10-17-2013, 12:21 AM
Tom,
As this is an imitative and derivative satire (not that the satire is imitative and derivative), I assume it is suppose to be bad, so there is no point in pointing out how to improve this, as that would be self-defeating. As there is little I can contribute to making it worse, that is not-worse, there is little to say. Generally speaking satire is somewhat subtle, and there is little subtle about this as its objective is not to get below bias, but to deride, so in this sense it is not a satire. I think a better characterization would be supercilious. I think this because 1. It seems to fit, and 2. I rarely get to use the word. Thus, the question: "can we improve on the superciliousness of said "poem"? As supercilious means "haughtily disdainful or contemptuous", it is difficult to see where improvement might occur as the "poem" seems to embody all three attributes. Thus to say this is a perfectly woeful poem is to not only allude to the type of poem this seeks to scorn, but to also pay such a terrible piece a high/low complement. One last note, although the air smells similar, the total stench of self absorption seems somewhat undernourished, but as it is duly brief, such malnutrition my simply be endemic in the nature of the dish.
Dale
Addendum: Just a quick query. Does this particular fleshy fungi give one a trip, before it gives one a trip? Just wondered, as you know there are any number of people who will do anything for a bit of fun.
As this is an imitative and derivative satire (not that the satire is imitative and derivative), I assume it is suppose to be bad, so there is no point in pointing out how to improve this, as that would be self-defeating. As there is little I can contribute to making it worse, that is not-worse, there is little to say. Generally speaking satire is somewhat subtle, and there is little subtle about this as its objective is not to get below bias, but to deride, so in this sense it is not a satire. I think a better characterization would be supercilious. I think this because 1. It seems to fit, and 2. I rarely get to use the word. Thus, the question: "can we improve on the superciliousness of said "poem"? As supercilious means "haughtily disdainful or contemptuous", it is difficult to see where improvement might occur as the "poem" seems to embody all three attributes. Thus to say this is a perfectly woeful poem is to not only allude to the type of poem this seeks to scorn, but to also pay such a terrible piece a high/low complement. One last note, although the air smells similar, the total stench of self absorption seems somewhat undernourished, but as it is duly brief, such malnutrition my simply be endemic in the nature of the dish.
Dale
Addendum: Just a quick query. Does this particular fleshy fungi give one a trip, before it gives one a trip? Just wondered, as you know there are any number of people who will do anything for a bit of fun.
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.