This love poem is better than Shakespeares sonnet 147

Thanks for the response. Plagiarism: Pro has dropped nearly all of my analysis, making my arguments less of a debate than a one-way conversation. For one thing, Pro dropped that his first round was plagiarized, being without quotes and yet word-for-word the written text of the blogger. Criterion: (overall quality) I asked Pro to provide a criterion or criteria on which to evaluate our debate. Having failed to provide one, I recommend that the two poems be evaluated in terms of overall quality. This criteria can include ethics, grammar, prose, ability to convey emotion, or none of the above. The winner of the debate will be the one best able to convey that their designated poem is superior in terms of overall quality. Dionysian/Apollonian Pro has dropped my entire history of the concepts of Dionysian and Apollonian. Like I stated (and cited) before, the two concepts stem from Nietzsche's _Birth of the Tragedy_. Also dropped is the fact that something can be intellectual AND Dionysian. In fact, Nietzsche suggested that works that contain both intelligence and rapture are superior than the two separated. (It is important here to distinguish between the "Dionysian man" and the Dionysian elements of literature. Nietzsche has not suggested that only the Dionysian element should be incorporated in a work of art). Thus, Pro's complaining that Shakespeare's work is too intellectual is irrelevant, because that neither necessitates the Apollonian nor excludes the Dionysian. Furthermore, the most emotional works are often the most intelligent. Pro has also dropped the fact that the key feature of the Dionysian/Apollonian dichotomy is not stupidity vs intelligence, but unity vs separateness. I pointed out that the explicit text of Dean's poem actually mediate the passionate experience. Liken the explicitness of the text to saying "sex sex sex sex." In this case, it is not actually the experience of sex that is invoked in reading this phrase. Instead, the word "sex" replaces the mental emotion in the reader as the object of arousal. Similarly, the "lovers" in Dean's text are constantly commenting on the fact that they are, indeed, having sex. Thus, not only does the poem's explicit language distract from the possibility of Dionysian emotion/passion, but the "lovers'" constantly reassuring themselves that they are having sex is entirely Apollonian, and furthermore prevents excludes all of the emotions that the author is apparently trying to convey. Cliche Pro's poem uses metaphors that are tired and cliche--doves, dew, "ghazel." In contrast, Shakespeare lived in the 1500s, and invented many of the metaphors that we now consider cliches. Pro's poem is but an imitation of the many that came before Pro. Theme: Pro's metaphors are scattered and inconsistent. One moment the lover is a dove, the next dew, and the next a c*** hole. Shakespeare's metaphors all served a central cause--in contrast, Pro's themes are useless (they did not create any sort of lasting illusion for the lover). To illustrate, imagine a person with all of the metaphors that Pro's poem gives put together. That person would be a garbled mess. Pro claims that Shakespeare's short sonnet does not describe the author's madness. However, the point of the story is not the madness, but love. Love is described as being a kind of madness. Had Shakespeare continued to describe madness, he'd have gotten off-track. Style: Pro's poem uses a very simple construction--s/he first identifies something that happens in sex (sighs, licking, etc.) and then compares it to something pretty, i.e. "the cooing of love doves in flight," "the many petaled blooms waving in the worlds [sic] scented meadows." There is nothing especially interesting or skillful about putting two pretty things together. It does not serve a central understanding, nor does it give a consistent perspective to the audience. Furthermore, Dean's poem uses "Thee" and "Thy" and "Thou," not for any particular purpose, but simply because the author wants to sound fancy (i.e. Shakespearean or like the King James Bible). Having "thee" juxtaposing "c*** hole" reveals the insincerity of the author's language. In contrast, Shakespeare's words are sincere and consistent, producing a central image that is intriguing and elicits a Dionysian passion. Spelling/punctuation I have caught spelling and punctuation errors in Dean's poem, including spelling gazelle incorrectly and writing "worlds" instead of "worlds' " or "world's." There is no consistent meter in Dean's poem, nor does s/he stylistically remove punctuation. I can only assume then that this is an oversight, which is inexcusable if one wants to compare oneself to the greatest English writer who ever lived. Brevity Shakespeare said much more in a few lines with an extremely stringent rhyming scheme and meter than Dean managed in absolute free form and many lines. Shakespeare's skill is obvious. Objective skill: William Shakespeare was ranked in the top ten of "10 best writers according to critics," "10 best writers according to readers," "10 best poets (first place)," and "100 best writers of all time (5th place)." (http://thisblogblank.wordpress.com...). Dean managed none of these feats. Here, William Shakespeare is considered the greatest writer in the English language: http://listverse.com... Dean has none of these qualifications. If we are to judge overall quality, then, it is apparent that according to inter-subjective analysis that Shakespeare would win. Only straight, cis, able, young Dean's project is obsessed with certain active genitals. It is apparently only interested in young, straight, cis, heterosexual couples. This, obviously, is not the paradigm of love. Dean's exclusion suggests that only certain people can fall in love, which is obviously untrue. In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet is possible for nearly every human, and thus is closer to actually exemplifying love. Objectification: Pro completely dropped my analysis on objectification--love and people are reduced to the sum of their sexual parts. This is an awful reduction, and dehumanizes other people and perpetuates myths surrounding sex--that sex is the same as screwing, and love the same as sex.