for him, so he doesn't have to drive it home in the clumsy way Smith did.

Am I on the right lines?

TRiG.

I'm impressed with that analysis. I agree - not only is a gigantic Leg just a gigantic Leg, but it makes you think things about Art you ought not.

Like what inspired the great Texas sculptor Lightnin McDuff.

Lightnin McDuff produced this work of art in 1996, I believe it was:

http://funkyamerica.livejournal.com/1825.html

I must admit I never knew about the Shelleys' trip to what was then part of Mexico...

I asked about brang, and got this response:

Common Teut.: OE. bring-an, brengean (pa. t. bróhte, pple. bróht), corresp. to OFris. branga, bringa, OS. brengian, bringan (MDutch brenghen, Dutch brengen), OHG. bringan (MHG. and mod.G. bringen), Goth. briggan (=bringan), pa. t. brâhta, pple. brâhts. Beside the type bring-an, the Saxon group has also *brangjan, brehook.ngian, brengean, brengan, app. after þankjan; from bringan, OE. had also a rare strong pa. pple. brungen (mod. dial. brung), to which later dialects have added a strong pa. t., so as to conjugate, bring, brang, brung. The stem is not known outside of Teutonic.

More @ http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8047152#8047152.

TRiG.

> Lightnin McDuff produced this work of art in 1996, I believe it was:

Awesome!

TRiG.

Analysis has always put me off my poetry.

Nobody's ever analysed any of mine much, alas.

Tell you what. I've got one coming up in tomorrow's Post. You can analyse it for me. It's really deep, I think, and it was written to annoy Nosebagbadger...

Do you want analysis or interpretation?

And parody? Do you want some parody? Shelley and Smith, some say, were parodying each other. Some say parody is the best kind of compliment.

Myself, I can't tell you why but I can provide illustrations - just review since last October, there's one every few weeks:
A87773683 and/or A87780090

That will keep you out of mischief for a while


(and Dmitri's no slouch either...)

and neither, it should be noted, is the pote known as ~jwf~

A87774998

Poetry, parody, weird verse, all gratefully accepted at .

We may josh a bit, but we promise not to analyse you. Psychoanalyse you, maybe...

Thanks clare.

I'm really looking forward to the chance
of reading Dmitri's poem with an eye to
offering some critical feedback.


~jwf~

"Shelley and Smith, some say, were parodying each other." [Clare]

That seems physically impossible. Shelley might had been parodying Smith, or Smith might have been parodying Shelley, but both cannot be possible. One had to have come first.

Unless both were parodying an earlier effort.

Or unless they were psychic.

Okay, is up. There are two pieces of verse hidden in there, that you are welcome to subject to poststructuralist, postmodern, or classical analysis, as you please.

Much good may it do you...

Oh, and while you're over there, read the Good Stuff, too - Bluebottle has a great book review, Awix will make you chuckle with what he saw at the cinema, Anthea has a new cartoon, benjaminpmoore has an article...

[ to see the movie review]