Yep. That's what people like to read. It's entertaining. I guess that goes against my honest criticism rant, but being mean is alluring to many readers. Those critics have a readership and that's all it's about, in the end.
I give this whole thread 1 star, because Amazon shipped it to me a day later than they said they would, AND the box had a hole in it.
And thank you, for your kind words. I'm glad I could add a little wood to your fire, bud. Without the hole, the thread could not have breathed, and you'd only have three or four posts to read.
... Way to put a damper on the ambitious spirits of writers. Why even bother asking? If you don't like what people say about your art, then ignore them.
You neglected to read my reasons for why I also support what I think is well-written free verse, when rhtyhms, consnance, assonance, alliteration, meter, EVERYTHING is taken into account in order to paint something. And, curiously, I would like to know your thoughts on my description of what I believe to be innate reactions to beauty in nature, if there is no such standard in place, as you seem to think? (EDIT: I forgot my comments about freeverse were on another post.. Anyway, for the sake of the current conversation, I agree that beautifully written free verse exists, when the writer takes choice into account and is concious of the words, the rhythms, everything, in order to create something as a whole. But the medium does contain so many attempts where a writer creates something, with no regard to any of those devices, and then calls it art or beautiful, and gets offended when you say otherwise--this is the kind of freeverse I despise.) I definitely believe there is some kind of standard, and did not mean to imply my ideas of that standard are 'correct,' so yes, laugh away, but that is not what I intended to convey. But, I do believe the way things are internalized are unique to the individual. Explains why some find beauty in rainy days, while others think they're miserable. Maybe I did a bad job explaining my point of view. It's not so much that beauty is subjective, or objective, but more that beauty becomes a by-product of well thought out choice, at least in art. Why then, do we have classics that have stood the test of time? Paintings? Other forms of art that have seriously gone above and beyond many other attempts? Do we not compare things to the examples that come before? Why then, do we consider them art? Beautiful? There has to be some standard in place, no? If there was no standard in place, critics wouldn't exist, or is that logic laughable as well? /dicuss
