From: jjimenez@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Joel A Jimenez)
Subject: Blistering Flame: Response from the Author
Summary: Does everyone feel as Marek does?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:13:18 GMT



   Marek, you recently responded quite harshly to a poem of mine on this
newsgroup.  Let me first admit that it was not my best work.  However, I found
your analysis to be quite short-sighted and perhaps even more thoughtless than
you accused me of being in your response.  I respond to your response in the
following:

>>
>>   How can any man,
>>   Least of all me,
>>   Ever approach your beauty?
>
>Unless the beauty is a highly radioactive Cerenkov radiation-emitting pile
>of nuclear waste (ever seen the cool blue glow at the bottom of a high flux
>nuclear reactor sitting in a deep pool of water?), this rhethorical
>question is devoid of meaning.  Alternative reading, that of men not being
>beautiful, is highly offensive.

   You have simply mis-interpreted.  The speaker in lines 1&2 is admitting that
he is not a great man in any sense.  In line 3 he is saying that he cannot
understand how any man could approach a woman so beautiful (he doesn't say it's
impossible, it just would be for him).

>>   I gaze upon fair,
>>   Heavenly eyes and,
>>   My thoughts are lost within them.
>
>I would wager, oh, $2 that the use of "gaze", "fair", "heavenly" and
>the phrase "my thoughts are lost within them" when taken together signal
>a profound lack of thought, at least poetically speaking.
>Even Quantum Mechanics models of poetry shrug at this
>muddied, nondescript, unthought through characterization.  Besides, I
>plainly do not believe you.  I think it is the curve of her ass, the sheen
>of her ponytail, the sway of her walk, and the mystery of not seeing her
>naked that lose your thoughts, whenver you have them, that is.  Let's not
>hide in the eyes because it is socially acceptable to write about them.

Heavenly and gaze: guilty as charged, very cliched, poor word choice
                   ( I stand behind  'fair')
As far as thought being lost in her eyes, this is where your criticism loses
it's grasp of the poem.  The emotion behind this poem is a love typical of that
of the Romantic poets.  You are confusing love with lust.  Yes, there are still
some of us out here who know the difference.  I use eyes not to be socially
acceptable, but only because the eyes suggest a level of admiration and
attraction higher than the purely physical.
As far as Quantum Mechanics go, I'm sure you're a wavicle genius.

>>   If you only knew,
>>   How much I desire,
>>   To hold you within my arms,
>
>I think she would question your veracity and accuse you of speaking in
>cliches.

The speaker says 'If you only knew', not 'say'.

>  Perhaps what you really mean here that you would like to
>penetrate her, kiss her in more places than I can list in this paragraph,
>and possibly toy with her hair and talk with her quietly before, during and
>after fucking.  Now.  Holding within arms is not by itself a bad deal, but
>you do get hugged every time you greet friends and say goodbye to them,
>don't you?

Once again, you confuse love with lust.  Yes, I'm sure the speaker would like
to do those things, but I disagree with your statement.  The speaker, although
human, would still like to simply hold her within his arms more than anything
else.  Holding is not hugging.  I think most people know that holding implies a
bit more.

>>   How much I desire,
>>   To share your every
>>   Thought, your every need, your soul.
>
>I think this is the worst lie of all, probably another thoughtlessness.
>You don't want to share her thoughts when she is defacating and having a
>hard time of it.  These are private thoughts and she wants to keep them all
>to herself.  Please get the fuck out of her mind for moments like that.  It
>is very selfish to want to envelop someone totally.
>
>                                         -- Marek

   Here, I think, is a difference in our definitions of thought.  You seem to
define thought as the daily ramblings of one's mind.  I define thought as an
idea or contemplation.
     As far as this passage being selfish, I completely disagree.  The speaker
does not say he wants to own her every thought, need, and soul.  He says he
wants to share her every thought, need, and soul.  The word 'share' indicates a
mutual exchange, not domination.

     I appreciate your comments, although a bit rude, and hope you will
continue to comment on my work in the future.  I also encourage you to look a
little deeper next time as I will try to clarify my thoughts and avoid cliche.
Watch for a re-write, coming soon.

                          - Joel A. Jimenez

By the Way:  If your thoughts on love are mirrored by what you wrote in your
             response, maybe you should stick to writing about salads.