[New-Poetry] For Bob's WEPD experiment: 'Success' by Rebecca McKee

[Bob Grumman]

Chris Lott wrote:
> This is all very interesting, but my prediction was about which poems
> you would agree as being excellent, not which poems you would agree
> were not.
Okay.  Still, I'm sure you're right that just about no group of people 
would agree on every case.  We, however, as a group, have so far agreed 
on every case. 


>  There is quite a difference between the former and the
> latter. And I posit as evidence pretty much every conversation on this
> list since I first started reading it. If you start agreeing regularly
> it will be an amazing change from the past won't it? What
> characterizes this list more thoroughly than Bob's naysaying of poems
> submitted by others and championing of poems that almost no one seem
> to like?
>   
How so?   Unless you require 100% agreement, which I certainly would not. 

> You'll need to do a few poems to start meaning anything significant...
> interesting that so far none of the dullard post avant poems have come
> up, nor visual poetry, nor anything the list bit controversial.
> Choosing Shakespeare, Housman and some craptacular poem that could
> have come from any 8th grade workshop seems a bit like stacking the
> deck.
>
>   
Feel free to give us a poem, Chris.  I don't care what poems we analyze, 
but it would prefer not to get into visual poetry because we know that 
only I, and maybe sometimes Judy with the proviso it isn't poetry, would 
consider it excellent, and I would probably not be able to resist the 
temptation to argue for a thousand posts.  It seems reasonable to me to 
start with poems we all know--and, it is to be hoped--agree are 
excellent, to clarify just what qualifies as that by check list.

I hope to post a revised check list later today.  Look for it.  It will 
be minimally objective the way most laws in countries like ours are: all 
kinds of borblurs, as I call them--like between manslaughter and 
murder.  That doesn't make laws subjective.

--Bob